That is as irrelevant as the point you called irrelevant above though. Why is it Marshall's fault that the other bowlers he bowled with (and drastically out bowled) were better than the batsmen Viv batted with? Doesn't have any bearing on their merits as players.
-
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 Viv Richards: Who's the greater cricketer?
- Thread starter smash84
- Start date
smash84
The Tiger King
So you meant control?
smash84
The Tiger King
My point is that Viv was a more special player and talent. Added more to the side. Marshall was just adding to well oiled machine that many could have done. What Viv was doing not many could.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
This post is inaccurate and misleading in so many ways. Marshall was who kept the team at the top. Croft and Roberts departed the scene about the same time that Marshall arrived. Holding hardly ever played an entire series and Garner was clearly the support bowler to MM.
Viv's absolute peak was relatively short lived and at the point when the team really became (at the time and arguably still) the best ever, it was all Maco.
Despite the above mentioned retirements, added to those of Lloyd and the slow decline of Richards and Greening, it was Marshall who kept the team at the top. As the opening bowler, he lost one match.
Marshall wasn't part of a well oiled machine, he was the cog. He was The Man.
That is complete garbage. Just shamefully wrong.
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
With regards to being head and shoulders above other bowlers, in my opinion he was. When one takes into account his dominance home and away and in all conditions, his stats (average, strike rate, wpm, 5 wicket hauls), contribution to team success, his aggression and tools he had at his disposal, no one can tick all the boxes he could.
McGrath, Steyn and Hadlee are the only ones who come close. Period.
McGrath didn't possess all the different tools that Malcolm had, let Steyn finish his career before we place him, but he is already in the discussion, but in a very strong team he just didn't put his team over the top like McGrath and Marshall did. Hadlee played in the same era and rightly or not was not seen as the best, being rated first being Lillee, then Marshall. His numbers, while also excellent, still is not quite as good as MM's. He was also similar to McGrath and not quite as versatile as Marshall.
McGrath, Steyn and Hadlee are the only ones who come close. Period.
McGrath didn't possess all the different tools that Malcolm had, let Steyn finish his career before we place him, but he is already in the discussion, but in a very strong team he just didn't put his team over the top like McGrath and Marshall did. Hadlee played in the same era and rightly or not was not seen as the best, being rated first being Lillee, then Marshall. His numbers, while also excellent, still is not quite as good as MM's. He was also similar to McGrath and not quite as versatile as Marshall.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
I'm not saying this to support an argument that Marshall is in some way better than Viv, but as a bowler, Marshall faced some of the ****test Australian teams ever assembled in the 80s. This was when GChappell was refusing to tour overseas and the Aus lineup was Smith, Wood, Ritchie, Hughes, Border and Hookes. Border is an undisputed ATG, Hughes was Hughes and the rest were very very ordinary.
World batting (WIs aside) in the 80s was hardly epic.
Gob
International Coach
sigh people here rate players based entirely on their test performances unless someone asks them to not to (which then brings ODI stats) when they create threads. What is so hard to understand?
indiaholic
International Captain
Why are we trying to compare a batsman and a bowler? It is tough enough to compare batsmen across eras, it has to be impossible to compare batsmen and bowlers?
smash84
The Tiger King
Interestingly wisden, espn legends exercise, richie benauds team all had viv ahead of Marshall. Also interestingly you ask most of the players of that generation who played in the 70s and 80s as to who was their toughest bowler that they faced and most reply Lillee. Asked for the best batsman its almost unanimous that its Viv. Too much stat based arguments without having the backdrop being played around here.
Stapel
International Regular
Come on. To each his opinion, but that's just off......
smash84
The Tiger King
Interestingly wisden, espn legends exercise, richie benauds team all had viv ahead of Marshall. Also interestingly you ask most of the players of that generation who played in the 70s and 80s as to who was their toughest bowler that they faced and most reply Lillee. Asked for the best batsman its almost unanimous that its Viv. Too much stat based arguments without having the backdrop being played around here.
smash84
The Tiger King
Double post that on my cell phone. Wanted to post these
Sir Viv Richards at 60: Former team-mates on West Indies legend - BBC Sport
Sir Viv Richards at 60: Former team-mates on West Indies legend - BBC Sport
Sir Viv Richards at 60: Former team-mates on West Indies legend - BBC Sport
Sir Viv Richards at 60: Former team-mates on West Indies legend - BBC Sport
smash84
The Tiger King
Nopes. I rank him close to Imran because of his intangibles but Imran has whole bunch of intangibles too. I think Viv is probably the greatest wi cricketer ever after sobers (i haven't seen sobers play but given everybody who did ranks him highly so i defer). And ill rank maybe Imran Sobers and Bradman ahead of him. Not sure who else i might rank ahead of him.