"No i will not have any trouble facing Marshall."

[Prince EWS]

Tendulkar was a teenager. He wasn't close to his prime either.

Then the 'evidence' is irrelevant when trying to guess how it'd pan out with both in their respective primes.

 

[vcs]

Then the 'evidence' is irrelevant when trying to guess how it'd pan out with both in their respective primes.

This.

 

[MrIncredible]

Despite the evidence to the contrary?

HUH? They played a test against each other I didnt know about???

 

[bagapath]

but sachin hadnt hit his prime either. so it was still a somewhat even contest IMO

a fully fit marshall and a fully fit sachin would have been awesome indeed. it would probably end up like other famous duels between great pacers and great batsmen - lillee vs richards, hadlee vs border, holding vs gavaskar, mcgrath vs lara/sachin. - a pretty even contest but slightly in favor of the bowler in the long run.

 

[smash84]

this

Marshall was hardly in his prime or anywhere close to it, TBF.

this

Tendulkar was a teenager. He wasn't close to his prime either.

conclusion

Then the 'evidence' is irrelevant when trying to guess how it'd pan out with both in their respective primes.

this

 

[vcs]

but sachin hadnt hit his prime either. so it was still a somewhat even contest IMO

a fully fit marshall and a fully fit sachin would have been awesome indeed. it would probably end up like other famous duels between great pacers and great batsmen - lillee vs richards, hadlee vs border, holding vs gavaskar, mcgrath vs lara/sachin. - a pretty even contest but slightly in favor of the bowler in the long run.

Agree, it usually tends to be that way IMO.

 

[smash84]

but sachin hadnt hit his prime either. so it was still a somewhat even contest IMO

a fully fit marshall and a fully fit sachin would have been awesome indeed. it would probably end up like other famous duels between great pacers and great batsmen - lillee vs richards, hadlee vs border, holding vs gavaskar, mcgrath vs lara/sachin. - a pretty even contest but slightly in favor of the bowler in the long run.

u forgot one of the greatest duels of all time.....Imran vs Gavaskar....awesome sight

 

[G.I.Joe]

Then the 'evidence' is irrelevant when trying to guess how it'd pan out with both in their respective primes.

There's less basis for claiming that it'd have been advantage Marshall (as the poster did) than for claiming that it'd have been advantage Tendulkar on the basis of the few times they did face off. Its as simple as that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

but sachin hadnt hit his prime either. so it was still a somewhat even contest IMO

Exactly.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's less basis for claiming that it'd have been advantage Marshall (as the poster did) than for claiming that it'd have been advantage Tendulkar on the basis of the few times they did face off. Its as simple as that.

Two players compared outside their primes, particularly when they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, is not a good indication of how they'd compare in their primes. It's not an advantage to either player; it's just a fairly meaningless piece of evidence if you're trying to hypothesise what the result would've been in their respective primes.

It's a bit like the old fallacy of "well both teams were understrength so it's still meaningful" - as if each team's Second XI was in exact proportion to its First XI.

 

[Xuhaib]

Sachin vs Shoaib is the most even battle I have seen.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Two players compared outside their primes, particularly when they are at opposite ends of the spectrum, is not a good indication of how they'd compare in their primes. It's not an advantage to either player; it's just a fairly meaningless piece of evidence if you're trying to hypothesise what the result would've been in their respective primes.

It's a bit like the old fallacy of "well both teams were understrength so it's still meaningful" - as if each team's Second XI was in exact proportion to its First XI.

Its better than working off a whim and claiming that it'd have been advantage Marshall. The choice is between working off a whim, and working off the few times they did face each other. I wouldn't bet my money and house either way, but considering the claim I was rejecting initially had no mention of player primes, its a valid stance to take.

 

[honestbharani]

You see this is where there is a bit of taking things out of context, in the "we won the Ashes because I gave up the captaincy", which when I read the interview, I couldn't see what people were talking about and imo it was a bit of a hatchet job on KP, to make him look bad. If anything, he was talking up the job done by Flower and Strauss and suggested that if Moores and himself were still at the helm, they wouldn't have won, which is more than likely correct. Of course the press being the press, that wasn't interesting enough and stitched him up.
As far as the other comments, they are neither here or there and I'm sure if you look through the interviews of the people you mentioned, McGrath/Harbhajan/Ponting, you could find comments you don't like, especially during the course of a series.
All the interviews, I've ever seen of KP, he comes over as a decent bloke, who contrary to what people say, only ever talks about the good of the team and mainly has good things to say about the opposition. But obviously it's a choice who you perceive as arrogant and then take it step further and dislike because of one thing or another that someone has said.
I personally love to see a bit of ****iness and arrogance in sports men, there's nothing wrong having players around like that, at all and it would be a boring place if everyone acted the and played the same. Cricket needs big personalities and people who object to such people, imo are intimidated by them, which frankly is a bit sad.

Agreed about KP.. He comes across a pretty honest bloke.. He has a lot of confidence and a pretty high opinion of himself but that is not so bad because he stays pretty honest about others too, which is nice.

 

[Xuhaib]

Sachin to win the battle in India,Marshall to have the wood on old bouncy Westindian pitches.

IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

Still not as good as the other 3 though.

yeah.. but he is not really in the Hansie Cronje or the other unknowns who took his wicket class either.. He was among the better ones in the world, at that time, esp. in ODIs.. And Arthurton was more than useful as a bowler in ODIs too.. It was his batting that was the problem..

 

[honestbharani]

There's less basis for claiming that it'd have been advantage Marshall (as the poster did) than for claiming that it'd have been advantage Tendulkar on the basis of the few times they did face off. Its as simple as that.

I don't think so.. Simply because while Sachin got on well and wasn't dismissed, I don't think he ever really dominated Marshall as he did some others at that time.. And honestly, ODI performances can't really point how they would have gone in tests anyways.. Would have been a classic contest, that is for sure. Sorta how Steyn Vs Sachin went this time, I feel. Would have been qualty.

 

[centurymaker]

I don't think so.. Simply because while Sachin got on well and wasn't dismissed, I don't think he ever really dominated Marshall as he did some others at that time.. And honestly, ODI performances can't really point how they would have gone in tests anyways.. Would have been a classic contest, that is for sure. Sorta how Steyn Vs Sachin went this time, I feel. Would have been qualty.

Yea, steyn is a similar sort of bowler.

 

[Cevno]

Then the 'evidence' is irrelevant when trying to guess how it'd pan out with both in their respective primes.

But both weren't in their primes ,so it evened out.

Just kidding.

There is no evidence to suggest either way ,infact if there is little assumed evidence then it is towards the opposite of advantage Marshall.

 

[Shri]

Marshall might not have been at his peak but still had loads of experience to get rid of a teenage punk, he didn't, going from the posts in this thread.

 

[honestbharani]

Marshall might not have been at his peak but still had loads of experience to get rid of a teenage punk, he didn't, going from the posts in this thread.

The real question is, how was he going against the other players at that time? Sachin may have been a teenager but he was still showing himself as a very promising batsman, sort of like a Kohli right now.. Anyways, I still think it would have been even stevens.. I think both of them were/are too good at what they do to continously be baulked by the other.