Warne v McGrath

[ozone]

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

Interesting idea. But even if you take the argument McGrath is a better bowler than Warne, it can still be argued that you would rather have Warne in your side because the next best like-for-like replacement for Warne is going to be so much worse than the next best like-for-like replacement for McGrath.

Basically: Warne+Next best seamer >>> McGrath+Next best leggie

 

[Ikki]

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?

Why make a post like that, insulting as it is, pretending to the "objective" one and the only one who'll bring forth a valuable argument?

In general, I don't like comparing spinners to pacers because they're so different, but what you said was intellectually dishonest. So what that during Warne's time there was Murali? It doesn't devalue the point that bowlers like that come once every few decades - which was stephen's point.

 

[Ikki]

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

But a much worse SR. Also, the change it has from their original figures says something here.

Although, I tend to think such stats are not something you can place a whole argument on, I think they're interesting to say the least. Both players acknowledge each others' importance but I think it's safe to say that most people appreciate what Warne brought to the table more than McGrath.

 

[Evermind]

There have been several bowlers as good as McGrath in the last 20 years. There has been no spinner remotely as good as Warne or Murali during the same period. That alone says a lot.

Warne was a considerably more intelligent bowler than McGrath.

 

[Anil]

Why make a post like that, insulting as it is

can't help it if you find that insulting because from what i've seen it is very true and that's why i don't want to go down that road with you...again...

 

[Ikki]

can't help it if you find that insulting because from what i've seen it is very true and that's why i don't want to go down that road with you...again...

You made a post that didn't make sense and I called you on it. You're right, if you do respond with more incorrect stuff I will continue to call you on it. Maybe it is best if you don't go down that road.

 

[Anil]

Maybe it is best if you don't go down that road.

it would certainly be a waste of my time...we agree on that much....

 

[BoyBrumby]

Better bowler? McGrath. Who I'd pick first? Warne every time.

Even leaving aside the vastly superior batting and fielding, spinners of Warne's quality are rare as hen's teeth. We've been spoilt with Warne, Murali, Kumble & MacGill over the last decade and a half, but really they're like gold dust.

 

[subshakerz]

Interesting idea. But even if you take the argument McGrath is a better bowler than Warne, it can still be argued that you would rather have Warne in your side because the next best like-for-like replacement for Warne is going to be so much worse than the next best like-for-like replacement for McGrath.

Basically: Warne+Next best seamer >>> McGrath+Next best leggie

Really? Was Stuart MacGill that bad? Did Australia all of a sudden start losing when he came into the attack? When McGrath was playing, his next best replacement was Gillespie, was he that much better than MacGill?

 

[Ikki]

Macgill wasn't bad, but he bowled a lot when the conditions absolutely suited spin, enough so for Australia to pick 2 spinners. And when he didn't have Warne in the side he didn't do as well by himself at all. Gillespie >>> MacGill.

 

[subshakerz]

Warne was a considerably more intelligent bowler than McGrath.

Highly, highly debatable. I can't recall any bowler you can read batsman for weaknesses and prey on those weaknesses more effectively than McGrath (perhaps Marshall). People think that all McGrath did was bowl line and length outside the off stump, he was much more intelligent than that and had a plan for every batsman who faced him.

Check out his hatrick and how each dismissal seems carefully catered to each batsman:

YouTube - Glen Mcgrath Hatrick

Warne was certainly a crafty customer, but I can recall quite a few occasions when he simply had no answer to the batsman. Batsmen rarely dominated McGrath.

 

[roseboy64]

Warne quite easily. Much easier to be a brilliant pacer than to be a brilliant leggie.

 

[subshakerz]

Macgill wasn't bad, but he bowled a lot when the conditions absolutely suited spin, enough so for Australia to pick 2 spinners. And when he didn't have Warne in the side he didn't do as well by himself at all. Gillespie >>> MacGill.

Are you saying you would prefer an attack containing Gillespie and Warne over McGrath and MacGill? Check the Ashes 2005 to see how well that turned out...

 

[subshakerz]

Warne quite easily. Much easier to be a brilliant pacer than to be a brilliant leggie.

By that logic, any of the great spinners in cricket history will be greater than all of the great fast bowlers in cricket history, just because it's harder to do so.

 

[roseboy64]

No. I've seen Warne and McGrath bowl so can use that logic. Haven't seen all the great spinners so would only have their records to go on.

 

[G.I.Joe]

There are domestic cricketers in India who wouldn't think twice before answering this question.

 

[Sanz]

It is a myth that Bowlers like Mcgrath are easier to replace than Spinners like Warne. It was pretty clear that for much of Warne's career Australia had a leggie replacement available. Evertime Warnie was out Macgill filled in quite nicely. He may not have been as good as warne but arguments have been that he was a better spinner than guys like Kumble and Mushtaq. Warne's era saw at least 4 outstanding legspinners in Kumble, Mushy, Warne and Macgill hence bursting the bubble that Warne is far more difficult to replace and it is far more difficult to find someone of his craft.

 

[Ikki]

Are you saying you would prefer an attack containing Gillespie and Warne over McGrath and MacGill? Check the Ashes 2005 to see how well that turned out...

Yes, quite easily I'd prefer that attack. The Ashes was Gillespie's worst series and does not represent his skills as a bowler.

It is a myth that Bowlers like Mcgrath are easier to replace than Spinners like Warne. It was pretty clear that for much of Warne's career Australia had a leggie replacement available. Evertime Warnie was out Macgill filled in quite nicely. He may not have been as good as warne but arguments have been that he was a better spinner than guys like Kumble and Mushtaq. Warne's era saw at least 4 outstanding legspinners in Kumble, Mushy, Warne and Macgill hence bursting the bubble that Warne is far more difficult to replace and it is far more difficult to find someone of his craft.

Kumble, Mushtaq and MacGill are a country mile behind Warne. Just because they were the next best thing doesn't mean they were close. LOL, what a myth.

 

[andyc]

If it was for a single game, I'd probably go Warne, but if it was for a whore series or career, I'd take McGrath, hands down.

 

[G.I.Joe]

If it was for a single game, I'd probably go Warne, but if it was for a whore series or career, I'd take McGrath, hands down.

I don't know. That sort of thing sounds like something right up Warne's alley