Warne v McGrath

[Ikki]

Was Walsh an Aussie too ?

I think you have defeated your own argument at least in the case of McDermott, Alderman and Thomson.

Say what you would, but I will pick Kumble over Warne everytime there was a game in India.

Stephan Fleming did better than Ponting in India too...doesn't put him on the same planet as Ponting.

The reason I used Walsh is to illustrate a player like the lesser known Aussie players who just happened to have a longer career and rack up more wickets. In ability, not much different from them.

Anyway, good to see you didn't argue that Australia has a history of making McGraths, even if you disagreed with a few of the names I mentioned. The original point stands.

 

[Ikki]

Damien Fleming only on a slightly lower level than McGrath???

You have to be joking.

Well, you probably weren't born then.

Damien Fleming:

Average: 25.89 SR: 55.0

 

[zaremba]

Well, you probably weren't born then.

Damien Fleming:

Average: 25.89 SR: 55.0

Yes but you're talking about 75 Test wickets - not a large enough sample to be confident that it's representative of his ability.

Their respective First-Class records better reflect their relative abilities in my view:
McGrath: average 20.85 strike rate 50
Fleming: average 28.28 strike rate 62

McGrath was different class.

Fleming was a good bowler, mind you. But rightly or wrongly I've always thought of him as a poor man's Terry Alderman.

 

[shankar]

Because there is this consistent rabbiting about how performing "these days" is so infinitely easier. Then the argument goes to his 90s days and he has a poor record against 2/4 of the best bowling attacks of the time and good against teams that are more or less the same in strength in the 2000s.

Because players stay the same throughout 20 years? So the ultimate proof for batting being easier would be for a batsman who's finished playing for 13-14 years to have a further 7 years performing at the same level?

Regarding the comparison of conditions for batting. Comparing the periods from 2002 onwards to now and the prior period of similar length 1994-2001: The batting average increase by about 4. Of course the better the batsman more beneficial are easier batting conditions :

Looking at the top 6 batsmen alone the average difference is 5.
Take just the top 40 batsmen of each period and the average difference rises to 5.7.
For the top 20 it's a whopping 6.5.

Now, unless one's case is that the top 20 batsmen during the latter period magically all improved by 6.5 average points, the obvious conclusion is that batting has been far easier for the past 7-8 years.

It's just silly to claim that Sachin who averaged above 62 for the 10 years prior to 2002 averaged lesser in the period after 2002 due to him being 'found out'. The obvious conclusion is that he declined.

 

[Sanz]

Anyway, good to see you didn't argue that Australia has a history of making McGraths, even if you disagreed with a few of the names I mentioned. The original point stands.

In the last 50 years, Australia has had two truly all time great fast bowlers in Lillee and Mcgrath so I do not agree with the statement that "Australia has a history of producing Mcgrath like bowler in every generation."

 

[Ikki]

Because players stay the same throughout 20 years? So the ultimate proof for batting being easier would be for a batsman who's finished playing for 13-14 years to have a further 7 years performing at the same level?

Regarding the comparison of conditions for batting. Comparing the periods from 2002 onwards to now and the prior period of similar length 1994-2001: The batting average increase by about 4. Of course the better the batsman more beneficial are easier batting conditions :

Looking at the top 6 batsmen alone the average difference is 5.
Take just the top 40 batsmen of each period and the average difference rises to 5.7.
For the top 20 it's a whopping 6.5.

Now, unless one's case is that the top 20 batsmen during the latter period magically all improved by 6.5 average points, the obvious conclusion is that batting has been far easier for the past 7-8 years.

It's just silly to claim that Sachin who averaged above 62 for the 10 years prior to 2002 averaged lesser in the period after 2002 due to him being 'found out'. The obvious conclusion is that he declined.

The reason the batting has been easier in the past few years is because of a) the bowling and b) the pitches.

That's why I bring up the fact that during the 90s there were 4 genuinely great attacks: Pakistan, Australia, WIndies and S.Africa. Two of those attacks went by the way-side in the 2000s. The remaining difference is facing semi-strong attacks in the 90s the pitches were slightly more helpful. So for most opponents that Tendulkar faced later on, it's the pitches that have helped. So how did Tendulkar do against the best in the 90s? He succeeded against 2 and failed against the other two. Like Ponting (except Ponting faced one less because one was his own so 2/3). The difference between them in the 90s is that Tendulkar smashed the easier teams around whereas Ponting was very inconsistent against them. So now in the 2000s, not only has Tendulkar still not changed much in terms of his success against great attacks, but he has failed to beat the lesser teams on easier pitches to bat. Whereas what changes with Ponting is that he not only continues batting better against the better bowling teams, but he gains the consistency against the lesser teams; so much so that in their overall records Ponting eclipses Tendulkar.

Oh yeah:

 

[Sanz]

Well, you probably weren't born then.

Damien Fleming:

Average: 25.89 SR: 55.0

I am sure you were born in every era to make claims like 'Australia has a history of producing Mcgrath like bowler in every generation"

It is annoying when you start attacking individuals when they really counter some of your really outlandish statements which deserved to be mocked and laughed at.

 

[silentstriker]

If you think career threatening injuries and the kind of physical changes Warne went through aren't enough for exoneration, then nothing is.

You're right. Nothing is. You put on that cap and you go out, and it's all fair game.

 

[Ikki]

In the last 50 years, Australia has had two truly all time great fast bowlers in Lillee and Mcgrath so I do not agree with the statement that "Australia has a history of producing Mcgrath like bowler in every generation."

Miller, Lindwall and Davidson are not truly great?

Miller bowled until 56, Lindwall until 61, Davidson until 63. From there there is a bit of a drought where Garth MacKenzie is the notable spearhead and then in 71 comes Lillee who bowls until 84. Another little drought occurs until 93, McGrath comes on. But even in between then there was Reid, McDermott and Alderman.

So in the last 50 years, only for two periods of 8-9 years did we not have one "great" bowler. And even in those periods we had good enough.

I am sure you were born in every era to make claims like 'Australia has a history of producing Mcgrath like bowler in every generation"

It is annoying when you start attacking individuals when they really counter some of your really outlandish statements which deserved to be mocked and laughed at.

The problem is discussing cricket with someone who clearly lacks the historical knowledge of the game. You see, I don't talk about 1880s-1920s because I don't know much. You should do the same in periods where you obviously don't know enough.

 

[Ikki]

You're right. Nothing is. You put on that cap and you go out, and it's all fair game.

Nah, there are always extenuating circumstances and you'd purposely be blinding yourself to ignore them.

 

[silentstriker]

The game doesn't get stricken from the record just because you had an injury and couldn't bat or bowl. You played, and it's all fair game as far as I'm concerned. You can chop it up, and ignore the things you dislike, but to me, you put on the cap, you walked out there, and you tried to win the game. It all counts.

 

[Ikki]

The game doesn't get stricken from the record just because you had an injury and couldn't bat or bowl. You played, and it's all fair game as far as I'm concerned. You can chop it up, and ignore the things you dislike, but to me, you put on the cap, you walked out there, and you tried to win the game. It all counts.

We're not arguing over game results but the ability of the aforementioned bowlers. Some bowlers go through things others don't and then some conquer those problems or some fail. Some may, for pure reasons of luck (i.e. not getting picked too early, not getting injured, etc) not have the same barriers. There's no reason to judge all the same.

Someone like Martin Crowe for example was picked way too early and ahead of the usual time. The only reason being New Zealand were desperate and plucked talent when it was raw. Crowe was out of his element early on but went to become truly one of the best batsmen of his era. If he were batting now he'd be easily getting that awesome and shiny 50+ average. But it wasn't to be. To ignore that is an injustice to the player and an insult to his ability.

Most players don't look at their stats, they see it as their duty to go out and try their best when asked. They don't ask to be left out because they don't feel right. The irony is they'd still play even if they weren't 100%.

 

[Sanz]

Stephan Fleming did better than Ponting in India too...doesn't put him on the same planet as Ponting.

Never said Warne and Kumble are on the same planet. just that when I have to pick one of the two to play in India, I would pick Anil every time.

The reason I used Walsh is to illustrate a player like the lesser known Aussie players who just happened to have a longer career and rack up more wickets. In ability, not much different from them.

What exactly are you are aguing here, in one argument you say that the difference between Mcgrath and Siddle/Clark etc isn't huge and then you claim that players like Walsh/Kumble are nothing compared to Mcgrath/Warne and actually miles behind, The only reason they ahave more wicket is because of their longevity as if that was easier to maintain.

Its like you are arguing both ways, In Mcgrath case you argue that there isnt't much difference between him and the likes of Siddle etc and present one argument and in case of Warne you reverse the entire argument and make case for why Kumble is miles behind him.

 

[zaremba]

Most players don't look at their stats, they see it as their duty to go out and try their best when asked. They don't ask to be left out because they don't feel right. The irony is they'd still play even if they weren't 100%.

The difference with Warne is that he took active steps to tackle his weight problem. I think he deserved credit for that rather than an outrageous 12 month ban.

 

[Ikki]

Yes but you're talking about 75 Test wickets - not a large enough sample to be confident that it's representative of his ability.

Their respective First-Class records better reflect their relative abilities in my view:
McGrath: average 20.85 strike rate 50
Fleming: average 28.28 strike rate 62

McGrath was different class.

Fleming was a good bowler, mind you. But rightly or wrongly I've always thought of him as a poor man's Terry Alderman.

The point was Australia produces great (not exclusively all-time great) pace bowlers with regularity. The only thing that stopped Fleming was his injuries. He had a career that lasted 7-8 years IIRC and was very consistent. There's not that much doubt that he'd stay round about the same if not do better. The same happened with Bruce Reid only a few years earlier.

The great irony that Australia produced 2 great talents like Reid and Fleming, and both got injured and still had room for McGrath also. In fact, when they were playing McGrath wasn't trusted to lead...they were. Although that probably has to do with seniority, but I mention it nonetheless to give an idea how talented they were.

EDIT: I could be thinking of McDermott here.

Anyway, this has gone way off tangent. The argument was that McGrath will not be missed as much because bowlers of his caliber (or even a little below, for ****s sake) can step into the team and do a job that will not hinder the team as much when compared to the next best spinner after Warne.

 

[Ikki]

The difference with Warne is that he took active steps to tackle his weight problem. I think he deserved credit for that rather than an outrageous 12 month ban.

, me too.

 

[Ikki]

Never said Warne and Kumble are on the same planet. just that when I have to pick one of the two to play in India, I would pick Anil every time.

Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument we were talking about:

McGrath + Next best spinner vs Next best pacer + Warne.

What exactly are you are aguing here, in one argument you say that the difference between Mcgrath and Siddle/Clark etc isn't huge and then you claim that players like Walsh/Kumble are nothing compared to Mcgrath/Warne and actually miles behind, The only reason they ahave more wicket is because of their longevity as if that was easier to maintain.

No, you've got it mixed up, again.

I am arguing that the next generation of pacers will comfortably hold McGrath's role, even if not to the extent he did whilst the next spinner will, in all likelihood, not get near Warne's effectiveness.

Its like you are arguing both ways, In Mcgrath case you argue that there isnt't much difference between him and the likes of Siddle etc and present one argument and in case of Warne you reverse the entire argument and make case for why Kumble is miles behind him.

I don't even understand what you're talking about here to give you a proper response to be honest.

 

[zaremba]

The point was Australia produces great pace bowlers with regularity. The only thing that stopped Fleming was his injuries. He had a career that lasted 7-8 years IIRC and was very consistent. There's not that much doubt that he'd stay round about the same if not do better. The same happened with Bruce Reid only a few years earlier.

The great irony that Australia produced 2 great talents like Reid and Fleming, and both got injured and still had room for McGrath also. In fact, when they were playing McGrath wasn't trusted to lead...they were.

Anyway, this has gone way off tangent. The argument was that McGrath will not be missed as much because bowlers of his caliber (or even a little below, for ****s sake) can step into the team and do a job that will not hinder the team as much when compared to the next best spinner after Warne.

I'm not doubting that Australia has produced great pace bowlers with regularity. But the comparison with Damien Fleming was quite amusing - particularly coupled with your dismissive response to PhoenixFire when he had the temerity to challenge you on it...

 

[Ikki]

I'm not doubting that Australia has produced great pace bowlers with regularity. But the comparison with Damien Fleming was quite amusing - particularly coupled with your dismissive response to PhoenixFire when he had the temerity to challenge you on it...

Well, I answer all within context. As talent and ability goes, Fleming was not far off. To call it a joke just shows what a lack of knowledge one would have about Fleming. He didn't end up having the same career for reasons of longevity/fitness. But longevity is not an issue when we are talking about production of talent.

 

[zaremba]

Well, I answer all within context. As talent and ability goes, Fleming was not far off. To call it a joke just shows what a lack of knowledge one would have about Fleming. He didn't end up having the same career for reasons of longevity. But longevity is not an issue when we are talking about production of talent.

No, PhoenixFire's point wasn't about longevity, it was about ability. Fleming wasn't denied being an all-time great like Glenn McGrath by injury in the way that, say, Bruce Reid perhaps was; he was left with a short Test career and a Test average which flattered him.