Who is better Imran Khan or Glenn Mcgrath?

[Richard]

Being ultra defensive against great bowlers generally ends up in favour of the bowling team

Sure explains how Boycott and Gavaskar ended-up superior to all bar a very small handful of batsmen in the modern era, then.

Defence or attack is an equally good measure, if you can carry it out well.

 

[SJS]

Being ultra defensive is very different from 'refusing-to-play-a-ball" one doesn't have to.

It was an attacking player like Sobers who said, one should NEVER play a ball that is not going to hit the stumps unless it can be played for runs.

The defense of Dravid and someone like Gavaskar and Boycott is very different. Dravid will thrust his bat out and defend the ball pitching on/marginally outside the off stump and moving away, Gavaskar would shoulder arms. You dont edge deliveries you dont play.

This is not to denounce a top bowler like MacGrath. Its quite likely that faced with a Gavaskar, he would change his tactics and make the batsman play more often and giving him fewer deliveries to 'leave' but how that would affect his 'strike' ability will remain unknown.

 

[SJS]

Sure explains how Boycott and Gavaskar ended-up superior to all bar a very small handful of batsmen in the modern era, then.

Defence or attack is an equally good measure, if you can carry it out well.

Gavaskar was an even better judge of a bad ball than he was of a good ball that need not be played. He was one of the most consistent punishers of a bad delivery I have seen. The fact that he did it amidst a 'mindset' which made him cut out all risks, was the most amazing aspect of his batting.

 

[social]

Sure explains how Boycott and Gavaskar ended-up superior to all bar a very small handful of batsmen in the modern era, then.

Defence or attack is an equally good measure, if you can carry it out well.

Boycott averaged well below his career average when faced with the Windies (and looked well short of the attacking Gooch) and basically didnt play enough against the other top pacers of the time

Gavaskar had his ups and downs

Basically, if you give great bowlers enough overs at you with little threat coning their way, chances are you'll fail

 

[Richard]

Boycott averaged well below his career average when faced with the Windies (and looked well short of the attacking Gooch) and basically didnt play enough against the other top pacers of the time

Umm... almost every batsman in their late-30s would not have had a prayer against those attacks of 1980 and 1981, which were some of the strongest if not the strongest in history.

For Boycott to do even as well as he did at that age was a phenomenal achievement.

Had he faced them in his prime there's ample evidence he'd have done very well indeed.

 

[Richard]

Being ultra defensive is very different from 'refusing-to-play-a-ball" one doesn't have to.

It was an attacking player like Sobers who said, one should NEVER play a ball that is not going to hit the stumps unless it can be played for runs.

The defense of Dravid and someone like Gavaskar and Boycott is very different. Dravid will thrust his bat out and defend the ball pitching on/marginally outside the off stump and moving away, Gavaskar would shoulder arms. You dont edge deliveries you dont play.

Exactly. One of the very few things that's always exasperated me about Dravid - the number of balls he plays defensive shots to which he need not play any shot at.

The Sobers maxim to which you refer would be basic common-sense to me (I first thought it at the age of about 10) - therefore it is a little amazing that so many superb batsmen have difficulty putting it into practice.

 

[Top_Cat]

But a large percentage of McGrath's wickets are bowled and LBW, the same total percentage that, for example, Lillee has. It's a mistake to say McGrath just keeps bowling outside the stumps.

Exactly. How would McGrath have reacted to a batsman leaving every ball? The same way he did after NZ tried the tactic against him which is the same way he reacted to any batsmen trying a half-arsed tactic against him; bowl better. It's a myth that McGrath bowled out-side off-stump, moving it away every ball and that was his only trick. In fact, early in his career, his only really effective ball was his in-cutter, which was a brilliant ball. It's actually quite funny to hear him considered a one-trick pony for moving the ball away when before the late 90's, he was considered a one-trick pony for moving the ball in! Once he developed further tricks like the away-cutter, out-swinger, etc., that was when he started to consistently trouble opposition batting line-ups.

As for McGrath getting wickets because batsmen go after him more, that's another myth. You just have to watch any random highlights package and see how many batsmen he pinned on the crease, clean-bowled or had caught behind on the defense to know how crap that is. But aside from those, McGrath got his fair share of wickets with the 'pin the batsman on the crease then throw him the wide one' but no more than anyone else.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

But a large percentage of McGrath's wickets are bowled and LBW, the same total percentage that, for example, Lillee has. It's a mistake to say McGrath just keeps bowling outside the stumps.

50 per cent of Larwood's wickets in the Bodyline Series were bowled or LBW, but that doesn't necessarily mean he regularly aimed at the stumps.

 

[archie mac]

Exactly. How would McGrath have reacted to a batsman leaving every ball? The same way he did after NZ tried the tactic against him which is the same way he reacted to any batsmen trying a half-arsed tactic against him; bowl better. It's a myth that McGrath bowled out-side off-stump, moving it away every ball and that was his only trick. In fact, early in his career, his only really effective ball was his in-cutter, which was a brilliant ball. It's actually quite funny to hear him considered a one-trick pony for moving the ball away when before the late 90's, he was considered a one-trick pony for moving the ball in! Once he developed further tricks like the away-cutter, out-swinger, etc., that was when he started to consistently trouble opposition batting line-ups.

As for McGrath getting wickets because batsmen go after him more, that's another myth. You just have to watch any random highlights package and see how many batsmen he pinned on the crease, clean-bowled or had caught behind on the defense to know how crap that is. But aside from those, McGrath got his fair share of wickets with the 'pin the batsman on the crease then throw him the wide one' but no more than anyone else.

Tbf I don't think anyone is saying he only bowled outside the off stump, I still think he bowled outside the off stump more than most of the great fast bowlers, not saying that makes him a poorer bowler

 

[archie mac]

BTW, my memory of Lillee was that he bowled as much, if not more, outside the stumps as McGrath. As a result, from time to time, he wasnt as effective at bowling at the lower order as they couldnt get bat on ball

I thought he pitched middle and off and the ball would seam or swing away towards the slips, to the waiting slips, and this ball would often beat the tailender but miss the bat and stumps, often only just, and his lack of a yorker stopped him claiming those wickets

 

[SJS]

I dont think anyone is saying that MacGrath NEVER bowls on the stumps. He is too great bowler to be that stupid. Its a question of how much he attacks the stumps when bowling to batsmen who are really good.

As far as proportion of lbw and bowled decisions in a bowlers's list, it would depend on first and foremost what the bowler bowls.

Predominantly outswing bowlers like, say Lillee and Thomson, get more catches in the slips and caught behind and their respective bowled and LBW rates are 28.5 and 25.5%.

Those who bring a larger proportion of balls come into the batsmen have higher bowled+leg before rates. Hence Imran and Marshall have 45.3 and 41.5 respectively.

When we were discussing about McGrath bowling on and outside the off stump we are talking of bowling to top class batsmen like Tendulkar, Dravid etc. Of course if he bowled to batsmen he felt were not of that high a caliber, he would become more proactive and get them with "outright winners" rather than wait for "unforced errors"

 

[Top_Cat]

When we were discussing about McGrath bowling on and outside the off stump we are talking of bowling to top class batsmen like Tendulkar, Dravid etc. Of course if he bowled to batsmen he felt were not of that high a caliber, he would become more proactive and get them with "outright winners" rather than wait for "unforced errors"

That's part of the myth, though; McGrath, on many occasions, outright beat the defensive strokes of the greats of this era. He didn't wait them out, he got them out. In the same way as you can't just keep out great bowlers for long, you can't just wait for great players to play a poor stroke and get themselves out either.

 

[Debris]

when did u start watching cricket ?

Yes, I did see Imran bowl and not just the crippled end of his career. He was a very good bowler.

I just consider McGrath one of the all-time greats

 

[Engle]

McGrath did not have the means to retaliate if an opposing bowler decided to get nasty.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, a Larwood is coming at you with bad intentions. I'd lean more towards Imran being in a better position to retaliate than McGrath. Imran did pepper both Hadlee and Willis (causing a neck injury) with the short stuff, for which they could not reciprocate adequately.

McGrath did nail KP in the ribs, a result due more to the batsmens boneheadedness than anything.

 

[social]

Assuming, for the sake of argument, a Larwood is coming at you with bad intentions. I'd lean more towards Imran being in a better position to retaliate than McGrath. Imran did pepper both Hadlee and Willis (causing a neck injury) with the short stuff, for which they could not reciprocate adequately.

McGrath did nail KP in the ribs, a result due more to the batsmens boneheadedness than anything.

McGrath hit a lot of people and had an extremely effective short ball

However, he intimidated people with his quality as much as anything

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, I did see Imran bowl and not just the crippled end of his career. He was a very good bowler.

I just consider McGrath one of the all-time greats

Imran is easily an all-time great bowler, the first one from the subcontinent.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

As a cricketer, Imran might be better.

As a bowler, McGrath is streets ahead.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Currently,McGrath is leading the pol but more non-Pakisanis voted in favour of Imran than non-Australians in favour of McGrath.

 

[Debris]

OK, streets ahead was probably a bit of an exaggeration. But not much of one.

McGrath has more wickets per match, better strike rate, better average, better economy rate and better longetivity.

Imran Khan had the advantage of home umpires and/or favourable conditions for his type of bowling. His average in Pakistan is considerably better than his overall average (unlike McGrath).

And I have seen both of them bowl so I am not basing this totally on statistics.

So how is McGrath not a better bowler?

 

[Son Of Coco]

That's part of the myth, though; McGrath, on many occasions, outright beat the defensive strokes of the greats of this era. He didn't wait them out, he got them out. In the same way as you can't just keep out great bowlers for long, you can't just wait for great players to play a poor stroke and get themselves out either.

Exactly, and one of the reasons he bowled outside off was that his stock ball cut into the batsman. There's no point starting on off or middle if it's going to be jagging towards leg. And one of the reasons batsmen were so tentative against him on so many occasions was that a line around off with a number of balls coming in at you means you're not sure which to play at and which to leave.