Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[Ikki]

I don't know about longevity factor between the two. McGrath played for about 13 years and Marshall for 12 (???)? Also cricket calendars (intl) in those days were not quite as packed so Marshall played lesser matches. However from what I have read about Marshall he probably would have been able to play more had WI played more matches. He was very fit physically from what I know. I may be wrong but someone else might be able to shed more light on it.

He may have been very fit, but it's still an unknown for mine. To play about twice as many matches as he did to compare to McGrath is a huge ask. In terms of the speed Marshall bowled also, it is likely he would have had injuries. Just throwing it in there.

 

[smash84]

I generally agree with this. It's why I rate Wasim so highly and am surprised people call him overrated. I think the category you say is accurate, then it is a measure of some other things. For me, how Wasim did against both Australia and WIndies (two ATG sides) says enough about him as a bowler. If you didn't watch him regularly, you really missed out why he was so special. He was also in International cricket for some 19 years, which is incredible.

Agree with you on the 19 years. Very few fast bowlers must have done that.

He may have been very fit, but it's still an unknown for mine. To play about twice as many matches as he did to compare to McGrath is a huge ask. In terms of the speed Marshall bowled also, it is likely he would have had injuries. Just throwing it in there.

Marshal's action like McGrath's was very economical and didn't put that much strain on his body I think so not sure about the injuries from that end.

Injuries is a possibility of course but this problem would always come when you compare players across eras. I think mostly people compare without taking these into account and since Marshall was quite fit it is assumed that he would be able to take the 90s and 00s workload. It is not like Marshal was a Shane Bond. He was a pretty fit cricketer.

 

[archie mac]

If Lillee could do all that McGrath could do but was 10 kph quicker, why did he take fewer wickets at a worse average in more bowler-friendly times?

I realise that Lillee was an ATG fast bowler and all, but surely this is as good an object lesson as we could have in the distorting effects of rose tinted spectacles / "in my day" bias.

Should remember Lillee missed some years through a back injury and WSC when at his peak. Personally I would take Lillee over everyone when it comes to fast bowlers I have watched and have some support from a number of experts including Marshall and Paddles

 

[smash84]

you might want to add a few more illustrious names to that list. Although I for one was never really able to grasp why he was rated that highly. I think as JBMAC mentioned perhaps it was because of the attitude?

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

its always a dubious thing to say 'all time'...anyway what about micheal holding?

How Wasim gets considered for an AT XI attack bewilders me everytime

If you consider statistics there's not much to choose between the sub-25 bowlers in the game's history. However when you pick your all time XI you more often than not go beyond stats and numbers. I think Wasim Akram was as good as any of the other ATGs and also had that extra bit in him to make him one of the 3 fast bowling virtuosos that our game has witnessed along with Hadlee and Marshall.

Wasim was a magician. He could do anything with a cricket ball. His wickets per match may not be as good as Hadlee. If you want to make your case using stats then there is really no point because each of these bowlers seemed to beat everyone else in one condition or the other. So you can argue for and against the same player. Hence I make it clear that although there isn't much to choose between McGrath, Lillee, and Wasim as far as stats are concerned, I consider Wasim a better bowler by just that eenie teenie weenie bit than the other two.

Holding : I don't think Mikey 'Olding would fit in the very best category. He will definitely not be in my top 6 or 7 fast bowlers of all time. I can think of people who I rate higher than 'Olding - Marshall, Hadlee, Wasim, Imran, McGrath, Ambrose, Lillee, Trueman, Donald, Waqar, Steyn,. Yep those are enough reasons for 'Olding not making my all time XI

 

[smash84]

good quality post there Vijay and welcome to CW . I hope you have a good time here.

 

[ImpatientLime]

both are fighting it out for the number two spot behind Curtly.

 

[smash84]

are you high on lime juice ?

But yeah Ambrose is right up there in the league of bowlers too.

 

[robelinda]

I don't think id include a bowler in my all time XI that only averaged 30 vs England.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

good quality post there Vijay and welcome to CW . I hope you have a good time here.

Thank You!

 

[smash84]

I don't think id include a bowler in my all time XI that only averaged 30 vs England.

tbf most bowlers (even ATG ones) have at least one team where they don't do well

 

[kyear2]

My problem with Wasim is statistically he is not even the best bowler from pakistan, behind both Waqar and Imran. He has too high a poportion of tail end wickets and even at his peak was never once the number one rated bowler in the world, dont think he ever even attained a rating over 850. He was undoubtably a great bowler, but not first team great.

 

[smash84]

but then Steyn IIRC Steyn has a higher proportion of tail end wickets then even Wasim. This might be explained by the fact that Wasim was far more adept at removing tailenders than any of the other bowlers. After all many of the batsmen and bowlers of his era rate Wasim as the best that they saw or played against.

 

[Sanz]

TBF, as high as I rate Marshall I have reservations about the quality of the batsmen he faced whereas I don't at all with McGrath. What McGrath also achieved considering the disadvantages of his era is also quite extraordinary. Marshall though probably has one of the cleanest CVs for a bowler. A hair's width either way. I assume we're talking about them purely as bowlers because Marshall could also hold a bat.

Reservation about the Quality of the batsmen that Marshall faced , Are you really serious ?

And also what was the disadvantages of the quality of the era that Mcgrath played ? Considering that Marshall played in an era where Subcontinent produced flattest of the wickets and he still maintains great record there, the cricket played all over in his era was defensive yet he has perhaps one of the best SR.

 

[weldone]

but then Steyn IIRC Steyn has a higher proportion of tail end wickets then even Wasim. This might be explained by the fact that Wasim was far more adept at removing tailenders than any of the other bowlers. After all many of the batsmen and bowlers of his era rate Wasim as the best that they saw or played against.

yeah, most notably Allan Donald and Brian Lara thought of Wasim as 'by far' the best bowler they ever saw.

 

[smash84]

yeah, most notably Allan Donald and Brian Lara thought of Wasim as 'by far' the best bowler they ever saw.

Add Curtly Ambrose to that list. I remember Subshakerz had put up a list of the contemporaries who rated Wasim as the best (along with the links). It was impressive.

 

[Ikki]

Reservation about the Quality of the batsmen that Marshall faced , Are you really serious ?

And also what was the disadvantages of the quality of the era that Mcgrath played ? Considering that Marshall played in an era where Subcontinent produced flattest of the wickets and he still maintains great record there, the cricket played all over in his era was defensive yet he has perhaps one of the best SR.

The line-ups he faced throughout were really good but hardly anything like the monster line-ups, like India, McGrath had to face. The batting line-ups of several teams were very good in McGrath's era, whereas they were sporadically so for Marshall. Was going to the subcontinent and bowling harder in Marshall's or McGrath's time? I'd say the latter. Not only really flat pitches, but better batsmen in the 90s/00s to boot. I'd say that through SL the depth in International terms had also increased.

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

My problem with Wasim is statistically he is not even the best bowler from pakistan, behind both Waqar and Imran. He has too high a poportion of tail end wickets and even at his peak was never once the number one rated bowler in the world, dont think he ever even attained a rating over 850. He was undoubtably a great bowler, but not first team great.

As an Indian fan I can tell you that through out the late 80s and 90s the bowler who instilled fear in me even when Sachin was batting, was Wasim.

Wasim Akram has given me nightmares. Like I said, you cannot quantify these things. I think Wasim was the best bowler to come from Pakistan very slightly ahead of Imran. However as a cricketer I consider the Niazi greater than Wasim coz Imran, per me, is the greatest cricketer ever in the history of Test cricket (on 183 days of the year...the other 182 it's Sobers).

 

[smash84]

Vijay I like your opinions. They do match mine in most areas. PEWS would agree with you too.

What happens in a leap year?

 

[Vijay.Sharma]

The line-ups he faced throughout were really good but hardly anything like the monster line-ups, like India, McGrath had to face. The batting line-ups of several teams were very good in McGrath's era, whereas they were sporadically so for Marshall. Was going to the subcontinent and bowling harder in Marshall's or McGrath's time? I'd say the latter. Not only really flat pitches, but better batsmen in the 90s/00s to boot. I'd say that through SL the depth in International terms had also increased.

Agreed with you.

Marshall bowled at Sunny-Amarnath-Vihsy, Chappell-Border-Hughes-Boon, Zaheer-Miandad-Malik, Gooch-Gower-Lamb-Gatting,

McGrath bowled at Sachin-Lax-Viru-Dravid, Richardson-Lara-Hooper-Chanders, Inzi-Anwar-Yousuf-Younis, Aravinda-Jayasuriya-Sanga-Mahela, Kirsten-Smith-Kallis-Cronje

But I still rate Marshall ahead of McGrath...lol. Maybe coz he was too boring a metronome