Malcolm Marshall vs Viv Richards: Who's the greater cricketer?

[smash84]

He could also get a ball to move two ways in one delivery, usually swinging in and seaming away. The only other guy I've seen who could do that with any regularity was Wasim Akram, and he was nowhere near as consistent as Marshall.

What? You must be kidding me. Marshall wasn't as good as Akram in moving the ball around.

 

[Pratters]

Marshall. The greater player. Viv's legacy is a bit undone because of less tv footage from his time compared to the 90s and beyond, mind.

A team of Vivs would win in both tests and odis though v a team of Marshalls as Viv could bowl well enough to get Marshall out and then make the runs.

 

[Stapel]

Macko would likely be in most people's top 5 bowlers. And though Viv would probably be in many people's top 2-6 list of batsmen, he wouldn't be in most's.

 

[harsh.ag]

Macko would likely be in most people's top 5 bowlers. And though Viv would probably be in many people's top 2-6 list of batsmen, he wouldn't be in most's.

Nah he would

 

[smash84]

Pratters why isn't viv greater?

 

[Pratters]

Stapel is spot on. I would pick Greg Chappell ahead of Viv for tests. My all time top 5 would be -

Bradman
Sobers
Hobbs
Chappell
Lara

 

[OverratedSanity]

Weird stuff in this thread from many people. Viv is very much as worthy a contender for the title of 2nd best batsman as Marshall is for bowlers. Viv competes with Sachin/Sobers/Hobbs/Lara etc and Marshall with McGrath/Hadlee/Lillee/Warne/Murali etc.

 

[Pratters]

While that is true (both competing with great players), the number of people who will pick Marshall in their top 5 compared to Viv is higher.

 

[OverratedSanity]

While that is true (both competing with great players), the number of people who will pick Marshall in their top 5 compared to Viv is higher.

On CW you mean. Not necessarily in the general public/critical opinion. Viv was way higher than Marshall in that ESPN legends of cricket list, for example.

 

[Stapel]

Stapel is spot on.

Of course I am. Why do you feel the need to address such a thing? Might as well explain to people that one and one is two.....

 

[Stapel]

On CW you mean. Not necessarily in the general public/critical opinion. Viv was way higher than Marshall in that ESPN legends of cricket list, for example.

Well, the ESPN list of legends.......

Just to clarify. Viv would probably be in my to 5. But, today, a list of possible top 5 candidates, imho, for batsmen is far longer than such a list for bowlers. In Viv's days, both lists would probably have the same lenghts.

 

[Coronis]

Weird stuff in this thread from many people. Viv is very much as worthy a contender for the title of 2nd best batsman as Marshall is for bowlers. Viv competes with Sachin/Sobers/Hobbs/Lara etc and Marshall with McGrath/Hadlee/Lillee/Warne/Murali etc.

You said it right there. Marshall is competing for best bowler ever. Richards is only competing for 2nd best batsman.

 

[smash84]

You said it right there. Marshall is competing for best bowler ever. Richards is only competing for 2nd best batsman.

That doesn't mean anything tbh.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You said it right there. Marshall is competing for best bowler ever. Richards is only competing for 2nd best batsman.

That's frankly ridiculously unfair on Viv. There's zero shame in not being as good as Rahane.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

What? You must be kidding me. Marshall wasn't as good as Akram in moving the ball around.

Not as good, but more consistent.

 

[smash84]

Not as good, but more consistent.

Nopes. Marshall was neither as good nor as consistent as making the ball swing around. Let's stop making Marshall something that he wasn't.

 

[harsh.ag]

Nopes. Marshall was neither as good nor as consistent as making the ball swing around. Let's stop making Marshall something that he wasn't.

Think he may have meant consistent in the sense of tighter use of swing. Could be the other thing too though.

 

[Slifer]

I love IVA to bits but in this comparison, for reasons already stated by the likes of kyear, MM WINS.

Let's assume the Don never existed, I'd still consider Viv to be in the top 5 batsmen of all time but I'd have a hard time making that argument from a statistical perspective. MM on the other hand has all his bases covered : style, speed, stats, consistency, etc etc

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Think he may have meant consistent in the sense of tighter use of swing. Could be the other thing too though.

This is what I meant. I didn't mean consistently getting swing; Akram was definitely the all-time king of that. I mean getting it to swing and still consistently putting it on the dot.

 

[smash84]

I love IVA to bits but in this comparison, for reasons already stated by the likes of kyear, MM WINS.

Let's assume the Don never existed, I'd still consider Viv to be in the top 5 batsmen of all time but I'd have a hard time making that argument from a statistical perspective. MM on the other hand has all his bases covered : style, speed, stats, consistency, etc etc

That's the thing. I think people are looking wayyyy too much into stats. Iirc imran and hadlee had better stats for the 1980s than Marshall. Marshall isn't hrad and shoulders above imran hadlee steyn donald ambrose holding mcgrath lillee etc. Just like viv isn't greatly better than so many other batsmen. However i think Viv was more instrumental in helping the wi reach great heights than was Marshall. Take Marshall out of thw wi side and you would still have an attack thats ATG and that can hold its own against the best of the best. Take viv out of that team and you can't say that the team would have been that strong without him.