WI all time XI vs Aus all time XI

[smash84]

While I think Lillee was a great bowler, I dont think he was better than Marshall. Haven't seen Lillee play live but caught a fair number of reruns of him bowling and based my opinion on that.

Yeah but in the reruns even Marshall doesn't look that great tbh.

In fact in the reruns hardly anybody beats Wasim Akram

 

[Himannv]

Yeah but in the reruns even Marshall doesn't look that great tbh.

How come? Swung the ball both ways and used the bouncer to good effect as well. Also he did it with more or less immaculate line and length. Another thing I notice with Marshall is that he actually bowls a lot of overs. His stamina and consistency aren't mentioned by too many people but I think its one of his key strengths. I feel he just keeps at the batsman, much like McGrath does at times even when things are not going his way.

 

[weldone]

Yeah but in the reruns even Marshall doesn't look that great tbh.

In fact in the reruns hardly anybody beats Wasim Akram

Michael Holding

 

[Himannv]

Wes Hall is worth youtubing. Lovely action.

 

[smash84]

How come? Swung the ball both ways and used the bouncer to good effect as well. Also he did it with more or less immaculate line and length. Another thing I notice with Marshall is that he actually bowls a lot of overs. His stamina and consistency aren't mentioned by too many people but I think its one of his key strengths. I feel he just keeps at the batsman, much like McGrath does at times even when things are not going his way.

True regarding MMs fitness levels. I once heard Holding saying that MM had weights attached to his legs even when he was not exercising. I think he said this in the legends of cricket series. Can't recall though

 

[hang on]

True regarding MMs fitness levels. I once heard Holding saying that MM had weights attached to his legs even when he was not exercising. I think he said this in the legends of cricket series. Can't recall though

I remember reading about it too.

For me, the greatest fast bowler of them all.

 

[Top_Cat]

Overall, he may have bowled in an era with more batsmen averaging 50, and he indeed deserves credit for it, but not enough for me to overlook the difference in SRs.

Over the course of his career, McGrath bowled around 3 overs per match more for his wickets than Marshall. Considering the flat decks McGrath played on, it's not exactly a deal-breaker.

 

[kyear2]

Sorry mate. Walsh > Marshall

How so? Marshall is almost with out doubt the greatest fast bowler of alltime. Walsh, no disrespect intented, is not in gthe team picture.

 

[GotSpin]

How so? Marshall is almost with out doubt the greatest fast bowler of alltime. Walsh, no disrespect intented, is not in gthe team picture.

You'd be wrong.

 

[vcs]

Over the course of his career, McGrath bowled around 3 overs per match more for his wickets than Marshall. Considering the flat decks McGrath played on, it's not exactly a deal-breaker.

But in an All-Time XI A vs. All-Time XI B type match, that could prove to be the crucial difference..

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah but my point is, in my opinion, that the difference in their numbers is likely a reflection on the difference in pitches they both had to bowl on, not ability. Put them both in the same match and I reckon they'd both be about as likely to take your wicket as each other.

 

[vcs]

Yes, but Marshall still struck appreciably faster than many of his contemporaries who bowled in a similar era (Holding, Garner, Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose etc.). All of them were in the early-to-mid 50s IIRC, which seems to be about standard for ATG fast bowlers. Donald, Waqar and Steyn so far are the only exceptions, but their record falls slightly short in other aspects (though Steyn could yet join the elite league).