Marshall v Hadlee

[capt_Luffy]

I notice this Marshall v Hadlee thread has become a Gavaskar thread.

Happens to all the threads all the times. Every thread will become Warne vs Murali, Sachin vs Lara, Marshall vs McGrath, Sobers vs Imran, etc. at some point.

 

[howitzer]

Happens to all the threads all the times. Every thread will become Warne vs Murali, Sachin vs Lara, Marshall vs McGrath, Sobers vs Imran, etc. at some point.

Tempting fate here.

 

[shortpitched713]

Well Murali is the Hadlee to Warne's Marshall. I think the latter two are slightly overrated, for exactly the same reasons.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Well Murali is the Hadlee to Warne's Marshall. I think the latter two are slightly overrated, for exactly the same reasons.

Don't you rate Murali like, among your highest tier and Warne over Philander?

 

[shortpitched713]

Okay okay, I think Warne is more overrated than Marshall. Reason is more damage done by the time Warne comes in as compared to Marshall, despite them playing on very similar quality teams (i.e. the very best).

 

[kyear2]

Well Murali is the Hadlee to Warne's Marshall. I think the latter two are slightly overrated, for exactly the same reasons.

Why is Marshall over rated?

I've seen persons make the argument that McGrath took out the top order and made it easier for Warne. While McGrath did open the bowling and took his fair share, it's not like Warne came on in the 30th over and cleaned up the tail. He also had more 5 wicket hauls in victories than McGrath, actually Marshall almost has as much 5 wicket hauls as McGrath and one more 10 wicket haul in much less games.

So it's not like Marshall wasn't the driver, so why? And why Marshall and Warne but not McGrath?

 

[kyear2]

Okay okay, I think Warne is more overrated than Marshall. Reason is more damage done by the time Marshall comes in as compared to Warne, despite them playing on very similar quality teams (i.e. the very best).

Marshall opened the bowling and during his peak took 6 wickets per math. He was the best player on a team or retiring or declining greats, with the exception of Garner who was a clear no. 2.

 

[Anil]

Hadlee was fantastic and for me is 2a and 2b with McGrath, however Marshall had that X factor (express pace and intimidation) that separated him, just a little bit. Marshall was the perfect fast bowler.

 

[shortpitched713]

The only bowlers comparable to Maco in my mind were McGrath and Hadlee, period. And for mine Marshall was more skilled, complete, versatile, and had more tools to draw on that the other two. And that's no knock because it is close between the three of them. McGrath had his consistency and longevity and Hadlee the burden of a being the lone wolf.

Steyn, and I love him more than most was more prone than any of my top 6 to be taken apart, he was horribly inconsistent away from home and his only noteworthy away record was in India. He wasn't as versatile, consistent or economical. His record vs Australia and England were less than stellar and that's with the majority of those matches at home. I rate him higher than most and I lived his attacking nature and ability to swing the ball away, but in no area was he better than Marshall.

And that's how I know you don't get it. I watched Curty's entire career, I have books and pictures signed by the great man, I have Sir Curtly Elconn Lynwall Ambrose ranked along with Steyn either 5th or 4th all time (it alternates). With him I felt like we always had a chance, bowling out England for 46, the performances vs Australia..... He's not Marshall, and it's not particularly close.

In modern Test cricket, when it comes to pace bowling, I think the records show something pretty clear. There's a big 5 of the most consistently excellent pace bowlers in Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn. Just short of them are Imran, Garner, Donald for different reasons, but the big 5 stand clear. I don't think there's particularly good reason to dogmatically cling to one being particularly greater, or any being lesser than the rest. I personally prefer the argument for McGrath due to 1) extra longevity, 2) adjusting his average down due to bowling difficulty. However, I can see an argument for any of them, i.e Steyn having the best SR of the lot for higher leverage.

Curtly Ambrose to me had less bowling support than Marshall, which got worse through his career (although still very good, I'd compare it roughly to Steyn's level probably).

Anyway, I think any of these 5 are absolute gems. Any videos I watch of them are real hood classics, and track nicely with the history of high level pace bowling.

 

[shortpitched713]

Marshall opened the bowling and during his peak took 6 wickets per math. He was the best player on a team or retiring or declining greats, with the exception of Garner who was a clear no. 2.

He got Ambrose in his side towards the end, really there was no drop off that I can see throughout his time in the side unlike Ambrose. Just the temporary ebbs and flows of a truly dominant side.

 

[shortpitched713]

Why is Marshall over rated?

I've seen persons make the argument that McGrath took out the top order and made it easier for Warne. While McGrath did open the bowling and took his fair share, it's not like Warne came on in the 30th over and cleaned up the tail. He also had more 5 wicket hauls in victories than McGrath, actually Marshall almost has as much 5 wicket hauls as McGrath and one more 10 wicket haul in much less games.

So it's not like Marshall wasn't the driver, so why? And why Marshall and Warne but not McGrath?

I think I've explained my reasons throughout my posts. I think Marshall's place as the "king of fast bowling" over the other big 5, especially the mystique of his extra "skill" being some sort of tiebreaker, is unwarranted. Of course he had to be more skilled. Being shorter makes things harder in the world of fast bowling (if Marshall was Fidel Edwards height, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.) But if the extra skill nets the same end result, why should it be elevated? Steph Curry has to be more skilled than Michael Jordan, but no fool places the former over the latter.

Like, people talk about Marshall's skiddy bouncer, but it's not some ideal that he developed, it's simply the consequence of him being shorter and having a lower release point, while generating similar pace to the other taller members of his quartet. It complemented his teammates nicely (especially when you have a 6 foot 6 Sesame Street character sending them in from the clouds), but it's not some inherent ideal. Similarly, yes he had to master seam and swing movement both ways, and better control. Because it's just harder for him, when your stock ball comes in from a lower height, even at the same speed, it simply won't be as awkward for batsmen to face unless you have that movement.

Finally, to be clear, I'm not trying to take away anything from what Marshall accomplished. IMO, in evaluating his individual performance it puts him as an equal top 5 ATG in the pantheon of quicks.

 

[kyear2]

He got Ambrose in his side towards the end, really there was no drop off that I can see throughout his time in the side unlike Ambrose. Just the temporary ebbs and flows of a truly dominant side.

Ambrose had Walsh literally his entire career

 

[kyear2]

Okay okay, I think Warne is more overrated than Marshall. Reason is more damage done by the time Marshall comes in as compared to Warne, despite them playing on very similar quality teams (i.e. the very best).

The one think I find hilarious about cricket is that not only do we not celebrate winners, but we try to punish them for it

 

[Coronis]

lol. Actually it is funny to me, we make all the Warne/Murali jokes but I don’t see threads really devolve into them vs one another at all, in fact I don’t really think I’ve seen a serious debate on them in years here (which is a good thing). Seems basically accepted they are around the same level and neither side will go nuts on the other if you pick one over the other. Its kinda nice actually.

The one think I find hilarious about cricket is that not only do we not celebrate winners, but we try to punish them for it

I think we celebrate winners, but also winning is less of a factor in rating than other sports, e.g Basketball, even Rugby League

Reasons for this likely include the sizes of the teams, the lengths of games (even in the NRL with larger teams one player can have a much bigger effect on winning due to the back and forth nature of the games and them being able to be turned on their heads by one or two plays), and the lack of (in test cricket) a proper championship with meaning.

 

[kyear2]

In modern Test cricket, when it comes to pace bowling, I think the records show something pretty clear. There's a big 5 of the most consistently excellent pace bowlers in Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn. Just short of them are Imran, Garner, Donald for different reasons, but the big 5 stand clear. I don't think there's particularly good reason to dogmatically cling to one being particularly greater, or any being lesser than the rest. I personally prefer the argument for McGrath due to 1) extra longevity, 2) adjusting his average down due to bowling difficulty. However, I can see an argument for any of them, i.e Steyn having the best SR of the lot for higher leverage.

Curtly Ambrose to me had less bowling support than Marshall, which got worse through his career (although still very good, I'd compare it roughly to Steyn's level probably).

Anyway, I think any of these 5 are absolute gems. Any videos I watch of them are real hood classics, and track nicely with the history of high level pace bowling.

For the first highlighted text, no argument there, I believe they have separated themselves a bit from the rest. But even among them, there's a separation between the top 3 and the bottom two. Ambrose wasn't the same after the shoulder and could be a little too defensive, Steyn' may have had the lowest strike rate, but by far the highest economy rate and was the most likely to be taken apart. He was also the most inconsistent away from home and have relative holes in his record vs Eng and Aus. Both lacked variety and at times a plan B.

And with regards to why some people try to find a best, because that's what we do. You find the need to say Murali is the best. Persons put forward different names for the best after Bradman, some say Tendulkar, some are making the argument for Smith, some Sobers. But again, that's what we do, it's a cricket forum.

People say Marshall is the best because of what he accomplished and skills exhibited. His ability to perform of non helpful pitches, the various ways he adapted to different pitches to achieve said results. His pace, his ability to swing the ball both directions, the intimidation factor, he literally had and could do everything. Or to quote "he had all the tools and knew when and how to use them".

 

[kyear2]

lol. Actually it is funny to me, we make all the Warne/Murali jokes but I don’t see threads really devolve into them vs one another at all, in fact I don’t really think I’ve seen a serious debate on them in years here (which is a good thing). Seems basically accepted they are around the same level and neither side will go nuts on the other if you pick one over the other. Its kinda nice actually.




I think we celebrate winners, but also winning is less of a factor in rating than other sports, e.g Basketball, even Rugby League

Reasons for this likely include the sizes of the teams, the lengths of games (even in the NRL with larger teams one player can have a much bigger effect on winning due to the back and forth nature of the games and them being able to be turned on their heads by one or two plays), and the lack of (in test cricket) a proper championship with meaning.

Yes, but he's actively demoting them for being successful, or being on quality teams. That's idiotic.

And tell me what damage was done by the time Marshall came on.

He tries to create narratives

 

[kyear2]

I think I've explained my reasons throughout my posts. I think Marshall's place as the "king of fast bowling" over the other big 5, especially the mystique of his extra "skill" being some sort of tiebreaker, is unwarranted. Of course he had to be more skilled. Being shorter makes things harder in the world of fast bowling (if Marshall was Fidel Edwards height, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.) But if the extra skill nets the same end result, why should it be elevated? Steph Curry has to be more skilled than Michael Jordan, but no fool places the former over the latter.

Like, people talk about Marshall's skiddy bouncer, but it's not some ideal that he developed, it's simply the consequence of him being shorter and having a lower release point, while generating similar pace to the other taller members of his quartet. It complemented his teammates nicely (especially when you have a 6 foot 6 Sesame Street character sending them in from the clouds), but it's not some inherent ideal. Similarly, yes he had to master seam and swing movement both ways, and better control. Because it's just harder for him, when your stock ball comes in from a lower height, even at the same speed, it simply won't be as awkward for batsmen to face unless you have that movement.

Finally, to be clear, I'm not trying to take away anything from what Marshall accomplished. IMO, in evaluating his individual performance it puts him as an equal top 5 ATG in the pantheon of quicks.

I'm not going to respond to the first two paragraphs because it's gibberish.

But with regards to the last one, you literally are the one who started the thread, to be petty btw, then stated in the opening paragraph that Hadlee was better.

Now trying to say we shouldn't compare them and that they all are equal? Come on dude.

 

[shortpitched713]

And tell me what damage was done by the time Marshall came on.

Never said this. I gave it as a reason I think Warne is relatively more overrated, and Marshall is a bit less. Let's try reading the posts a bit more accurately before throwing the ad homs. Kthx.

 

[kyear2]

Well Murali is the Hadlee to Warne's Marshall. I think the latter two are slightly overrated, for exactly the same reasons.

Okay okay, I think Warne is more overrated than Marshall. Reason is more damage done by the time Marshall comes in as compared to Warne, despite them playing on very similar quality teams (i.e. the very best).

 

[shortpitched713]

My bad, strike it and reverse it. Warne as the spinner, there's more damage done when he comes in. Should be pretty obvious that's what's meant there, and I've changed the wording.