Who was the better bowler - Marshall or Tendulkar?

[The Outsider]

And speaking of old videos is this video also showing Holding to be a club bowler as it is older than the Kapil video ?

By the way, in matches Kapil and Holding played together - 11 of them - Kapil averaged 20 and Holding averaged 28. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out who bowled to the better line up against pace bowling.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

His FC career is worth 48 matches .... definitely enough sample. And Kumble is obviously not a good bowler going by your standards of ranking as he has far inferior stats compared to Toshack. And Toshack is not touted as a fast bowler but a medium pacer. The videos that I posted in those Bradman threads were to highlight the trundler'esque nature of bowlers in those days which is bleedingly obvious. None of those videos were as poor in quality as the Kapil video which appears to be like a copy of a copy of copy of a worn video tape. So please explain how a video is capable of making a bowler look crap.

The question is how can you judge Kapil based on that clip! :giggle:

[zen]

Also if the highlights is about batting then it would normally show bowlers being hit all around the park and not batsmen being beaten by the ball. It's idiotic to show batting highlights to show how good / bad the bowling was in a period :giggle:

[The Outsider]

His FC career is worth 48 matches .... definitely enough sample. And Kumble is obviously not a good bowler going by your standards of ranking as he has far inferior stats compared to Toshack. And Toshack is not touted as a fast bowler but a medium pacer.

I don't think 10 test matches is a good enough sample to judge a bowler. You may have a different opinion, which is fine, but don't force me to make a judgment on someone who played 10 test matches, since I don't consider it to be an adequate sample.

The videos that I posted in those Bradman threads were to highlight the trundler'esque nature of bowlers in those days which is bleedingly obvious. None of those videos were as poor in quality as the Kapil video which appears to be like a copy of a copy of copy of a worn video tape. So please explain how a video is capable of making a bowler look crap.

Wrong. They are worse quality videos, just have been artificially slowed down which does not add anything to their absolute quality.

[Sooda]

From an Interview with Sir Garry posted in an old thread

-- I would not enjoy playing in England now; it's like everywhere else. And they don't have wet wickets any more. Or a back-foot rule. Now they have a front-foot rule. You can only bowl so many bouncers an over, only have two men behind square. The bowlers are the ones who've suffered. I don't like making comparisons between players of different eras, but if Bradman played today he'd be far better. Today, people are bowling from 22 yards. In those days they bowled from 20 yards with four leg slips, six bouncers an over, beamers were not called no-balls, on wet wickets. --

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=5504

Great post Donny ... whats your take on the then vs now comparisons as you would have had a better exposure to a bit of both.

I simply don't bother with it. Far too hypothetical.

:D Wise man

[zen]

In 1966, WI got bundled out of 269 in the first inning, with Eng replying with 355. In the 2nd innings, WI was 91/4 effectively being 5/4 when Sobers enters and scores 160 odd, and helps Holford get a 100 too, to get WI out of the jail .... That's stuff of legends stuff of legends

[pensionplan]

all ifs and buts and could have and would have.

You still did not explain why Tendulkar took 15 innings more than Lara to get to Lara's mark of 11953 runs who you think is more consistent than Lara and you are into questioning others because they do not worship that one player who you think of as Sachin=GOD.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

So what's happening to Tendulkar in testing conditions in the first innings in SA. Only 30 odd in the first test and now only 13 .... I thought that the batsman said to be the best of his time would at least rise a little above others (something like Lara or even Sehwag did in SL) :((

[Sachin=GOD]

So what's happening to Tendulkar in testing conditions in the first innings in SA. Only 30 odd in the first test and now only 13 .... I thought that the batsman said to be the best of his time would at least rise a little above others (something like Lara or even Sehwag did in SL) :((

I seem to remember a 112* somewhere in between these two innings :hmmm:

[zen]

I seem to remember a 112* somewhere in between these two innings :hmmm:

Read carefully, I am talking about the doing well in the testing conditions in the first innings :P So do we have to wait for the surface to flatten out a little for the master to shine! .... May be the little master is the best flat pitch batsman of his time, so disappointing :((

[Sid]

I seem to remember a 112* somewhere in between these two innings :hmmm:

he is talking about testing conditions in the 1st innings :--D

[achilles]

Please no smileys. This is a thread to have a serious discussion in a mature manner. Don't bother posting here if all you have to contribute are one liners and smileys. I think Tendulkar was overall the better bowler for the following reasons : 1. He could bowl seam, swing, off spin, and leg spin. Marshall was just all about pace. 2. Tendulkar had a deadly googly. Marshall tried perfecting it throughout his career in the nets, but was never brave enough to use it in a test match. 3. Tendulkar defended 4 runs off the last over in a high pressure final. Marshall was never able to do it. 4. Just look at their first series where they took a wicket. Tendulkar averaged 4 with the ball in Australia with a strike rate of 10 in the '92 series in Australia. Marshall's figures were average of 88 and strike rate of 150. 5. Tendulkar won arguably the greatest test of all time at Calcutta 2001 with the ball. Marshall did not even feature in a test like that, forget about winning. 6. Tendulkar also won the India the test at Adelaide turning it out of the rough. Marshall could never get as much turn as that. His wickets mainly came from straighter deliveries. Tendulkar was just too burdened with responsibilities of captaincy, batting, and the expectations of a billion people to utilize his potential to the fullest extent, but man for man there is no doubt he was miles and away a better bowler than Marshall.

^ But we still have to discuss how Tendulkar was a better captain than Border' date=' a better wicketkeeper than Alan Knot, a better close in catcher than Solkar, a better in fielder than Rhodes, and a better out fielder than Kapil.[/quote']

I think Bradman is a better bowler than both, because: 1) Bowling in the 1940s when the cricketing era was super competitive was always gonna be difficult. 2) Imagine bowling in an era where the top batsman (which is Bradman himself) averaged 99 - scaaaryy! 3) One word: Bodyline.. Dont ask me why, i dont know. Every time we discuss 1940s, people utter this one word, as if this explains everything. 4) Imagine bowling with those appalling fielders to support you. It couldnt get more challenging than that. 5) Video clips show that all batsmen of the 40s looked like nincompoops playing even the most elegant of cover drives. In no other era, bowlers made batsmen look so ugly. 6) One could argue that Bradman the bowler, never bowled to Bradman the batsman. But this is more of a myth than truth. Since the fastest bowlers of the 40s bowled at 2 miles per hour, many times Bradman bowled to himself & then quickly padded up, wore his gear & was at the other end in no time to promptly hit the ball for a boundary. And what more, historians of the 40s wrote in London times that Bradman is the greatest of the 12 cricketers they've seen. Thats good enough for me.

Look a Pakistani! Turn your attention to him!

Posts of the month. Hilarious stuff guys.

[Nirvanam]

Outsider, I don't understand why you are arguing against Sachin's superiority over Marshall as a bowler. If I am not mistaken, you actually voted that Sachin is superior to Marshall.

[achilles]

Outsider, I don't understand why you are arguing against Sachin's superiority over Marshall as a bowler. If I am not mistaken, you actually voted that Sachin is superior to Marshall.

Sarcasm.

[zen]

The master again disappoints by scoring just 6 runs in the 2nd innings when a good inning by him could have put India in a position of strength :((

[Clarke]

For the sake of our neighbors (remember the commandments!) add Tim Southee as an option, fella almost got his second hat trick in as many matches :giggle: