No proof provided he entered the series below his best so using that term is disingenuous.
No but Viv did have a tendency to often get bored or careless and lose his wicket to lesser bowlers. He didn't maximise like Smith against medium to low opposition at the same rate. That doesn't mean he did it every innings but it was common enough to be a slight blemish.
It's not strange you're just focusing on the wrong parts of my arguments. It's not the scores it's the starts. Getting them out early creates more pressure for the batting side than getting them out later. Gavaskar found it harder to survive the first spell of bowling with Marshall than he did with Imran. That's been the argument about Imran & Marshall vs Gavaskar. Or basically in general that Marshall was slightly better at getting out good batsman, as evidenced by earlier dismissals & would be a better new ball bowler=more important bowler for your AT side.
It just sounds like you are keeping finding ways to not give Imran credit for a great series showing against Viv in 76/77. If you just give credit to that we can move on.
You ignored my point about how many more balls Imran bowled at Gavaskar. But you're aware of the context behind that rate now. If you don't want to admit he was better at getting him out quickly that's fine.
Old ball bowler with his reverse swing sure, overall I don't think so.
Sure a reasonable point. Marshall is the better new ball bowler though, if he got as many matches as Imran did with the new ball, his dismissals of Gavaskar would be higher than Imran's.
Oh please. If you're going to disregard what I'm saying & take my replies out of context don't even reply.
What? That's a strawman. I never said Marshall was only better than Imran because of only best bats dismissals. I said that was one reason he was better than him at bowling. I believe I originally said you were losing bowling potency picking Marshall over Imran. Not just skill against best bats. He's just better overall skill wise. You're starting to argue dishonestly now, it might be better just to leave this alone.
Imo the most allroundest of allrounders would be someone who’s equal in skill level in batting and bowling. Which those two certainly don’t fit.
Miller.
Faulkner
Pretty sure Steyn would take less deliveries to get someone out than McGrath. I don't think it makes him better.
I'm not saying Imran was better just that Marshall being better with the new ball doesn't automatically make him better.
They are different bowlers with different MOs so there are going to be some top bats that each are better against. That is my point.
Just wanted that admission that Marshall had it a bit easier which you weren't willing to give until now.
Huh? You used this as a key criteria for Marshalls superiority over Imran. I never said it's the only one but in the context of our conversation it was seen as important. So it's perfectly valid for me to ask why it doesn't apply to the same extent with McGrath.
Form can evaporate at any time, there is no guarantee it will continue based on performing well in a previous series 6 months ago. At some point he was no longer in good form if he averaged low in that series & got out to lower calibre bowlers. So for the sake of proof I actually have some. After his last test in 1976 during his great year he then played for Queensland in the Sheffield shield. He scored 181 runs from 6 innings @30.16 which is well below his standards. State Cricket Stats. You can't say its disingenuous to doubt he was in the form of his life coming into that series.
Well no the difference here is that Imran was good against Viv in one series. Viv was good against Imran in 2 given that he only got out to him once after '77. Removing 1983 against Marshall for Gavaskar would be silly because then you'd only be talking about 3 games at the beginning of his career rather than 14.
This is a backhanded way of giving credit to Imran because you are effectively saying that Viv was somehow easier to get out in that series hence Imran did better.
You say that form can discontinue and we can't trust it based on series form months ago and then immediately give a Sheffield Series performances months ago as 'proof' he was in bad form.
That's true but not quite what I'm trying to say. Imran may have bowled a good couple hundred more balls at Gavaskar over his career than Marshall. To only get him out 3 more times than Marshall suggests he did find it harder to get him out than Marshall did.
Yeah but you know that focusing on the number rather than what it is representing is being intentionally annoying.
Yes I agree with Border & Gower being examples of that. If you rate Marshall as the better bowler wouldn't that mean he is more trusted to get a wicket over Imran? Don't even name a specific batsman, would you not say that Marshall is more likely to be successful against them compared to Imran due to the fact he's the best bowler that you rate higher?
Against the 70's/early 80's India & Australia sides due to the presence of one better batsman yes. Whether that meant he had it easier over his whole career when he didn't get to bowl against Sri Lanka, bowled against Australian sides in 88/89 & 91 that were of comparable strength to the ones Imran faced in his earlier career is another thing.
I never said that it was the key reason I thought Marshall is better than Imran. I only said that in my opinion he was slightly better than Imran at it as a general comment, which started the debate. Like I said earlier "Overall record, skill & peer rep are considered first." Marshall has more skill & peer rep than anyone else imo. That's why I think he's better even before considering the record against best bats. That's more of a differentiator between someone like Akram who has a higher percentage of wickets against tailenders vs someone like Ambrose.
Ok but worth mentioning that this includes series like 86/87 when Indians intentionally decided to produce featherbed wickets after getting destroyed by Imran the last two series, intended for no result that neutralised all bowlers involved. I think all said and done, caveats and all, not a big difference between them on Gavsaskar.
Because I disagree with the criteria.
Sure as a general statement Marshall is likely to be successful against ABC bat but when you go into specifics it's not clear.
Ok and Imran faced those strong sides much more than Marshall with WI included.
I don't see the need to bring the best bats argument. As you have seen, when we get into the weeds of it, it's quite convoluted outside of someone like Border where he has a clear advantage.
Haha yeah it was you got me.
I just disagree on the bad form argument since it's fundamentally different from being injured or inexperienced.
Fair enough but to add that was only 5 innings (where he bowled) out of 29 when Gavaskar played. To his credit in one of them he got him out for a golden duck & another for 63. I will acknowledge it as a factor but I don't think that its the decisive reason Imran took a lot more time/couldn't as easily get Gavaskar out over his career. After some reflection I don't think there's a big difference either in getting him out at some point in the match. It is just the speed (and possibly better new ball ability of Marshall compared to Imran) of which Marshall could dismiss him but you're not a fan of that criteria (even though I'd argue it is better to get someone out early rather than later but that's team/context dependent) so lets leave it there
But if he's more likely to be successful this should also translate to top batsmen yes? Unless you are renowned as a giant killer or tailender specialist which is reflected typically in the batting order dismissal percentages like McGrath or Wasim were, then you can differentiate. But if you're more of just a general great bowler like perhaps Marshall & Imran were then maybe that small general difference in skill should translate to getting top, average & poor batsmen out as well. I realise this is a sweeping statement though & as you believe its different for specifics, you don't need to argue our difference of opinion here.
Okay I'll agree with you that he did play some better batting sides more often. Although not so much with Australia as I do think their late 80's/90's batting lineup is equal or better to the late 70/80's teams with Greg Chappell. It's more about playing India more often with 1 better bat in Viswanath (a decent but not elite bat which I still have my doubts that it's a big difference maker), early 80's WI (definitely fair as a difference) & a few games against 70's England. In comparison to Marshall being able to play 80's/90's England more often.
Form can come and go for various reasons. Imran still took plenty of wickets in the series which I will give him credit for that. I am not making a circular argument because I'm not just taking Imran's bowling into account . Viv was dismissed by other bowlers 5 times to Imran's 4. (6 times if you include the ODI during the series in which he only scored 20). The fact that Sarfraz Nawaz only ever dismissed him in just this series alone (twice), the same for Wasim Raja (once) & Saleem Altaf (once) & 1 out of 2 times for Mushtaq Mohammad to me suggests that he was getting out easier than he normally would be. 9 other batsmen outperformed him in this series. 9! That is not the showing of a usual premier bat. Even if you're getting dominated by one player surely you can find ways to attack the others (like Gavaskar did).
The poll is settled and the goal was never to turn this into an Imran thing, but this argument is hilarious.
When you ask Viv who was the best bowlers he faced, he names two. Marshall and Lillee, Marshall over Lillee because he didn't only primarily perform well in "his own back yard"
