Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't think any batsman was able to play Marshal comfortably during his peak. He troubled the best batsman from the opposition. Did anyone play Marshal with ease or troubled him or frustrated him during his peak years?
Of course must have been an indian superman who did it..
I'm sure there were some excellent performances in the draw inducing pitches as well.. See Junaids' post for an example.
Someone explain to me why the list is longer in the draw inducing pitches.... Than result inducing pitches?
If you're going that way about it. Why not discount "result" inducing games where spinners/medium pacers took wickets to effect result? Such might not be the right kind of pitch to judge a batsman's ability to face Marshall.
You are mistaking your data.
Border, Amarnath and Crowe didn't play on "draw pitches."
They turned certain defeats into draws by showing incredible technique, concentration, stamina, endurance and courage.
If you're going that way about it. Why not discount "result" inducing games where spinners/medium pacers took wickets to effect result? Such might not be the right kind of pitch to judge a batsman's ability to face Marshall.
Averages over 40 when Marshall played.... (min 300 runs)
In matches where there was a "result" pitch....
S Malik
K Wessels
R Smith
S Waugh
M Taylor
In matches which had a "draw" pitch...
Border
Gavaskar
Vengsarkar
Amarnath
Crowe
D Jones
Gooch
Shastri
Its his way of discounting players like Gavaskar,Amarnath,Border etc since they dont fit his agenda.Take out this pitch take out that pitch this years that opposition to suit your agenda.
Why not discount result pitches while talking about bowlers as result pitches are bowler friendly?
@KP... Those are all possibilties... No one is denying that.
Point is that when the numbers are large enough the anomalies cancel out.
If u look at a players overall career....
Splitting the runs scored in drawn games from others shows how much average inflation there is.
Its better than a plain average... It's better than Sub-Con vs non Sub-Con...
No it's not. It's something that you've personally chosen for your own agenda. Not a single member of this forum has ever agreed with you on this matter, not even Pakistani posters (let along non-Pak ones). Try and find me one non-Pak poster who agrees with you.@KP... Those are all possibilties... No one is denying that.
Point is that when the numbers are large enough the anomalies cancel out.
If u look at a players overall career....
Splitting the runs scored in drawn games from others shows how much average inflation there is.
Its better than a plain average... It's better than Sub-Con vs non Sub-Con...
People from sub contintent have a subservient approach generally when it comes to the west....
We have to believe the fallacy that Sub-Con is flat... And west has tough pitches.
False.... Plenty Sub-Con pitches are tough to bat on.
Just look at Aussies struggling on raging turners.
Some games drawn due to merits... But generally due to flatness.
4th innings runs in drawn games are valuable as these were saving a defeat into a draw when the pitch might be finally breaking up.
An even more simple question, why should a brilliant innings by a player that helped his team draw a match be ignored under the guise of it being a 'drawn match'? That would be injustice to that player which cannot be done.
That's why you cannot filter flat tracks from non-flat ones (unless you have an agenda like somehow trying to make your players look better than others). All you can do is look at a players performance at 'home' and 'away from home'
Like it or not, the fact remains that Mohindar Amarnath is the only person who can lay claim to that title. And not just Marshall, Mohindar Amarnath in the India tour of WI in 1982, when literally the trio - Andy Roberts, Michael Holding and Marshall were at their peak, scored 600 runs in 5 matches against that bowling attack at an average of 67. To put things in perspective, the 2nd highest top scorer for India was Vensgarkar with 279 runs.
Now the natural argument would be whether Marshall was at his peak - Well, he did average 23 runs per wicket in that year, and less that in the 2 years around it. Holding averaged 17.5 in the 2 years on both sides of that series. Amarnath in those 5 matches, was the best a batsmen could ever be against the WI bowling attack.
Like it or not, the fact remains that Mohindar Amarnath is the only person who can lay claim to that title.
No, he can't. Amanarth did well in one series against Marshall / Holding / Garner but then got badly busted up in India - he couldn't buy a run.
The only batter to have sustained success in that era of WI dominance was Gooch with six centuries, and Maco cleaned him up a lot of times too.
i get your point, but my understanding and based upon the discussions, the thread is not abt who was the most consistent but who decisively mastered these bowlers for a period.
Simple question....
Why are batting averages higher in drawn games across every decade cricket has been played????
Here are the WI BOWLERS Gavaskar scored his 13 100s against;
1) 1971 (his 100# 1, 2 ,3, and 4)
Boyce, Shillingford, Sobers (end of his career), Gibbs.
Only Gibbs (offie) was any decent bowler. Boyce and Shiingford were no faster than Balaji! WI were not THE BEST in 1971.
2) 1975-76 (100# 5 and 6).
Yes....Robert and Holding were there but Holding's was very early in his career and not very accuarte that time. WI were just trashed by Aus 5-1 in test series. They were not the BEST!
3) 1978-79 (100# 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Against a very DEPLETED WI side whose main players were gone to Kerry Packer. Holder, Clark and Marshall (in his first series) on DEAD/SPINNING wickets....hencse 3 100s. Holder was slower than Balaji!
All their players were gone to Karry packer!
4) 1982-83 (100# 11).
Yes, this was the true/fast WI bowling attack (Robert, Holding, marshal and garner) but he scored on dead batting wicket after WI had scored 470 runs in the first innings.
5) 1983-84 (100# 12 and 13).
Against Holding Marshal, Daniel and Davis....on a batting wicket oif Dehli and the match was drawn. Davis and Daniel were not very good fast bowlers!
13th 100 came against Holding, Marshall, Davis and aging Robets. Again a dead pitch match drawn after no first day's play.
season 1982/83 5 9 1 240 147* 32 20 30.00 1 0 1
season 1983/84 6 11 1 505 236* 121 90 50.50 2 1 2
In last two series when WI were good and had good attack,
see his average in 82-83 series. In 83-84 in India the wickets were spinning or batting wickets.
So......as in reality Gavaskar MOSTLY scored his runs/100s against CRAPY WI attacks....not when they were the best!
WHO told you that WINDIES were neutralised on Indian pitches?Gavaskar-West Indies myth busted....
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=512209&postcount=148
Was drawing against Windies in the 80s easy?
HOW MANY DRAWS DID ENGLAND ACHIEVE IN THAT PERIOD?
Did England play on the Indian roads?
Did England play WI when 10 of their top fast bowlers were playing for Packer?
Sorry to go off topic, have asked you this before, how is it that the same "Indian roads" become "Spitting cobras" turning square from day one when the discussion is about Indian spinners?
Did England play on the Indian roads?
Did England play WI when 10 of their top fast bowlers were playing for Packer?
Gavaskar-West Indies myth busted....
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=512209&postcount=148
If I asked you who Lillee was... you'll tell me it is a stupid question.I knew you would ask that.
Your assumptions that Windies bowlers were neutralised in India are ridiculous.
India actually did better in the Windies and way better than England. in the 80s.
and I specifically said 80s. You make it look like Gavaskar played a lot of tests where Windies great pacers were missing when it was just one series.
hahaha, cmng from someone who keeps reminding that Pak drew a series against Wi in WI in late 80s and that it was a mammoth achievement. That the one match they won against WI was against a bunch of rookies and not the great WI team of 70s and 80s , he conveniently forgot to mention. But then for someone, whose day job is to build up some colorful (blue, pink, red fonts to draw attention since the content can't) stats, which would lack any analysis, to show something like Umar Gul is a better bat than Gavaskar or SRT, what better we could expect.
Gavaskar-West Indies myth busted....
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=512209&postcount=148
are these those matches when Marshall was at his peak as the thread title suggests? bcoz if not, then these stats are irrelevant. Peak matters, Even pak managed to win a test match against windies in WI in late 80s but that didn;t mean much bcoz the WI team then had no marshall, no holding, no richard and the bowling attack was a rookie one..So u see, pull out the relevant stats..
Sorry to go off topic, have asked you this before, how is it that the same "Indian roads" become "Spitting cobras" turning square from day one when the discussion is about Indian spinners?
I will tell you why, take for instance 87 tour of Pak to India. First four matches were on dead pitches and both team's batsmen scored a plenty, a few hundreds in every inns. The last match in Bengalore was a spitting cobra and with the leader that Imran was, he read the situation cleverly and included two spinners, he knew what the opposition was upto. We won by 16 runs
Well there can be another thread on this. Richards was the captain then, Windies had no rookies but next monster bowling line-up like Ambrose, Walsh and yes they had Marshall. It was a full side unlike the ones Gavaskar faced back in 70s with no main seamers.
I am not putting Miandad as the master of marshal, although he did score two hundreds in that 88 tour, because Marshal was on downhill slope
1983:
Runs: 240 Ave: 30.00 Hundreds: 1
THis is the only time he faced a full fledged WI attack. One big innings of 147* .... brings his average up to 30 in the series. No fifty!![]()
I didn't want to mention this. But it is true.
If they Gavaskar's runs are a myth , then so is this 'achievement'.
As I recall, Sunny dropped down the order to #4 because Marshall and Holding kept getting him with the new ball.
However, he did then get 236*.
As I recall, Sunny dropped down the order to #4 because Marshall and Holding kept getting him with the new ball.
However, he did then get 236*.
Fact remains that Gavaskar relied on flat tracks for his runs...
All draws
Doesnt mean it wasnt hard.... Its always hard facing Marshall.,
Well there can be another thread on this. Richards was the captain then, Windies had no rookies but next monster bowling line-up like Ambrose, Walsh and yes they had Marshall.
Averages over 40 when Marshall played.... (min 300 runs)
In matches where there was a "result" pitch....
S Malik
K Wessels
R Smith
S Waugh
M Taylor
In matches which had a "draw" pitch...
Border
Gavaskar
Vengsarkar
Amarnath
Crowe
D Jones
Gooch
Shastri
One of the most underrated Pakistani batsmen. His ..err.. extracurricular activities killed his legacy but he was a sight for sore eyes when batting. Right up there with Saeed Anwar as one of the most elegant Pakistani batsmen ever and it wasn't all style no substance either. Played some amazing innings in some pretty hopeless situations.
One of the most underrated Pakistani batsmen. His ..err.. extracurricular activities killed his legacy but he was a sight for sore eyes when batting. Right up there with Saeed Anwar as one of the most elegant Pakistani batsmen ever and it wasn't all style no substance either. Played some amazing innings in some pretty hopeless situations.
His record suggests he was one of the few that succeeded when the going got tough.
Some amazing double standards there.
Salim Malik on 'result' pitches - 53 matches, 2727 runs@38 with 5 100s
On 'flat' pitches with draw- 50 matches, 3041 runs@51 with 10 100s
Malcolm Marshall. I have just been reading about him. He sounds amazing, and it's very sad that he died so young.
dude, about gavaskar -
Imran Khan describes Sunil as “The most compact batsman to whom I have ever bowled.”
Graham Gooch called him a genius placing him in his all time eleven as an opener with Barry Richards.
Mike Proctor even though a South African stated “Barry Richards was technically better but overall Gavaskar was a better batsman .If I had to bet on a batsman to make a hundred the first man would be Sunil.”
Brian Crowley of South Africa “Bradman did not have to contrend with the seemingly inevitable battery of fast bowlers in every international team, something Gavaskar handled with great courage.”
Ian Botham stated, “He is the best opening batsman I have seen.He can defend like Boycott at the same time keep the scoreboard ticking like Gordon Greenidge.”
Mike Brearley said “He has perfect technique, good balance and is almost never rattled or made to look ungainly He never allows the half-volley to go unpunished and for is height is a remarkable player of short pitched bowling.”.
Alan Davidson rates "Gavaskar technically the best batsman he has ever seen"
Forget everyone, Sir Viv Richards rated Gavaskar as the best batsman of his era,while Gary Sobers rated "Sunil as the best opening batsman he ever played with or against, who scored runs against the best attacks all over the world."
Is there anything left to be said? PPers can criticize him as much as they want, but unfortunately for them, facts can't be changed.
Fact remains that Gavaskar relied on flat tracks for his runs...
All draws
Doesnt mean it wasnt hard.... Its always hard facing Marshall.,