Warne v McGrath

[Ikki]

How many games did they lose with McGrath in the team?

Haha, that's pretty selective considering for 2/3 matches he played he was ordinary-to-poor and hand very little hand, if any, in keeping the result from a loss.

 

[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.

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

Andrew Cameron - master of deliberate ***ual-innuendo-inducing "typos".

Haha, how'd that happen!? The keys aren't even near each other!

 

[Top_Cat]

The reason that Warne is held in such high regard is because he was a clutch player. He brought it when the match was on the line or the opposition were getting the better of us. McGrath as high as I regard him, doesn't come close to Warne in that aspect. McGrath to his credit was so consistently good that he tended to peg the opposition back before it got to that point, but performing under pressure/when the match is in the balance > when it isn't.

Obv but as McGrath took early poles and opening the bowling as a fairly unique sort of pressure, it can be said McGrath took clutch wickets too. First morning of a Test, opposition batting line-up is fresh, generally flat pitches (for most of the 00's anyway), opposition know exactly what you're about and what you can do (you have fewer 'tricks' up your sleeve than a spinner after all), your team is relying on you to take one of the openers and possibly one more in your first spell, etc. That's the pressure an opening bowler faces. McGrath took his fair share of second spell wickets too, when the pressure was on to just take one to regain some momentum.

I mean, it's a similar argument people use when trying to punch holes in Steve Waugh's record by saying he didn't perform in 4th innings' chases. If you have a look at the matches where that was the case, more often than not he'd scored runs in the first dig, putting his best foot forward rather than waiting until his team were in trouble before finding the motivation to do well. When the game is genuinely up-for-grabs and there for the taking, to take control of it is as important a mental skill as any in the game. That's exactly why, personally, Sehwag's poor second dig scores aren't much of a criticism from my perspective; he'd generally done the damage in the first dig, taking control of the game and forcing the opposition to react. Even then, he's corrected his record there a little.

They're unable to be directly compared, myself. Two completely different bowlers who did what they do more effectively than anyone else I ever personally saw. Having seen virtually both their careers entirely, if someone put a gun to my head and said "Choose", I still wouldn't be able to pick. If they then ****ed the hammer, McGrath but only because I personally prefer pace bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

Exactly, which is why I say McGrath was the major driving force behind Australia's success. He would maintain the pressure from the outset, either by keeping the runs down or taking the wickets of the top dogs (one area where he is notably better than Warne). Australia with McGrath had this aura of invincibility even when Warne was not available or MacGill stepped in. Australia without McGrath suddenly gave the opposition confidence that they had a chance (though they would still lose in the end).

I agree with you in general but not all of Mcgrath's wickets were the first 4 wickets as Warne was generally just as helpful as Mcgrath in removing the top order. It's not black and white - this is more addressed to Sanz. Both were consistent in the highest order. Mcgrath tended to be a bit more consistent than Warne but as I said generally wasn't as decisive as Warne in the most difficult periods in matches. Which is not to imply that he wasn't a match winner because he was but he was generally outshined by Warne.

I guess it is my opinion that the difference in their ability between them producing a spell to win a match is larger than their ability to be consistent.

Also, didn't you cite general consensus as the reason you rate Wasim ahead of Mcgrath, disregarding their stats? If anything, the same, if not more, people citing Wasim the premier pacer consider Warne superior to Mcgrath. What's the reason for your differing opinion?

 

[Ikki]

Obv but as McGrath took early poles and opening the bowling as a fairly unique sort of pressure, it can be said McGrath took clutch wickets too. First morning of a Test, opposition batting line-up is fresh, generally flat pitches (for most of the 00's anyway), opposition know exactly what you're about and what you can do (you have fewer 'tricks' up your sleeve than a spinner after all), your team is relying on you to take one of the openers and possibly one more in your first spell, etc. That's the pressure an opening bowler faces. McGrath took his fair share of second spell wickets too, when the pressure was on to just take one to regain some momentum.

I disagree. Mcgrath's early wickets are undoubtedly important but there is a difference. When a match is hanging in the balance, wickets HAVE to be taken at that precise time otherwise the match is over. When you open the bowling the same pressure is not there. Your failure at that point is unlikely to cost you the match and there'll be more opportunity after that first spell to make right. Whilst it will disadvantage your team it's unlikely to be the definitive match moment.

People try to muddy the waters and say maybe the opening wickets were the matchwinning poles and logically you can argue that taking the tailenders were the matchwinning poles because...hey, you need all those wickets to win. But people who argue this are dumbing themselves down, in my eyes, as treating all wickets the same. A wicket that disrupts a dominating partnership is much different to taking a batsman near the start of his innings - it's much harder to dislodge a confident and prolific batsman in his stride - or a spell of 2-3 quick wickets that turn a match on it's head are more important than 3 wickets taken regularly over the course of the match. Also the psychological impact of these kinds of spells cannot be understated.

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, that's pretty selective considering for 2/3 matches he played he was ordinary-to-poor and hand very little hand, if any, in keeping the result from a loss.

I'm just saying. A certain other bowler did play all five.

 

[silentstriker]

I disagree. Mcgrath's early wickets are undoubtedly important but there is a difference. When a match is hanging in the balance, wickets HAVE to be taken at that precise time otherwise the match is over.

Match is also pretty much over if your opening bowlers don't take wickets. Opening bowlers are generally more important than the first change ones for a reason.

 

[aussie]

if they had been together it would obviously have been a fairly comfortable win for the aussies, as it is, it was a narrow loss and and in my opinion a fully fit mcgrath would have been the difference-maker with or without warne and inspite of all flintoff's heroics....once again as bowlers, mcgrath was better and that's the reason for my opinion, you may or may not choose to agree...

Well Anil sir. That is very wishful thinking i must say to think that McGrath fully fit for 5 test taking 40 wickets like Warne would have won the Ashes for Australia by himself.

Thats over-rating McGrath & under-rating Warne effect on that series.

Fact is they needed each other bowling together 100% to win. Thats why i say again this is useless thread since you can't compare them.

 

[aussie]

Exactly, which is why I say McGrath was the major driving force behind Australia's success. He would maintain the pressure from the outset, either by keeping the runs down or taking the wickets of the top dogs (one area where he is notably better than Warne).

Nope both where equal at maintaing pressure & keeping the runs down.

The only time this wasn't the case for Warne was vs India in 98, 99/00 & 2001 which for reason which are well documented.

Australia with McGrath had this aura of invincibility even when Warne was not available or MacGill stepped in. Australia without McGrath suddenly gave the opposition confidence that they had a chance (though they would still lose in the end).

Thats not true at all. Its not as if the back-up options in Gillespie, Kasper, MacGill, Lee (when he had his days), Bichel, Fleming, Miller where poor.

I dont know of a series between WI 95 to Ashes 06/07 where if one of McGrath or Warne didn't play a series the opposition gained much confidence for either being absent except for the rare case in the 05 Ashes.

Note: I wouldn't inclube India 98 because:

- Remembering that pre-series hype, Warne was hands down expected to give India a hard time.

- McGrath although is presence was missed, at the time wasn't thought much of as a sub-continent bowler.


This is just picking holes in these two great bowler.


Fact is again i say again, they needed each other 90+% of the time. So you can't split them.

 

[Ikki]

I'm just saying. A certain other bowler did play all five.

Am just saying, the other bowler was much more important in that series.

Match is also pretty much over if your opening bowlers don't take wickets. Opening bowlers are generally more important than the first change ones for a reason.

No it isn't. It becomes harder to win but it definitely isn't over. It's not about opening bowlers vs first change, because at times when matches were at balance both Warne and McGrath were used.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Warne got owned by Tendulkar & Lara whilst McGrath owned Tendulkar & Lara.

Both of their main qualities are probably as equally important as each other.

Without McGrath then you might not get into a match-winning position but without Warne then the likelyhood of taking advantage of a match-winning position lessen's greatly.

Without Warne then you'll probably draw more matches but without McGrath you'll probably lose more matches.

Too difficult to divide the two and define who is truly better.

 

[GIMH]

No-one is going to pretend McGrath's absence at Edgbaston wasn't a factor in our victory (we would not have scored at approx 5 an over in the 1st dig if he had been there, though I doubt there'd have been a monumental 10th wicket partnership if he had been!! ) but to use the fact that McGrath missed the two games we won as evidence for him being better than Warne is quite frankly as weak as piss. There are many reasons why you can justifiably claim McGrath to be better but that isn't one

 

[biased indian]

McGrath for me ...warne got owned by the best opposition he had to face

if Australia didn't play too many ashes series aganist england and had played india more warne would have had less wickets

 

[silentstriker]

I really don't understand people voting for Warne here. I'm not surprised, but still.

 

[GIMH]

McGrath for me ...warne got owned by the best opposition he had to face

if Australia didn't play too many ashes series aganist england and had played india more warne would have had less wickets

If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle

 

[Francis]

Warne for me, primarily because:

* He took more wickets in each Test (even though both men averaged around 5 per Test)
* Bowled longer spells in each Test (which is expected of spinners)
* Was the better 'big match' performer, in my mind (1999 World Cup, 2005 Ashes, 2004 Sri Lanka etc)

I also think people under-value Warne because of his bowling average. It gets worse when people rate Kumble. Here's an interesting thread on Kumble in which I posted a while ago.
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/34734-murali-vs-kumble-right-now.html#post1428921

Basically I was trying to get people to realise that the best bowlers are the ones who win you the Test match, they're not always the ones that get wickets the fastest, which is generally the criteria people use when judging bowlers (strike-rate, average etc). And Kumble is a better example to use than Warne. Lets say there's a bowler who takes 3-50 from 27 overs. That'll be great for the stats because his average is below 20 and his strike-rate is 54.

Then lets say you have Kumble who takes 6-180 from 65 overs. His average will be around 30 and his strike rate above 60, but Kumble is the reason you win the Test match. He's the reason you win the Test match because while the other bowler took quick qickets, he couldn't keep going after 27 overs, which a lot of pace bowlers can't do. In a nutshell, he can't win you the Test match. Kumble can! Test match cricket isn't always a race for time. You have 5 long days. You need 20 wickets more than you need quick wickets that don't amount to 20.

I use Kumble as an example because I feel Warne was Australia's go-to guy more often than McGrath, although not by much. Warne bowled the longer spells and took slightly more wickets per match IIRC. I really don't think 3 runs difference in average compares to the importance of getting that extra wicket.

I've been a tiny critic of Glen McGrath in the past, which isn't to say he's not one of the greatest bowlers ever. Here were my contentions - http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/23845-mcgrath-little-overrated-these-days.html

My main criticisms of McGrath are:

* There have been examples (rare though they are), where I think a bowler with more in his aresenal (pace, swing) would have succeeded in moments when McGrath couldn't take crucial wickets (which wasn't often).

* I really don't think people realise that McGrath wasn't one of the world's best bowlers until around 1998. He was always economical and by 1995 he was effective. But nobody, at the time, rated him in the same league as Ambrose, Akram, Donald etc. It's what I'd call a 'revisionist thing'. Back in those days McGrath was rated highly, but it wasn't until later that he was one of the best. His stats really belied his contributions during those early years. This isn't to say he didn't win Australia matches from 1995-1997. He did and was MOTM in a few games, but generally he wasn't seen as good as some of his other fast bowling peers.

In fact his bowling from 1995-1997 reminded me of his bowling just before the 2006/07 Ashes, when people were saying McGrath was too old and not taking wickets. It's true McGrath wasn't taking many wickets during that period, but really his average didn't suffer much because even then he was very economical. Economical bowlers aren't very useful if they don't take a lot of wickets, but their stats don't suffer. McGrath wasn't quite the threat he would later become.

Personally I rate McGrath's best period as from Perth 2004, when he ripped apart Pakistan, to the time he injured himself at Edgbaston. After that I really don't think he ever returned to his best, despite some significant contributions in his final Ashes series (I'm thinking of the first Test). Gosh he was one of those players that scared the life out of you.

This isn't to say there aren't arguments that McGrath is better than Warne. There are. But generally I think Warne was more important to Australia winning Tests. Obviously it would be stupid to say there was much of a margin between the importance of both men to Australia winning.

 

[silentstriker]

Regarding your critisisms, that's a really odd thing to say. Warne would have been better if he had a better flipper. Marshall might have been better if he were taller. It's an odd way to think, because even Bradman could have been better than he was.

 

[Francis]

Regarding your critisisms, that's a really odd thing to say. Warne would have been better if he had a better flipper. Marshall might have been better if he were taller. It's an odd way to think, because even Bradman could have been better than he was.

Perhaps I can elaborate a little better...

Personally I don't think Marshall would have been better if he were taller. Being small was actually an advantage for him because he could skid the ball in. I can't recall a time when I watched Warne and thought, "Golly if he had a better flipper he'd get a wicket." What Warne did usually sufficed. Mind you, he had arguably the greatest flipper ever early on in his career. But I can recall a couple fo times when I thought McGrath would have succeeded more if he had more in his arsenal. Warne and Marshall already had plenty in their aresenal.

In McGrath's defence, it is a very small criticism of him. And if anything Warne became more like McGrath later on in his career. Warne really only used the sliders and the leg break near the end of his career, and after his suspension Warne mastered the basics and fundamentals of spin bowling better than he did earlier in his career. I suppose it comes down to this: I always thought Warne threatened batsmen with what he had. There were rare instances in McGrath's career where what McGrath did, didn't always threaten batsmen.

By all means though you can feel free to disagree with that. That's just my perception of how things happened. And I'd be much happier if people understood my point about Kumble because nothing irritates me more than cricket fans trying to rank players on stats and making stats and exact science.

 

[Francis]

How many games did they lose with McGrath in the team?

I was going through the thread, which I didn't do before I posted, and noticed this comment.

Kevin Pieterson (sp - I'm tired) once said without Warne England would have won that series 4-1. And he's right. Warne was the only player who consistently mounted a rear-guard in the last four Tests. Ponting chimed in during the 3rd Test and there were a few glimpses here and there, but Warne was the reason that series remained competitive.

I sincerely believe that if McGrath didn't play in the 3rd and 5th game, the result would have been the same. He had a very limited impact on the results in those games. If Warne didn't play those games would have been lost.

I don't mean to sound arrogrant, crass, conceeded etc when I say this, but it's useless trying to compare McGrath's contributions to Warne's in the 2005 Ashes. I think it's even silly to say McGrath was a small reason why those games weren't lost. After that first Test Warne was on such another level of excellence in the games McGrath played. McGrath was injured and rushed back, so I wont be too hard on him. But golly there just isn't any comparison between the two when you look at that series. McGrath played poorly in the 3rd and 5th Test. But like I said, he was injured and rushed back too soon.

Geoff Boycott said it, and it's true, if Warne had one bowler to support him during the last four Tests, Australia would have retained the Ashes. Warne took 40 wickets of Australia's 97 wickets. He also made more runs than three of Australia's top batsmen (I think they were Martyn, Katich and Gilchrist???) and made more consistent batting contributions than say, Ponting, who only came to the fore in the 3rd Test. You might disagree with what Boycott said, but the likes of Lee had an astronomical bowling average in that series. Gillespie went to hell as well. McGrath did very little in the 3rd and 5th Test. And despite all that, Australia came pretty close.

I'll also make the point that Warne had to rip through England's top order in many of the Tests. I remember in the 4th Test Warne's figures were 3-0 in the second innings after three overs. In another Test (it was either the 4or 5th) England were 0-100+ and Warne took 3-4 wickets in his first spell. My lasting memory of that spell was Warne bowling Kevin Pietersen with a straight delivery, and him celebrating like a morinic idiot. In short, Warne showed how capable he was of dismissing top order batsmen in that series.

Hindsight makes me reflect on how awesome that series was. You can't put a value on how entertaining Warne was in that series. Like Sachin Tendulkar said after that series, "He's God's gift to cricket".

 

[Pratters]

To compare Warne and McGrath based on one series when they have played so many through their careers is a bit of a stretch.