Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

[Coronis]

Ok

Don’t be so harsh.

 

[subshakerz]

The only really strong argument for McGrath over Marshall is longevity.

 

[BazBall21]

Marshall is my no1 bowler of all time

 

[Godard]

The only really strong argument for McGrath over Marshall is longevity.

Nope the era in which the second half of McGrath’s career was in, and top order wickets as well(McGrath is really ahead here). Plus some metrics in which Marshall is better are marginal, like average(0.69 diff) and WPM(0.06 diff).

 

[subshakerz]

Nope the era in which the second half of McGrath’s career was in, and top order wickets as well(McGrath is really ahead here). Plus some metrics in which Marshall is better are marginal, like average(0.69 diff) and WPM(0.06 diff).

None of those are particularly strong arguments.

The era for McGrath is pretty overplayed and nebulous. Any ATG bowler in their prime would have succeeded in the 2000s with maybe a 1 point bump in their average at most.

Top order share can be offset by Marshall have ATG level guys competing with him for top order wickets. By the time Marshall comes for a second spell, half the side would already be out.

Marshall was faster, better in the SC, and had a peak of 6 wickets a test for 40 tests that outdoes anything that McGrath achieved.

 

[Godard]

Marshall was only better in Pak in SC. Both were equally good in Ind. Marshall never played in SL. And McGrath also had Warne and Gillespie(along with some other decent bowlers to compete with) to compete with. Maybe any ATG could have done well in 2000s with a one point bump, but McGrath should be given credit for actually doing it( nearly 200 wickets@21 from 2002-7), and without any bump in average. Marshall’s peak is better sure, but in some metrics like average and WPM, he is barely leading, but for McGrath in top order wickets and longevity, he is far ahead. Likewise Marshall is far ahead in SR and % of fifers:

 

[Chrish]

McGrath is the best I have seen by a long shot. Marshall must have been some bowler if he was better..

 

[Coronis]

The era for McGrath is pretty overplayed and nebulous. Any ATG bowler in their prime would have succeeded in the 2000s with maybe a 1 point bump in their average at most.

Does this mean people will finally stop whinging about 00’s batting, or does it not work both ways?

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall was only better in Pak in SC. Both were equally good in Ind. Marshall never played in SL. And McGrath also had Warne and Gillespie(along with some other decent bowlers to compete with) to compete with. Maybe any ATG could have done well in 2000s with a one point bump, but McGrath should be given credit for actually doing it( nearly 200 wickets@21 from 2002-7), and without any bump in average. Marshall’s peak is better sure, but in some metrics like average and WPM, he is barely leading, but for McGrath in top order wickets and longevity, he is far ahead. Likewise Marshall is far ahead in SR and % of fifers:

Marshall's tour of fire in India in 83 far outdid anything McGrath did in India. Marshall did well in Pakistan, while McGrath was average in SL and Pakistan. McGrath, by his own standards, wasnt that great against SA too.

McGrath shouldnt get credit for doing what we acknowledge any top tier ATG could do, which is succeed in the 2000s.

Warne and Gillespie were less likely to gobble up top order wickets than a combo of Holding/Garner/Walsh/Ambrose/Bishop. Plus Marshall towards the end of his career was first change.

On raw stats, Marshall leads in almost all areas, plus had a better peak.

Marshall is the best.

 

[subshakerz]

Does this mean people will finally stop whinging about 00’s batting, or does it not work both ways?

No because 80 percent of why the 2000s was easier for batting was because there were less worldclass bowlers, while 20 percent has to do with flatter pitches.

 

[Godard]

Marshall's tour of fire in India in 83 far outdid anything McGrath did in India. Marshall did well in Pakistan, while McGrath was average in SL and Pakistan. McGrath, by his own standards, wasnt that great against SA too.

McGrath shouldnt get credit for doing what we acknowledge any top tier ATG could do, which is succeed in the 2000s.

Warne and Gillespie were less likely to gobble up top order wickets than a combo of Holding/Garner/Walsh/Ambrose/Bishop. Plus Marshall towards the end of his career was first change.

On raw stats, Marshall leads in almost all areas, plus had a better peak.

Marshall is the best.

may not necessarily agree on the 2000s argument, but I take the top order wickets argument, virtue which Marshall comes slightly in ahead.

 

[Calm_profit]

In McGrath's defence

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

As you can see McGrath hit that peak in that historic Windies tour, prior to that he was average

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

 

[subshakerz]

In McGrath's defence

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

As you can see McGrath hit that peak in that historic Windies tour, prior to that he was average

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Marshall was also average for a couple of years before peaking. And he averaged a lot better than McGrath in his peak.

McGraths longevity of excellence is his biggest strength.

 

[Calm_profit]

Marshall was also average for a couple of years before peaking. And he averaged a lot better than McGrath in his peak.

McGraths longevity of excellence is his biggest strength.

Nah Marshall wasn't that average apart from India tour which was his debut tour.He did well in Pakistan, England before his peak started.
Whereas McGrath was totally average, Warne was leading the attack until that Windies tour came up,luckily he got a chance due to McDermott got injured and he never looked back.

 

[Slifer]

Nah Marshall wasn't that average apart from India tour which was his debut tour.He did well in Pakistan, England before his peak started.
Whereas McGrath was totally average, Warne was leading the attack until that Windies tour came up,luckily he got a chance due to McDermott got injured and he never looked back.

Marshall's peak began in 1983 with the Indian tour to the WI. He had very good numbers before that but starting in '83 he had that sequence of 7 series where he took 20 plus wickets.

 

[Ashes81]

McGrath is the best I have seen by a long shot. Marshall must have been some bowler if he was better..

Marshall is the best I've ever seen - he was simply brilliant. He had pace but superb control, had a top notch bouncer, could swing the ball and get movement off the seam.

McGrath is obviously a truly great bowler but didn't have the menace or pace that Marshall had and that gives him the edge.

 

[smash84]

Marshall is the best I've ever seen - he was simply brilliant. He had pace but superb control, had a top notch bouncer, could swing the ball and get movement off the seam.

McGrath is obviously a truly great bowler but didn't have the menace or pace that Marshall had and that gives him the edge.

So basically Marshall could do everything that McGrath could and do it 10 miles quicker

 

[ataraxia]

Wait there was a princessEWS

@Prince EWS

and a @Miagra

 

[Burgey]

Wait there was a princessEWS

@Prince EWS

Yeah but she joined One Nation.

 

[Burgey]

Does this mean people will finally stop whinging about 00’s batting, or does it not work both ways?

Well indeed.

It does say something about the WI team of Marshall's early career that he spent a few years as a reserve.