• 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.

Richards and Marshall or Ponting and McGrath?

Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Pup Clarke said:
My personal preference.TBH I picked Haynes because of him and Greenidge's awesome partnerships.
Click to expand...
Thing is, Fredericks and Greenidge's partnership was hardly shabby, just didn't last as long. Many people would consider Fredericks the best opener of the three. They're all fighting for 2nd spot behind Conrad Hunte as West Indies' best ever, though, IMO.
You are right about Border however.I'm a bit embarrased about that:oops:
Click to expand...
There's such a thing as edits, y'know...
 
archie mac

archie mac

International Coach
Close call but I will give the WI the slightest of nods, unless Warne has a real turner and bouncer, but even then over 5 Tests I think the WI side would come out on top:)
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
archie mac said:
Close call but I will give the WI the slightest of nods, unless Warne has a real turner and bouncer, but even then over 5 Tests I think the WI side would come out on top:)
Click to expand...
Not to forget that the likes of Haynes, Kalli, IVAR, Richardson, Lloyd and Dujon were fan-goddam-tastic against spin. I'd still back 'em even if Warne got a load of wickets.
 
C_C

C_C

International Captain
Kalli was a genius against spin, Lloyd was very good at smothering it and dislodging him with spin was hard. But IVAR and Richardson were not top notch against spin on spin-friendly surfaces, particularly Richardson, who's spin-play had the same streak of hesistation and indecisiveness as Azharuddin had with short pitched one into the body, they were vulnerable.

But still, the WI team would blitz the Aussies on pace-friendly surface and on spin-friendly surface, the advantage would be marginal. Warne would be obviously the best bowler on a spinner and McGrath would be able to cope well as well but the rest of the Aussie pacers are pretty poor when deprived of pacy/bouncy/seaming surfaces. Poorer than the WI quartet.
So all in all, it'd be a close game on a spinner. on a bouncy track, the WI would trounce the Aussies 10 times out of 10 - the WI bowlers mastered the perfume ball/pitches on good length and jumps to your shoulder kinda deliveries.
On swingers, i'd give WI the advantage again due to superior firepower but not by that much.
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
I think its pretty unfair to compare players from different era, both the duo are greats in their own respective eras.

McGrath is probably the best seamer to play the game as he had limited talent when compared to someone like Marshall.

So McGrath >> Marshall.

But their is no comparison of King Viv with anyone as he is a man in his own league, no matter how good Ponting is he doesn't even come close to Richards.

So Richards >>>> Ricky.
 
Matt79

Matt79

Global Moderator
C_C said:
Kalli was a genius against spin, Lloyd was very good at smothering it and dislodging him with spin was hard. But IVAR and Richardson were not top notch against spin on spin-friendly surfaces, particularly Richardson, who's spin-play had the same streak of hesistation and indecisiveness as Azharuddin had with short pitched one into the body, they were vulnerable.

But still, the WI team would blitz the Aussies on pace-friendly surface and on spin-friendly surface, the advantage would be marginal. Warne would be obviously the best bowler on a spinner and McGrath would be able to cope well as well but the rest of the Aussie pacers are pretty poor when deprived of pacy/bouncy/seaming surfaces. Poorer than the WI quartet.
So all in all, it'd be a close game on a spinner. on a bouncy track, the WI would trounce the Aussies 10 times out of 10 - the WI bowlers mastered the perfume ball/pitches on good length and jumps to your shoulder kinda deliveries.
On swingers, i'd give WI the advantage again due to superior firepower but not by that much.
Click to expand...
hmmm 10 out of 10 sounds a bit of an exaggeration to me. The Windies in their prime still lost tests and they didn't play any teams that were as good as the current Australians. And as you say, many of the Windies greats were very good against spin, but by the same token Ponting, Border, Boon and Mark and Steve Waugh were all fairly handy against the quicks.

Besides the bouncy/flat pitch question, is this match being played with the two-bouncer per over rules in place?

In general, as discussed when this question has previously been asked, I think that whichever was the home team would win, but it would be a closely fought, and spectacular series...
 
Sanz

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Matt79 said:
hmmm 10 out of 10 sounds a bit of an exaggeration to me. The Windies in their prime still lost tests and they didn't play any teams that were as good as the current Australians. And as you say, many of the Windies greats were very good against spin, but by the same token Ponting, Border, Boon and Mark and Steve Waugh were all fairly handy against the quicks.

Besides the bouncy/flat pitch question, is this match being played with the two-bouncer per over rules in place?

In general, as discussed when this question has previously been asked, I think that whichever was the home team would win, but it would be a closely fought, and spectacular series...
Click to expand...
Didn't Australia lose tests at their prime to teams that were not half as good as them ?
 
Mr Mxyzptlk

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Richards and Marshall comfortably, because Malcolm Marshall is comfortably the greatest fast bowler of all-time, IMO. And Richards was a decent batsman too.
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
I won't rate Marshall above McGrath simply because, McGrath has survived as a bowler[and even managed to become the most succesfull fast-bowler ever] in an era where things are heavily loaded in the favour of the batsmen, with big bats, flat tracks, fast outfields,smaller boundaries and most importantly hectic international schedule [which can always take its toll on a fast bowler{but still McGrath never had too many serious injuries}].
 
Sanz

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
pup11 said:
I won't rate Marshall above McGrath simply because, McGrath has survived as a bowler[and even managed to become the most succesfull fast-bowler ever] in an era where things are heavily loaded in the favour of the batsmen, with big bats, flat tracks, fast outfields,smaller boundaries and most importantly hectic international schedule [which can always take its toll on a fast bowler{but still McGrath never had too many serious injuries}].
Click to expand...
On what basis have you declared Mcgrath as the most successful fast bowler ever ?
 
Matt79

Matt79

Global Moderator
Sanz said:
Didn't Australia lose tests at their prime to teams that were not half as good as them ?
Click to expand...
Obviously they did lose some matches they shouldn't have on paper - that's kinda the point I'm making about the 10 from 10 comment - paper form doesn't always equate to the end result on the field. I'm not necessarily saying that the current Australian team is better than the Windies team, I'm just saying that I think the two teams are close enough that its stretching it to say one team would win 10 times out of 10, even in conditions that favoured fast bowlers.
 
Last edited:
pup11

pup11

International Coach
Sanz, i have rated Pidge as the best fast bowler in terms of the number of wickets he has taken in test matches (563) which is the most by any fast bowler till date.

Anyways McGrath never had the physical attributes of a fast-bowler, he didn't had the pace to rattle batsmen (like Marshall), but still he inflicted fear in the minds of batsmen all over the world by just bowling(impeccable) line and length.
 
C_C

C_C

International Captain
The Windies in their prime still lost tests and they didn't play any teams that were as good as the current Australians.
Click to expand...
Yes but not all tests were played on hard bouncy decks like Perth, Bridgetown or Sabina Park. Those pitches, the WI were simply terror. They would much through batsmen like Hayden, Martyn, Gillchrist etc. on a truly bouncy pitch. I don't think you remember how truely uncomfortable just Ambrose made Steve Waugh on Perth-type pitches and Steve Waugh was better at dealing with the short stuff than most of them.
Four of Ambroses would be murder really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top