• 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.

Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

You prefer

  • Total voters
    102
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
McGrath doesn't actually have any genuine votes. You take out kyear22, princessEWS, avidblazeback, jodphuronstilts and one chronically biased Australian and there ain't a lot left.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Mcgrath was great no doubt and the 2nd best ever IMO.

kyear22 was already banned, who was he/she a multi of?
 
kyear2

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
smalishah84 said:
I am surprised you are asking this question :p
Click to expand...
Lol, not that bored and would have been a tad obvious.

Lillian Thomson said:
McGrath doesn't actually have any genuine votes. You take out kyear22, princessEWS, avidblazeback, jodphuronstilts and one chronically biased Australian and there ain't a lot left.
Click to expand...
Apart from the chronically biased Aussie they are only 4 legitimate votes for Mcgrath. Feel like there is a change afoot here from Mcgrath to Lillee especially among the Aussie supporters. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Coronis

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
kyear2 said:
Lol, not that bored and would have been a tad obvious.



Apart from the chronically biased Aussie they are only 4 legitimate votes for Mcgrath. Feel like there is a change afoot here from Mcgrath to Lillee especially among the Aussie supporters. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Marshall =/= Lillee.

You wouldn't expect many people to vote for McGrath over the man who is regarded as the greatest fast bowler ever. McGrath > Lillee, I'd say, and I'm sure many others would too.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Coronis said:
Marshall =/= Lillee.

.
Click to expand...
Lillee is the equal of Marshall, and if I had a choice of the two, I'd choose Lillee every time.

Lillee is the greatest fast bowler ever.

Cue- but only in England and Australia, and never in the subcontinent etc.

My response- doesn't matter. Lillee was brilliant, brutal, subtle, intimidating etc. I'm not saying Marshall wasn't those things, but Lillee was better at them. I'd want Lillee in my team every time. I really feel stats are a more misleading for bowlers than batsmen. Marshall's average and SR are only marginally better than so many others, yet he's so often hailed as the greatest on the basis of those stats
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Monk said:
Lillee is the equal of Marshall, and if I had a choice of the two, I'd choose Lillee every time.

Lillee is the greatest fast bowler ever.

Cue- but only in England and Australia, and never in the subcontinent etc.

My response- doesn't matter. Lillee was brilliant, brutal, subtle, intimidating etc. I'm not saying Marshall wasn't those things, but Lillee was better at them. I'd want Lillee in my team every time. I really feel stats are a more misleading for bowlers than batsmen. Marshall's average and SR are only marginally better than so many others, yet he's so often hailed as the greatest on the basis of those stats
Click to expand...
Yeah Lillee was better at them on wickets tailor made for his sort of bowling but MM was universally brutal and effective. An edge he has over Lillee and almost every other fast bowler for that matter. MM stats r not marginally better than Lillee his average is a full 3 runs less and his SR about 4 balls. Thats what Ambrose is to Walsh and no one in their right mind would chose Walsh over Amby.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
Slifer said:
Yeah Lillee was better at them on wickets tailor made for his sort of bowling but MM was universally brutal and effective. An edge he has over Lillee and almost every other fast bowler for that matter. MM stats r not marginally better than Lillee his average is a full 3 runs less and his SR about 4 balls. Thats what Ambrose is to Walsh and no one in their right mind would chose Walsh over Amby.
Click to expand...
3 runs less per wicket and 4 balls less per wicket in your strike bowler will not win or lose you a test match. It's inconsequential. Marshall was highly efficient, for sure. I'm not saying he isn't absolutely great, by any means.

Here's a little stats breakdown on Lillee and Marshall that goes beyond the average/SR debate.

- Lillee bowled 205 balls per innings, on average.
- Marshall bowled 164 balls per innings, on average.
- On average Lillee took a far greater workload than Marshall, bowling 6 more overs per innings than Marshall.
- Lillee took 5.07 wickets per test.
- Marshall took 4.6 wickets per test.
- Lillee took 2.7 wickets per innings.
- Marshall took 2.5 wickets per innings.

You can argue that Lillee took more wickets per test because he bowled more overs per test, which is very reasonable. However, Lillee bowled more because he had less support than Marshall, and he had to assume greater responsibility for dismissing opposition teams. It also partly explains the difference in average an strike rate, considering Lillee would often bowl beyond when he should have, if he'd had more support.
 
I

Ilovecric

U19 Cricketer
Monk said:
3 runs less per wicket and 4 balls less per wicket in your strike bowler will not win or lose you a test match. It's inconsequential. Marshall was highly efficient, for sure. I'm not saying he isn't absolutely great, by any means.

Here's a little stats breakdown on Lillee and Marshall that goes beyond the average/SR debate.

- Lillee bowled 205 balls per innings, on average.
- Marshall bowled 164 balls per innings, on average.
- On average Lillee took a far greater workload than Marshall, bowling 6 more overs per innings than Marshall.
- Lillee took 5.07 wickets per test.
- Marshall took 4.6 wickets per test.
- Lillee took 2.7 wickets per innings.
- Marshall took 2.5 wickets per innings.

You can argue that Lillee took more wickets per test because he bowled more overs per test, which is very reasonable. However, Lillee bowled more because he had less support than Marshall, and he had to assume greater responsibility for dismissing opposition teams. It also partly explains the difference in average an strike rate, considering Lillee would often bowl beyond when he should have, if he'd had more support.
Click to expand...
Yeah Lille wasn't competing against Michael Holding, Joel Garner, Ambrose, Walsh, Patterson, Roberts - excluding patterson who was good, the others were all great bowlers.

His overall Record is better than Lillee's.. Credit to him for being a warrior but his competition for wickets wasn't as great as Marshall .. So wickets per innings is pointless in this debate - especially when the difference is so marginal.
 
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Monk said:
3 runs less per wicket and 4 balls less per wicket in your strike bowler will not win or lose you a test match. It's inconsequential. Marshall was highly efficient, for sure. I'm not saying he isn't absolutely great, by any means.

Here's a little stats breakdown on Lillee and Marshall that goes beyond the average/SR debate.

- Lillee bowled 205 balls per innings, on average.
- Marshall bowled 164 balls per innings, on average.
- On average Lillee took a far greater workload than Marshall, bowling 6 more overs per innings than Marshall.
- Lillee took 5.07 wickets per test.
- Marshall took 4.6 wickets per test.
- Lillee took 2.7 wickets per innings.
- Marshall took 2.5 wickets per innings.

You can argue that Lillee took more wickets per test because he bowled more overs per test, which is very reasonable. However, Lillee bowled more because he had less support than Marshall, and he had to assume greater responsibility for dismissing opposition teams. It also partly explains the difference in average an strike rate, considering Lillee would often bowl beyond when he should have, if he'd had more support.
Click to expand...
Reasonable argument there. However, I will state that Lillee was in no way a 'lone wolf' ala Hadlee or Murali. For a great part of his career he did get reasonable support from Thompson and co. U can also argue similarly that MM WPM was only lower because of the competition he faced for wickets.
 
watson

watson

Banned
There is also the fact that Dennis Lillee overcame a debilitating back-injury in 1973. Not only did he make an unexpected come back to International cricket but he reinvented his action in the process.

This is both inspiring and clever, and has to count in Lillee's favour because fast-bowling is both a test of skill and character.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Monk said:
Lillee is the equal of Marshall, and if I had a choice of the two, I'd choose Lillee every time.

Lillee is the greatest fast bowler ever.

Cue- but only in England and Australia, and never in the subcontinent etc.

My response- doesn't matter. Lillee was brilliant, brutal, subtle, intimidating etc. I'm not saying Marshall wasn't those things, but Lillee was better at them. I'd want Lillee in my team every time. I really feel stats are a more misleading for bowlers than batsmen. Marshall's average and SR are only marginally better than so many others, yet he's so often hailed as the greatest on the basis of those stats
Click to expand...
It's not that Lillee is punished for not playing in what would have been the toughest place to bowl during his or any era, the subcontinent (In particular India), but that Marshall and Mcgrath should get extra credit for being succesful there and everywhere.

Monk said:
3 runs less per wicket and 4 balls less per wicket in your strike bowler will not win or lose you a test match. It's inconsequential. Marshall was highly efficient, for sure. I'm not saying he isn't absolutely great, by any means.

Here's a little stats breakdown on Lillee and Marshall that goes beyond the average/SR debate.

- Lillee bowled 205 balls per innings, on average.
- Marshall bowled 164 balls per innings, on average.
- On average Lillee took a far greater workload than Marshall, bowling 6 more overs per innings than Marshall.
- Lillee took 5.07 wickets per test.
- Marshall took 4.6 wickets per test.
- Lillee took 2.7 wickets per innings.
- Marshall took 2.5 wickets per innings.

You can argue that Lillee took more wickets per test because he bowled more overs per test, which is very reasonable. However, Lillee bowled more because he had less support than Marshall, and he had to assume greater responsibility for dismissing opposition teams. It also partly explains the difference in average an strike rate, considering Lillee would often bowl beyond when he should have, if he'd had more support.
Click to expand...
You cannot make the argument that an average of 3 runs more and a strike rate of 5 ball extra is insignificant and then use the fact that Lillee got 1 wicket extra per test and .2 more wickets per innings. Considering the extra competition that Marshall faced for wickets, that is still yest another positive for MM.

Marshall isn't only rated where he is due to he stats, but because he could do anything with the ball, was frigheningly fast and even in the first era of helmets, feared because of his deadly skiddy bouncer. In and out banana swing at pace, deadly accuratecy and one of , if not the best cricketing brain to grace the game. He averaged 25 or below againts all teams and pratically averaged the same both home and away and yes, he performed everywhere, except againts the minnows of the day, Sri Lanka. His record in the modern era is almost peerless, but it only supports what we have seen of him in the flesh on the field. His list of most dismissed batsmen reads like a who's who of the era and that fact the he undoubtably stood out among our greats of the era, speaks volumes.

Additionally


D.Lillee - highest rating: 884 V Eng 1977. spent 10 of his 70 Tests (14.3%) rated above 850

M.Marshall - highest rating: 910 V Eng 1988. spent 48 of his 81 Tests (59.3%) rated above 850

Consistentcy.
 
Last edited:
Slifer

Slifer

International Captain
Thats all good and well but it doesnt negate the fact that as a fast bowler MM was universally more effective. Better average in all countries (barring NZ) and a better SR everywhere (except OZ and NZ). Think about this fact for one minute, Lillee played most of his cricket in 3 countries, all three of which many would consider fast bowler friendly (NZ, ENG, OZ). He never had to bowl for ne considerable length of time in the heat and humidity of India on those dust bowls nor did he have to contend with the more home friendly umpiring and flat wickets of Pakistan. MM did and he excelled !! By way of comparison, MM's record in Asia is better than Lillee's at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top