You misunderstand. I am suggesting that Warne benefits due to pressure created by McGrath having already made inroads into the opposition and keeping the scoring down.
And how does he? 2/3rds of his wickets are upper-middle order which suggests Warne got batsmen out that McGrath couldn't and were hence settled.
Especially in that Ashes, it puts such non-sense to rest where Warne bowled very early on and took many wickets.
Didn't McGrath do that, stem the tide, in the Lord's test by ripping through England? His absence resulted in a series loss, showing how he's very much the main man in the Aussie bowling. Without him, Australia couldnt win, despite Warne's best efforts.
Really, so much rubbish here that I insult myself by arguing. There are many tests that Warne did better than McGrath and he 'stemmed the tide' and it would be equally as stupid to say that without Warne, the main man, McGrath wouldn't do as well - which can actually be statistically verified.
Yes, injuries. Still, you would think that someone purported to be the 'greatest bowler ever' would have at least produced one match-winning or great performance in 14 tests against the best batting lineup he faced and best players of spin. At least one. Is that too much too ask for the supposed number one spinner? Instead, he just has a big hole in his resume.
His tests come either when he was green, in which he has ridiculously bad figures and in that period.
And he does have good figures against them. Last series he took at avg. of 30 and SR of 60 in India. And he missed the best pitch to bowl against India, a pitch where Clarke took 6 for 9.
Did I mention their averages? Lara and Tendulkar were the best of modern day batsmen (fact). McGrath had a noticable edge over both of them (fact). Warne was more than often a clear second-best against both of them (fact). You dont think McGrath should get credit for that?
That's rubbish. Which noticeable edge? They scored runs off him as well as anyone. Just because he took Lara's wicket often doesn't mean Lara didn't score mountains of runs against him and Australia.
I think McGrath dealt with many a batsman well and often the best batsmen in the opposition. However, it is not always the best batsman of the opposition that is performing the best in a certain match or in a certain instance and they are more dangerous than their better partners. It is just as important to get these fellows out, which Warne has done more than anyone. This is something stats won't tell you, how often, when needed, Warne changed the game around.
You seem to have a pretty loose definition of 'greatest bowler ever'. For me, I think anyone claiming that should have a proven impressive record against all countries, in all countries and against all top batsmen throughout their career. Someone who conquered and dominated every challenge put before him and with no major discrepancy to speak of. Sounds more like McGrath or Marshall than Warne.
To me it doesn't. Their aren't as many pitches conducive to spin as they are to pace, and especially in Australia, so I think Warne is greatly hindered on that aspect.
For me, neither Marshall nor McGrath trump Lillee as the greatest fast bowler of all time. And he, like Warne, has an 'imperfect' record. Warne's contemporaries and Lillee's both rank them the greatest in their respective disciplines if not of all-time. So not only do I have a loose definition of the 'greatest bowler ever' but so do most cricket pundits and a lot of those guys actually have claim for the title itself.
