Warne v McGrath

[archie mac]

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.

Botham for a period was one of the top three bowlers in the world one of the top 5 batsman in the world the best AR and one of the best slippers, but stats guru tells us we must take his whole career

 

[Sanz]

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.

At least Mushtaq came after Qadir's retirement, In Warne's case, there was already one legspinner in Australia itself and if we were picking a world XI there were 3 replacments available for him in Anil Kumble, Mushtaq and Stuart Macgill and if we were talking about spinners in general, there were more than 5, Agreed none of them were as good overall but IMO Warne wouldn't have been an automatic choice in every condition or against every opposition.

Please note that this is not a knock on Warne, but on the argument being presented here.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Even if we leave everything else and compare Imran's/Akram's value purely as bowlers, Abdul Qadir doesn't even come close to them, doesn't matter who was easy to replace.

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.

I am sure you are aware of the fact that Qadir is often given credit for keeping the art of legspin alive for an entire generation, in other words, fits your dfinition of 'rare commodity to the 'T',yet would you take him ahead of Imran, Wasim and Waqar ? Oh and I recognize Warne's record and skills, you do not have to sell that to me and I completely agree with you on his bowling skills and can definately understand why many people may consider him the greatest bowler, but I am sorry you shouldn't be looking at statistics to back that claim. He just doesn't compare statistically. Not to forget that being an Indian who saw warned spanked around all over even by the no names of domestic cricket (Mumbai v Australians at Mumbai (Brabourne), 24-26 February 1998 - Spanking by Rajesh Sutar ) , he will never command the kind of respect that is given to Mcgrath.

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.

I am not sure what you are arguing then, if you think Mcgrath is the better bowler.

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.

That is debatable and I certainly do not believe that to be true only for spinners. But If you do believe that, do you accept that Left Arm fast bowlers are a rarer commodity, how many left armers have since in last 100 years who could be considered all time greats ? Does that mean you would accept Wasim Akram as the best bowler ever ?

 

[Sanz]

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..

I am speechless after reading this.

 

[stephen]

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

Why not?

Last time McGrath played South Africa he could barely take a wicket. Why would he have made a huge difference yesterday?

I know that Warne would have been a hundred times better than McGain, and would at least have had a chance of making a breakthrough.

I am speechless after reading this.

Why?

Australia's current fast bowling attack is quite competant. At least good enough to dismiss the second ranked team in the world four times in the last two matches. It's Australia's spin bowling that really needs the help.

 

[stephen]

Even if we leave everything else and compare Imran's/Akram's value purely as bowlers, Abdul Qadir doesn't even come close to them, doesn't matter who was easy to replace.

All three would make it into an all time Pakistani XI. Qadir was world class and would have been taken by any other team in the world at the time. Imran was brilliant too and would also have been taken by any other team in the world at the time. As a pure bowler though Imran was easier to replace (though his captaincy and all round skills were not).

What's my real point? My real point is that who is more valuable to a team and who is the better player are often two seperate things. Healy was one of the best keepers of all time, but you wouldn't have him keeping for an all time Australian XI.

Not to forget that being an Indian who saw warned spanked around all over even by the no names of domestic cricket (Mumbai v Australians at Mumbai (Brabourne), 24-26 February 1998 - Spanking by Rajesh Sutar ) , he will never command the kind of respect that is given to Mcgrath.

Maybe not in India, but as has been demostrated many times in this thread, Warne was never anywhere near his best when he played in India. In fact he was horrible all through 98-01 by comparison to his career peaks. It just so happened that his injury/form drought coincided with his appearances in India.

Are we to say that Murali is a terrible bowler because he has done poorly in Australia? His stats in Australia are worse than Warne's in India.

I am not sure what you are arguing then, if you think Mcgrath is the better bowler.

Largely that the question of "who is the better bowler" is meaningless when comparing spinners to quicks. And looking statistically at a player is also rather pointless.

That is debatable and I certainly do not believe that to be true only for spinners. But If you do believe that, do you accept that Left Arm fast bowlers are a rarer commodity, how many left armers have since in last 100 years who could be considered all time greats ? Does that mean you would accept Wasim Akram as the best bowler ever ?

Left arm quicks are still quicks. They still take their wickets in the same way as other quicks. Spinners are a completely different type of bowler and will take wickets where quicks cannot.

 

[steds]

Upset that the LSU vote is yet to take effect.

 

[Sanz]

All three would make it into an all time Pakistani XI. Qadir was world class and would have been taken by any other team in the world at the time. Imran was brilliant too and would also have been taken by any other team in the world at the time. As a pure bowler though Imran was easier to replace (though his captaincy and all round skills were not).

Once again are you suggesting that just because Qadir was harder to replace means he was more valuable to the Pakistan team of 80s than the likes of Imran/Wasim ?

What's my real point? My real point is that who is more valuable to a team and who is the better player are often two seperate things. Healy was one of the best keepers of all time, but you wouldn't have him keeping for an all time Australian XI.

Ofcourse but the argument "Since Warne is harder to replace, he is the more valuable player" doesn't have a leg to stand since Warne was replaced many a times during his career by SCG Macgill quite well.

Are we to say that Murali is a terrible bowler because he has done poorly in Australia? His stats in Australia are worse than Warne's in India.

No, if Murali had a colleague who bowled as efficiently as him, statistically superior to him, was more consistent all over the world, competed well against the best batsmen of his time in virtually every conditions then yes, I would consider that player as a better and more valuable player regardless of the 'easily replaceble' factor.

Largely that the question of "who is the better bowler" is meaningless when comparing spinners to quicks. And looking statistically at a player is also rather pointless.

I am never one for statistics and In Mcgrath Vs. Warne's case I don't think statistics is required because I watched both of them bowl many a times, agreed mostly against India, and I think it is a fairly easy one for me.

Left arm quicks are still quicks. They still take their wickets in the same way as other quicks. Spinners are a completely different type of bowler and will take wickets where quicks cannot.

I do not agree with the above, IMO it is a very inaccurate statement.

 

[Evermind]

Botham for a period was one of the top three bowlers in the world one of the top 5 batsman in the world the best AR and one of the best slippers, but stats guru tells us we must take his whole career

Jason Gillespie averaged 247 against Bangladesh, but statsguru also tells us we must take his whole career. It's just so unfair.

 

[SJS]

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.

Really ?

What do you know about the following?

• Bill O'Rielly
• Clarrie Grimmett
• Hedley Verity
• Colin Blythe
• Jim Laker

Thats a start. Of course you can google them or look up their stats at howstatdotcom or ciricinfo's(statsguru) or cricketarchivedotcom and answer that one but that really wouldn't be an answer to what I asked.

Secondly while at any of these sites, look up the stats for the following series :-

• Australia in India 2000-01
• England in Pakistan 1987-88
• England in South Africa 1907
• Australia in England 1888

All 3 Test series

I was going to give you a list of Five Test series also but look at this my dear. Here are the bowlers who have taken the most wickets in a five Test series.

[B]Player    	 Country	Type          Wkts	 Avg	 Series[/B]

Barnes, S F	 England	Medium Fast	49	10.94	1913-1914 SAF v ENG
Laker, J C	 England	[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spinner[/COLOR]     	46	9.61	1956 ENG v AUS
Grimmett, C V	 Australia	[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spinner[/COLOR]     	44	14.59	1935-1936 SAF v AUS
Warne, S K	 Australia	[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spinner[/COLOR]     	40	19.92	2005 ENG v AUS
Bedser, A V	 England	Medium Fast	39	17.49	1953 ENG v AUS
Tate, M W	 England	Fast Medium	38	23.18	1924-1925 AUS v ENG
Whitty, W J	 Australia	Fast Medium	37	17.08	1910-1911 AUS v SAF
Tayfield, H J	 South Africa	[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spinner[/COLOR]     	37	17.19	1956-1957 SAF v ENG
Vogler, A E E	 South Africa	[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spinner[/COLOR]     	36	21.75	1909-1910 SAF v ENG
Mailey, A A	 Australia	[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spinner[/COLOR]     	36	26.28	1920-1921 AUS v ENG
Marshall, M D	 West Indies	Fast          	35	12.66	1988 ENG v WIN
Chandrasekhar	 India        	[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spinner[/COLOR]     	35	18.91	1972-1973 IND v ENG
Lock, G A R	 England	Spinner     	34	7.47	1958 ENG v NZL
Walsh, C A	 West Indies	Fast          	34	12.82	2000 ENG v WIN
Mankad, M H	 India        	[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spinner[/COLOR]     	34	16.79	1951-1952 IND v ENG
Trueman, F S	 England        Fast     	34	17.47	1963 ENG v WIN
Gupte, S P	 India        	[COLOR="DarkRed"]Spinner[/COLOR]     	34	19.68	1955-1956 IND v NZL

Those figures say something to you?

 

[JBH001]

Interesting, SJS. Although, all of those instances, with the exception of Warne's magnificent bowling in the 2005 Ashes, occurred in the era of uncovered pitches.

I think there is some good credence to the claim that pacers, especially since the advent of covered wickets, are in general more effective than spinners.

 

[archie mac]

Jason Gillespie averaged 247 against Bangladesh, but statsguru also tells us we must take his whole career. It's just so unfair.

Well maybe you can take two Tests

 

[Ikki]

At least Mushtaq came after Qadir's retirement, In Warne's case, there was already one legspinner in Australia itself and if we were picking a world XI there were 3 replacments available for him in Anil Kumble, Mushtaq and Stuart Macgill and if we were talking about spinners in general, there were more than 5, Agreed none of them were as good overall but IMO Warne wouldn't have been an automatic choice in every condition or against every opposition.

Please note that this is not a knock on Warne, but on the argument being presented here.

Mushtaq actually came and played with 1 test with Qadir then took over. MacGill also too over, but sucked. The difference between Warne, Qadir, MacGill and Mushtaq is huge.

Apart from India, there are no questions of Warne anywhere else.

 

[Ikki]

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.

If you think career threatening injuries and the kind of physical changes Warne went through aren't enough for exoneration, then nothing is. Looking at these and giving him "leeway" is not "making up your reasons", it's looking at him fairly. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that the "Warne" most people love and cherish existed in his times of problems.

 

[Jono]

If Tendulkar's record from 2005-2006 is to be taken into account and criticised when he had a serious tennis elbow injury, and was unable to achieve consistency in his game, then Warne is fair game as well.

Otherwise let's remove Tendulkar's 2005-2006 stats and only use the rest of his career to judge him.

Be consistent in the way you rate players, otherwise your arguments are meaningless.

 

[Redbacks]

Bowling legspin injured and batting injured aren't easily comparable.

No doubt the injuries hurt the Master's batting, the dip coincides with less runs and now he's back to fitness he's back at the top again.

 

[SJS]

Interesting, SJS. Although, all of those instances, with the exception of Warne's magnificent bowling in the 2005 Ashes, occurred in the era of uncovered pitches.

I think there is some good credence to the claim that pacers, especially since the advent of covered wickets, are in general more effective than spinners.

There are just more of them around. Where are the quality spinners. When they come, they produce results. The fact is that when Murali and Warne happened they just became the greatest bowlers we had in the world in their times. We have just had a drought of great spinners since the demise of the Indian spinners of the 60's and 70's and Abdul Qadir in Pakistan and Underwood in England. It seems such a longtime ago.

Four world class spinners really in the last three decades all over the world. Warne, Murali, Kumble and Harbhajan. Remeber three of them have 2097 Test wickets and Murali will add some more to that. Harbhajan already has 321 and he is 28 which is young for a spinner. These four will end up with between 2700 and 2900 Test wickets - all in the last 20 years.

Three of them are the highest wicket takers in the history of the game. And that with most wickets around the world (and you do not play more than half your games at home) not really for the spinners.

Yes the conditions have a lot to do with it but not just covered wickets.

Even Indians dont make the kind of turning tracks they used to. The ball doesn't turn in England as it used to. The one day game with its shorter boundaries does not give much scope for the spinner to try and be a wicket taker.

In cricket the chips are stacked against the bowlers and its much worse for the spinner.

That doesn't mean good spinners aren't effective its just that good spinners have become so rare.

No. There is no truth in the statement "spinners are not as effective as pacers". The correct one should read, "average spinners are not as good as pacers".

 

[Jono]

Bowling legspin injured and batting injured aren't easily comparable.

No doubt the injuries hurt the Master's batting, the dip coincides with less runs and now he's back to fitness he's back at the top again.

True, but I think they are comparable to the extent that one must take them into account when judging both players. Not just when its convenient because one is your favourite player, whilst the other is a 'rival' to your other favourite player and you must denigrate him whenever you can.

Further, Sachin's injuries were not just serious in their nature, but long-term injuries.

 

[Evermind]

If you think career threatening injuries and the kind of physical changes Warne went through aren't enough for exoneration, then nothing is.

Agreed: nothing is. If I hear one more time how like 80% of Botham's career should be ignored because he "wasn't at his best" I'm gonna scream. If he's playing international cricket, his stats count. End of story.

 

[Ikki]

If Tendulkar's record from 2005-2006 is to be taken into account and criticised when he had a serious tennis elbow injury, and was unable to achieve consistency in his game, then Warne is fair game as well.

Otherwise let's remove Tendulkar's 2005-2006 stats and only use the rest of his career to judge him.

Be consistent in the way you rate players, otherwise your arguments are meaningless.

If you've read the thread and have always read my arguments regarding Tendulkar properly, you'll see I always give credence to his elbow injury. However, when my critique of him spans 7-8 years, that injury becomes irrelevant.

It's also a different injury as his injury is a matter of healing; not like Warne's as he had to learn how to bowl again. The leeway given to Tendulkar is for him to regain form after being out the game, not to learn how to bat all over again. The great irony is that the year he was in pain and playing with the Tennis elbow he averaged 92. So, furthermore, doesn't take 2 years to heal from Tennis elbow or to regain form from it...that'd be just bad form. Tendulkar's worst year's were a year before he even had the problem (2003) and almost 2 years after he came back (2006). In between (2004/2005), when the problem was crippling, his figures were fine.

So, compare the two as they should be compared; not so that they suit your argument. The injuries are not the same, hence can't be treated the same. Tendulkar's elbow after surgery would have been healed within 6 weeks and fully back to batting in 4 months.