Who is the best pace bowler of all time?

[Richard]

TLM?

 

[shortpitched713]

However, at other times, McGrath had tricks that meant leaving him was not an option.

Immediate picture that pops up in mind is the English right hander at Lords, of course. I've never seen anyone use that slope as deceptively and effectively as him, although of course he was always a threat to get you out bowled in any venue. One of the reasons I don't understand the criticism of him being a defensive bowler.

Oh yeah, McGrath is the best seamer.

 

[Richard]

TBH I've always believed Donald > McGrath myself, but even with ss currently on reduced activity that'd be risky to say too loudly.

 

[archie mac]

TLM?

The
Little
Master

 

[SJS]

McGrath was a great bowler, we must wait to see what history has to say about him, with his average though I am sure he will be remembered as one of the very, very best.

I thought NZ had the idea on how to play McGrath, in one series they refused to play him at all, and he seemed to be very frustrated. I always wonder how he would have went against the likes of Boycott who had a great leave (maybe the best since Sutcliffe).

I agree. McGrath was a terrific bowler but you always got the feeling that he relied a lot on the batsman making a mistake to get his wickets. Nothing wrong with that mind you for it works perfectly and is the smartest way to do things without giving much away. But one always felt, watching him, that he would have a tough time getting someone like Gavaskar.

It was Sobers who once said that there is no reason to play a defensive shot to a ball that is not going to hit the stumps. If you cant hit it for runs leave it alone. Gavaskar lived that credo and unlike Sobers thought even fewer of them should be hot for runs too.

Batsmen of the modern era have, by and large, not too great footwork. You dont see decisive early decision in mobement of the feet and full movement back and across when moving back. This is elementary for followingthe above advise of Sobers. It is also, one must add, equally effective in playing better strokes but for defense and for judging which ball to play it is absolutely vital One day cricket has affected batting in many ways of which footwork is a fundamental one.

I have always been reminded of Hadlee when watching MacGrath but never felt the Aussie was as dangerous if the batsman was really smart. Hadlee made it very difficult to ignore (leave alone) most of his balls. He was proactive at the bowling crease as are all those aspiring for the very top spot amongst the games greatest bowlers - Imran, Lillee, Marshall, Barnes.

 

[archie mac]

I agree. McGrath was a terrific bowler but you always got the feeling that he relied a lot on the batsman making a mistake to get his wickets. Nothing wrong with that mind you for it works perfectly and is the smartest way to do things without giving much away. But one always felt, watching him, that he would have a tough time getting someone like Gavaskar.

It was Sobers who once said that there is no reason to play a defensive shot to a ball that is not going to hit the stumps. If you cant hit it for runs leave it alone. Gavaskar lived that credo and unlike Sobers thought even fewer of them should be hot for runs too.

Batsmen of the modern era have, by and large, not too great footwork. You dont see decisive early decision in mobement of the feet and full movement back and across when moving back. This is elementary for followingthe above advise of Sobers. It is also, one must add, equally effective in playing better strokes but for defense and for judging which ball to play it is absolutely vital One day cricket has affected batting in many ways of which footwork is a fundamental one.

I have always been reminded of Hadlee when watching MacGrath but never felt the Aussie was as dangerous if the batsman was really smart. Hadlee made it very difficult to ignore (leave alone) most of his balls. He was proactive at the bowling crease as are all those aspiring for the very top spot amongst the games greatest bowlers - Imran, Lillee, Marshall, Barnes.

I agree, although there are a couple of moderns with very good foot work, Ponting always gets well back to pull and well forward to drive, and Tendulkar and Lara also, plus a few others. Do you think it is the easier pitches that make the use of footwork not as important?

 

[funnygirl]

Mcgrath has got the patience of a mom or a nun..

Glenn mcgrath is the greatest pacer of all time statistically.But only statistically ,i forgot to add .What a pity , such a robotic bowler is the greatest pacer of all time.

 

[SJS]

I agree, although there are a couple of moderns with very good foot work, Ponting always gets well back to pull and well forward to drive, and Tendulkar and Lara also, plus a few others. Do you think it is the easier pitches that make the use of footwork not as important?

I agree about Lara and Ponting. Lara perhaps had the best footwork byfar in modern day cricket. Not Tendulkar though. He started off with much better footwork than he has today.

You see him so often beaten by balls that go onto hit the stumps and then he almost sits down as if too indicate how he was beaten by the low bounce. The question that Sachin needs to ask himslef is that howcome none of these deliveries gets him leg before wicket. When playing off the backfoot he is often guilty of not moving across enough unless the ball is wide off the off stump.

On the other hand he gets a lot of leg before's off the front foot because he tends to move a bit too much to the off when playing defensively off the front foot to the incoming delivery.

Its interesting to see how Sachins footwork and extent/direction of movement is different when he is playing defensive or attacking shots. Normally that should not be the case. Footwork comes a splitsecond before the deision to attack or defend. But icreasingly Sachin has been displaying that it is not so in his batting. There is now a more 'pre-determined' aspect in Sachin's batting then during his younger days. I suspect it is because he is thinking far too much and the spontaneity has crept out of his game.

That is why when he comes back from injury, fresh in body and mind, he seems to, for a pleasantly refreshing time, remind us of the Sachin of old before refressing into, what I suspect is a master batsmen hounded by doubts and a fear of failure.

Coming to the effect condition of wickets have on footwork, your point is valid. When wickets play more true batsmen can get away with less than perfect footwork or less than perfect technique. Bad wickets need one to fakk back on purity of technique and hence the difference between Hobbs and Bradman and their respective records on god and bad wickets. But as Bradman himself admitted, he was more likely to come across good hard wickets rather than stickies of the earlier era so his 'technique' was going to ensure greater success on a greater number of occasions.

The modern batting reflects something similar but without the thought that went into Bradman's concsious decision. This is more an influence of dead limited over tracks (which have also affected test wickets to an extent), shorter boundaries and much better bats which result in mi****s ending in sixes instead of wickets as they used to. The rewards will finally affect the means employed.

Besides wickets the quality of bowling has also affected batting in general and footwork in particular. A combination of the two has made the need for pure technique almost, one regrets, redundant.

I have a friend in Australia, one Jeremy Patton. He wrote to me before the Australian tour of India in 2000-2001 that his sons gelt India would be slaughtered particularly with Warne and MacGrath. I wrote back a long mail explaing why he could be in for a surprise. I mentioned both India's ability to play spin, their use of the feet to counter turn and the fact that MacGrath need not be that effective if india did not grab his subtle invitaions.

He wrote back saying his children had a big laugh and wanted to see my face at the end of the tour (or words to that effect. After that historic tour he wrote a very flattering e mail to me and also sent me The Bradman Albums as a gift

But then Sachin and Laxman were different batsmen in 2000 and Dravis was just blosoming into a great from a very good player.

 

[archie mac]

I agree about Lara and Ponting. Lara perhaps had the best footwork byfar in modern day cricket. Not Tendulkar though. He started off with much better footwork than he has today.

You see him so often beaten by balls that go onto hit the stumps and then he almost sits down as if too indicate how he was beaten by the low bounce. The question that Sachin needs to ask himslef is that howcome none of these deliveries gets him leg before wicket. When playing off the backfoot he is often guilty of not moving across enough unless the ball is wide off the off stump.

On the other hand he gets a lot of leg before's off the front foot because he tends to move a bit too much to the off when playing defensively off the front foot to the incoming delivery.

Its interesting to see how Sachins footwork and extent/direction of movement is different when he is playing defensive or attacking shots. Normally that should not be the case. Footwork comes a splitsecond before the deision to attack or defend. But icreasingly Sachin has been displaying that it is not so in his batting. There is now a more 'pre-determined' aspect in Sachin's batting then during his younger days. I suspect it is because he is thinking far too much and the spontaneity has crept out of his game.

That is why when he comes back from injury, fresh in body and mind, he seems to, for a pleasantly refreshing time, remind us of the Sachin of old before refressing into, what I suspect is a master batsmen hounded by doubts and a fear of failure.

Coming to the effect condition of wickets have on footwork, your point is valid. When wickets play more true batsmen can get away with less than perfect footwork or less than perfect technique. Bad wickets need one to fakk back on purity of technique and hence the difference between Hobbs and Bradman and their respective records on god and bad wickets. But as Bradman himself admitted, he was more likely to come across good hard wickets rather than stickies of the earlier era so his 'technique' was going to ensure greater success on a greater number of occasions.

The modern batting reflects something similar but without the thought that went into Bradman's concsious decision. This is more an influence of dead limited over tracks (which have also affected test wickets to an extent), shorter boundaries and much better bats which result in mi****s ending in sixes instead of wickets as they used to. The rewards will finally affect the means employed.

Besides wickets the quality of bowling has also affected batting in general and footwork in particular. A combination of the two has made the need for pure technique almost, one regrets, redundant.

I have a friend in Australia, one Jeremy Patton. He wrote to me before the Australian tour of India in 2000-2001 that his sons gelt India would be slaughtered particularly with Warne and MacGrath. I wrote back a long mail explaing why he could be in for a surprise. I mentioned both India's ability to play spin, their use of the feet to counter turn and the fact that MacGrath need not be that effective if india did not grab his subtle invitaions.

He wrote back saying his children had a big laugh and wanted to see my face at the end of the tour (or words to that effect. After that historic tour he wrote a very flattering e mail to me and also sent me The Bradman Albums as a gift

But then Sachin and Laxman were different batsmen in 2000 and Dravis was just blosoming into a great from a very good player.

How much in postage did that cost him

 

[archie mac]

Mcgrath has got the patience of a mom or a nun..

Glenn mcgrath is the greatest pacer of all time statistically.But only statistically ,i forgot to add .What a pity , such a robotic bowler is the greatest pacer of all time.

Welcome to the forum

No one is suggesting McGrath is anything other than a great bowler. But on cricket forums we tend to debate obscure points, such as how would McGrath go bowling to Boycott and the like on a flat track? We don't know and will never know, but it is fun to discuss these sort of things

 

[funnygirl]

U guys can discuss .that was just my opinion abt the ''actual subject '' of this forum .

BTW ,thanks .It is a privilege to be in the middle of such cricketing brains

 

[archie mac]

U guys can discuss .that was just my opinion abt the ''actual subject '' of this forum .

BTW ,thanks .It is a privilege to be in the middle of such cricketing brains

Is he your favourity player? and thanks for the kind words

 

[SJS]

How much in postage did that cost him

Quite a bit I guess.

We are very close friends now and he came with his wife on a vacation with us in India and i went with his family to Mallacoota (hope I have spelt it right) and had a great time.

 

[Richard]

I agree. McGrath was a terrific bowler but you always got the feeling that he relied a lot on the batsman making a mistake to get his wickets. Nothing wrong with that mind you for it works perfectly and is the smartest way to do things without giving much away. But one always felt, watching him, that he would have a tough time getting someone like Gavaskar.

It was Sobers who once said that there is no reason to play a defensive shot to a ball that is not going to hit the stumps. If you cant hit it for runs leave it alone. Gavaskar lived that credo and unlike Sobers thought even fewer of them should be hot for runs too.

Batsmen of the modern era have, by and large, not too great footwork. You dont see decisive early decision in mobement of the feet and full movement back and across when moving back. This is elementary for followingthe above advise of Sobers. It is also, one must add, equally effective in playing better strokes but for defense and for judging which ball to play it is absolutely vital One day cricket has affected batting in many ways of which footwork is a fundamental one.

I have always been reminded of Hadlee when watching MacGrath but never felt the Aussie was as dangerous if the batsman was really smart. Hadlee made it very difficult to ignore (leave alone) most of his balls. He was proactive at the bowling crease as are all those aspiring for the very top spot amongst the games greatest bowlers - Imran, Lillee, Marshall, Barnes.

I thought the exact same of times in McGrath's career but only of times - ie, between 2001 and 2004 and on non-seaming pitches only. I never really saw him much before that but have been assured of his effectiveness in actually getting batsmen out on non-seaming pitches. And from 2004\05 onwards he has unquestionably possessed the skill to prise batsmen out on all surfaces.

Not sure about the footwork case throughout the career of him, either. In the 2001-onwards period maybe, but surely not between 1995 and 2000?

 

[archie mac]

Quite a bit I guess.

We are very close friends now and he came with his wife on a vacation with us in India and i went with his family to Mallacoota (hope I have spelt it right) and had a great time.

Where is that?

 

[SJS]

Where is that?

Here about halfway between Sydney and Melbourne

 

[The Sean]

Looks lovely - I've been down as far south as Eden along that road, but never even heard of Mallacoota.

 

[SJS]

Looks lovely - I've been down as far south as Eden along that road, but never even heard of Mallacoota.

During that trip I also went on 'pilgrimmage' visiting Bowral. Mustsay I was a trifle disappointed with the Bradman museum. Cantsay exactly why. Itwas a bit too 'plasticky' if you know what I mean.

 

[funnygirl]

Is he your favourity player? and thanks for the kind words

Who Mcgrath ..? No . I watch cricket for entertainment also .

But to evaluate the best bowler ,we need only cricinfo stats ,don't we ? By that way statistically Mcgrath .

But favourite ? Not even in my top 10 .I don't prefer watch him bowling ,i know how and what he is going to bowl .

 

[The Sean]

Who Mcgrath ..? No . I watch cricket for entertainment also .

But to evaluate the best bowler ,we need only cricinfo stats ,don't we ? By that way statistically Mcgrath .

But favourite ? Not even in my top 10 .I don't prefer watch him bowling ,i know how and what he is going to bowl .

I hope you're being sarcastic!

Otherwise I'm trying to think of a way that I could disagree more with that statement.

And failing.