• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why was Malcolm Marshall so middling in ODIs?

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Bevan ATG in ODIs middling in tests
Marshall ATG in tests middling in ODIs


simple.
I disagree. Marshall in ODIs was much better than Bevan in Tests and, as PEWS has explained, Marshall's ODI stats being "middling" is almost entirely a result of a poor final stretch when he was either past it, or likely was used in a different role. And regardless Marshall's economy rate is still one of the best of all time.
 

aussie tragic

International Captain
This thread has to be a joke ;)

As already stated, Marshall averaged only 23 after 100 ODI's and that era was more concerned with economy rates (who cares if they only got 5 out if score was 220-250). I find it interesting that 5 West Indies bowlers are in the top 10 economy rates of all-time (min 250 overs was on the stat site).

1. Garner
4. Holding
6. Roberts
8. Ambrose
10. Marshall

Also, what was Marshall's economy rate prior to his last 40 ODI's highlighted as his ODI decline. I'm sure he would be higher then his current 10th best of all-time economy
 
Last edited:

Red

The artist formerly known as Monk
Nah, disagree strongly Mr.

Marshall would be a far bigger asset in an ODI XI than Bevan would be in a test XI.
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
Depends on the other players in the team

Not where I intended this thread to go but Bev did average a ****ton in FC and he only really had 3 bad series in tests (to go with 2 good ones)

I stress this because he's often lumped in with Hick and Ramprakash who had way more missed opportunities in tests than Bev
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Nope.

Marshall was technically adept for any form of game. Bevan was not. Not even a comparison.
MrMr is off the mark but these is even more so. Absolute drivel.

Bevan's Test averages (both batting and bowling) are not even close to representative of his ability, or how he would have done if given another, longer chance post 1999. And the "technical issues" excuse (eg. "can't play the short ball") has always been rubbish.
 
Last edited:

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
MrMr is off the mark but these is even more so. Absolute drivel.

Bevan's Test averages (both batting and bowling) are not even close to representative of his ability, or how he would have done if given another, longer chance post 1999. And the "technical issues" excuse (eg. "can't play the short ball") has always been rubbish.
Yeah Bevan would eventually have come good in tests. His weakness to the short ball was a myth. In any other era he'd have played 100 tests. But such was the strength of 90s Australia, Bevan, Lehmann, Law and Love got way less tests than players of the ability deserved.

But as it stands Marshall had a better ODI career than Bevan had test career.
 

mr_mister

Hall of Fame Member
You were meant to school jedi on Fairbrother's ATG status and his role as the original finisher Fred not simply like my post
 

Migara

International Captain
MrMr is off the mark but these is even more so. Absolute drivel.

Bevan's Test averages (both batting and bowling) are not even close to representative of his ability, or how he would have done if given another, longer chance post 1999. And the "technical issues" excuse (eg. "can't play the short ball") has always been rubbish.
Let me hear you saying "It is performance in number that matters" sort of crap in the future.
 

Top