McGrath. Marshall. Hadlee.

[subshakerz]

This word again.

Pathetic

How about the home umpires?

Marshall tampered. Get over it.

 

[subshakerz]

Again, not true.

Ambrose was never as quick as Marshall, but he was quick. Before the surgery he was very fast, plus the bounce, plus the accuracy.

Marshall had all of those attributes as well. The only thing Marshall didn't produce on the field was reverse swing. He had accuracy, pace, that skiddy bounce, in and out swing, cutters. The narrative that Subz is again trying to create with his "may have's and " likely to have" or just " likely" is a joke.

Ambrose was never as skilled as Marshall was. Sir Curtly dragged back his length and placed it on a dime, Malcolm was just as capable of that.

It's crazy that when @subshakerz is arguing against Ambrose, it's that he didn't have the skill set of Marshall to adapt to the SC, particularly India, and as such his argument is that he would have likely failed there.

Notice the inconsistencies? And that his arguments against these guys are always hypotheticals?

I am arguing all of this while maintaining that Marshall is no.1. you don't need to feel threatened.

I do think we rank Ambrose too highly though.

 

[kyear2]

He played the same teams Hadlee played. What are you talking about. He obviously can't play against his own team. And he played zero minnows. Fun fact, fwiw, I believe Pakistan had the highest team batting average from the 80s (i could be wrong). Can Coronis or someone else look up team batting averages from the 80s.

They did, especially at home for obvious reasons.

The WI were not the the ultimate batting challenge to bowlers of the era as I pointed out earlier. By '87 / '88 they were at best average especially after Lloyd then Gomes retired.

 

[subshakerz]

They did, especially at home for obvious reasons.

The WI were not the the ultimate batting challenge to bowlers of the era as I pointed out earlier. By '87 / '88 they were at best average especially after Lloyd then Gomes retired.

Haynes, Greenidge, Viv, and Richardson is still a quality lineup

 

[kyear2]

Because you said 'nobody'. I would agree most of us think McGrath and Hadlee are close to Marshall.

McGrath, yes he is. I think Marshall has the edge based on skill set and all round record, with success in all conditions, but that's it.

Hadlee I have in 3rd and in the same tier, but a small but definite gap between them.

But they're all close and in the same tier. You know, like how you think Sachin is in the same tier but ahead of the other guys?

 

[kyear2]

Doesn't he rate McGrath in the GoAT tier? iirc he also rates Hadlee in the top tier as well (I'm not sure but he may have a distinction between top tier and GoAT tier)

Yup

He just makes up ****.

 

[kyear2]

He considers Marshall a near Sobers Bradman lock in a ATG XI and had Marshall - Bradman comparisons he made in the past that I would rather not bring up.

And yes he is, what's your point? I also have Hobbs and Tendulkar there as well.

Why can the arguable 2nd and 3rd best batsmen be included there but Marshall can't?

Please explain it to me..

I've said previously, and I stand by it. In a team where Bradman and Sobers are the first two picks, why isn't your spear head next?

 

[kyear2]

Lol lol. Don't know what the ECCB was thinking...

Money

 

[kyear2]

Well then I suggest you and him talk/hug it out.

He's a disingenuous, intellectually dishonest debater.

There's always an agenda.

 

[kyear2]

McGrath didn't face his own batying either, neither did Warne, yet we dont demerit them for that reason. Therefore keep the same energy. And Australia, as shown in the 00s, was further ahead of their contemporaries than WI were with theres.

He doesn't do well with facts.

Even when shown that Pakistan was at least on par with the WI during the era, he will still maintain otherwise.

Bradman didn't face the best two bowlers of his era, Warne and McGrath didn't face arguably the best batting line up ever either. But Marshall didn't face his batting line up that most of the greats of the era didn't do too badly against, in favor were pretty good against, especially later in said decade.

 

[subshakerz]

And yes he is, what's your point? I also have Hobbs and Tendulkar there as well.

Why can the arguable 2nd and 3rd best batsmen be included there but Marshall can't?

Please explain it to me..

I've said previously, and I stand by it. In a team where Bradman and Sobers are the first two picks, why isn't your spear head next?

Thanks for confirming your overrating of Marshall.

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath, yes he is. I think Marshall has the edge based on skill set and all round record, with success in all conditions, but that's it.

Hadlee I have in 3rd and in the same tier, but a small but definite gap between them.

But they're all close and in the same tier. You know, like how you think Sachin is in the same tier but ahead of the other guys?

You suggested Marshall being a level ahead at times.

 

[Coronis]

I like that there’s such a variance of opinion on this.

 

[DrWolverine]

Marshall. Hadlee. McGrath.
All top notch fast bowlers.

 

[DrWolverine]

You suggested Marshall being a level ahead at times.

Even if his record and longevity may not match up to other greats, if Jasprit Bumrah performs at the same rate for few more years and say ends up with 300+ wickets, I would say he is level ahead of every other fast bowler in the last 30 years I have seen.

 

[DrWolverine]

I may be wrong but maybe that’s what @kyear2 is trying to say.

Marshall may not have the longevity of McGrath or carrying an attack with zero support like Hadlee but in terms of quality Maco was the absolute best

We can debate how he may have dipped if he performed for few more years or he may not have done so well without support but that’s just speculation

 

[Sliferxxxx]

He doesn't do well with facts.

Even when shown that Pakistan was at least on par with the WI during the era, he will still maintain otherwise.

Bradman didn't face the best two bowlers of his era, Warne and McGrath didn't face arguably the best batting line up ever either. But Marshall didn't face his batting line up that most of the greats of the era didn't do too badly against, in favor were pretty good against, especially later in said decade.

I'm back. I kinda feel like subz probably has issues with every player you rate for whatever reason but that's just me. I'm just going ask point blank, do you think Marshall is head and shoulders above the other great fast bowlers??

 

[Johan]

What is your deduction??

Yeah that's mostly true, the difference always seems to come down to extra weak lineups, good batting lineups often have similar output given the era is similar enough (IE not 1950s or 2000s). Generally feel like it's kind of overstated how say Ponting's, or Marshall's numbers would be affected if they played against their own lineups, Windies of late 80s and early 90s was a vulnerable batting unit.

 

[subshakerz]

Even if his record and longevity may not match up to other greats, if Jasprit Bumrah performs at the same rate for few more years and say ends up with 300+ wickets, I would say he is level ahead of every other fast bowler in the last 30 years I have seen.

No he would be just below Marshall for me since his stats are boosted this era and he lacks the capacity for a long series without breaking down.

 

[Johan]

I don't think Bumrah would be able to dominate England in England this June.