Warne v McGrath

[Pratters]

Who do you think was better?

 

[King Pietersen]

I don't think you can fairly compare the 2. One's a spinner and ones a quickie. I'd have both in a World XI. Warne's probably more of a genius, but McGrath was the definition of consistency. Think it's very difficult to fairly compare them.

 

[Pratters]

McGrath>>>Warne according to me. McGrath was THE fast bowler who bowled spot on and unplayable deliveries and kept bowling them all through his career. His wickets, average speak for themselves. Some people credit Warne with creating the spin revolution. While that is debatable, even if Warne did some thing magical for spin bowling, he wasn't as big an asset as McGrath. Compare McGrath's average of 21 against 25 of Warne. McGrath is a greater player than Warne.

On the other hand though, Warne will bowl you more overs per test. He thus has more wickets per test compared to McGrath at 4.88 against 4.54 for McGrath.

 

[Ikki]

It's debatable even in that context. Warne was a spinner, came on later and bowled out settled batsmen. As a player, it's arguable who was better, but I don't think it's arguable that Warne was a better batsman, fielder and leader/tactician. One problem that I had with McGrath was that if he didn't take care of business in the beginning (which he regularly did) he didn't tend to come up later to dislodge the difficult batsmen later as regularly as Warne did. I made a table before even, in terms of wicket-hauls, McGrath suffers in comparison to Warne - even despite their balls per tests - and other fast bowlers. But, he was amazing at what he did.

McGrath himself considers him not only the greatest spinner, but bowler of all-time.

 

[Richard]

This again?

 

[G.I.Joe]

McGrath easily tbh. Dismissed Lara 15 times. Freak.

 

[Debris]

McGrath - A good quick bowler is always better than a good spin bowler.

I would take Warne though if I had to choose because McGrath is easier to replace.

 

[nightprowler10]

Yeah this ^. McGrath every time for me but Warne is obviously harder to replace.

 

[silentstriker]

Duh

 

[Richard]

McGrath - A good quick bowler is always better than a good spin bowler.

I would take Warne though if I had to choose because McGrath is easier to replace.

Yeah this ^. McGrath every time for me but Warne is obviously harder to replace.

Just to add to this - that is, McGrath is unlikely to be replaced (ie, another as good as him come along) for several generations; Warne may very well never be (ie, there may never be another like him).

Both of them can and have been replaced; but their replacements at the current time are inferior.

 

[Anil]

mcgrath quite clearly...and as for people saying mcgrath is easier to replace, exactly who has replaced him? he is one of the greatest fast bowlers in history and will be extremely difficult if not impossible to replace...and the better bowler will always be more difficult to replace whether you are comparing a spinner and a pacer or two pacers or whatever...

 

[stephen]

Well in their respective crafts there is no doubt that Warne was much further ahead of his all-time peers than McGrath was.

McGrath will be easier to replace only because all time great quick bowlers seem to come along every second generation or so for Australia. Mitchell Johnson or Siddle could very well end up being that bowler.

Spinners are much more rare.

 

[Anil]

so what does that signify? mcgrath was the kind of bowler who excelled on all surfaces and there shouldn't be any doubt as to who will be picked given a choice between a mcgrath-like bowler and a warne-like bowler....and let's not talk about the current generation in the same breath just yet, just a year or two back stuart clark was called the 2nd coming and what happened? i say it again, saying mcgrath will be easier to replace just because he is a pace bowler is an incredibly oversimplistic assessment...

 

[Anil]

Well in their respective crafts there is no doubt that Warne was much further ahead of his all-time peers than McGrath was.

if you mean spinners in general, the answer is an emphatic no! he was not! if you are talking about leg spinners, it is still extremely arguable...

 

[Uppercut]

so what does that signify? mcgrath was the kind of bowler who excelled on all surfaces and there shouldn't be any doubt as to who will be picked given a choice between a mcgrath-like bowler and a warne-like bowler....and let's not talk about the current generation in the same breath just yet, just a year or two back stuart clark was called the 2nd coming and what happened? i say it again, saying mcgrath will be easier to replace just because he is a pace bowler is an incredibly oversimplistic assessment...

I think the point is that they bring different things to a side. The role of a fast bowler is usually more valuable, because they'll take wickets faster and for less runs. Fast bowling is effective on more wickets than slow bowling, that's why even the best spinners can't get quite near the averages of top-class quicks.

There's just certain situations that come up where a world-class spinner can do a job no fast bowler can, and that's when you realise how valuable a player like Warne or Murali is. Siddle and Johnson can't replace McGrath, but they can make a decent attempt at it. There's noone in international cricket who could even come close to doing the type of things Warne did. It's not unique to Australia.

 

[Matt79]

Warne fairly easily. Even as a big McGrath fan, it's laughable how overrated he is on CW.

 

[Anil]

it's laughable how overrated he is on CW.

i could easily say the same about warne...

 

[Matt79]

i could easily say the same about warne...

Wouldn't be true though if you did.

And doing so would be irrelevant to my point re McGrath.

 

[Anil]

I think the point is that they bring different things to a side. The role of a fast bowler is usually more valuable, because they'll take wickets faster and for less runs. Fast bowling is effective on more wickets than slow bowling, that's why even the best spinners can't get quite near the averages of top-class quicks.

There's just certain situations that come up where a world-class spinner can do a job no fast bowler can, and that's when you realise how valuable a player like Warne or Murali is. Siddle and Johnson can't replace McGrath, but they can make a decent attempt at it. There's noone in international cricket who could even come close to doing the type of things Warne did. It's not unique to Australia.

a player like mcgrath is more effective in most situations and competent everywhere else...without diminishing the value of a murali or warne, ultimately to a team looking for a champion bowler it doesn't matter that much to them whether it is a spinner or pacer, see the windies teams of the 80s and 90s, irrespective of surfaces or opposition, they dominated and won without a great spinner...and in any case, mcgrath is clearly better than warne and slightly better than murali as a bowler...

 

[Anil]

Wouldn't be true though if you did.

that warne is overrated on here? oh yes it would...

And doing so would be irrelevant to my point re McGrath.

it would repudiate your suggestion that warne was somehow better than mcgrath...