• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Do you consider Malcolm Marshall...

On the subject of Malcolm Marshall, do you consider ...


  • Total voters
    61

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
inthe 88-89 home series against india the west indies fielded, IIRC, marshall, ambrose, walsh, and, the debutante, bishop. i thought ravi shastri's 108 against this attack in barbados was one of the best centuries by an indian for the sheer quality of fast bowling he had to deal with on the fastest wicket in the carribbean
They did, not sure how I forgot that. However, it should be remembered that Ambrose was not the bowler he would become at that point (averaged 55 in that series) and so the attack wasn't, quite, what it seemed.

Ambrose only became the Ambrose we knew him as in 1990.
 

bagapath

International Captain
neither of them are good enough, lee and gillespie bring down the quality of the aussie attack and akhtar and saqlain does the same for the pakistanis...the quality being referred to is comparative of course...
mcgrath, warne, gillespie and lee's record. looks very impressive to me...

Australia 2001-2005 16 10 2 0 4
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Lee's record 2001-2005:
31 matches, 105 wickets, average 39.40, economy-rate 3.86-an-over, strike-rate 61.1.

Just because McGrath, Gillespie and Warne may have covered for his uselessness, doesn't mean the attack was a four-prong one of excellence. It had three excellent bowlers and one very poor one.
 

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
As an Aussie I grew up with the “DK Lillee is the best ever” mentality and even at my ripe old age now I think he’s got an argument to be considered as such. But that being said, I personally believe that at his peak, for 5-6 years circa 1983-1989, Malcolm Marshall was the greatest fast bowler the game has ever seen. He had electric pace, lethal bounce, movement in the air and off the pitch and could bowl anything…and on top of it all, he had the mind of a wily old spinner – he was forever thinking and analysing and probing.

When the greatest West Indian cricketers after Sobers are acknowledged, it invariably seems to be the batsmen who are positioned next in line, be it Richards, Headley, Lara or the Ws. In my opinion, Marshall has as strong a case as any of them to be considered Sir Garfield’s proxima accessit.

Barnes by all accounts must have been a magnificent bowler, whether judged on his figures – which, even when factoring in his freakish performances against South Africa – were superb, or even moreso on his reputation among his contemporaries. I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard of someone who played with or against Barney, or even who observed him at close quarters, who doesn’t consider him the very best they ever saw.

A coat of varnish between the two of them, but I’ve personally got Macko ever so slightly ahead. He ranks in my personal top 10 cricketers of all time, whereas Barney just misses out coming in at number 11.
 

Slifer

International Captain
As an Aussie I grew up with the “DK Lillee is the best ever” mentality and even at my ripe old age now I think he’s got an argument to be considered as such. But that being said, I personally believe that at his peak, for 5-6 years circa 1983-1989, Malcolm Marshall was the greatest fast bowler the game has ever seen. He had electric pace, lethal bounce, movement in the air and off the pitch and could bowl anything…and on top of it all, he had the mind of a wily old spinner – he was forever thinking and analysing and probing.

When the greatest West Indian cricketers after Sobers are acknowledged, it invariably seems to be the batsmen who are positioned next in line, be it Richards, Headley, Lara or the Ws. In my opinion, Marshall has as strong a case as any of them to be considered Sir Garfield’s proxima accessit.

Barnes by all accounts must have been a magnificent bowler, whether judged on his figures – which, even when factoring in his freakish performances against South Africa – were superb, or even moreso on his reputation among his contemporaries. I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard of someone who played with or against Barney, or even who observed him at close quarters, who doesn’t consider him the very best they ever saw.

A coat of varnish between the two of them, but I’ve personally got Macko ever so slightly ahead. He ranks in my personal top 10 cricketers of all time, whereas Barney just misses out coming in at number 11.
I wholeheartedly agree with ur above assessment of MM. MM>Lara, IVAR et al among West Indian cricketers.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
mcgrath, warne, gillespie and lee's record. looks very impressive to me...

Australia 2001-2005 16 10 2 0 4
didn't say it wasn't a quality attack, but gillespie and lee even at their best don't compare to any of the west indian foursome...
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
As an Aussie I grew up with the “DK Lillee is the best ever” mentality and even at my ripe old age now I think he’s got an argument to be considered as such. But that being said, I personally believe that at his peak, for 5-6 years circa 1983-1989, Malcolm Marshall was the greatest fast bowler the game has ever seen. He had electric pace, lethal bounce, movement in the air and off the pitch and could bowl anything…and on top of it all, he had the mind of a wily old spinner – he was forever thinking and analysing and probing.

When the greatest West Indian cricketers after Sobers are acknowledged, it invariably seems to be the batsmen who are positioned next in line, be it Richards, Headley, Lara or the Ws. In my opinion, Marshall has as strong a case as any of them to be considered Sir Garfield’s proxima accessit.

Barnes by all accounts must have been a magnificent bowler, whether judged on his figures – which, even when factoring in his freakish performances against South Africa – were superb, or even moreso on his reputation among his contemporaries. I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard of someone who played with or against Barney, or even who observed him at close quarters, who doesn’t consider him the very best they ever saw.

A coat of varnish between the two of them, but I’ve personally got Macko ever so slightly ahead. He ranks in my personal top 10 cricketers of all time, whereas Barney just misses out coming in at number 11.
excellent post as always...:)
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
didn't say it wasn't a quality attack, but gillespie and lee even at their best don't compare to any of the west indian foursome...
I'd disagree with you on Gillespie, but not Lee. :)

Reckon Gillespie was as good as Croft was (if we're talking about the original foursome). Roberts would shade him IMO whilst Garner and Holding were IMO clearly better.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
In 1976 when the West Indies first decided on the four man pace attack they had a debate about it on TMS and Trevor Bailey reckoned that the most potentially lethal was Lillee, Thomson, Walker and Gilmour. In his defence, at the time Holding was still very young, Daniel still quite raw and Holder not really express pace and it wasn't known how long Jeff Thomson would keep up his form of the previous two years or how Gilmour was going to develope.
IIRC it was that Australian combo which caused Lloyd et al to look to an all pace attack.

Gilmour was a handy cricketer (as noted in the "Those who should have played more" thread).
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
I'd disagree with you on Gillespie, but not Lee. :)

Reckon Gillespie was as good as Croft was (if we're talking about the original foursome). Roberts would shade him IMO whilst Garner and Holding were IMO clearly better.
i consider croft a better bowler than gillespie and roberts was way better than gillespie ever was, he is an all-time great fast bowler, there is no comparison between the two...and lee is nowhere close to the levels of excellence that roberts, holding and garner attained, let alone marshall...and he is probably at his personal peak right now...
 

bagapath

International Captain
didn't say it wasn't a quality attack, but gillespie and lee even at their best don't compare to any of the west indian foursome...
but are we not comparing the combos instead of doing man to man juxtaposition?

i feel this aussie attack can win, and did win, on a variety of surfaces more frequently than marshall, holding, garner and roberts.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
but are we not comparing the combos instead of doing man to man juxtaposition?
An attack is only the sum of its parts. You can work-out which is best by comparing individuals and nothing else. Lee was a constant pressure-valve release in that Australian foursome, the like of which there was nothing of the sort in more of the WI attacks than not between '76 and '86.
i feel this aussie attack can win, and did win, on a variety of surfaces more frequently than marshall, holding, garner and roberts.
The Australian attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Warne made far more notable conquests - in the space of a year - than McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne ever did.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'd disagree with you on Gillespie, but not Lee. :)

Reckon Gillespie was as good as Croft was (if we're talking about the original foursome). Roberts would shade him IMO whilst Garner and Holding were IMO clearly better.
Croft's a funny one. I've never really thought he was that outstanding, as his average started stupidly low then begun to rise toward the end of his brief career. Then he was gone, with a career spanning in reality just 3 years (5-and-a-half minus 2-and-a-half lost to Packer).

I've heard quite a few people suggest that Croft was very fortunate to get into the "original foursome" (Roberts, Holding, Garner, Croft) ahead of Wayne Daniel.

Jason Gillespie is a bowler I always (until his last six months) had a huge amount of time for. He was desperately unlucky with injuries for the first 4 years of his career, performed with excellence whenever he was available, and when he finally got fit had spells of sustained excellence. But these were punctuated by spells of mediocrity (he went about 10 or 11 Tests in 2001 and 2002 averaging over 40 IIRR).

With Croft, the truth is we just don't know how good he might've been if he'd had a long career. My guess is less-than-outstanding, but it's just that - a guess. Gillespie we know how good he was - very good for the most part. As to who had the best career - Gillespie, no question. As to who'd have been the best all things equal, well... there's no real way of knowing.

I'd have Roberts over Gillespie without much doubt though.
 

Rant0r

International 12th Man
An attack is only the sum of its parts. You can work-out which is best by comparing individuals and nothing else. Lee was a constant pressure-valve release in that Australian foursome, the like of which there was nothing of the sort in more of the WI attacks than not between '76 and '86.

The Australian attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Warne made far more notable conquests - in the space of a year - than McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Warne ever did.
those four were unbelievable that year, kasper kind of gets forgotten, but he was no less than any of the other 3, and all the media wanted to talk about was how many consecutive matches brett lee was 12th man (andy bichel anyone?).

i remember a few quotes going around from australian net sessions in the 90's about how scary dizzy was

any WI attack between '76 and '92 qualifies really, bishop could have been anything
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
but are we not comparing the combos instead of doing man to man juxtaposition?

i feel this aussie attack can win, and did win, on a variety of surfaces more frequently than marshall, holding, garner and roberts.
imagine the relentless pressure applied by any two of marshall, roberts, holding or garner...except for a couple of overs of spin here and there by larry gomes or viv richards, the opposition just gets no respite whatsoever...even when you take into account combos, mcgrath and warne are the only twosome that can compare to them...gillespie was a fine bowler then and lee is pretty good now but neither of them has/had the arsenal to intimidate, subdue, outwit the batsmen the way mcgrath and warne did...in fact any two decent test bowlers plus mcgrath and warne would be a very good attack and australia is feeling their loss intensely now...
 

bagapath

International Captain
imagine the relentless pressure applied by any two of marshall, roberts, holding or garner...except for a couple of overs of spin here and there by larry gomes or viv richards, the opposition just gets no respite whatsoever...even when you take into account combos, mcgrath and warne are the only twosome that can compare to them...gillespie was a fine bowler then and lee is pretty good now but neither of them has/had the arsenal to intimidate, subdue, outwit the batsmen the way mcgrath and warne did...in fact any two decent test bowlers plus mcgrath and warne would be a very good attack and australia is feeling their loss intensely now...
not gonna disagree with your argument. pretty much my thoughts. but dont you think the numbers are very good for this quartet? cant really imagine how they could have done better to be more qualified and placed on par with the west indian bowlers.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Like to see your version f it. But please, no subjective crap.
My version or my opinion? For me, spinners striking wickets is totally different to pacers doing so. These strikers face unset batsmen and have naturally more wickets to aim for (10). They rarely if ever have a containing role like a spinner who will try to slow the run rate down without even trying to take a wicket. Also the conditions for different bowlers. The WI and Australia to a large extent have been heavily pace friendly wheres places in the sub-continent have been largely dead. Or for example someone like Murali has played so much of his career in pretty much a dust-bowl at home and that helps his striking heavily, whereas in Australia Warne really only has one pitch where that situation is replicated. Also this analysis takes first innings as a big measure, whereas for a spinner it is less suited for them to take wickets in such occasions.

These are all at the top of my head. A good try at it but failed pretty badly IMO to make such distinctions.
 
Last edited:

Top