Warne or Mcgrath the bigger loss?

[Xuhaib]

The Pigeon for me.

 

[weldone]

Better bowler? - McGrath
Greater loss for Australia in those days (when Macgill was around)? - McGrath
Whom among the two would Australia want today? - Do you need to even ask? Warne, surely.

 

[G.I.Joe]

McGrath.

 

[Indipper]

Australia will sooner have another McGrath than another Warne, so yeah.

 

[Xuhaib]

Better bowler? - McGrath
Greater loss for Australia in those days (when Macgill was around)? - McGrath
Whom among the two would Australia want today? - Do you need to even ask? Warne, surely.

Oh Brett Lee is so great in being a spearhead for this attack.

 

[Richard]

Both huge, obviously. And neither could go on for ever, equally obviously.

I honestly don't think either was significantly bigger than the other. Stuart Clark is McGrath-esque, but I'd say he probably has a few limitations that are more limited than McGrath. So even with Clark, McGrath is still a loss.

Obviously you virtually never see bowlers like Warne, because wristspin is so much more difficult to bowl. That there'll never be another Warne is far from impossible.

 

[weldone]

Oh Brett Lee is so great in being a spearhead for this attack.

He may not be; but the combination of Lee, Clark and Johnson is more than decent (not in this series certainly, but otherwise yeah more than decent)...But believe me I have played against spinners in inter-college matches who bowl better than Cameron White. Now if such a bowler bowls 15 overs for Australia in an inning then yeah Warne is being missed more by Ponting than McGrath...Make no mistake, McGrath is certainly a better bowler of the two...

 

[sanga1337]

How can you not say Warne? While McGrath was a big loss, anyone with that record would be, we still had good fast bowlers like Lee and Clark around after his retirement. With Warne we barely have a competant spinner around to replace him afterwards.

 

[nightprowler10]

Both huge, obviously. And neither could go on for ever, equally obviously.

I honestly don't think either was significantly bigger than the other. Stuart Clark is McGrath-esque, but I'd say he probably has a few limitations that are more limited than McGrath. So even with Clark, McGrath is still a loss.

Obviously you virtually never see bowlers like Warne, because wristspin is so much more difficult to bowl. That there'll never be another Warne is far from impossible.

Agreed entirely.

 

[masterblaster]

Warne's magic vs McGrath's unrelenting accuracy. Both are absolute legends and Australia are a lot poorer without them. Hmm, don't know what to vote for. I believe I'll vote Sanjay Bangar.

 

[pup11]

Warne is the bigger loss hands down, McGrath is a huge loss too but Stuey Clark more or less has shown he somewhat is capable of filling the void left by him, but its an open secret that the Aussie spin cupboard is pretty bare atm, so there is not even a single spinner around in the country who can do a quarter of the job Warne used to do for the Australian side.

I think not only is Warne' wicket taking ability being missed, but also his ability to bowl a lot of tight overs tirelessly and block one end up is also being sorely missed, which used to considerably ease the bowling workload off the quickies and of course not to forget he was one of the best cricketing brains to ever play the game, so his presence on the field too was also very beneficial for the Australian side.

 

[andruid]

Warney but only cos the Aussies are spectacularly lacking in the spin compertment so his absence hurts more tha Mcgrath who has at least semi-capable deputies to take over from him.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think it's interesting that there was another poll similar to this not long after they retired and IIRC McGrath got a lot more votes than he has this time.

The simple fact is that Australia still has a pretty good pace attack without McGrath. Clark and Lee are currently among the best seamers in the world (poor series currently aside), and they have a few decent options for the third seamer slot even if nobody is really totally established right now.

Australia have nothing as far as spin bowling goes and it's cost them plenty of late. Warne is a much, much bigger loss, regardless of who the better player may have been.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think it's much of a comparison. Warne, easily. Both of the highest calibre, but one is as rare as the hope diamond. Warne, not just because we don't have a quality spinner and aren't likely to produce one for a long time, but because he could bowl long spells, take wickets and go for barely many runs. For his ability to show up when it mattered and break partnerships like the ones in the first two days of the test being currently played. The more time goes by the more Warne will be appreciated IMO, and that's saying something because he was picked as one of the top 5 cricketers of all time halfway through his career.

 

[Richard]

Australia have nothing as far as spin bowling goes and it's cost them plenty of late. Warne is a much, much bigger loss, regardless of who the better player may have been.

What should be more interesting is how much it costs in the next year or so. Of course, you'd expect that anyone who toured India without a spinner of any note (which is what they did once McGain went home) would struggle, and so they have.

However, if they should have a decent to good third and fourth seamer, I don't see series' at home to New Zealand and South Africa and away to South Africa and England being an excessive problem - certainly no more of a problem than if they had a spinner of, say, Saqlain Mushtaq or Harbhajan Singh's skill (I presume most will agree that to expect another Warne any time soon would be unreasonable expectation).

What's most interesting is how these multitude of options for seamers behind Clark and Lee turn-out. If they turn-out decent, then all - as I say - should be well. But if they don't, Australia are ****ed until someone else comes through. However good Clark and Lee are (and right now it'd be reasonable to presume this current series isn't going to be an indicator of how they're going to go from here on in, but you never know), to have a side with only two bowlers of note is going to be a considerable problem, often.

 

[Richard]

I don't think it's much of a comparison. Warne, easily. Both of the highest calibre, but one is as rare as the hope diamond. Warne, not just because we don't have a quality spinner and aren't likely to produce one for a long time, but because he could bowl long spells, take wickets and go for barely many runs. For his ability to show up when it mattered and break partnerships like the ones in the first two days of the test being currently played. The more time goes by the more Warne will be appreciated IMO, and that's saying something because he was picked as one of the top 5 cricketers of all time halfway through his career.

Not of all-time, but of the 20th-century.

 

[Migara]

McGrath is the better bowler, as he has poerformed well against every opposition than Warne.

Let's put it like this. We'll condiser each team in the World and decide which of them don't want Warne or McGrath.

For McGrath, every damn team in every era will like to have one barring the Windies in late 70s and early 80s. He has no competition from any current fast bowler (probably except Pollock), and walk in to any side.

Warne, will have to fight tough to get in to Sri Lankan or Indian team. The challenge for him to stay as the premier spinner of the era is greatly more because Murali and Kumble are around.

Aussies would have been rolled over in India and Sri Lanka if not for McGrath. The answer is clear, it's McGrath.

 

[Ikki]

That makes no sense. Every team would want a Warne, even India. India are the only team that did well against him overall - he won't have to face them anymore. He is also a better spinner than both Kumble and Harbhajan as well.

And as for Sri Lanka; why would he be competing with Murali? Is Menthis competing for Murali's spot?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Hmm, I sort of want to change my vote. I have no doubt that McGrath was the better bowler, so I initally went with him without actually thinking about the question at hand.

Australia have Clark and some other decentish fast bowlers, but they don't have any really good spinners that can replace Warne.

 

[silentstriker]

That makes no sense. Every team would want a Warne, even India. India are the only team that did well against him overall - he won't have to face them anymore. He is also a better spinner than both Kumble and Harbhajan as well.

And as for Sri Lanka; why would he be competing with Murali? Is Menthis competing for Murali's spot?

Yea, India would definitely take Warne. Our spinners don't do as well overseas, and Warne did well in many countries. He'd walk into both of those sides with zero problems. And he wouldn't have to play India either, plus his home record might be better considering the type of pitches he'd get. And if somehow it was the Indian pitches that didn't suit him (I don't believe that), we'd have another spinner playing at home anyway, so it's not a big deal. Overall, he'd be a HUGE addition to any team, including, perhaps especially, India. I'm seen as sort of a detractor of Warne, but I'm really not. He was a fantastic player, probably the best spinner of the modern era, and to say he wouldn't make it into any side is simply inaccurate IMO. Even Sri Lanka, if they had him, certainly you'd play both Murali and Warne everywhere you went. It would be a ludicrously good spin combo - in fact, they may become the first team in history to be the best bowling side in the world solely due to their spinners. Regardless of how badly India got Mendised, you'd tell him to sit in a corner and wait a while until one or the other retired.

As for which is the bigger loss, I would say McGrath was the better bowler but leg spin is harder to replace.