shortpitched713
Cricketer Of The Year
It's been over 12 years since this thread:
Since then, I think something of a big 5 (Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose, Steyn) of fast bowlers has emerged, and Marshall/McGrath as co-equal GOATs tends to be the consensus compared to Marshall as lone top of the tree from that time.
Maybe the polling will also shift from 12 years ago on this debate (and we also continue to have a strong Kiwi contingent on CW, so that's something too).
I personally, will make no bones that I don't think Marshall deserves to be separate from the rest of the big 5. One of his biggest claims to fame is the whole <25 average against every opponent. I'm sorry, great as Marshall is this is absolutely a bupkus reason for separating him from the rest of the big 5, and this especially applies in a H2H comparison with Hadlee. 3 Tests in Pakistan do not a career defining difference make, otherwise Hadlee could boast the same feat, and to me this is the absolute definition of an argument based on lolsamplesize and the vagaries of statistical probabilities, rather than an actual indicator of bowling qualities. Both bowlers were equally adept against virtually all opposition and conditions they came across.
The real reasons to separate, for me would be a balance between 1) polar opposites of bowling support received (favors Hadlee) 2) SR difference (favors Marshall)
Marshall has a 1.35 superiority in average to Hadlee, and an SR which is superior by 4. Hadlee though, picks up .37 more wickets per innings, and has more 14 more 5 wicket hauls than Marshall. Believe it or not, Hadlee's home conditions were also more challenging, by about .5 extra runs scored per wicket in New Zealand as compared to in the West Indies during their respective careers.
The key, explaining the difference in their approaches and outcomes does come down to the extreme difference in bowling support between the 2, imo. Marshall could focus on being more of a the "true strike bowler" for his sides of 4 horsemen who always applied pressure from which he could benefit. Hadlee, on the other hand, had to carry his team's attack, bowling more marathon spells in circumstances where he may have preferred to and better suited to get a rest if he had adequate support. They both had the ability to be, and are ideally suited to a strike bowling spearhead role for their teams, but only Marshall got to really enjoy that and Hadlee had to be spearhead and workhorse all in one. Throughout his career, Hadlee ended up bowling more than 722 overs more than Marshall, despite them bowling in almost exactly the same number of innings in their career (Marshall bowled in 151, Hadlee bowled in 150).
To me, that factor ends up being the clincher in what is a hairsplitting decision. Having such a difference in bowling circumstance, is imo definitely worth a little bit more than small difference in pure average and strike rate, and it's why I have Hadlee over Marshall.
Marshall vs Hadlee - Poll Added
Discuss who was the better test bowler - don't care about ODIs. Hadlee Avg 22.29 Wickets 431 Matches 86 SR 50.8 Marshall Avg 20.94 Wickets 376 Matches 81 SR 46.7 I will make a case for Hadlee as I feel the general consensus on CW is that Marshall is the better bowler. Yes Hadlee had the...
www.cricketweb.net
Since then, I think something of a big 5 (Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee, Ambrose, Steyn) of fast bowlers has emerged, and Marshall/McGrath as co-equal GOATs tends to be the consensus compared to Marshall as lone top of the tree from that time.
Maybe the polling will also shift from 12 years ago on this debate (and we also continue to have a strong Kiwi contingent on CW, so that's something too).
I personally, will make no bones that I don't think Marshall deserves to be separate from the rest of the big 5. One of his biggest claims to fame is the whole <25 average against every opponent. I'm sorry, great as Marshall is this is absolutely a bupkus reason for separating him from the rest of the big 5, and this especially applies in a H2H comparison with Hadlee. 3 Tests in Pakistan do not a career defining difference make, otherwise Hadlee could boast the same feat, and to me this is the absolute definition of an argument based on lolsamplesize and the vagaries of statistical probabilities, rather than an actual indicator of bowling qualities. Both bowlers were equally adept against virtually all opposition and conditions they came across.
The real reasons to separate, for me would be a balance between 1) polar opposites of bowling support received (favors Hadlee) 2) SR difference (favors Marshall)
Marshall has a 1.35 superiority in average to Hadlee, and an SR which is superior by 4. Hadlee though, picks up .37 more wickets per innings, and has more 14 more 5 wicket hauls than Marshall. Believe it or not, Hadlee's home conditions were also more challenging, by about .5 extra runs scored per wicket in New Zealand as compared to in the West Indies during their respective careers.
The key, explaining the difference in their approaches and outcomes does come down to the extreme difference in bowling support between the 2, imo. Marshall could focus on being more of a the "true strike bowler" for his sides of 4 horsemen who always applied pressure from which he could benefit. Hadlee, on the other hand, had to carry his team's attack, bowling more marathon spells in circumstances where he may have preferred to and better suited to get a rest if he had adequate support. They both had the ability to be, and are ideally suited to a strike bowling spearhead role for their teams, but only Marshall got to really enjoy that and Hadlee had to be spearhead and workhorse all in one. Throughout his career, Hadlee ended up bowling more than 722 overs more than Marshall, despite them bowling in almost exactly the same number of innings in their career (Marshall bowled in 151, Hadlee bowled in 150).
To me, that factor ends up being the clincher in what is a hairsplitting decision. Having such a difference in bowling circumstance, is imo definitely worth a little bit more than small difference in pure average and strike rate, and it's why I have Hadlee over Marshall.
