The fact that his average compares to (and in most cases better than) any modern bowler, even with the fact that most of the pitches this decade have been flat as hell. So basically, he played on pitches flatter than the guys of 70s, 80s but took more wickets at a similar strike rates (LOL @ the defensive bowler stereotypes).
Not to mention the increases in quality of bats and the progressively smaller grounds. His stats can be favorably compared to virtually anyone, but he lasted longer than most and did it in a decade where fast bowling is extremely hard to do successfully and consistently. And what is even more remarkable is that you can't name a country that he sucks against. Virtually every other bowler have countries that they just don't do all that well against. Not so with McGrath.
In addition to all that, he has a very unique gift that a lot of '***ier' bowlers lack: be a two-in-one bowler. Most fast bowlers (like Wasim) could bowl very aggressively but weren't as proficient as keeping it tight. Whereas a guy like McGrath just owned you both in terms of runs and taking wickets.
And finally, no bowler that I am aware of has taken the same amount of
top order wickets. Most fast bowlers take some top order wickets but a lot of them prey on bouncing and yorking out the lower order, which is all good but no one has specialized in targeting the best and biggest scalps of the opposition as successfully as McGrath (See, Atherton, Kallis, etc).
In fact, 66% of wickets taken by McGrath have been top order wickets. And more amazingly, the average of those top six batsmen in those innings that they were dismissed by McGrath was an astounding
20.68!
That is the lowest average of any bowler to have
ever played the game and taken 300 wickets. For comparison, Wasim 56% and average of 22. Lillee, 63% and average of 27.
McGrath = Best.
That's because McGrath dismissed him 15 times, so he never had a chance to bat against McGrath for long.
Nah, stats improperly used are evil.
.
