smash84
The Tiger King
errr....No. There are some things that Tendulkar can't match. Like getting a pair on returnSehwag does everything Tendulkar can do, only 15 balls quicker.
errr....No. There are some things that Tendulkar can't match. Like getting a pair on returnSehwag does everything Tendulkar can do, only 15 balls quicker.
It wan't just any pair, a king pair to booterrr....No. There are some things that Tendulkar can't match. Like getting a pair on return
haha.....dude see the below posts for some of the answersSehwag does everything Tendulkar can do, only 15 balls quicker.
NO
(averages about 38 outside subcontinent IIRC)
What like average below 30 in ENG, NZ & SA?
What, gets out cheaply on tours of England?
Didn't he say that about Lillee and McGrath, not Marshall and McGrath?I guess Chappell's statement fits here better when comparing these two. "Marshall could do everything that McGrath could and do it 10 mph quicker"
haha.....tbf Chappell had said this in comparison of McGrath and Lillee and I thought it fit here betterHe could, sums him up perfectly. Guy was a beast with the ball in his hand.
haha....yeah I forgot to add the word KING. Read somewhere (probably on this forum) only 3 openers in history have managed this? Not sure how true this is but I am sure this is something Tendulkar will find hard to matchIt wan't just any pair, a king pair to boot
haha....you beat me to it before I had a chance to clear it outDidn't he say that about Lillee and McGrath, not Marshall and McGrath?
he makes crap statements but some of his statements make sense. The one that I mentioned was fitting in quite beautifully herePeople actually take Chappell's comments seriously?
exactly the reason i had in mind.Marshall was entertaining and a good bowler. McGrath was a good bowler but boring so the former for me
Agree, Marshall is imo the best bowler I have ever seen and a much as I rate McGrath, Marshall is better.Marshall for me. Not seen a better bowler while I have been watching cricket.
Marshall easily
Don't understand these comments at all. I personally believe that at his peak, for five or six years around 1983-89, Malcolm Marshall was the greatest fast bowler there has ever been. But if anyone gives him a hell of run for his money it's McGrath - and saying that either of these blokes is a whole lot better than the other one is ridiculous to me.Marshall >>>>> McGrath
On what I have seen I totally agree. McGrath is being made out to be like Andrew Caddick by some on here which is totally wrong. Both were superb but Marshall was just a bit better, no slight on McGrath though.Don't understand these comments at all. I personally believe that at his peak, for five or six years around 1983-89, Malcolm Marshall was the greatest fast bowler there has ever been. But if anyone gives him a hell of run for his money it's McGrath - and saying that either of these blokes is a whole lot better than the other one is ridiculous to me.
I actually remember this as a comparison Chappell drew between Lindwall and McGrath and the discussion was about an all time Aussie XI. IC said he would go with Lillee and Lindwall as his main bowlers and not McGrath coz Lindwall did everything that McGrath could just that he did it 10 kph quicker.haha.....tbf Chappell had said this in comparison of McGrath and Lillee and I thought it fit here better
I'd go with Marshall and Hadlee. In an all time test XI my fast bowlers would be Marshall, Hadlee and Wasim.Marshall to me is better. But that being said, for me Mcgrath is No. 2. They are both tremendous bowlers, but if I were starting a team from scratch, give me Marshall first. Agression, speed, swing bounce, he had it all. But also imagine that with the accuratcy, persistence and seam of Mcgrath and you have start of your dream attack.