Malcolm Marshall vs Glen McGrath

[shortpitched713]

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

Anyone with a bit of sense has been considering the overall conditions of an era for both batsmen and bowlers.

 

[Burgey]

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.

Well, thank you for deciding that for all of us.

 

[Chrish]

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.

Yeah I feel unlucky not to have seen Viv and Marshall live..

 

[Chrish]

When McGrath used to come on the crease to bowl against my favorite batsmen, I used to feel sense of ominous unease.. Like something terrible is about to happen.

Used to hate watching him doing well and absolutely loved it when he got smashed.. Unfortunately later occasions were rare.

This is the highest compliment I can give to any opposition player.

 

[Coronis]

McGrath also faced better batsmen throughout his career.

 

[subshakerz]

Well, thank you for deciding that for all of us.

Welcome.

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath also faced better batsmen throughout his career.

Somewhat true. Marshall can't be faulted for that though. He did well against the best his time had to offer.

 

[Flem274*]

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.

Wanna show the citation for that?

Cricket is the only sport that can look at a 10 year mismatch in play and decide that rather than the conditions that control it have changed, it's just that the players all secretly suck now.

But then this is the same conservative sport that fretted for years over taking referee decisions out of the hands of 60 year olds.

 

[CricAddict]

Wanna show the citation for that?

Cricket is the only sport that can look at a 10 year mismatch in play and decide that rather than the conditions that control it have changed, it's just that the players all secretly suck now.

But then this is the same conservative sport that fretted for years over taking referee decisions out of the hands of 60 year olds.

I am on Flem's side here. While players' talents have to be given the due credit as well, the conditions dictate cricket more than we think. Any era to era comparisons should always consider this factor.

 

[subshakerz]

Wanna show the citation for that?

Cricket is the only sport that can look at a 10 year mismatch in play and decide that rather than the conditions that control it have changed, it's just that the players all secretly suck now.

But then this is the same conservative sport that fretted for years over taking referee decisions out of the hands of 60 year olds.

IMO its common sense. Bowling quality was just lower in the 2000 to early 2010s period and the batsmen made merry. Shoaib, Bond and Asif were the only consistently worldclass bowlers around aside from McGrath and they all broke down half the time. Pollock declined 2003 onwards. WI's pace legacy had ended.

Look at the great bowlers who played most of a decade:

70s - Lillee, Roberts, Holding

80s - Imran, Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, Walsh

90s - Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, McGrath

2000s - McGrath

2010s - Steyn, Anderson and Philander if you count them

 

[Xix2565]

IMO its common sense. Bowling quality was just lower in the 2000 to early 2010s period and the batsmen made merry. Shoaib, Bond and Asif were the only consistently worldclass bowlers around aside from McGrath and they all broke down half the time. Pollock declined 2003 onwards. WI's pace legacy had ended.

Look at the great bowlers who played most of a decade:

70s - Lillee, Roberts, Holding

80s - Imran, Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, Walsh

90s - Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, McGrath

2000s - McGrath

2010s - Steyn, Anderson and Philander if you count them

So no proof? Must be nice to say baseless nonsense and dodge out of backing it up.

 

[subshakerz]

I am on Flem's side here. While players' talents have to be given the due credit as well, the conditions dictate cricket more than we think. Any era to era comparisons should always consider this factor.

Pitches definitely flattened, espeically in Australia, England and NZ, but that wasn't the overriding issue.

Just think of one country - the WI - and how much of a difference in batsmen's averages not having Ambrose/Walsh around would have mattered in the 2000s. No way would it have become the instant stats padder country that it did.

 

[subshakerz]

So no proof? Must be nice to say baseless nonsense and dodge out of backing it up.

My argument was less great bowlers and I showed less great bowlers.

 

[Xix2565]

My argument was less great bowlers and I showed less great bowlers.

It's a stupid argument because cricket analysts have actually noted the differences in pitches between eras and the pitches/playing conditions are far more influential than you give credit for, especially now when you have better technology and ideas on how to prepare them. Otherwise you're essentially saying this current mini era is basically filled with ATGs/potential ATGs bowlers all better or comparable at worst to the 80s-90s. So which is it?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

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

Similar was said about Lillee.

 

[subshakerz]

Similar was said about Lillee.

And it's wrong. Nobody could touch McGrath's level of accuracy. If they could they would be averaging in the teens.

But then McGrath couldn't bounce out guys on a dead pitch like Marshall.

 

[subshakerz]

It's a stupid argument because cricket analysts have actually noted the differences in pitches between eras and the pitches/playing conditions are far more influential than you give credit for, especially now when you have better technology and ideas on how to prepare them. Otherwise you're essentially saying this current mini era is basically filled with ATGs/potential ATGs bowlers all better or comparable at worst to the 80s-90s. So which is it?

This current min-era? Much better than early 2000s to early 2010s.

You already have worldclass performers like Bumrah, Rabada, Cummins, and then other potential greats like Shaheen, Jamieson, and the new SA quicks. The quality of second tier pacers like Hazelwood and Shami is also better. Anderson is still around and delivering the goods too.

Yes, pitches are better but the pitches are not producing worldclass bowlers, they are only assisting them.

 

[ZK$]

I think it was probably a combination of conditions and bowlers.

Batting in the West Indies recently has gotten tougher mostly due to the conditions being tougher rather than the bowlers being better. Meanwhile, batting in Australia and New Zealand has gotten tougher mostly due to the bowlers being better even though the conditions are still great for batting.

 

[subshakerz]

I think it was probably a combination of conditions and bowlers.

Batting in the West Indies recently has gotten tougher mostly due to the conditions being tougher rather than the bowlers being better. Meanwhile, batting in Australia and New Zealand has gotten tougher mostly due to the bowlers being better even though the conditions are still great for batting.

I agree, its a combo and I have stated as much. The only question is what would you factor bowling quality versus pitch quality for the overall trend. Unfortunately some posters here are in denial that global bowling quality had been affected in the early 2000s to early 2010s, which I find quite odd.

 

[subshakerz]

One of my favorite cricket clips. Marshall knocks out the bat from Gavaskar's hands in India. Seriously rapid.