Warne v McGrath

[stephen]

Warne did bowl to India in early 1998, without much success.

Cricinfo Statsguru - SK Warne - Test matches - Bowling analysis

Well as was mentioned this series was played when he had incredible injury troubles.

Look at the subsequent series that he played in - he had three good series out of the next nine he played in - failing against England, WI, NZ, Pakistan and India again. It was only in the Ashes series of 2001 that he regained some form. In this period I distinctly remember MacGill outbowling him on several occasions.

If we go by series, it was really 92/93 - 97/98 where Warne was at his physical bowling peak.

His second peak was more about his cricketing brain rather than his technical skills (though he was still very accurate).

 

[silentstriker]

You guys are all dissecting his career like crazy. If you removed as many games from McGrath's career as people are doing from Warne's, he'd be the Bradman of bowling.

 

[stephen]

People say that Botham was an up and down player, with huge troughs and peaks. Yet Warne's trough was far more pronounced than Botham's ever was. In fact Warne has a career that can be quite easily divided into four parts - when he wasn't good enough to play test cricket, his first peak, his injury and recovery period and his second peak.

In his form periods he had a grand total of five series with averages over 30 - 92/93 Frank Worrell series, 95/96 Sri Lanka series, 04 India series, 05/06 South Africa series and 06/07 Ashes series. The worst series average was 36 (in 95/96).

In his injury and recovery period he averaged over thirty in five out of nine series, three of those series averaging over 50. In fact four out of those nine series were worse than his worst series from his peak times.

In his peaks (92/93 Frank Worrell series to 97/98 South Africa series and South Africa in Australia 01/02 to the Ashes 06/07) he took 594 wickets at 23.24. In the other two phases of his career he took 114 wickets at 36.75.

That is a whopping 13.5 run disparity between his averages.

When his injured period (and starting period) are removed his worst average is against India (against whom he only had the 04 series) and it's only a shade over 30.

Really with Warne you have to overlook his horror years, where he wasn't even the best spinner in the country. His other years were magical.

 

[stephen]

You guys are all dissecting his career like crazy. If you removed as many games from McGrath's career as people are doing from Warne's, he'd be the Bradman of bowling.

People do the same for other players like Botham.

I think it is fair to do when a player has suffered an injury and is playing anyway (and in Warne's case it really was against his wishes in a few cases).

Don't get me wrong, Pigeon was awesome and I voted for him on the poll, but Warne was the bowler that will be the hardest to replace for Australia.

As a pure bowler McGrath was more valuable than Warne. As a part of a team, Warne was far more valuable than McGrath. McGrath will be replaced, even if his replacements are slightly behind his ability. Warne will not be able to be replaced by anyone anywhere near his ability.

 

[The Sean]

In his peaks (92/93 Frank Worrell series to 97/98 South Africa series and South Africa in Australia 01/02 to the Ashes 06/07) he took 594 wickets at 23.24. In the other two phases of his career he took 114 wickets at 36.75.

I'm not even sure the 92/93 series counts as part of his peak - I know he got a 7/52 in that series but did very little else. I've always thought his real greatness started the following series when he toured NZ in early '93.

 

[silentstriker]

People do the same for other players like Botham.

I think it is fair to do when a player has suffered an injury and is playing anyway (and in Warne's case it really was against his wishes in a few cases).

Don't get me wrong, Pigeon was awesome and I voted for him on the poll, but Warne was the bowler that will be the hardest to replace for Australia.

As a pure bowler McGrath was more valuable than Warne. As a part of a team, Warne was far more valuable than McGrath. McGrath will be replaced, even if his replacements are slightly behind his ability. Warne will not be able to be replaced by anyone anywhere near his ability.

Being more irreplaceable doesn't make you better. If I had to pick a player for my team, who would play his entire career from beginning to end with me, I would go with McGrath 10/10 times. Warne, to me, wasn't even close as a bowler.

 

[stephen]

Being more irreplaceable doesn't make you better. If I had to pick a player for my team, who would play his entire career from beginning to end with me, I would go with McGrath 10/10 times. Warne, to me, wasn't even close as a bowler.

Yes and we all know your feelings towards spinners. But I ask you, who would Australia like in their team more now, Warne or McGrath?

 

[silentstriker]

Yes and we all know your feelings towards spinners. But I ask you, who would Australia like in their team more now, Warne or McGrath?

Who would they like more? Warne.

Who would help them win more matches? McGrath. Look at the Test match that's going on now, McGrath would have loved some of that top order.

 

[Sanz]

Well as was mentioned this series was played when he had incredible injury troubles.

Look at the subsequent series that he played in - he had three good series out of the next nine he played in - failing against England, WI, NZ, Pakistan and India again. It was only in the Ashes series of 2001 that he regained some form. In this period I distinctly remember MacGill outbowling him on several occasions.

If we go by series, it was really 92/93 - 97/98 where Warne was at his physical bowling peak.

His second peak was more about his cricketing brain rather than his technical skills (though he was still very accurate).

You said he was at his peak between 93-98, well he played in India in 98 in the 97-98 season and he was taken to cleaners.

We have heard this before, in 1992 Warne was too raw, in 1998 he was injured, He was injured and/or out of form in 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and in 2004 he missed out on the Mumbai test again due to injury, otherwise he would have could have should have yada yada yada...

I am a big fan of Warne, his performance against India doesn't stop me from appreciating his greatness as a bowler but it is true that he didn't have same level of consistent success like Mcgrath. that said I do not mean to suggest that you can not believe that Warne is the better/greater bowler of the two, we can certainly make that argument that is not based on statistics, but I am afraid any statistical comarison with mcgrath isn't going to work in Warne's favour.

 

[Sanz]

Yes and we all know your feelings towards spinners. But I ask you, who would Australia like in their team more now, Warne or McGrath?

I guess the question asked was :-

Who do you think was better?

 

[Sanz]

Being more irreplaceable doesn't make you better. If I had to pick a player for my team, who would play his entire career from beginning to end with me, I would go with McGrath 10/10 times. Warne, to me, wasn't even close as a bowler.

Indeed, Abdul Qadir was irreplaceable for Pakistan during his times, but was he better than Imran ?

 

[oitoitoi]

Got to be Mcgrath, I reckon you measure guys like Warne and Mcgrath by their success against the very best, in their case Tendulkar and Lara. Similarly to Murali, Warne seriously struggled against both these players and also failed his ultimate test when you look at his record in India. Mcgrath on the other hand was one of the only players to ever get on top of these 2.

 

[Ikki]

You guys are all dissecting his career like crazy. If you removed as many games from McGrath's career as people are doing from Warne's, he'd be the Bradman of bowling.

Like which bits and for what reasons?

 

[Ikki]

Indeed, Abdul Qadir was irreplaceable for Pakistan during his times, but was he better than Imran ?

Not really, Mushtaq Ahmed came as soon as he retired.

I get your point, but this isn't really close to what Stephan means, I think.

 

[SJS]

I am not as much in disagreement with this poll result as amazed by what it says to me about other things.

If this is what we think of Warne's bowling - that McGrath would be preferred as a bowler (remember he is not even in contention for a post-packer World XI if I recall correctly) then how come Warne is such a certainlty for the All time World XI for most guys. He isn't for me mind you but I am in a minority on that point.

What are we saying? That the spinners in the world have been overall of such poor quality that we have to count a dozen (maybe more) pacers before we come to the best spinner in an all time bowlers list? If so, do we really belive this? Or are we just generally enamoured by pacers in the days of the limited overs game ?

I am confused

 

[stephen]

Who would they like more? Warne.

Who would help them win more matches? McGrath. Look at the Test match that's going on now, McGrath would have loved some of that top order.

I actually doubt that McGrath would help Australia win more matches than Warne with the current team. Warne was good enough to take wickets on any day in a test match. McGrath would marginally improve a fast bowling attack that is currently pretty good.

You said he was at his peak between 93-98, well he played in India in 98 in the 97-98 season and he was taken to cleaners.

We have heard this before, in 1992 Warne was too raw, in 1998 he was injured, He was injured and/or out of form in 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and in 2004 he missed out on the Mumbai test again due to injury, otherwise he would have could have should have yada yada yada...

I am a big fan of Warne, his performance against India doesn't stop me from appreciating his greatness as a bowler but it is true that he didn't have same level of consistent success like Mcgrath. that said I do not mean to suggest that you can not believe that Warne is the better/greater bowler of the two, we can certainly make that argument that is not based on statistics, but I am afraid any statistical comarison with mcgrath isn't going to work in Warne's favour.

If you had have read the rest of the thread, I had clarified that it was only up until his injury - which happened before the '98 India series.

Indeed, Abdul Qadir was irreplaceable for Pakistan during his times, but was he better than Imran ?

A more fair comparison would have been Qadir to Akram (I know their careers didn't fit together). Imran brought so much more to the team than just his bowling.

Regardless, the rarer a commodity, the more valuable it is. A spinner who takes over 700 wickets with a career average of around 25 is so much more valuable than a quick bowler who averages 22.

And yet, I voted McGrath. I voted for him because the comparison was "who is the better bowler" not "who is more valuable". McGrath, I feel, was the better of the two purely as a bowler - he was marginally more likely to take a wicket than Warne when thrown the ball.

There is no question, however, that Warne was far more valuable than McGrath to the team. All time great spinners come along once or twice in a generation. All time great quick bowlers come along more frequently than that. And the difference between an all time great quick and a very good quick is a lot less than the difference between an all time great spinner and a very good spinner.

 

[subshakerz]

I am not as much in disagreement with this poll result as amazed by what it says to me about other things.

If this is what we think of Warne's bowling - that McGrath would be preferred as a bowler (remember he is not even in contention for a post-packer World XI if I recall correctly) then how come Warne is such a certainlty for the All time World XI for most guys. He isn't for me mind you but I am in a minority on that point.

What are we saying? That the spinners in the world have been overall of such poor quality that we have to count a dozen (maybe more) pacers before we come to the best spinner in an all time bowlers list? If so, do we really belive this? Or are we just generally enamoured by pacers in the days of the limited overs game ?

I am confused

There are two points I think. The first is that there haven't been many worldclass spinners in test history compared to pace bowlers, which is why Murali and Warne are in pretty lonely company and you wouldn't find anyone to contest them in an all-time XI.

The second is that while spinners are useful and vital to the team composition, pacers in general are more effective.

 

[silentstriker]

Like which bits and for what reasons?

Make up your reasons, like people are doing with Warne. An excuse every time he did poorly and remove it.

Well, he averaged 65 in a series in 2001 vs. New Zealand because it was about 10 years ago that month he made his debut and got emotional. Plus he was very taken aback by the 9/11 attacks. He then averaged 52 against West Indies two years later because May 1st is when Bush had a banner of 'Mission Accomplished' on a carrier in regards to Iraq, and McGrath was upset that a US President would engage in such theatrics. And then in 2005, he averaged 40 against SA in Australia because it was near Christmas and he obviously missed his wife.

 

[silentstriker]

I actually doubt that McGrath would help Australia win more matches than Warne with the current team. Warne was good enough to take wickets on any day in a test match. McGrath would marginally improve a fast bowling attack that is currently pretty good..

No chance. I doubt SA would have gotten off to the start they did, just yesterday.

 

[Anil]

Make up your reasons, like people are doing with Warne. An excuse every time he did poorly and remove it.

Well, he averaged 65 in a series in 2001 vs. New Zealand because it was about 10 years ago that month he made his debut and got emotional. Plus he was very taken aback by the 9/11 attacks. He then averaged 52 against West Indies two years later because May 1st is when Bush had a banner of 'Mission Accomplished' on a carrier in regards to Iraq, and McGrath was upset that a US President would engage in such theatrics. And then in 2005, he averaged 40 against SA in Australia because it was near Christmas and he obviously missed his wife.

good one...