Warne v McGrath

[JBH001]

WB Francis. Been a while since you posted, iirc.

Btw, here are McGrath's and Warne's respective stats in wins.

McGrath 1993-2007 84 168 3296.4 1010 7945 414 8/24 10/27 19.19 2.41 47.7 18 3 
Warne 1992-2007 92 180 4355.3 1132 11461 510 8/71 11/77 22.47 2.63 51.2 27 7

Not that I think these definitive in any way, but I thought it might add to the discussion.

Interestingly, the ratio of bowling in wins is roughly, 47 overs a game for Warne, as opposed to McGrath's, which is just under 40 overs.

 

[Francis]

Just to confuse you further, I feel like ranting to further illustrate that it's the bowler who won more games for his country that's the greater bowler.

My contention in this post is this: the match-winner isn't always the person who takes the most wickets. That might sound like I'm contradicting myself after saying I rate Warne better than McGrath because he took more wickets and more 4fers anf 5fers. But I'll try to explain.

I remember a few years back Murali took around 90 wickets in 11 Tests in one year - an unbelievable feat. Stuart Clark, in his debut year (2006) took something around 47 wickets (at an incredible strike-rate and average). Despite nearly taking twice as many wickets as Clark, I don't rate Murali's match-winning capacity in that year to be far from Stuart Clark's. Murali was the better match-winner, but not by much.

My reason for this is that Murali took 70, 80 and I think even 90 (in one Test) overs to get his wickets, and ultimately it was too long a time to take to win the Tests, and despite winning some Tests, some others were drawn. Whereas Stuart Clark made an immediate match-winning impact in South Africa in 2006. He was brilliant. The only thing stopping from from taking more wickets was competition from other bowlers. But he was BY AN ABSOLUTE MILE the best Australian player on that tour to South Africa in 2006 and the reason why they won that 3-0.

I rate Murali's year better than Clark's, although not by much. That's not a criticism of Murali, though, as he won Sri Lanka matches that year and was the best bowler in the world that year. I'm just writing this to say that the best bowlers win you matches when they're there to be won. Clark made such a massive winning impact in those games and because he won Australia games, I rated him highly that year.

The reason it's easy for me to say that Warne got more 5fers and 4fers in his career is because Warne didn't go beyond 30-40 overs much in the latter stages in his career, so it's easy to say that he got wickets within a reasonable time that was match-winning. His didn't have many marathon bowling innings that ate up too much time like Kumble and Murali sometimes did. Although that's not to say Kumble and Murali didn't win matches with many of their marathon spells.

My only argument that I've put forward to you in this thread is that the better bowler is the one who had a bigger impact on Australia (or any team) winning. Sometimes the better bowler will have a better average and economy etc (like McGrath), sometimes the other bowler will have taken more wickets (like Warne), and sometimes you can take less wickets but still make a bigger winning impact (like Clark). As a batsman, Geoff Boycott was the master of making plenty of runs, but with very little impact or match-winning value (though he was a match-winner at times).

All that matters to me is who was the better match-winner. If you think it was McGrath that's fine. But I'm really not too interested in playing a statistical game with you (despite the fact I've used a few statistics in this thread, sparingly).

So that's it to me, who won Australia more matches. That's my criteria.

 

[Francis]

WB Francis. Been a while since you posted, iirc.

Thanks mate. I don't post here often mainly because I feel like I've exhausted plenty of the best discussions here. I'm finding mroe and more that if I want to mount an argument, I can simply go into the archive and bust out my posts on Dennis Lillee, or why I rate Tendulkar better than Lara, or why stats should be used sparingly and intelligently etc. I tend to repeat myself a bit here.

But I have been wasting my time in the sports forum from time to time, talking rugby.

 

[JBH001]

I dont know if that post was directed at me, or in general, but dont worry about the statistical stuff. I find that stuff interesting in portions, but an extended discussion in statistical terms (which is common on CW) bores me senseless, and as I have said before, I have better things to do with my time.

I just dont know if it can be (perhaps) simplistically broken down into Warne won more matches than McGrath based on 4 fers and 5 fers, when it is more likely a combination of the two (or other bowlers) bowling that may have played the predominant role in Australia winning so many of the matches they did in the 90s and 2000s. Certainly, Warne bowls a lot in wins, 47 overs, but McGrath, especially for a pacer, is not all that far behind with 40 overs. I say this especially in light of your comments about Murali vs Clark. I dont think Clark close to the bowler Murali is, or to be more precise, has been (he has been in decline since 2006/2007) but the fact that Clark has been able to be more of a match winning bowler is also due to a host of other circumstances outside his control as a bowler, for example, the strength of his batting side and the quality of his bowling support. Murali, for all his gifts, has only figured in 51 wins over the course of his career, only 17 of these have been overseas (and 7 of these are comprised of wins against Bang and Zim). The most obvious reasons for these are the puacity of his bowling support overseas, and the generally poor performance of SL batsmen on overseas tracks which tended to lead to less runs, and less innings, and less innings bowling time overall (Hadlee may be another similar example).

It seems to me then that your criteria might have an inbuilt bias towards match winning bowlers in match winning teams.

Btw, the McGrath and Warne stats take into account matches they played together and did not play together. I dont know if further paring of these stats is totally relevant.

 

[Francis]

I dont know if that post was directed at me, or in general, but dont worry about the statistical stuff.

Twas just a random rant that I felt compelled to make aimed at nobody really...

EDIT: Actually that last part was sort of politely aimed at Subshakerz and Slifer because as anybody who knows me here knows, rating cricketers isn't an exact science with stats. I remember a time when C_C (whatever happened to him, anyway?) said that stats with the highest authority of evidence and reveal the truth about a cricketer's performance. I think they were just created to give a somewhat general idea of how a cricketer is going.

 

[Anil]

I love this argument. It's always, "Warne had McGrath to feed off". It's never "McGrath had to feed off Warne." Warne didn't take as many top order batsman as McGrath, which I mainly attribute to McGrath always bowling first , but Warne was masterly as dismissing top order batsmen such as Inzamam Ul Haq, Gary Kirsten, Darrel Cullinan, Graham Gooch (a great player of spin). Heck when McGrath dropped off in the Ashes it was Warne who took many of the top order wickets. For mine there's no doubt Warne was a great bowler to the top order.

you must be kidding, he did play spin pretty decently during the latter half of his career, but to call him a great player of spin is ridiculous..kirsten wasn't great at playing spin either and cullinan was all at sea against anything resembling quality spin...

 

[Francis]

I only called Gooch a good player of spin and I stand by that.

 

[aussie]

Damnnnnnn, this Francis cat is on fire...

But just to reiterate my position on this matter.....This is a useless comparison.

Their value to Australia in the dominant era was equal, they complimented each other superbly.

Plus most IMPORTANTLY, when it came down to the test of their greatness each on respective occassion where able to carry the Australian attack when one wasn't playing or not 100%, i.e McGrath vs WI 99, Warne Ashes 05.

 

[Slifer]

As far as value to Australia, overall of course Warne is a better player (he's a better batsman and a better fielder) but the contention here is who was the better bowler. Francis and co have their own opinion on how they measure this and i have mine. My method(s) for measuring who the better bowler was are: overall stats, and how they performed against the very best. Obviously Australia had the best batting line up during thier respective era so the next best would be India (particualrly India in India). And one could make whatever argument one wants (warne was injured, out of form etc) but the fact of the matter is, he comes a distant second best to Mcgrath in this all important criteria. Second Mcrgath was more consistent against more teams. This is essentially y i would rate Mcgrath over not only Warne but over all bowlers with the possible exception of a selcect few. And Aussie, interesting that u bring up wi 99. FTR Warne was not injured in the same way as Mcgrath was for the Ashes, Warne got owned in a way that i have never seen mcgrath owned. BTW im not sayin mcgrath has never been on the wrong end of the willow but not to the extent that Warne was in that series.

 

[Burgey]

As far as value to Australia, overall of course Warne is a better player (he's a better batsman and a better fielder) but the contention here is who was the better bowler. Francis and co have their own opinion on how they measure this and i have mine. My method(s) for measuring who the better bowler was are: overall stats, and how they performed against the very best. Obviously Australia had the best batting line up during thier respective era so the next best would be India (particualrly India in India). And one could make whatever argument one wants (warne was injured, out of form etc) but the fact of the matter is, he comes a distant second best to Mcgrath in this all important criteria. Second Mcrgath was more consistent against more teams. This is essentially y i would rate Mcgrath over not only Warne but over all bowlers with the possible exception of a selcect few. And Aussie, interesting that u bring up wi 99. FTR Warne was not injured in the same way as Mcgrath was for the Ashes, Warne got owned in a way that i have never seen mcgrath owned. BTW im not sayin mcgrath has never been on the wrong end of the willow but not to the extent that Warne was in that series.

Yeah, it's obviously going to come down to the factors everyone thinks are most important between two such great players.

As far as injuries go, the extent to which people take them into account as factors for and against players is a matter for them I guess. So long as we're consistent in how we do, between batsmen and bowlers, favourites and non-favourites, then all opinions in these matters will be reasonable ones, even if we don't agree with them.

 

[Francis]

Yeah it's all good.

I just want to caution people here about something I said. While Murali bowled plenty of overs in 2006, in two Tests I believe he bowled above 80, I don't think he ever bowled 90 overs in a Test. It's called creative licence, heh. I just made a few generalisations to illustrate the match winning differences between Murali and Clark. Also, Murali was instrumental in a series win against South Africa in 2006, plus a tied series against England. So don't think I was knocking him. He was the best bowler in the world in2 006.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah it's all good.

I just want to caution people here about something I said. While Murali bowled plenty of overs in 2006, in two Tests I believe he bowled above 80, I don't think he ever bowled 90 overs in a Test. It's called creative licence, heh. I just made a few generalisations to illustrate the match winning differences between Murali and Clark. Also, Murali was instrumental in a series win against South Africa in 2006, plus a tied series against England. So don't think I was knocking him. He was the best bowler in the world in2 006.

Oh, it's not that. I'm just setting people up for when they attempt to use elbow injuries for batsmen to explain away a fall in averages since 2001 vs non-minnows, compared with other batsmen who've done a lot better in that period .

 

[Anil]

I only called Gooch a good player of spin

yeah right...i quoted you when i posted...unless you mean good when you say/type great...which in itself is a big reach...

 

[Francis]

I meant I only called Gooch a good player of spin, not Kirsten or Cullinan. I used Kirsen and Cullinan because they were top order batsmen. You misunderstood me. You said, "kirsten wasn't great at playing spin either and cullinan was all at sea against anything resembling quality spin..." But I made no reference to them because great at spin, I mentioned them because they were top order batsmen.

Gooch was the only player I made reference to as being very capable of playing spin. To reiterate, I stand by what I said that he was a 'great' player of spin. I never recanted what I said, I merely substituted 'great' for 'good' without distinguishing between the two.

I don't know if anybody here is interested, but here are Stephen Fleming thoughts on who the best opposition player he ever faced was.

YouTube - Stephen Fleming remembers the Best players

Here's Martin Crowe's opinion on who his toughest bowler ever was...

My Sport: Martin Crowe - Telegraph

 

[Ikki]

The diff in Mcgrath and Warnes WPM ratio is a matter of decimal points. The diff in their average and strike rate is decidedly in Mcgrath's favor. The teams against whom Warne had success are the same teams Mcgrath had success agaisnt (more or less). ANd i refuse to get into that Lillee argument with u again.

But Warne was a spinner who came on and faced set batsmen. Surely that's worth an extra 3 runs and 4-5 balls? And if not that much, a bit less, which really then becomes nit-picking based on average and SR.

The truth of the matter is, as Francis touches but doesn't delve into, that McGrath even in terms of 4/5/10 wicket hauls is inferior despite the amount Warne bowled more. McGrath in comparison to the great quicks who bowled similar, if not less, took more big hauls than he did. I did a bit of an analysis of this way back:

 

[Ikki]

P.S. I always like reading Francis' posts. He doesn't like stats, doesn't use them often but when he does they make complete sense. And when he doesn't, it also makes complete sense.

 

[subshakerz]

I guess this argument is boiling down to the criteria for judging greatness in a bowler. For the record, my main criteria include overall stats (yes, I do not believe stats are everything as has been suggested, but I do believe if one bowler is notably ahead in almost all major categories across the board as McGrath is with Warne this should not be ignored). Besides this, I look for performance against the best batting side (India) and best batsmen (Lara/Tendulkar), in which case McGrath is also far ahead. Another critical factor is consistent performance in different countries/conditions, with McGrath again with the edge.

Match-winning skills are a good criteria, but why dismiss the fact that McGrath has superior overall stats in matches won by Australia and simply focus on a arbitrary stat of number of 4-fers and 5-fers and number of overs in a match, which seems tilted towards spinners anyways.

Beyond this, I do consider think peer testimony important, just not as important if there is a big difference in the above.

 

[subshakerz]

I am a firm believer that to prove you are the best you have to not just perform against ordinary opposition but the best available. This standard has to apply to all greats, and I see no reason Warne should be excluded. Would we consider Lara and Tendulkar that great if they averaged 20 against Australia? Even if they were struggling with injuries, you would find it hard to rate them as highly as the bottomline is they were unproven against Australia at best or failure as worst. Same with Warne against India.

His supporters seem to tout his performance against India in 2004 as proof of his ability against them. Really? He was the most expensive spinner in both sides and never once threatened to run through their batting line-up despite having toured the country twice. If the best that Warne can come up with against India is a series where he averages 30+ on spinning wickets acting as a support bowler, I'm sorry, that's not good enough to convince me.

 

[Ikki]

I guess this argument is boiling down to the criteria for judging greatness in a bowler. For the record, my main criteria include overall stats (yes, I do not believe stats are everything as has been suggested, but I do believe if one bowler is notably ahead in almost all major categories across the board as McGrath is with Warne this should not be ignored). Besides this, I look for performance against the best batting side (India) and best batsmen (Lara/Tendulkar), in which case McGrath is also far ahead. Another critical factor is consistent performance in different countries/conditions, with McGrath again with the edge.

Match-winning skills are a good criteria, but why dismiss the fact that McGrath has superior overall stats in matches won by Australia and simply focus on a arbitrary stat of number of 4-fers and 5-fers and number of overs in a match, which seems tilted towards spinners anyways.

Beyond this, I do consider think peer testimony important, just not as important if there is a big difference in the above.

TBH, Warne only ever had 1 poor series versus Lara - that was when he was recovering/learning to bowl again - 1 average one and 4 good ones. He was getting hit around by everyone at that time, I put little stake in that. Tendulkar also tonked Warne when he was at his lowest, but also did well regardless even when he was better so I'll give you that. But seriously, judging by only 2 batsmen is pretty arbitrary. Especially since that best batting side was way more adept at playing spin than pace and also met Warne mostly at the worst time in his career. That criticism is overdone. He never met them at his best and whilst I wouldn't say he would have done excellently he certainly would never have been hit around like that.

 

[Ikki]

I am a firm believer that to prove you are the best you have to not just perform against ordinary opposition but the best available. This standard has to apply to all greats, and I see no reason Warne should be excluded. Would we consider Lara and Tendulkar that great if they averaged 20 against Australia? Even if they were struggling with injuries, you would find it hard to rate them as highly as the bottomline is they were unproven against Australia at best or failure as worst. Same with Warne against India.

His supporters seem to tout his performance against India in 2004 as proof of his ability against them. Really? He was the most expensive spinner in both sides and never once threatened to run through their batting line-up despite having toured the country twice. If the best that Warne can come up with against India is a series where he averages 30+ on spinning wickets acting as a support bowler, I'm sorry, that's not good enough to convince me.

Lara struggles against India; Tendulkar against S.Africa/Pakistan (when they were good); Ponting against India in India; Sobers against New Zealand...and on we go.