Richard Hadlee vs Curtly Ambrose

[Coronis]

Root has 6? gonna be 8 by the end of next Ashes so.

Be impressive if he got two MOTS against India.

His peak was from, imo, the Pakistan series in 1980 'til Australia 1988. WI definitely peaked at the same time Malcolm did and declined as you said, but that's hardly on sir Malcolm (the decline). At the very least, they still lost zero series while he was playing.

Who?

Statistically speaking Malcolm Marshall is the equivalent of Ken Barrington.

Ken made his debut in 1955.
He became full time in 1959.

Marshall made his debut in 1978.
He became full time in 1983.

Barrington from 1959-1968:
80 Tests. 6754 runs. Avg of 59.77. 20 centuries

Marshall from 1983-1991
69 Tests. 342 wickets. Avg of 19.86. 22 5-Fers

Ken retired in middle of a series due to heart attack. Maco was removed due to internal politics.

 

[sayon basak]

Statistically speaking Malcolm Marshall is the equivalent of Ken Barrington.

Ken made his debut in 1955.
He became full time in 1959.

Marshall made his debut in 1978.
He became full time in 1983.

Barrington from 1959-1968:
80 Tests. 6754 runs. Avg of 59.77. 20 centuries

Marshall from 1983-1991
69 Tests. 342 wickets. Avg of 19.86. 22 5-Fers

Ken retired in middle of a series due to heart attack. Maco was removed due to internal politics.

I don't need to bring up Barrington all the time imo.

 

[Johan]

Be impressive if he got two MOTS against India.

If he got two MOTS against India that would be 3 MOTS awards, considering he has one guaranteed in Australia

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Drew in NZ. The others went home (injured and retired) and he was injured and still took 6 wickets in the game they won. Had nothing left in the last game they lost and didn't even bowl in the final innings if that match.

He went to Pakistan, the toughest place to play in the era for noted reasons, without Holding and Garner. We lost the first match chasing 240 to win and getting bowled out for 53, was that also his fault? when Pakistan went to neutral umpires for the 2nd match we won, the 3rd test drawn to tie the series at one a piece and Marshall was the WI MOS.

Marshall didn't play in the India series.

The tie at home to Pakistan was because we lost the first game that Marshall didn't play.

Once he regained fitness we resumed natural order until the aforementioned date.

But good to know that you don't want to give him any credit for the wins, but all of the blame for the draws.

Agree with all of the above, especially the draw in NZ. Last time there, we actually lost so even that's a big improvement. And true he missed the series in India. The rest, quite frankly WI decline had absolutely nothing to do with Malcolm and everything to do with the batting decline really.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Be impressive if he got two MOTS against India.




Who?



View attachment 47372

Post mortem Slifer knighthood...lol lol

 

[kyear2]

This just goes on to show how amazing Hadlee is.

He has 25% more Man of the Series awards than Marshall and the guy didn't have a great batting or bowling support that the kind Marshall or McGrath had.

This is where you again are disingenuous.

You deliberately say 25% more to make it seem like more than it was.

Marshall has 6 MOS awards from 21 series. Hadlee had 8 from 33 series.
Two of which, btw were against SL

Also I'm not even intimating that Hadlee is anything less than superb, he is very much no. 3 all time for me, it's not much of an argument. But the batsmen and pundits of the era didn't rate nearly as highly as we do.

 

[Johan]

How many of Murali's MOS were against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe

 

[kyear2]

I have never downplayed Marshall’s achievements. I have always rated him as the best ever but he had advantages :
1. Playing for a very strong team
2. Playing alongside some of the greatest bowlers
3. A short career thus preventing his record from declining

Let’s not compare Invicibles with anyone. They were one of the best team ever because of Don Bradman.

And the WI were similarly one if the best two teams ever, because of Marshall as well.

 

[DrWolverine]

But the batsmen and pundits of the era didn't rate nearly as highly as we do.

1. Not exciting enough
2. Not fast enough
3. NZ were not a strong team

 

[DrWolverine]

And the WI were similarly one if the best two teams ever, because of Marshall as well.

Marshall was one of the reasons WI were best.

Bradman was THE reason that team became Invincible

 

[Johan]

What really seprated the Invincibles from Australia before the war was the bowling attack

Lindwall.
Miller.
Johnston.

and then Toshack and Johnson can come in at any point. It's the Best Batsman of all time (Don) combined with great batting support (Harvey, Morris, Hassett, Brown, Miller) then combined with maybe the second or third greatest bowling attack of all time.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall retiring at 33 years is the best thing happened to his legacy. It prevented his numbers from declining and ruining his legacy.

Steyn, Donald, Marshall, Imran, Lillee etcwere bowlers who relied a lot on pace and once their speed declined they would no longer be effective.

Hadlee, McGrath, Ambrose, Akram, Garner etc did not rely so much on pace and that’s why they continued to effective even when they were older

In England 1988, and the subsequent series, Marshall didn't have the pace that he had earlier in his career, but that genuine express pace and the hectic schedule that we were subject to wore him down a bit. But in England, he cut back his pace and alternated between swing and focusing on cutters and cut England apart.

He was more adaptable than any of the other bowlers on that list, why couldn't he have been successful?

 

[kyear2]

Yet another point that you denied at first when we brought it up only to accept it now.

It was negligible, it didn't impact his numbers in any tangible way.

 

[DrWolverine]

Marshall retired : 33 years
McGrath retired : 37 years
Hadlee retired : 39 years

I do not think Marshall would have sustained his excellence if he played till 36 years let alone 39 years

 

[Johan]

Hadlee averages 23 without Sri Lanka iirc, I don't think Marshall would go up two points unless he pulls a Ray Lindwall.

 

[kyear2]

By pretty much nobody actively in our discussions on CW, maybe?

Compared to how you deify Marshall and put him up there with Bradman Sobers?



Name me a flaw of Marshalls. I'm waiting.

This is the third time I'm saying this, as you enjoy repeating lies.

Becuse I have him 3rd doesn't mean he's in the pantheon with Bradman and Sobers. No one is.

I have him very much with Hobbs, McGrath and Warne.

 

[kyear2]

Statistically speaking Malcolm Marshall is the equivalent of Ken Barrington.

Ken made his debut in 1955.
He became full time in 1959.

Marshall made his debut in 1978.
He became full time in 1983.

Barrington from 1959-1968:
80 Tests. 6754 runs. Avg of 59.77. 20 centuries

Marshall from 1983-1991
69 Tests. 342 wickets. Avg of 19.86. 22 5-Fers

Ken retired in middle of a series due to heart attack. Maco was removed due to internal politics.

Marshall in '78 was forced in becuse of WSC

His real debut was '80, he played I think 8 games that year. He missed the Australia tour in '82, but he was there and ready, as he showed vs India.

The difference is that one was rated by all the best of his day, decade and era, the other wasn't rated until decades later.

 

[Coronis]

So the Invincibles were only the Invincibles for the one series I mean that’s what the whole name is about. Australia were very successful across the next 3 series post Bradman, 1 each against South Africa, England and Windies. 12-2-1. They then drew against SA 2-2 before losing to England 0-1 iirc.

Players stats for that era..

Harvey 15 matches 27 innings 1283 @ 53.45 4 tons 5 fifties
Hassett 14 matches 23 innings 1170 @ 53.18 4 tons 6 fifties
Miller 15 matches 27 innings 958 @ 41.65 2 tons 4 fifties
Morris 14 matches 25 innings 929 @ 37.16 3 tons 1 fifty
Moroney 7 matches 12 innings 383 @ 34.81 2 tons 1 fifty

Johnston 15 matches 29 innings 68 @ 19.44 3 5’fers
Miller 15 matches 29 innings 54 @ 20.16 3 5’fers
Lindwall 14 matches 27 innings 48 @ 22.41 2 5’fers
Johnson 14 matches 24 innings 33 @ 30.57 1 5’fer
Iverson 5 matches 8 innings 21 @ 15.23 1 5’fer

 

[kyear2]

1. Not exciting enough
2. Not fast enough
3. NZ were not a strong team

McGrath nor Marshall were exciting.

McGrath wasn't fast

Hutton wasn't exciting nor fast, and the not strong team is not valid because they gave everyone hell in NZ.

So the reason that Crowe rated Lillee, Marshall and Wasim ahead of him was because he was from NZ?

Boycott didn't pick him because he wasn't exciting?

They all played against him, Willis, Gooch, Gower. Swanton or CMJ just forgot about him as well?

He just wasn't rated as highly as he is now.

 

[kyear2]

Marshall was one of the reasons WI were best.

Bradman was THE reason that team became Invincible

So not Lindwall and Miller, Johnston etc etc.

None of the players played in all of the matches btw. They all alternated for the tour matches.