Warne v McGrath

[Uppercut]

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...

Windies would have been better had one of their top-class bowlers been Warne or Murali, though. Being the best doesn't mean you couldn't be better.

 

[stephen]

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...

Other than Murali, can you name a spinner who is even in the same league as Warne?

After pitches were covered?

 

[ret]

Warne

 

[Anil]

Windies would have been better had one of their top-class bowlers been Warne or Murali, though. Being the best doesn't mean you couldn't be better.

that is at best a very dubious hypothetical...you can make a similarly hypothetical comment in reverse, if marshall had partnered mcgrath, australia would have been much more dominant than they were...

 

[Anil]

Other than Murali, can you name a spinner who is even in the same league as Warne?

laker? o'reilly? grimmett? i am sure there are others in the same league....i for one don't automatically make an assumption that before covered wickets, bowlers were much worse....

 

[stephen]

laker? o'reilly? grimmett? i am sure there are others in the same league....i for one don't automatically make an assumption that before covered wickets, bowlers were much worse....

So you have to go back fifty years to find bowlers who were arguably at a similar level to Warne. And they had the advantages of uncovered wickets. Yet all those who have seen those bowlers and Warne have said how much better Warne was than them.

To find comparable fast bowlers to McGrath, you only have to go back a decade or so and look at Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose and Walsh who were all of at least similar quality in comparison to McGrath as O'Reilly and Grimmet were to Warne.

The fact is that Kumble was probably about the 6th or 7th best spinner of all time and he was miles behind Warne/Murali. While I think that McGrath was a fantastic bowler, and in the top two quicks to have played since at least WWII, Warne is so much more valuable because there are so few spinners around his quality.

 

[Anil]

and i am saying that mcgrath was more valuable than warne because he was simply put, the better bowler of the two...it is straightforward enough, i see it as a wrong assumption that just because quality spinners are lesser in number it makes them more valuable...the best attack for me is a group(usually a quartet) of the best bowlers in the country, if that includes a spinner, fine, if not, fine as well...

 

[Anil]

So you have to go back fifty years to find bowlers who were arguably at a similar level to Warne. And they had the advantages of uncovered wickets. Yet all those who have seen those bowlers and Warne have said how much better Warne was than them.

in any case you just mentioned a contemporary(murali) who was arguably better than him, at the very least was at the same level...that itself throws off your argument that he was miles ahead of all his all-time peers...before this goes any further i am not interested in making this about warne vs murali...

 

[Sanz]

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.

Two points :- a. Mcgrath didn't need favorable wickets to take his wickets b. Warne failed massively on the most favorable wickets he got.

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.

And that is true conversely as well.

 

[Sanz]

So you have to go back fifty years to find bowlers who were arguably at a similar level to Warne. And they had the advantages of uncovered wickets. Yet all those who have seen those bowlers and Warne have said how much better Warne was than them.

Please do not bring your fairy tales into the discussion. Speak for yourself and do not attempt to be a spokesperson of history.

Sir Don Bradman :-

"O'Reilly is the best bowler I've ever played against, or ever seen."

 

[subshakerz]

Once you take the gloss and hype away, and start looking at their records and pure wicket-taking abilities, McGrath is notably ahead of Warne is nearly every category, particularly the ones that matter, (overall record, record in different countries, record against the best batsmen). The greatest myth is that Warne was the driving force behind Australia's domination, I can only think of Ian Botham as a cricketer who is more massively overrated.

On the merits of fast bowlers vs. spinners, I don't really care if there have been fewer great spinners than fast bowlers, that shouldn't heighten the standing of a spinner. If you are a better at taking wickets, you are a better bowler, simple as that. McGrath>Warne.

 

[JBH001]

Agree, McGrath > Warne.

 

[Ikki]

From when they teamed up, how they fared without each other:

McGrath:

Overall:       Avg. 21.64; SR 51.9
Without Warne: Avg. 23.34; SR 61.5

Warne:

Overall:         Avg. 25.41; SR 57.4
Without McGrath: Avg. 26.15; SR 55.2

 

[Ikki]

in any case you just mentioned a contemporary(murali) who was arguably better than him, at the very least was at the same level...that itself throws off your argument that he was miles ahead of all his all-time peers...before this goes any further i am not interested in making this about warne vs murali...

This is being intellectually dishonest. In McGrath's own time, too, he had 3-4 bowlers of equal quality. You have to go 50-60 years prior to get near Warne for a similar player, you only have to go a few years before McGrath to get his equal in Marshall/Hadlee/Imran/Lillee.

There should be no argument in this. Warne bowls the hardest bowling type to master and at his level there are very few in history to get close to him.

People are also judging straight stats, you can't do that as spinners and pacers have different roles, come on at different times, and naturally the game advantages pacers

When people bring the argument that McGrath is set apart from other pacers for his achievements in this era of pitches, etc, it counts even moreso for Warne. For Warne not only dealt with the flat pitches, but he bowled half his career at home, where spin is tonked around for fun. At least for 7 years McGrath had pitches with life in them before they started going flat at home; Warne goes through his whole career with only Sydney as the spin haven.

Even away, pitches are still more suited for pace then they are spin. All bar India and Sri Lanka are more profitable for pace than spin.

Also, McGrath's record at home to S.Africa is not good. His record in Pakistan is hardly great either. People forget to mention this. Warne had his flaw in India, sure. But I don't think it's fair to judge him overall as if he was that bad or would have been without injuries/rehabilitation. Warne was all over the place during that period, even against the WIndies (who he had done very well against prior), England (which he has never had a problem against) and likewise New Zealand. Without that period his figures are changed from day to night. And the difference in Warne as a bowler in that time and the rest of his career is just that: day and night.

Also interesting to see a lot of the people who were arguing for Sobers because of general consensus are saying the general consensus is wrong in this instance.

 

[Matt79]

Judging the cases on its merits...

 

[silentstriker]

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

Dire, don't talk to me ever again.

 

[silentstriker]

Other than Murali, can you name a spinner who is even in the same league as Warne?

After pitches were covered?

That doesn't mean Warne was better bowler. It just means Warne was more better than his competition than McGrath was from his.


I seriously do not think there has been a player that is more overrated than Warne. In the history of the game. At least some luddites don't rate Murali for his action, so that brings his stock down - though Murali would be perilously close to #2 on that overrated list (even though I think Warne is a better player).

McGrath, on the other hand, is the most underrated player of all time. People don't give him enough credit for what he has done in the flat-pitch/crazy bat era. They really don't respect his ability to go after the best. It's sad, and odd that they were both contemporaries.

 

[stephen]

That doesn't mean Warne was better bowler. It just means Warne was more better than his competition than McGrath was from his.


I seriously do not think there has been a player that is more overrated than Warne. In the history of the game. At least some luddites don't rate Murali for his action, so that brings his stock down - though Murali would be perilously close to #2 on that overrated list (even though I think Warne is a better player).

McGrath, on the other hand, is the most underrated player of all time. People don't give him enough credit for what he has done in the flat-pitch/crazy bat era. They really don't respect his ability to go after the best. It's sad, and odd that they were both contemporaries.

From now on just ignore any discussion surrounding spin bowlers, it would do your blood pressure good.

 

[Anil]

This is being intellectually dishonest. In McGrath's own time, too, he had 3-4 bowlers of equal quality. You have to go 50-60 years prior to get near Warne for a similar player, you only have to go a few years before McGrath to get his equal in Marshall/Hadlee/Imran/Lillee.

if you don't mind i really, really don't want to get into debating aussies in general and warne in particular with you...i don't want to get into a vicious circle of cyclical arguments where you sacrifice any semblance of objectivity at the altar of personal preference and statistical expediency and i end up beating my smiley head in frustration against the internet equivalent of a brick wall....just have been part of too many of those, i need to learn my lesson at some point, don't i?

 

[subshakerz]

From when they teamed up, how they fared without each other:

McGrath:

Overall:       Avg. 21.64; SR 51.9
Without Warne: Avg. 23.34; SR 61.5

Warne:

Overall:         Avg. 25.41; SR 57.4
Without McGrath: Avg. 26.15; SR 55.2

These figures don't really help Warne's case, given that McGrath still has a much better average than Warne without his bowling support.