Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[Outswinger@Pace]

That Indian line-up, compared to the Indian line-up McGrath faced was much inferior. Especially away.

Disagree strongly with the 'much inferior' part.

Marshall for a fair part of his career bowled to Gavaskar, Mohinder Amarnath, Vengsarkar, Shastri, Azhar (of the 80s) and Kapil Dev.

Amarnath was, by most people's standards, a prolific player of pace and his away record actually sets him apart from most. Gavaskar, for difficulty in dislodging from the crease, would rank above all Indian batsmen, SRT and Dravid included, IMHO.

McGrath bowled to a significantly medicore Azhar of the mid-late 90s, Ganguly (an average player of pace, extra bounce and movement) and VVS Laxman. His heroics against the Aussies notwithstanding, Laxman cannot be considered a fine player of swing and seam.

Sehwag played just one test away from home in which McGrath was also participating. Not a big enough sample size, tbh. And his record against swing and movement off the seam would suggest that Pigeon would have slaughtered him. Let's not forget here that we're talking about possibly the world's best exponent when it comes to landing the ball on the proud seam on a six-pence coin on the pitch. I very much doubt that Sehwag would have had the skill and application to negate the great fast bowler consistently in Australian conditions.

Except Dravid and Tendulkar, I don't see any complete and truly great player of fast bowling pitted against McGrath.

Marshall had to bowl to an Indian line-up which batted pretty deep too. Shastri was a better lower order batsman than any India have had since. Kapil Dev slaughtered the four-pronged West Indian attack in an away series, scoring at 60 runs/per innings in these four tests.

I somehow have great difficulty imagining an MSK Prasad, a Dhoni, a Parthiv Patel or an Irfan Pathan scoring 100* (95 balls) against Marshall, Roberts, Garner and Marshall on their home turf. That intimidation factor was missing from the Indian lower order that McGrath bowled to.

So coming back to my initial question, what made the Indian batting line-up of the 1995-2007 era much superior?

 

[Migara]

Mashall, McGrath, Hadlee, Murali and Sobers will be my AT XI bowling attack.

 

[Ikki]

Those players were largely good only at home and one of them Vengsarkar, I think, was actually the opposite.

McGrath faced line-ups of Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly. Ironically, in his last innings against them he faced a lineup of Gambhir, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman. He also faced Azhurradin in 96/97 and that is far from his last legs.

Really not that close. Moreover, Marshall's record is really flattered by 3 tests in India, he was pretty crappy in the others there.

India's line-up during McGrath's time was comparable to Australia's in terms of churning out runs; it was/is one of the ATG batting sides. The 80s version? Strong, but weaker than this one. It was this batting line-up that helped them achieve 2 series wins against one of the greatest Test teams of all time, at their peak.

For someone to mention Shastri and Dev and yet say "McGrath only faced 2 greats" is a bit ludicrous.

PS you're wrong; Sehwag played the entire 04 series at home when McGrath was there.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Those players were largely good only at home and one of them Vengsarkar, I think, was actually the opposite.

Mohinder Amarnath, you mean? He averaged 50+ away from home, if stats are your cup of tea. And Vengsarkar was exceptional against seam and swing. Evidenced by his superb series against England in 1986. So, you have two batsmen in the team apart from Gavaskar who is proven quality.

McGrath faced line-ups of Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly. Ironically, in his last innings against them he faced a lineup of Gambhir, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman.

And these names are supposed to prove a point? Except Dravid and Sachin, I don't really see a batsman who could match a pace bowler of McGrath's calibre in away conditions among the names in that list. Not even the wristy Hyderabadi.

And as I said before, Gavaskar put a greater price on his wicket than SRT and even Dravid. To get him out consistently, you had to be as good as a Lillee, a Marshall or an Imran. You still end up with the same average and strike-rates, but some wickets are much harder to get than the others. Life is much easier when you bowl four dot balls and on the fifth one, Sehwag is wafting outside the off-stump!

McGrath's whole game was based on discipline and perservence. In his era of attacking test cricket, those skills suited him. Whether he would have had similar numerical success against a hypothetical line-up of Boycott, Gavaskar, Ken Barrington, Greg Chappell and Allan Border is anyone's guess.

India's line-up during McGrath's time was comparable to Australia's in terms of churning out runs; it was/is one of the ATG batting sides. The 80s version? Strong, but weaker than this one.

Let's approach this subject differently. In your estimation, has the standard of fast bowling, speed and assistance offered by pitches to seam and cut increased or decresed in comparison to the 1980s? Does that have a bearing in assessing the 'greatness' of a batsman? Just as it should apply in gauging a bowler's worth.

What is your take on that?

 

[Ikki]

Mohinder Amarnath, you mean? He averaged 50+ away from home, if stats are your cup of tea. And Vengsarkar was exceptional against seam and swing. Evidenced by his superb series against England in 1986. So, you have two batsmen in the team apart from Gavaskar who is proven quality.

Ah, so it was Amarnath.

Quality players who averaged...? I'd put them on level with Ganguly and Laxman (maybe Laxman should be rated higher IMO). Then you have Dravid, Tendulkar and Sehwag to the remaining of Gavaskar and Azhurradin (who McGrath also faced).

And these names are supposed to prove a point? Except Dravid and Sachin, I don't really see a batsman who could match a pace bowler of McGrath's calibre in away conditions among the names in that list. Not even the wristy Hyderabadi.

And as I said before, Gavaskar put a greater price on his wicket than SRT and even Dravid. To get him out consistently, you had to be as good as a Lillee, a Marshall or an Imran. You still end up with the same average and strike-rates, but some wickets are much harder to get than the others. Life is much easier when you bowl four dot balls and on the fifth one, Sehwag is wafting outside the off-stump!

I am not sure I should even approach this because it's starting to get silly. Whether Gavaskar put a greater price on his wicket is subjective because Dravid and Tendulkar actually scored more than him - so in reality, they put a heavier price. The idea that only the elite bowlers got him out is a bit silly.

Your argument is akin to saying: Border put more value on his wicket than Ponting and Waugh; therefore he counts as 2. Whether you think Gavaskar is better, it is really only marginal. Having two genuine ATGs > having one.

Let's approach this subject differently. In your estimation, has the standard of fast bowling, speed and assistance offered by pitches to seam and cut increased or decresed in comparison to the 1980s? Does that have a bearing in assessing the 'greatness' of a batsman? Just as it should apply in gauging a bowler's worth.

Agree or disgaree?

TBF, the standard of bowling being compared 80s and 90s-00s is in favour of the latter era. The 80s had more assistance than the 00s but in general the attacks weren't very good. The 90s is clearly the best era in terms of quality and the conditions being tougher to bat in.

 

[kyear2]

Before Ikki turns this into another thread like the one that was just closed. Cant we just agree to disagree. Ikki thinks that Shane Warne, and Glenn Mcgrath are the two greatest bowlers ever. Nothing we can ever say will change that. Any and every one can find, manipulate or nisrepresent stats and facts to fit their argument. Lets just go by the poll results and leave it at that. They are both great bowlers, no point in trying to denegrate one just to make your point. To me it came down to stats yes, but also the eye ball test and at their prime and I had to face and survive an over from either to save a match I know who I would rather face. Marshall have more tricks and variety and choose to believe it or not, speed kills.

 

[Ikki]

Because it was my posting that closed it? Didn't have anything to do with you, eh? Rubbish stuff there, and irrelevant. We are talking about the batting strengths of the eras. If you have something to add, stay relevant.

 

[smash84]

Mohinder Amarnath, you mean? He averaged 50+ away from home, if stats are your cup of tea. And Vengsarkar was exceptional against seam and swing. Evidenced by his superb series against England in 1986. So, you have two batsmen in the team apart from Gavaskar who is proven quality.



And these names are supposed to prove a point? Except Dravid and Sachin, I don't really see a batsman who could match a pace bowler of McGrath's calibre in away conditions among the names in that list. Not even the wristy Hyderabadi.

And as I said before, Gavaskar put a greater price on his wicket than SRT and even Dravid. To get him out consistently, you had to be as good as a Lillee, a Marshall or an Imran. You still end up with the same average and strike-rates, but some wickets are much harder to get than the others. Life is much easier when you bowl four dot balls and on the fifth one, Sehwag is wafting outside the off-stump!

McGrath's whole game was based on discipline and perservence. In his era of attacking test cricket, those skills suited him. Whether he would have had similar numerical success against a hypothetical line-up of Boycott, Gavaskar, Ken Barrington, Greg Chappell and Allan Border is anyone's guess.



Let's approach this subject differently. In your estimation, has the standard of fast bowling, speed and assistance offered by pitches to seam and cut increased or decresed in comparison to the 1980s? Does that have a bearing in assessing the 'greatness' of a batsman? Just as it should apply in gauging a bowler's worth.

What is your take on that?

some very good points there OSP.

Ah, so it was Amarnath.

Quality players who averaged...? I'd put them on level with Ganguly and Laxman (maybe Laxman should be rated higher IMO). Then you have Dravid, Tendulkar and Sehwag to the remaining of Gavaskar and Azhurradin (who McGrath also faced).

Not really, given Amarnath's away record he easily beats Laxman, and Ganguly. Sehwag can't really play the moving ball so would have been easily found out. Only Dravid and TEndulkar are the real contenders of good players that McGrath had to bowl to.

Furthermore the teams inn the 00s generally played for a higher run rate with attacking batting and so gave many chances to the bowlers. Therefore McGrath all McGrath really had to was to play the patience game and get the batsman out. In a more defensive era Marshall had to make more use of his tricks to dislodge the batsman and he strike an over quicker than McGrath in a defensive era. Looks pretty much in favor of Marshall

 

[G.I.Joe]

I can't believe there exist people that claim India were a better batting side in the 80s than in the 00s Now I've heard it all.

 

[Ikki]

some very good points there OSP.



Not really, given Amarnath's away record he easily beats Laxman, and Ganguly. Sehwag can't really play the moving ball so would have been easily found out. Only Dravid and TEndulkar are the real contenders of good players that McGrath had to bowl to.

Furthermore the teams inn the 00s generally played for a higher run rate with attacking batting and so gave many chances to the bowlers. Therefore McGrath all McGrath really had to was to play the patience game and get the batsman out. In a more defensive era Marshall had to make more use of his tricks to dislodge the batsman and he strike an over quicker than McGrath in a defensive era. Looks pretty much in favor of Marshall

Amarnath has a great away record an abysmal home record. Laxman averaged 50 at home and 44 away. Not even close. Ganguly averages more or less than same home or away. I'd say Amarnath is more in Ganguly's class than Laxman - which, really, I shouldn't have equated to these batsmen as he is better than them.

Per chances, yes the SRs improved but the averages didn't. It reflects the era differences as in McGrath's era getting a result gained more importance. I myself made the claim a few years ago that McGrath would do worse against more persistent batsmen but I remember Manan and Goughy producing some stats/facts essentially refuting this.

I can't believe there exist people that claim India were a better batting side in the 80s than in the 00s Now I've heard it all.

This, really.

 

[smash84]

Amarnath has a great away record an abysmal home record. Laxman averaged 50 at home and 44 away. Not even close. Ganguly averages more or less than same home or away. I'd say Amarnath is more in Ganguly's class than Laxman - which, really, I shouldn't have equated to these batsmen as he is better than them.

yes but Amarnath played the majority of his career overseas and unlike Sehwag (according to many he is a flat track bully) he did extremely well away from home. So are you willing to give home performances a higher weightage than away performance?

 

[Ikki]

yes but Amarnath played the majority of his career overseas and unlike Sehwag (according to many he is a flat track bully) he did extremely well away from home. So are you willing to give home performances a higher weightage than away performance?

Amarnath played 32 tests at home and 37 away...are you serious man? Come on, better than Sehwag now? Maybe my arguing it is giving the impression this is very debatable. It really isnt; the India team of the 90s and 00s is much better than the 80s. The batting line-up, especially, was awesome.

 

[Slifer]

Those players were largely good only at home and one of them Vengsarkar, I think, was actually the opposite.

McGrath faced line-ups of Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly. Ironically, in his last innings against them he faced a lineup of Gambhir, Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman. He also faced Azhurradin in 96/97 and that is far from his last legs.

Really not that close. Moreover, Marshall's record is really flattered by 3 tests in India, he was pretty crappy in the others there. India's line-up during McGrath's time was comparable to Australia's in terms of churning out runs; it was/is one of the ATG batting sides. The 80s version? Strong, but weaker than this one. It was this batting line-up that helped them achieve 2 series wins against one of the greatest Test teams of all time, at their peak.

For someone to mention Shastri and Dev and yet say "McGrath only faced 2 greats" is a bit ludicrous.

PS you're wrong; Sehwag played the entire 04 series at home when McGrath was there.

????? WOW i knew u were desperate but wow!!!

 

[Slifer]

Before Ikki turns this into another thread like the one that was just closed. Cant we just agree to disagree. Ikki thinks that Shane Warne, and Glenn Mcgrath are the two greatest bowlers ever. Nothing we can ever say will change that. Any and every one can find, manipulate or nisrepresent stats and facts to fit their argument. Lets just go by the poll results and leave it at that. They are both great bowlers, no point in trying to denegrate one just to make your point. To me it came down to stats yes, but also the eye ball test and at their prime and I had to face and survive an over from either to save a match I know who I would rather face. Marshall have more tricks and variety and choose to believe it or not, speed kills.

Logic and stats wont work buddy. MM has to be reborn as an Ozzie for u know who to think he has ne worth tbh.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

PS you're wrong; Sehwag played the entire 04 series at home when McGrath was there.

Please read carefully what I wrote again.

"Sehwag played just one test away from home in which McGrath was also participating."

Away from Sehwag's home, that means outside India. That only test was the ICC XI vs. Aus played at Sydney, 2005.

The intention was to specifically analyse the merits of the Indian batsmen in away conditions against McGrath. Sehwag vs. McGrath does not give us a decent sample size. I've already mentioned what I think would have happened if such a contest would have taken place.

 

[smash84]

Please read carefully what I wrote again.

"Sehwag played just one test away from home in which McGrath was also participating."

Away from Sehwag's home, that means outside India. That only test was the ICC XI vs. Aus played at Sydney, 2005.

The intention was to specifically analyse the merits of the Indian batsmen in away conditions against McGrath. Sehwag vs. McGrath does not give us a decent sample size. I've already mentioned what I think would have happened if such a contest would have taken place.

Agree with your Sehwag assessment. Actually Jimmy Amarnath had totally slipped my mind. He was such a gun.

 

[smash84]

Amarnath played 32 tests at home and 37 away...are you serious man? Come on, better than Sehwag now? Maybe my arguing it is giving the impression this is very debatable. It really isnt; the India team of the 90s and 00s is much better than the 80s. The batting line-up, especially, was awesome.

it is quite debatable actually. Marshall had to bowl at home bullies as well as batsmen who were guns away from home.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Ah, so it was Amarnath.

Quality players who averaged...?

It's good if I clarify something at the onset. Stats are one of the many pointers I use for reference. Expert opinions, visual impressions and unquantifiable merits (like batting well with the tail) go a long way in my assessment of a player.

Mohinder Amarnath, IMHO, was a genuinely great player of fast bowling. Much superior to Ganguly or Laxman. That is based on a wide range of opinions and in Jimmy's case, stats seem to bear it out. His away average, as you very rightly pointed out, is 50+.

If you reckon that Laxman or Ganguly were as good as (or possibly better than).Amarnath in playing pace, then I'm interested to know the reasoning behind that.

Whether Gavaskar put a greater price on his wicket is subjective because Dravid and Tendulkar actually scored more than him - so in reality, they put a heavier price.

The implication being that the level of difficulty a Tendulkar or a Gavaskar faced while batting would have been more or less the same. Is there a way to quantify that? Not a blight on you or the argument in any sense, but I always experience this classical problem when trying to compare across eras!

TBF, the standard of bowling being compared 80s and 90s-00s is in favour of the latter era.

Agreed that the standard of bowling in 90s was higher than 80s. What about 2000s vs. 80s? It is my opinion, and purely my own, that the global bowling standards reduced drastically post 1999/'00 or so. Many fine/great fast bowlers retiring in that period being the major reason.

Also the pitches eased out and that is something both of us agree on. The fact that McGrath performed brilliantly in such an era must also be kept in mind, in the context of this thread.



And you still didn't get back on the Kapil-Shastri factor. The India team of the 80s batted deeper and had lower order players (Binny, Madan et. al.) who could play genuine pace better - courtesy of batting day in and day out on livelier pitches in that era. So, am not really sure if the Indian line-up of the 90s (over-reliance on Sachin was a factor) was that much greater than the one in the 80s, if at all.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

it is quite debatable actually. Marshall had to bowl at home bullies as well as batsmen who were guns away from home.

Exactly! It was a deeper Indian batting line-up as well. I am not sure if that's being appreciated enough around here.

 

[asty80]

Mcgrath to me. Marshall had the benefit of bowling to batsmen without helmets, which might have jackedup his figures a bit. just a bit.
Mcgrath could have played in any era and would have had the same success. That blind spot for batsmen has never been expoited better.