View Poll Results: You prefer

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • Marshall

    37 67.27%
  • McGrath

    18 32.73%
Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 164

Thread: Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

  1. #61
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    england
    Posts
    5,690
    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.

  2. #62
    International Regular kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    3,957
    Which is why I said what I did earlier. For some reason, many now see Lillee to be better than Mcgrath.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Waite+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3

  3. #63
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,251
    Lillee is only clearly better than McGrath if faster = better.

    Personally I think McGrath is the greatest bowler of all time. Just, of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  4. #64
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Slifer View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ikki; 12-05-2013 at 06:56 AM.
    ★★★★★


  5. #65
    International Coach uvelocity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    seamy road
    Posts
    11,644
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by sledger View Post
    I just love all kinds of balls.

  6. #66
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    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...

  7. #67
    International 12th Man Slifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    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.
    Cause Slifer said so.........!!!!

  8. #68
    State Vice-Captain akilana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Quebec
    Posts
    1,039
    The points made in ikki's post sounds familiar

  9. #69
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Slifer View Post
    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.

  10. #70
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilovecric View Post
    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.

  11. #71
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilovecric View Post
    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.
    ATG World XI
    1. J.B Hobbs 2. H. Sutcliffe 3. D.G Bradman 4. W.R Hammond 5. G.S Sobers 6. M.J Procter 7. A.C Gilchrist 8. M.D Marshall 9. S.K Warne 10. M. Muralitharan 11. G.D McGrath

  12. #72
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    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..

  13. #73
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilovecric View Post
    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.

  14. #74
    U19 Debutant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    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.

  15. #75
    International Captain hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    6,413
    Quote Originally Posted by Ilovecric View Post
    I said same skills and speed means better.
    Yes and I'm saying it doesn't.

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 91
    Last Post: 09-02-2012, 05:21 AM
  2. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 28-01-2012, 04:47 AM
  3. Better ODI bowler::: McGrath or Wasim
    By Maximus0723 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 275
    Last Post: 15-10-2011, 12:32 AM
  4. Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?
    By Darth018 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 373
    Last Post: 04-09-2011, 12:24 PM
  5. The CW50 - No.9
    By The Sean in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 15-12-2009, 06:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •