Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

[Lillian Thomson]

This is such a daft poll that McGrath has got three genuine votes (if you count the all things Australian voter) and all the comparisons are with Lillee.

 

[kyear2]

Which is why I said what I did earlier. For some reason, many now see Lillee to be better than Mcgrath.

 

[Flem274*]

Lillee is only clearly better than McGrath if faster = better.

Personally I think McGrath is the greatest bowler of all time. Just, of course.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Probably in the latter half he was more of a lone-wolf. Lillee actually bowled more overs per Test than Hadlee. That's the thing about Lillee...he could go on marathon spells and attack constantly. It made him slightly expensive...but I guess its his will to win a match that garnered him so much admiration.

A straight stats comparison ignores the fact that Lillee played WSC and ROTW Tests. Marshall also didn't have to face a truly great line-up because he played for the only true great line-up of his time (this is basically the reason I don't have Marshall as greater than McGrath). Lillee played something like 1/3 of his matches against essentially ATG line-ups. It really depends what you're looking at, so I wouldn't say that a straight statistical comparison is fair. Lillee didn't have a conventional career to compare it conventionally.

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.

Yes, he redefined himself. What more, he gave a blue-print to others in terms of action and training regime that used to end the careers of others with the same injury. Just how much does this work in his favour? It does enhance his legacy IMO.

 

[uvelocity]

can we keep this poll open for a few weeks while i create a background for a few multis by the name of various cereals including nutrigrain, weetabix and branflakes in order to skew the votes

 

[Ilovecric]

Lillee is only clearly better than McGrath if faster = better.

Personally I think McGrath is the greatest bowler of all time. Just, of course.

Same skills - but quicker ? This is objectively better in cricket.

I can't stand people who make statements they can't back up...

 

[Slifer]

Probably in the latter half he was more of a lone-wolf. Lillee actually bowled more overs per Test than Hadlee. That's the thing about Lillee...he could go on marathon spells and attack constantly. It made him slightly expensive...but I guess its his will to win a match that garnered him so much admiration.

A straight stats comparison ignores the fact that Lillee played WSC and ROTW Tests. Marshall also didn't have to face a truly great line-up because he played for the only true great line-up of his time (this is basically the reason I don't have Marshall as greater than McGrath). Lillee played something like 1/3 of his matches against essentially ATG line-ups. It really depends what you're looking at, so I wouldn't say that a straight statistical comparison is fair. Lillee didn't have a conventional career to compare it conventionally.



Yes, he redefined himself. What more, he gave a blue-print to others in terms of action and training regime that used to end the careers of others with the same injury. Just how much does this work in his favour? It does enhance his legacy IMO.

I'm probably goin to regret this (because I'm well aware of ur stance when it comes to these sort of arguments) but I dont see y MM should be penalised for not facing his own batting lineup. I can argue that Ambrose, for example, would have had even better stats had he been able to face his own paltry batting lineup (rather that Oz's vaunted lineup in the 90s) and Mcgrath's would have been worse had he had to face his own team. IMO facing India and Pakistan away was the equivalent to facing the WI batting lineups of the 70s and 80s. (especially if u factor in home umpiring)

Lilllee's record FWIW vs the WI of his time wasnt even that stellar. 55 wickets at 27 with a sr of 48 .Ok I'll be nice and ignore the 1 test in the WI (since he was injured) its still 55 at 25 which is very good but not stellar ala MM and Lillee faced the WI mostly at home. Thats like giving brownie points to a spinner for taking wickets in his own country on pitches tailor made for him and infront of home crowds rooting him on

As far as WSC and ROTW are concerned , none of these matches are considered tests, and even if for the sake of argument they were included, Lillee wicket haul would be the only thing really affected. Again he still would be unproven worldwide and still in terms of worldwide success, SR, average and even econ he still pales in comparison to MM.

 

[akilana]

The points made in ikki's post sounds familiar

 

[Dan]

I'm probably goin to regret this (because I'm well aware of ur stance when it comes to these sort of arguments) but I dont see y MM should be penalised for not facing his own batting lineup.

Yeah, I agree with this section - you can only dismiss the batsmen put in front of you.

 

[hendrix]

Same skills - but quicker ? This is objectively better in cricket.

Not to be a pedant, but no.

Objectively better would be taking more wickets at a better average and strike rate against the same batsmen in the same conditions.

 

[Coronis]

Same skills - but quicker ? This is objectively better in cricket.

I can't stand people who make statements they can't back up...

Being a quicker bowler doesn't make them better. Unless I was right as a 6 year old, and Brett Lee/Shoaib Ahktar are the two greatest bowlers of all time.

 

[Ilovecric]

Not to be a pedant, but no.

Objectively better would be taking more wickets at a better average and strike rate against the same batsmen in the same conditions.

Well I guess there are no good or better players as every player in the history of the game did not play at the same time under the same conditions - on the same pitch etc..If you think the only way to objectively find superior players is by looking at the conditions and who they played against you will never find Sobers to be better than Bravo..

Listing better average - and leaving out condition of the pitch -overcast etc is dodging other aspects worth considering.

Lets look at the players and the assets of these players.. Spin vs fast vs medium ..

Malcolm Marshall would be much better than Warne - as he exploited every condition and took wickets faster and cheaper than warne. His speed helped - swinging the ball quicker than warne is - which is the same - pitch then turn but as batsmen have more time to play they will do better against warne than Marshall.. This is logic - this is how you argue - and from this we can conclude Marshall's speed would give him a edge over McGrath etc..

 

[hendrix]

Well I guess there are no good or better players as every player in the history of the game did not play at the same time under the same conditions - on the same pitch etc..If you think the only way to objectively find superior players is by looking at the conditions and who they played against you will never find Sobers to be better than Bravo..

Listing better average - and leaving out condition of the pitch -overcast etc is dodging other aspects worth considering.

Lets look at the players and the assets of these players.. Spin vs fast vs medium ..

Malcolm Marshall would be much better than Warne - as he exploited every condition and took wickets faster and cheaper than warne. His speed helped - swinging the ball quicker than warne is - which is the same - pitch then turn but as batsmen have more time to play they will do better against warne than Marshall.. This is logic - this is how you argue - and from this we can conclude Marshall's speed would give him a edge over McGrath etc..

Look you can't just say something is objective when it clearly isn't.
Also, no, swing is not the same thing as turn.
I'm not sure how you can say that that is logical.

Saying the same thing but sped up is better is a) a gross over-simplification that doesn't do justice to the other factors at play and b) follows even poorer logic that there's a linear relationship between speed and wicket taking ability given the same other factors.

Think about swing bowling - some guy could swing the ball heaps and because of this usually goes past the outside edge, while someone who swings the ball more subtly often takes more wickets. In other words, more is not better.

It can often be similar with pace bowling. Express pace that deviates off the seam might be too fast for a batsman to react and therefore go past the outside edge, whereas slightly slowed down the bowler might follow the deviation and take the edge.

These are just examples to show that there's not necessarily a linear relationship so you can't say that the same thing sped up = better.

 

[Ilovecric]

Look you can't just say something is objective when it clearly isn't.
Also, no, swing is not the same thing as turn.
I'm not sure how you can say that that is logical.

Saying the same thing but sped up is better is a) a gross over-simplification that doesn't do justice to the other factors at play and b) follows even poorer logic that there's a linear relationship between speed and wicket taking ability given the same other factors.

Think about swing bowling - some guy could swing the ball heaps and because of this usually goes past the outside edge, while someone who swings the ball more subtly often takes more wickets. In other words, more is not better.

It can often be similar with pace bowling. Express pace that deviates off the seam might be too fast for a batsman to react and therefore go past the outside edge, whereas slightly slowed down the bowler might follow the deviation and take the edge.

These are just examples to show that there's not necessarily a linear relationship so you can't say that the same thing sped up = better.

I said same skills and speed means better.. Nowhere did I a say speed equal more wickets.

 

[hendrix]

I said same skills and speed means better.

Yes and I'm saying it doesn't.

 

[Flem274*]

Well I guess there are no good or better players as every player in the history of the game did not play at the same time under the same conditions - on the same pitch etc..If you think the only way to objectively find superior players is by looking at the conditions and who they played against you will never find Sobers to be better than Bravo..

Listing better average - and leaving out condition of the pitch -overcast etc is dodging other aspects worth considering.

Lets look at the players and the assets of these players.. Spin vs fast vs medium ..

Malcolm Marshall would be much better than Warne - as he exploited every condition and took wickets faster and cheaper than warne. His speed helped - swinging the ball quicker than warne is - which is the same - pitch then turn but as batsmen have more time to play they will do better against warne than Marshall.. This is logic - this is how you argue - and from this we can conclude Marshall's speed would give him a edge over McGrath etc..

Did you actually just compare an apple to an orange?

I said same skills and speed means better.. Nowhere did I a say speed equal more wickets.

Marshall and Mcgrath are very different bowlers. McGrath has about 7 inches of height on Marshall for a start. So your argument about them having the same assets and skills is flat out wrong. We don't even need to bring the speed fallacy into this.

I guess you could say I can't stand people who make statements they can't back up.

 

[Red]

Bowling is largely dependant on the conditions favouring the bowler. And one thing that Marshall and McGrath both did exceptionally well was achieve in most conditions.

As an example of condition dependant bowling, look at Alderman's figures isolated to tests played in England.

12 tests, 83 wickets at 19.33. SR of 43.

Unreal.

His figures in Australia show less wickets in more tests, with avgs and SRs much higher.

Alderman was born in the wrong country!

 

[bagapath]

and please check out imran khan's home record. just unbelievable stats. i wonder why he is not the first fast bowler on everyone's list instead of dennis lillee.

i love dennis lillee and would gladly grab him in my AT XI but I dont think the other 9 other fast bowlers in the top 10 list are anyway inferior to him. but his success in england and australia overshadow the fact that he had a bad series in pakistan, broke down in windies and never played in india. his record should be looked at in awe but only with an " * " next to it.

marshall doesnt need any. his worst stats are in new zealand where he took 9 wickets for 32. even there, before the last one innings in which he conceded 70 runs without a wicket, his average was 26.

 

[Ikki]

I'm probably goin to regret this (because I'm well aware of ur stance when it comes to these sort of arguments) but I dont see y MM should be penalised for not facing his own batting lineup. I can argue that Ambrose, for example, would have had even better stats had he been able to face his own paltry batting lineup (rather that Oz's vaunted lineup in the 90s) and Mcgrath's would have been worse had he had to face his own team. IMO facing India and Pakistan away was the equivalent to facing the WI batting lineups of the 70s and 80s. (especially if u factor in home umpiring)

I agree with you to a point. But the reality is if we take the time to gauge the relative difficulty of certain eras in basically every other discussion, one has to look at the fact that outside WI the batting line-ups of that era were pretty average. It is still a great record but, personally, in my mind's eye I'd rather select a guy who maybe didn't have as well-rounded of a record but who played outside of himself when faced with a really tough opponent.

Lilllee's record FWIW vs the WI of his time wasnt even that stellar. 55 wickets at 27 with a sr of 48 .Ok I'll be nice and ignore the 1 test in the WI (since he was injured) its still 55 at 25 which is very good but not stellar ala MM and Lillee faced the WI mostly at home. Thats like giving brownie points to a spinner for taking wickets in his own country on pitches tailor made for him and infront of home crowds rooting him on

As far as WSC and ROTW are concerned , none of these matches are considered tests, and even if for the sake of argument they were included, Lillee wicket haul would be the only thing really affected. Again he still would be unproven worldwide and still in terms of worldwide success, SR, average and even econ he still pales in comparison to MM.

It doesn't really concern me whether they're considered Tests officially...they were Tests. In fact, they were a much tougher standard than Tests. So if you want to say 25 @ 55 isn't 'great' against the great WI line-up... in those other Tests he averaged a tick under 24 @ 41. That's brilliant by any standard and even more unbelievable considering the line-ups. He was the best of the best and damn near everyone said it.

Marshall didn't face 1 line-up for 1 series like that. True, you can only face what you face, but lets not pretend the point I'm making is irrelevant. I'm not bothered who people pick because I think, besides Bradman, when you discuss the greats its close either way. I just think people are setting up Lillee to fail when they compare him conventionally and unless you regard the extenuating circumstances in his career then you're missing out on why Lillee is lauded so highly. IINM Marshall himself said Lillee was the best.

 

[watson]

To my knowledge, Dennis Lillee reached 250 wickets (48 Tests), and then 300 wickets (56 Tests) quicker than any other bowler, including Marshall and McGrath.

Even allowing for the seam friendly pitches of England and Australia, the rapidity is still impressive and indicative of Lillee's talent.