As a much younger member, I have to ask- do you think Marshall's legend is slightly a product of his death? No offense intended whatsoever, I know he was a brilliant bowler. I am just curious as to whether his tragedy altered things
No. When you look at his record, it doesn't have any holes. Ambrose struggled in India and had a less than stellar strike rate, Lillee basically played in only three countries and didnt succeed in the sub continent, Imran's away record pales vastly againts he home record and averaged under 24 only in Pakistan and Sri Lanka (minnow of the day). Wasim also had a less than stellar strike rate and took a disproportionately large number of tail end wickets. As I have said Mcgrath has the second cleanest record but he lacked express pace and variety, similar was Hadlee who was great on a green top, but less so when he lacked assistance, luckily he played the vast majority of his career in three countries and got his 37 wickets vs Sri Lanka at 12 a piece.
Marshall was express and from about 82 - 86 he was the fastest (and best) bowler in the world. He could swing and seam it both ways and had the most dangerous bouncer and it skidded and was almost always neck high and was never dominated by anyone. He went to the graveyard of India in '83 after they had won the World Cup and decimated a very strong batting line up. Persons always talk about the pace quartet the W.I had of the 70's, but by the time Marshall joined the party, Croft had defected, Roberts was fading and Holding almost missed as many games as he played due to injury, additionally Garner and Holding both departed about '86 and Marshall carried the attack and still remained undefeated until '91. He helped to bring along Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop ect, but he was the leader. In '88 he went to England and noticed the conditions, cut down his pace and swung the ball around the Hosts and almost single handedly won the series for the West Indies. He succeeded everywhere and againts all opposition, averaged less away than at home and adapted to all conditions. Perosns talk about his nice personality but on the field had a mean streak, and if he wanted to hurt you he did. Detracors some times talk about lack of helmets, but when he arrived WSC had not only introduced helmets but taught batsmen how to handle high quality pace, but Marshall still dominated. His one draw back is that he never played againts Viv, LLoyd and the rest in test cricket, but he and Viv surely had thiet battles in Shell Sheild and they both had thier fair share of victories. In any even the same can ne said of Warne, Mccgrath, Lillee, but he would have adjusted, and truth be told, India in India was as tough a a challenge as they come for express fast bowlers, and as stated by some observers, he and Holding were just too fast for the Indians.
He was express, blood curdling fast, had all of the toys and knew when and where to use them, and he
never lost a test series and was adaptable. He took on the World and more often than not won. He is in my, and many others opinions the Greatest Fast Bowler the World has ever seen and his statistics bear this out, 386 at 20.94 and a srike rate of 47 and unlike some he rarely got a chance to clean up the tail (Garner's job) and along with I belive Mcgrath and Donald took the highest percentage of top order wickets of their totals.
I know i will be crucified for this post, but this is my response to your question.
