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

[91Jmay]

This

This is totally ****ing irrelevant. I don't understand why this stupid argument keeps getting brought up, it has no bearing on how good a bowler Marshall was.

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall had it easier because pitches were often bowler friendly according to now retired batsmen, very few batsmen averaged 50 during his time, high 30s was a decent average for a batsman and he didn't distinguish himself that much from the numerous other successful bowlers of his era on the bowler friendly pitches.

McGrath and Steyn had the modern day bull**** used to tell us all how modern batsmen secretly suck.

Viv averaged 50 in that stacked bowler friendly era.

#Kingvivforlyf #Marshallsecretlysucks #straightface

India and Pakistan were by no means pace-friendly during Marshall's time, didnt stop him from doing well there.

 

[kyear2]

Thing is, there is no need to pull down one player to promote the other. Both are in my opinion top 10 players of all time and locks (especially Marshall) for almost every ATG XI made.

Last time we made an ATG XI Marshall was an unanimous choice along with Sobers, Bradman and ahead of Hobbs.


My main argument is that Richard's peak was '76 to '80. During those years he was absolute.

Marshall's peak was '83 to '88. W

hen was it that the W.I. was seen (at the time) as the greatest team of all time?

Marshall lost one game as an opening bowler. Less than Bradman. Great batsmen are important, yes. But it's bowlers who really.makes teams truly great.

So yes, Viv like Lillee has the flair. Marshall was the key though. And really it wasn't close.

Rating wise though

Batsmen

Bradman

Sobers
Richards | Tendulkar | Lara | Hobbs
Hutton | Chappell | Ponting | Hammond
Sangakkara | Gavaskar | Headley | Border | Kallis | Pollock
*B. Richards

Bowlers

Marshall
McGrath | Steyn | Hadlee
Warne | Muralitharan | Ambrose | Lillee
Trueman | O'Reilly | Holding | Imran
Donald | Akram | Garner | Lindwall

 

[smash84]

This is totally ****ing irrelevant. I don't understand why this stupid argument keeps getting brought up, it has no bearing on how good a bowler Marshall was.

No it isn't in making a case for the greater cricketer

 

[Black_Warrior]

Thing is, there is no need to pull down one player to promote the other.

But this is inevitable in a comparison thread though.

 

[kyear2]

It is. Both are among the greatest of all time though.

Some are trying to tear down records to prove a point.

Smali genuinely surprised I am sure that Marshall is leading this poll.

 

[kyear2]

As to an earlier post

CricketWeb
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Richards, Tendulkar, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, McGrath

Geoff Armstrong
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Pollock, Sobers, Gilchrist, Imran, Marshall, Warne, Barnes

Cricinfo
Hutton, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Akram, Warne, Lillee

Wisden
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Tendulkar, Richards, Sobers, Knott, Akram, Warne, Marshall, Barnes

Geoffrey Boycott
Hobbs, Hutton, Bradman, Headley ( Tendulkar ), Richards, Sobers, Knott, Marshall, Warne, Lillee, Barnes


Christopher Martin-Jenkins
Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Richards, Hammond, Sobers, Gilchrist, Marshall, Warne, Barnes, McGrath

 

[Slifer]

If I recall Benaud also made a list and he included IVA but no MM. But then again, no West Indian paceman made his short list either (wi bowlers must have left a bad taste in his hypocritical mouth). Needless to say (ditto kyear) both are in the top 5 of their respective strengths.

 

[smash84]

Ironically Kyear2 you're talking of not pulling the other down while praising the other

 

[kyear2]

Benaud named 3 wicketkeepers, Gilchrist, Healy and Marsh. No Knott. Three spinners, no Muralitharan. 6 fast bowlers, no Marshall, but Lindwall, Trueman and Larwood.

Then went on to say it wasn't nexcerily the best team, but one he would want to represent him.

 

[smash84]

If I recall Benaud also made a list and he included IVA but no MM. But then again, no West Indian paceman made his short list either (wi bowlers must have left a bad taste in his hypocritical mouth). Needless to say (ditto kyear) both are in the top 5 of their respective strengths.

Haha, no need to be so bitter mate. He was one of the most respected voices ever to have graced the game. You should give him a little more respect too.

Besides as kyear2 already mentions that it was a team that he would like to watch , not necessarily the best team. His team got a lot of press because Richie had seen half a century of cricket from (Bradman?) all the way down (in the end) to Philip Hughes

 

[sledger]

The one that played for Hampshire.

 

[Camo999]

Yeah I went Viv. Would say as a batsman, he was very influential while his reputation transcended the sport in a way Marshall's didn't. The greatest player in possibly the greatest side of all-time. There's a reason he was one of the five cricketers of the century and Marshall came in equal 26th.

On Marshall, I reckon he's ever so slightly overrated here. No doubt you could legitimately argue he's as good as any bowler ever but surely it is far from a consensus that he is the greatest fast bowler or even top 5. I don't particularly recall this being the widely accepted opinion when he played, though admittedly I only saw the last few years of his career. Maybe my view stems from that of the Ch 9 commentary team given Richie's rating above?

Marshall's stats are amazing and at his peak he was both terrifying and skilful but he wasn't good enough to regularly get in the side in his first four or five years. Also, wasn't his entire career played as part of an all-time great attack while the likes of Ambrose (at the end) and Roberts (at the start) at times had to shoulder the extra responsibility of leading an attack that wasn't particularly great?

 

[smash84]

Yeah I went Viv. Would say as a batsman, he was very influential while his reputation transcended the sport in a way Marshall's didn't. The greatest player in possibly the greatest side of all-time. There's a reason he was one of the five cricketers of the century and Marshall came in equal 26th.

On Marshall, I reckon he's ever so slightly overrated here. No doubt you could legitimately argue he's as good as any bowler ever but surely it is far from a consensus that he is the greatest fast bowler or even top 5. I don't particularly recall this being the widely accepted opinion when he played, though admittedly I only saw the last few years of his career. Maybe my view stems from that of the Ch 9 commentary team given Richie's rating above?

Marshall's stats are amazing and at his peak he was both terrifying and skilful but he wasn't good enough to regularly get in the side in his first four or five years. Also, wasn't his entire career played as part of an all-time great attack while the likes of Ambrose (at the end) and Roberts (at the start) at times had to shoulder the extra responsibility of leading an attack that wasn't particularly great?

I quite agree. Marshall is somewhat over rated here. I remember that for the first 4 years of his career he wasn't so successful in making a name for himself because there were other ATGs around who were themselves as good as anybody. Any Roberts Michael Holding, Garner. For that generation Lillee was the premier bowling icon even by the end of the 1980s (by which time Marshall had established himself and was on the way down).

 

[Slifer]

Haha, no need to be so bitter mate. He was one of the most respected voices ever to have graced the game. You should give him a little more respect too.

Besides as kyear2 already mentions that it was a team that he would like to watch , not necessarily the best team. His team got a lot of press because Richie had seen half a century of cricket from (Bradman?) all the way down (in the end) to Philip Hughes

I have respect for Richie and I came up listening him comment on cricket in the 80s. But trust me, the wi pacemen of that era did not leave a good taste in his mouth and he was quite vocal about it which love me or hate me is hypocritical. Anyway enough of my rambling, moving on....

 

[Slifer]

If Marshall is overrated, then so are every other bowler from his era. I suspect many of u commenting on MM didn't actually see him play.This notion that he somehow had it easy being part of a great attack is rubbish. I guess we should also ignore the likes of warne and Mcgrath as well; they too were part of champion attacks.

 

[smash84]

If Marshall is overrated, then so are every other bowler from his era. I suspect many of u commenting on MM didn't actually see him play.This notion that he somehow had it easy being part of a great attack is rubbish. I guess we should also ignore the likes of warne and Mcgrath as well; they too were part of champion attacks.

tbf Warne isn't rated as highly on CW as he is by the general punditry

 

[Flem274*]

I didn't expect to get so many bites

 

[kyear2]

Marshall started his career during WSC well before he was ready for test cricket and after only a handful of first class matches.

From '83 to '88 Marshall was the man and clearly better than any of his team mates. Additionally, after about '84 Holding wasn't the same bowler, Croft and Roberts were long gone. Only partner he had long term was Garner and it was clear who was Batman and who was Robin.

 

[subshakerz]

I quite agree. Marshall is somewhat over rated here. I remember that for the first 4 years of his career he wasn't so successful in making a name for himself because there were other ATGs around who were themselves as good as anybody. Any Roberts Michael Holding, Garner. For that generation Lillee was the premier bowling icon even by the end of the 1980s (by which time Marshall had established himself and was on the way down).

To be frank, I think Marshall is getting more highly rated as times passes, he seems to feature is most all-time XIs nowadays, and many are now appreciating him for his standout record. I recall around 15 years ago there seemed to have been a consensus around Lillee, but not as much anymore. Years after his retirement and death, more are beginning to appreciate his all round bowling ability.

Perhaps he was not as lauded when he hit his stripes in the 80s as Lillee was when he began in the 70s. When Marshall started, there were already many fast bowlers around, whereas Lillee began after a somewhat barren period.

While Marshall wasnt given the same high accolades when he was playing, perhaps because he was merely continuing the WI success that was there when he started. But in more quieter moments and interviews, players who faced him admit he was the best. Off the top of my head, I can recall Thomson, Allan Border, Viv Richards, Geoff Boycott, Martin Crowe, Wasim Akram, Ian Healy, Graham Gooch who gave him top marks.