• 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.

The CW50 - No.9

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Apologies for the delay all, I was a little busy over the weekend - I'm hoping that with a little luck and good management I'll be able to keep counting these down at a rate of one per day from now on. Tonight, it is the turn of our all time no.9.


9.


Malcolm Marshall | Cricket Players and Officials | Cricinfo.com
Nominated by 90% of voters - highest ranking no.1

From the mid-70s through to Ambrose and Walsh, who continued to the turn of this century, the West Indies produced a conveyor belt of brilliant fast bowlers the likes of which had never been seen before in international cricket. To stand out at all amidst such a galaxy of stars required a truly great bowler. To be almost universally acknowledged as the finest of all of them took Malcolm Marshall. A comparatively short man alongside some of the Caribbean man mountains of that quarter century, Marshall nevertheless found his own way - through sheer force of talent and achievement - to tower above those around him. He was for much of his career express paced and spent several years as the fastest bowler in the world, as a bowler he was also so much more than that - Macko had seemingly endless courage and stamina, tremendous technical skill, subtle variations and great cricketing intelligence. He was the man you could rely on against anyone, anywhere, under all conditions - if you were a skipper and you threw the ball to Malcolm Marshall then you knew he'd get the job done.

Marshall's career lasted well over a decade, but it was a six year period between 1983-1989 - bookended by series' against India - that assured him of his position at the top of the all time fast bowling pantheon. In that period, he played 49 Tests, taking 271 wickets at an average of 18.89 and with a strike rate of 42.8. To pick one, even several, highlights out of that extraordinary sustained run is virtually impossible, but his 7/53 with a broken thumb against England in 1984 must rank close to the top of the pile. England were regular victims - he took 35 wickets at 12 against them on his next tour to that country in 1988 - but in truth Macko dined out against just about everyone, including against India and Pakistan in the subcontinent, something that proved beyond so many other great fast men. After retirement, Marshall put his unrivalled expertise toward coaching, and when he died of colon cancer at the age of just 41, the outpouring of grief from across the cricketing world was immediate, heartfelt and utterly reflective of the esteem with which he was held both professionally and personally. It is no surprise at all that the members of CricketWeb have voted Malcolm Denzil Marshall the greatest pure fast bowler of them all.


Your all time number 8 to follow in the next 24 hours...
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
I had the great Malcolm Marshall number 7 on my list. IMHO, the greatest fast bowler of all time.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
#9 is an insult to the Greatest bowler of all-time. Can't believe there's gonna be a truck load of unworthy batsmen ahead of him (and Warne, I guess).

This just goes to show how much of a protected species batsmen are, even amongst the great and good (and mediocre) of an internets cricket forum.
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
#9 is an insult to the Greatest bowler of all-time. Can't believe there's gonna be a truck load of unworthy batsmen ahead of him (and Warne, I guess).

This just goes to show how much of a protected species batsmen are, even amongst the great and good (and mediocre) of an internets cricket forum.
Sorry Heath, but you’re going a bit overboard there. There is one pure bowler in Warne to follow, and a bowling AR in Imran as well. So there’s additional bowler love to follow (and don’t forget that Hadlee was at 10). Also, names like Bradman, Sobers, Richards, and Grace are not unworthy of being mentioned in the “greatest ever” stakes. As much as I prefer bowlers over batsman in general, I will still put these names above any. It’s not because they were batsman, it’s because of their achievements and legend in the game.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
A magician. Could do the lot. My fav MM story is the one Simon Hughes relays in A Lot of Hard Yakka; so good was Marshall he would tell batsmen how'd he'd dismiss them. He let Mike Gatting know he was going to have him with the three card trick (outswinger, outswinger, inswinger) and sure enough a grumpy trencherman was marching back to the pavilion bat under arm palpably LBW three balls later. One thing to know what's coming; quite another to be able to do anything about it.

A very useful lower order batsman too. Used to bat top six for Hants on occasions. Had him at #8 in my list ftr.
 

HeathDavisSpeed

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Fusion - I thought Imran had already gone. I won't be surprised if he's at #8 (or #7, with Warne at #8) and the batting brigade making up the top 6. With Grace, I just don't see how he can be assessed as highly as the top 10 players of all-time. Who knows how good he really was in the Grand Historical Context?
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Fusion - I thought Imran had already gone. I won't be surprised if he's at #8 (or #7, with Warne at #8) and the batting brigade making up the top 6. With Grace, I just don't see how he can be assessed as highly as the top 10 players of all-time. Who knows how good he really was in the Grand Historical Context?
The only fair way to do it is to asses his ability against that of his contemporaries. Hence, Grace rules.

I had Imran at 4, ftr.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I had him at 14. He's my 3rd best pacer ever and 4th best bowler. Rest are batsmen and all-rounders ahead of him.
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
Whats the big deal about Marshall predicting a batsmans demise? McGrath used to predict entire series' results beforehand. :ph34r:
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
9 seems way too low. Would have him over any batsman bar Bradman.
You’d rank him above Sobers and Grace? As great as Marshall was (and to reiterate I consider him the best pace bowler ever), I don’t think he had the same impact as them. Sobers was definitely the more complete player and Grace simply transcended the game.

Fusion - I thought Imran had already gone. I won't be surprised if he's at #8 (or #7, with Warne at #8) and the batting brigade making up the top 6. With Grace, I just don't see how he can be assessed as highly as the top 10 players of all-time. Who knows how good he really was in the Grand Historical Context?
My top 3 were Bradman, Sobers, and Grace. The rest of my top 10 could easily change from day to day. I struggled with the Grace question as well. How do you rank players from that vastly different era? In the end, I decided that Grace transcended the game, as such deserves to be ranked in the top 3. I’m not saying he’s a greater batsman than Richards, Tendulkar, Lara etc. I just marvel at the feats he put up, which are so unparallel that I can put him in with the modern players.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
You’d rank him above Sobers and Grace? As great as Marshall was (and to reiterate I consider him the best pace bowler ever), I don’t think he had the same impact as them. Sobers was definitely the more complete player and Grace simply transcended the game.
He specifically said batsmen though; Grace and Sobers weren't just batsmen.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
My highest pure bowler was SF Barnes at #5; highest pure bat (aside from Sir Donald) was Hobbs at #6.

With Marshall & Warne I think one has to factor their batting into the equation too; neither quite an all-rounder, but both useful contributors.
 

Top