Malcolm Marshall vs Viv Richards: Who's the greater cricketer?

[Jono]

Viv not being as good as Bradman, with there being no Bradman equivalent in fast bowling, is a weird reason to say Marshall is above Viv.

 

[Slifer]

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.

I wasn't actually being serious. But the same experts who'd vote Viv over MM, have usually voted Viv over Imran as well. Just goes to show that we shouldn't put too much faith in what the so-called experts have to say.

 

[smash84]

I wasn't actually being serious. But the same experts who'd vote Viv over MM, have usually voted Viv over Imran as well. Just goes to show that we shouldn't put too much faith in what the so-called experts have to say.

I didn't say that. I just said it was interesting. Which it is. Also i'd find it easier to see Viv being ranked above Imran as a cricketer than Marshall. If you do include Viv's world cup record and his WSC record he truly is special. Its a rare talent to become up against such high quality fast men and not only holding your own but to earn their respect.

And good point from Jono. There is no Bradman of bowling so ranking Marshall ahead of Viv because of that isn't a great reason

 

[Slifer]

Who did that? MM>IVA and that has nothing to do with the Don.

 

[watson]

I think that Viv Richards was more important to West Indian cricket, and cricket in general, than Marshall. Richards' legacy is therefore greater.

Richards.

 

[smash84]

Marshall, same reasons as some have already given. The best bowler and Viv wasn't the best bat.

Who did that? MM>IVA and that has nothing to do with the Don.

Arguments like this gave the impression

 

[smash84]

I think that Viv Richards was more important to West Indian cricket, and cricket in general, than Marshall. Richards' legacy is therefore greater.

Richards.

This

Also people forget that there are more batsmen in any team by design so there will naturally be more atg batsmen

 

[Athlai]

This

Also people forget that there are more batsmen in any team by design so there will naturally be more atg bowlers

wot.

 

[smash84]

wot.

Well there should be more atg batsmen ideally speaking. Most teams have 6-7 batsmen and 4 bowlers

 

[Athlai]

So if there are more batsman in a team, why are there naturally more ATG bowlers?

 

[smash84]

So if there are more batsman in a team, why are there naturally more ATG bowlers?

Whoops. Fixed. You could've just highlighted bowkers

 

[Burgey]

I think that Viv Richards was more important to West Indian cricket, and cricket in general, than Marshall. Richards' legacy is therefore greater.

Richards.

Richards legacy was indeed immense. If he'd gone to SA with the Rebels, and they basically told him he could write his own cheque, God knows what might have happened re the sanctions back then.

Plus he does these crazy good radio ads there for Coco Joy Coconut water where he talks about Coco Joy for kids, "with the great Disbey and Marcel KarACKtahssssss".

Man is the King of Cool.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Richards the better bowler

Marshall marginally the better batsman

Tough one this

 

[Gnske]

Viv had more of an impact on the game and certainly the image of West Indies cricket, but as players I look at it this way. Would you rather,

1.) Bowl at Viv
2.) Face up with a substandard helmet/no helmet and a twig for a bat to Marshall.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I would rather bowl at Viv because he had the tendency to get himself out at times.

Can't say the same for Marshall. I would be terrified to face him or any of the WI fast bowlers

 

[kyear2]

Richards did have a greater impact on the game.

Marshall though was definitely more important to the west indies success and dominance.

 

[marc71178]

Sure, I'd almost buy that re: McGrath. But there must be at least 20 batsman who you could make a reasonable argument for being equal or better than Viv.

Name them then.

 

[smash84]

Name them then.

Robbins, I was pretty sure you would make an entry in this thread much earlier (I assume you've seen both Viv and Marshall play), but its better late than never

 

[Slifer]

Imho, these are the pace men comparable to MM:

Mcgrath
Hadlee
Imran
Steyn


Batsmen comparable to Viv (ex the obvious):

Sachin
Lara
Sobers
Hutton
Hobbs
Chappell
Hammond
Pollock

Slightly more batsmen than bowlers but I'll allow for the fact that teams tend to have more batsmen than bowlers. But relative to the competition, it'd be much easier for me to argue MM's case than sir Viv

Ps this is coming from a diehard Viv fanatic

 

[smash84]

Imho, these are the pace men comparable to MM:

Mcgrath
Hadlee
Imran
Steyn


Batsmen comparable to Viv (ex the obvious):

Sachin
Lara
Sobers
Hutton
Hobbs
Chappell
Hammond
Pollock

Slightly more batsmen than bowlers but I'll allow for the fact that teams tend to have more batsmen than bowlers. But relative to the competition, it'd be much easier for me to argue MM's case than sir Viv

Ps this is coming from a diehard Viv fanatic

I think you should include Ambrose in that list of bowlers and maybe sydney barnes as well.

Who do you think had more of an impact on wi cricket as a whole? It's hard to argue for Marshall. Viv was a better fielder a decent captain too. As an overall package i don't see how Marshall beats him.

Kyear2 i am surprised that you don't mention Viv's fielding given your constant rambling about slip fielding and fielding in general.