Going by this thread, Marshall was no McGrath, thats for sure.
34 year old McGrath wouldn't have had problems dismissing rookie Sachin.
Did you even see Malcolm Marshall bowl? Your comments reek of pure ignorance. You have shown a poor grasp of cricket history, and that you are completely clueless about what defines fast bowling greatness.
In the eyes of far better judges than you, Marshall is regarded by many as the most complete fast bowler in the game's history. He combined an exquisite set of skills, with a wonderful intellect, to mesmerize the world's best batsmen, for over a decade.
I remember that tournament, and the 91/92 World Series, showcased Malcolm Marshall in the final three months of his international career. The West Indies had dominated cricket for the past 15 years, and the majority of their kings from that golden era, including Richards, Greenidge, Dujon, Haynes and Marshall had already retired, or were about to retire. It was an aging team, that had just denied both Australia and England in 1991, in two epic series, to continue their unbeaten run in Test Cricket, and allow all of their legends the perfect farewell. Most of them retired after that, but Marshall came back for a few more One Day tournaments.
It should be noted, that India in 1991/92, were still a cricketing lightweight, and were hardly a massive motivating factor. It might have been a big deal for Tendulkar to face Marshall, but at the very end of his career, it was hardly motivating for a legend like Marshall, who had accomplished everything there is to achieve in the game of cricket, to bowl to an 18 year old kid, who was just starting his international career.
By this stage, it was clear that Marshall had been mentally 'up' for a long period of time, and that retirement was imminent. Anybody who tries to depict this Malcolm Marshall, as the legendary Malcolm Marshall as we came to know him, is seriously clueless. It's like watching the likes of Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan and Brett Favre who were all mortal in their final days, and then trying to argue, that this is what they were like in their prime. Anybody with eyes, and even a little bit of common sense, knows that it's absolute nonsense.
And that's the hilarious part, how clueless individuals with no basic understanding of the game of cricket, who have never even seen most of these champions play, try and take a few random matches, regardless of context, and declare all sorts of nonsensical generalizations.
Most cricket experts who have actually
seen both Marshall and McGrath, consider Marshall to be the greater bowler. He was far more skillful, and destructive. McGrath took a limited set of skills, and became very successful, but he wasn't anywhere near as brilliant as Marshall. At the peak of his powers, Malcolm Marshall was simply unplayable. As fine a batsman as Tendulkar is, if I had to make a call, I would confidently back Malcolm Marshall every day of the week.
True.
: