Warne v McGrath

[Ikki]

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.

If a bowler's career is 80% in the red after an injury or during, then that's just a spoiled career IMO. Warne's case is hardly like Botham's.

 

[Uppercut]

Four world class spinners really in the last three decades all over the world. Warne, Murali, Kumble and Harbhajan.

Harbhajan? You're pushing it putting him in the league of those three IMO. I'd have him around the level of Saqlain Mushtaq in every measure bar longevity.

 

[SJS]

Harbhajan? You're pushing it putting him in the league of those three IMO. I'd have him around the level of Saqlain Mushtaq in every measure bar longevity.

Look here, I do not rate Harbhajan as a great spinner but when people talk of "effectiveness" of spinners one has to look at their record. I agree Harbhajan is not in the same class as the other three but talk to people (even listen to the former Kiwi cricketers today on TV) and you will be surprised.

The overall bowling standards have declined and bowlers like Harbhajan are stars, they bowl many overs and get wickets eventually. But anyway, removing Harbhajan completely from my post doesn't change anything in the point I am making about spinners

 

[Jono]

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.

Firstly, lol at you ever accusing anyone of using something to 'suit my argument'.

Secondly, the article you linked is from 2005. You'll see his injury re-occurred in 2006. Again, the reality is tennis elbow is not a short-term injury. Particularly if its re-occurring. Its not like a knee injury where you are out for 12 months, but have a reconstruction and are back.

Secondly, I love how you use figures when you like. You know a lot of those years Tendulkar's performances was inflated by Bangladesh, and you've used it against him before. Now you're failing to mention it because it suits your argument. Hilarious.

Sachin effectively got over his injuries from late 2006 onwards.

2003 was a poor year, but he played 5 tests. The first test in 2004 he scored something like 500+ runs without losing his wicket.

And what 'critique' do you have of his that spans 7-8 years? He's far outperforming Ponting atm ain't he? So it can't be 2008/09. And he was masterful in from 2002 and before. So basically, you have 4 years, most of which he was in and out of the side with injury.

 

[Ikki]

Firstly, lol at you ever accusing anyone of using something to 'suit my argument'.

Hmm, whatever.

Secondly, the article you linked is from 2005. You'll see his injury re-occurred in 2006. Again, the reality is tennis elbow is not a short-term injury. Particularly if its re-occurring. Its not like a knee injury where you are out for 12 months, but have a reconstruction and are back.

I recall him having surgery once? Did I miss out on the 2nd one? I remember him having an ankle injury, though.

Tennis elbow injuries relate to relieving pain and the issue of healing has to do with the person in question getting back their strength to bat. A world of difference to the argument about Warne that "suits" me.

Could you link me to an article or something in 2006 about it?

Secondly, I love how you use figures when you like. You know a lot of those years Tendulkar's performances was inflated by Bangladesh, and you've used it against him before. Now you're failing to mention it because it suits your argument. Hilarious.

I always remove Bangladesh and Zimbabwe; only if a player had failed against them consistently would I take them into account or as Chaminda/Shankar proved that for a time they were good players of spin.

I didn't mention them here because in the years that you said should be removed...they didn't play Tendulkar. Good morning.

Sachin effectively got over his injuries from late 2006 onwards.

Warne had another finger injury in 2004, but so? Should I keep the good series he played in that "bad period"?

Sachin had pain in 2004 as well, should I remove that year too? Please, let's get a grip. He was in bad form and continued so. Since 2006 till now, removing minnows, he averages 44.

I give him leeway but he does not deserve the same leeway as Warne because their injuries were different and impacted differently. Instead of accepting that you wish to play the bias-card.

2003 was a poor year, but he played 5 tests. The first test in 2004 he scored something like 500+ runs without losing his wicket.

In 2004 where his troubles began, he had his best year in ages. How does the fact that he scored big without getting out help your argument? The problem with Tennis elblow is that a player can't play long with too much pain. Tendulkar at the height of his problems could bat, but for only a few overs at a time in the nets. That's why the surgery occured.

And what 'critique' do you have of his that spans 7-8 years? He's far outperforming Ponting atm ain't he? So it can't be 2008/09. And he was masterful in from 2002 and before. So basically, you have 4 years, most of which he was in and out of the side with injury.

At the moment? Congrats, what does that have to do with the past 7-8-9 years? Even if we omitted the years, that we shouldn't by all logic, he is still way behind Ponting. Nice try. My whole point in those arguments is that Ponting has been vastly better than Tendulkar; then people bring up his tennis elbow. So even removing them, on your terms, he is some 10 points behind in average since 2000.

 

[Sanz]

Mushtaq actually came and played with 1 test with Qadir then took over.

Point was they were not contemporaries, many believe that mushtaq was a protege of Qadir. Whereas in Warne's case he already had another spinner in his own country and replaced him quite admireably and with a lot of success.

MacGill also too over, but sucked. The difference between Warne, Qadir, MacGill and Mushtaq is huge.

Mcgill was a contemporary of Warne, his career was done by the time Warne retired.
Depends where the game is played, If the Game is played in India, I would pick Kumble over Warne any day. If the game is played in Pakistan, I dont think I would pick Warne over Qadir. That said I dont intend to make an argument that either of those were better than Warne overall or even close, but just that the argument that 'Warne is harder to replace Hence is the better bowler' doesn't hold water at all, there were 3 leg spinners in his own era, who did quite well.

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

West Indies too. For Mcgrath there is no such question against any opposition.

 

[Ikki]

Point was they were not contemporaries, many believe that mushtaq was a protege of Qadir. Whereas in Warne's case he already had another spinner in his own country and replaced him quite admireably and with a lot of success.

Mcgill was a contemporary of Warne, his career was done by the time Warne retired.
Depends where the game is played, If the Game is played in India, I would pick Kumble over Warne any day. If the game is played in Pakistan, I dont think I would pick Warne over Qadir. That said I dont intend to make an argument that either of those were better than Warne overall or even close, but just that the argument that 'Warne is harder to replace Hence is the better bowler' doesn't hold water at all, there were 3 leg spinners in his own era, who did quite well.

West Indies too. For Mcgrath there is no such question against any opposition.

The problem with your argument is that those who you think were "pretty good" compared to Warne weren't even in the same hemisphere. Macgill, Kumble, Qadir...are a mile off Warne. That would be like someone saying because McGrath also played with Kasprowicz Australia didn't need him as much. That's wrong. Kumble also never bowled to the Indian team so I can't fairly judge that one. And singling out only 1 destination from the multitudes a test team will have to face is also selective.

Simply put, McGrath is gone and any one of Siddle, Clark or Johnson will step in and do probably as good as him - even if very slightly lower on level. Not a whole lot of difference. With Warne's replacement, that's undoubtedly not going to happen. Even Macgill, despite the fact that he generally played when the pitch favoured him, can't hold a candle to Warne.

 

[Sanz]

simply put, mcgrath is gone and any one of siddle, clark or johnson will step in and do probably as good as him - even if very slightly lower on level. Not a whole lot of difference.

 

[Ikki]

Dunno what that's about. Australia have produced a McGrath-like fast bowler or two for almost every generation spanning back 80 years. Lindwall-Miller-Davidson-Lillee-Thomson-Aldermann-Reid-Mcdermott-Fleming-McGrath....

No reason to think they'd stop now.

 

[Sanz]

The problem with your argument is that those who you think were "pretty good" compared to Warne weren't even in the same hemisphere. Macgill, Kumble, Qadir...are a mile off Warne. That would be like someone saying because McGrath also played with Kasprowicz Australia didn't need him as much. That's wrong. Kumble also never bowled to the Indian team so I can't fairly judge that one. And singling out only 1 destination from the multitudes a test team will have to face is also selective.

That's your bias speaking, Kumble was easily the better bowler in India and WI, has 600+ wickets to show for too and probably has won as many games for India as Warne did for Australia. Again not saying that he was comparable to Warne' but saying that he was miles behind Warne is rather insulting. I am not singling out one destination, you did. You are the one who brought India into it, If I had to bring his record I would have mentioned 2. Not that it changes my opinion of Warne in any way.

As for your argument that Kumble never bowled to Indian bowling, well Warne never bowled to Aussie batsmen either. Based on how poorly he did against WI and Indian batting line up I dont get the feeling that he would have done much better Aussie batting line up. As for Kumble, Well he bowled fairly well against Australia who were argubly the best batting lineup in the world, better than Warne did against India.

 

[Ikki]

That's your bias speaking, Kumble was easily the better bowler in India and WI, has 600+ wickets to show for too and probably has won as many games for India as Warne did for Australia. Again not saying that he was comparable to Warne' but saying that he was miles behind Warne is rather insulting. I am not singling out one destination, you did. You are the one who brought India into it, If I had to bring his record I would have mentioned 2. Not that it changes my opinion of Warne in any way.

Kumble was only better in India. Warne only had 1 poor series against West Indies and that was when he was injured/relearning. He is by far better than Kumble.

Kumble was miles behind Warne. I hate that it may sound insulting but it's the truth. Kumble was merely good at home. His wickets come because he played a lot, bowled a lot and struck decently. Not because he is close to Warne in ability.

To say for every Warne there is a Kumble would be like saying for every Lillee there is a Lee. They shouldn't even be in the same argument.

As for your argument that Kumble never bowled to Indian bowling, well Warne never bowled to Aussie batsmen either. Based on how poorly he did against WI and Indian batting line up I dont get the feeling that he would have done much better Aussie batting line up. As for Kumble, Well he bowled fairly well against Australia who were argubly the best batting lineup in the world, better than Warne did against India.

But my argument isn't that I'd pick Warne just because he bowls better in Australia. Yours IS that for Kumble in India. Look at Kumble's record against Sri Lanka and Australia - the only other two teams comparable to India in terms of playing spin. As I said, he is not comparable to Warne.

 

[Sanz]

Dunno what that's about. Australia have produced a McGrath-like fast bowler or two for almost every generation spanning back 80 years. Lindwall-Miller-Davidson-Lillee-Thomson-Aldermann-Reid-Mcdermott-Fleming-McGrath....

No reason to think they'd stop now.

Thomson,Alderman, Reid, Mcdermott and Fleming are Mcgrath like ? Give me a break.

Please do not be ridiculous, that is a request.

 

[Ikki]

Thomson,Alderman, Reid, Mcdermott and Fleming are Mcgrath like ? Give me a break.

Please do not be ridiculous, that is a request.

"Simply put, McGrath is gone and any one of Siddle, Clark or Johnson will step in and do probably as good as him - even if very slightly lower on level".

Those bowlers easily fit that description. It's like the difference between Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar.

 

[shankar]

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.

Actually I don't understand why Tendulkar's performance post his decline in 2003 has to come into the question at all when judging him. He had performed for 14 prior to that which is more than enough of a sample to judge any player. What does it matter that after that period he was a lesser batsman? This included a peak period of 10 years from 1993 to 2002 where he averaged 60 (!) against the top 7 sides. This was during a period where batting was far harder than in the last 7 years. Now why does he have to maintain this performance over another 7 years when many other batsmen whom we judge have had their whole careers extend for only 12 years or so.

 

[Slifer]

All of u who r trying to debate this Ikki fella are really wasting ur breath tbh. Comparing Alderman, Mcdermott, Thompson, Reid to the legendary Mcgrath was the last straw for me. If the gulf between Kumble and Warne is daylight then the gulf between Mcgrath and the above bowlers is infinity, yet he somehow saw it fit to mention them in the same breath as Mcgrath.

 

[Ikki]

Actually I don't understand why Tendulkar's performance post his decline in 2003 has to come into the question at all when judging him. He had performed for 14 prior to that which is more than enough of a sample to judge any player. What does it matter that after that period he was a lesser batsman? This included a peak period of 10 years from 1993 to 2002 where he averaged 60 (!) against the top 7 sides. This was during a period where batting was far harder than in the last 7 years. Now why does he have to maintain this performance over another 7 years when many other batsmen whom we judge have had their whole careers extend for only 12 years or so.

Because there is this consistent rabbiting about how performing "these days" is so infinitely easier. Then the argument goes to his 90s days and he has a poor record against 2/4 of the best bowling attacks of the time and good against teams where teams of their strength are found also in the 2000s.

 

[Ikki]

All of u who r trying to debate this Ikki fella are really wasting ur breath tbh. Comparing Alderman, Mcdermott, Thompson, Reid to the legendary Mcgrath was the last straw for me. If the gulf between Kumble and Warne is daylight then the gulf between Mcgrath and the above bowlers is infinity, yet he somehow saw it fit to mention them in the same breath as Mcgrath.

I'm glad you omitted Fleming. I'd admit there is a distance between McGrath and Alderman, Mcdermott, Thompson...but not so much Reid. Reid was basically crippled through injury. He was easily in McGrath's class when fit and playing. As were the others in varying times but they were different bowlers. However, they are much closer to McGrath than Kumble is to Warne.

At any rate, something tells me you don't know as much about those bowlers. They're frankly very easily comparable to a more famous name like Courtney Walsh, for example. Someone like Reid just couldn't stay fit enough - compared to Walsh's longevity. Someone like Alderman had to carry Australia through it's weakest Test cricketing period - Walsh was still there whilst they were quite strong, if not the strongest. Thomson was a bit more expensive but far more fearsome and struck quicker. McDermott was only a bit more expensive. Even if you haven't watched them, you should see that statistically they were close.

You think a swap for McGrath to Walsh is really that big of a fall? The point was the team would not suffer as much even if we were to revert to most of those names right now. Australia healthily produces fast bowlers in McGrath's calibre and sometimes bowlers just a bit worse. And It's true, unless you'd like to prove otherwise. Again, sorry if this sounds patronising, but something tells me you don't know as much about those bowlers.

And in any case, the 4 names you have problems with bowled with good partners: Lillee with Thomson and Alderman; Reid with McDermott and Alderman. So, every generation we've had a great bowler comparable to McGrath - which was the point - until that period from the mid-80s to early 90s, where if you don't think Alderman/Reid/McDermott compare it should comfort you to know that they all pretty much played with each other

 

[Ikki]

To get a bit more visual:

I guess it boils down to something like: McGrath + Kumble vs. Walsh (or let's say Gillespie) + Warne.

 

[PhoenixFire]

"Simply put, McGrath is gone and any one of Siddle, Clark or Johnson will step in and do probably as good as him - even if very slightly lower on level".

Those bowlers easily fit that description. It's like the difference between Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar.

Damien Fleming only on a slightly lower level than McGrath???

You have to be joking.

 

[Sanz]

To get a bit more visual:

I guess it boils down to something like: McGrath + Kumble vs. Walsh (or let's say Gillespie) + Warne.

Was Walsh an Aussie too ?

I think you have defeated your own argument at least in the case of McDermott, Alderman and Thomson.

Say what you would, but I will pick Kumble over Warne everytime there was a game in India.