Warne v McGrath

[Sanz]

Miller, Lindwall and Davidson are not truly great?

Miller bowled until 56, Lindwall until 61, Davidson until 63. From there there is a bit of a drought where Garth MacKenzie is the notable spearhead and then in 71 comes Lillee who bowls until 84. Another little drought occurs until 93, McGrath comes on. But even in between then there was Reid, McDermott and Alderman.

I am sorry but I do not think I know enough to talk about Lindwall, Davidson and Miller's bowling and if you read my post I never made any comment about them. I only talked about last 50 years and I stand by my statement. If 2 bowlers in 50 years is enough for you to make that claim, then it is fine with me, but I disagree with your claim.

So in the last 50 years, only for two periods of 8-9 years did we not have one "great" bowler. And even in those periods we had good enough.

That's almost 20 years and IMO at least two generation of cricketers.

The problem is discussing cricket with someone who clearly lacks the historical knowledge of the game. You see, I don't talk about 1880s-1920s because I don't know much. You should do the same in periods where you obviously don't know enough.

Are you suggesting that PhoenixFire does not about Fleming's bowling skills.

 

[silentstriker]

We're not arguing over game results but the ability of the aforementioned bowlers. Some bowlers go through things others don't and then some conquer those problems or some fail. Some may, for pure reasons of luck (i.e. not getting picked too early, not getting injured, etc) not have the same barriers. There's no reason to judge all the same.

Someone like Martin Crowe for example was picked way too early and ahead of the usual time. The only reason being New Zealand were desperate and plucked talent when it was raw. Crowe was out of his element early on but went to become truly one of the best batsmen of his era. If he were batting now he'd be easily getting that awesome and shiny 50+ average. But it wasn't to be. To ignore that is an injustice to the player and an insult to his ability.

Most players don't look at their stats, they see it as their duty to go out and try their best when asked. They don't ask to be left out because they don't feel right. The irony is they'd still play even if they weren't 100%.

Well, everyone has their one best game, when bowling or batting, at their absolute peak. A career includes everything, the peaks and the troughs. And they both are a part of who you are as a player. It's not unfair because the game result doesn't care whether you are injured or picked early. You walk out there and it's all the same.

As I said, you are welcome to do it, but no way I'm doing it. Otherwise, I'd just judge players by their single best Test match and Harbhajan would be a top three spinner of all time.

 

[Ikki]

Well, everyone has their one best game, when bowling or batting, at their absolute peak. A career includes everything, the peaks and the troughs. And they both are a part of who you are as a player. It's not unfair because the game result doesn't care whether you are injured or picked early. You walk out there and it's all the same.

As I said, you are welcome to do it, but no way I'm doing it. Otherwise, I'd just judge players by their single best Test match and Harbhajan would be a top three spinner of all time.

But no one is talking about peaks and troughs. We're talking about problems that don't necessarily relate to the natural flow of form in a cricketer's career. Problems few face and thus exceptions must be made.

The problem is at different points in health a cricketer will affect a game in a different way and hence bring about a different result.

To argue that this is akin to judging a player on a single match is really stretching it.

 

[Ikki]

I am sorry but I do not think I know enough to talk about Lindwall, Davidson and Miller's bowling and if you read my post I never made any comment about them. I only talked about last 50 years and I stand by my statement. If 2 bowlers in 50 years is enough for you to make that claim, then it is fine with me, but I disagree with your claim.

The thing is that you can have 2 bowlers and their careers can span 2 different generations for 30 years. That still means Australia had a top bowler leading them. They don't need to produce anymore.

That's almost 20 years and IMO at least two generation of cricketers.

To be exact it's a bit less, like 17. But, that's still misleading because only for one of those periods were Australia really in trouble with finding a spearhead. An attack that consists of Reid, Alderman and McDermott is hardly weak.

Are you suggesting that PhoenixFire does not about Fleming's bowling skills.

I am suggesting that you don't know when you say there have only been McGrath and Lillee in the past 50 or so years.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, those matches not part of your 'natural flow' still count. Plus, it's so weird to even think about a natural flow, you could be at the top of your game and all of a sudden you have a dip in form - is it because of the shrimp you had last night and we should ignore it, or was it because of some mental issues (should we ignore that?), or maybe you picked up a hamstring injury and no one knows, or maybe you picked it up and you do tell people. There are so many niggles, injuries, upset stomachs, and a million other mental and physical things that go unreported and there are countless performances that would be discounted, but aren't, because we don't know about them. And even if you did, you'd have to go innings by innings, day by day and figure out what doesn't fit into your natural flow.

And after a while, especially when you start taking out big chunks - that is your natural flow. If you were **** for 10 games in a row, guess what, being ****ty is your natural flow. No one has a nice horizontal level of performance.

I don't care if you've got a bad stomach or a broken head. If you go out there, it counts because the game does.

 

[Ikki]

Well, those matches not part of your 'natural flow' still count. Plus, it's so weird to even think about a natural flow, you could be at the top of your game and all of a sudden you have a dip in form - is it because of the shrimp you had last night and we should ignore it, or was it because of some mental issues (should we ignore that?), or maybe you picked up a hamstring injury and no one knows, or maybe you picked it up and you do tell people. There are so many niggles, injuries, upset stomachs, and a million other mental and physical things that go unreported and there are countless performances that would be discounted, but aren't, because we don't know about them. And even if you did, you'd have to go innings by innings, day by day and figure out what doesn't fit into your natural flow.

And after a while, especially when you start taking out big chunks - that is your natural flow. If you were **** for 10 games in a row, guess what, being ****ty is your natural flow. No one has a nice horizontal level of performance.

I don't care if you've got a bad stomach or a broken head. If you go out there, it counts because the game does.

So what if there are so many things that may affect the natural flow? Who is talking about any one of those small niggles?

The things mentioned here are injuries that changed careers. When a bowler like Lillee suffers stress-fractures and has to completely remodel himself and fight his way back ... it's so different to the troubles you name that it's petty to think of them as the same. It's myopic to say the least. People aren't talking about your everyday things yet you keep mentioning them as if they are as innocuous as those problems. There is a certain threshold that once past deserves consideration. Small niggles, etc, don't. You may try to make that out as if it's arbitrary but it's hardly that.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument we were talking about:

McGrath + Next best spinner vs Next best pacer + Warne.

No, I am not arguing about that, not that it proves anything. I was arguing the fact that Warne isn't even a choice when it comes to playin in India and that I would take Kumble ahead of Warne to Play in India.

 

[silentstriker]

In the end, they could have the same effect. You'd ignore a match because of injury X but not because of an upset stomach, even though your end result is the same?

Lillee's back fracture was serious, and unless you are comparing his peak with someone else's peak, you have to take him as a whole, both pre and post fracture.

 

[Sanz]

I am arguing that the next generation of pacers will comfortably hold McGrath's role, even if not to the extent he did whilst the next spinner will, in all likelihood, not get near Warne's effectiveness.

And that obviously proves that Warne is the better bowler, isn't it ?

 

[Ikki]

No, I am not arguing about that, not that it proves anything. I was arguing the fact that Warne isn't even a choice when it comes to playin in India and that I would take Kumble ahead of Warne to Play in India.

Yes, but that is what I was arguing so when you reply to me I assume you are replying in the context of the discussion I was having.

 

[Ikki]

In the end, they could have the same effect. You'd ignore a match because of injury X but not because of an upset stomach, even though your end result is the same?

If it's for one match, that's not a talking point. If it was a problem that occurred a lot and hence crippled the performance of a player then it is a talking point. If the player gets past that injury and regains old or better forum, then it's worthy to disregard the period where he was not 100% and his performance was being crippled.

Lillee's back fracture was serious, and unless you are comparing his peak with someone else's peak, you have to take him as a whole, both pre and post fracture.

If I were judging Lillee with someone, for arguments sake, who had the same exact career stats-wise but Lillee was bowling with stress-fractures, etc and the other party didn't? Of course, I am going to conclude that Lillee was the more able bowler.

 

[Ikki]

And that obviously proves that Warne is the better bowler, isn't it ?

That wasn't the argument...at all. Stephan's point (because if you read the thread correctly, it was his) was that Warne's value to a team is much more because he was/is so much harder to replace; even if you believe, as Stephan actually does, that McGrath was more effective as a bowler.

 

[silentstriker]

If I were judging Lillee with someone, for arguments sake, who had the same exact career stats-wise but Lillee was bowling with stress-fractures, etc and the other party didn't? Of course, I am going to conclude that Lillee was the more able bowler.

I would not. They did the same things. Could have, would have, should have.

 

[Ikki]

I would not. They did the same things. Could have, would have, should have.

Disagree that they did the same things but OK...moving on.

 

[Jono]

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.

Testify!

 

[Sanz]

That wasn't the argument...at all. Stephan's point (because if you read the thread correctly, it was his) was that Warne's value to a team is much more because he was/is so much harder to replace; even if you believe, as Stephan actually does, that McGrath was more effective as a bowler.

Okay let's talk about their replacements during their careers at the time of their absence from the team due to injury or other reasons :-

Who was Warne's replacement ? Stuart Macgill
Who was Mcgrath's replacement ? Michael Kasprowicz

From what I see, It is clear to me that during their careers Mcgrath was much harder to replace than Warne.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, but that is what I was arguing so when you reply to me I assume you are replying in the context of the discussion I was having.

You do not decide the context, the thread starter decides it and I am arguing in the context of the thread and not the context of some cooked up spreadsheet.

 

[Sanz]

The thing is that you can have 2 bowlers and their careers can span 2 different generations for 30 years. That still means Australia had a top bowler leading them.

You are shifting the goal post now, you said that Australia has produced Mcgrath like bowler in every generation. The above isn't same as your previous statement.

They don't need to produce anymore.

That's absurd. It's like saying that Australia didn't need to produce more batsmen of the caliber of Ponting, Hayden etc since they already had Steve Waugh, India didn't need ro produce guys like Dravid and Sehwag since they already had Tendulkar. Flat out absurd.

To be exact it's a bit less, like 17. But, that's still misleading because only for one of those periods were Australia really in trouble with finding a spearhead.

The point is that you tried to suggest that those Spearheads were Mcgrath Like which is not really true, they were not even close.

An attack that consists of Reid, Alderman and McDermott is hardly weak.

Do check out Australia's performance during their bowling careers.

I am suggesting that you don't know when you say there have only been McGrath and Lillee in the past 50 or so years.

Yes, it is only Lillee and Mcgrath to the best of my knowledge.

 

[shankar]

The reason the batting has been easier in the past few years is because of a) the bowling and b) the pitches.

That's why I bring up the fact that during the 90s there were 4 genuinely great attacks: Pakistan, Australia, WIndies and S.Africa. Two of those attacks went by the way-side in the 2000s.

Actually India in India was as great a challenge. From '95 - '01 top 6 batsmen average 32.46 vs India in India whereas they average higher against the WI and Pak.

The remaining difference is facing semi-strong attacks in the 90s the pitches were slightly more helpful. So for most opponents that Tendulkar faced later on, it's the pitches that have helped. So how did Tendulkar do against the best in the 90s? He succeeded against 2 and failed against the other two. Like Ponting (except Ponting faced one less because one was his own so 2/3). The difference between them in the 90s is that Tendulkar smashed the easier teams around whereas Ponting was very inconsistent against them.

How did Ponting come into this? Anyway...

In the period prior to 2002: Ponting's 'success' vs pak involves just 1 inning vs Wasim. So he was unproven vs them. Not to mention he was dismal vs India in India who as I showed earlier was a bigger challenge than WI or Pak. His best performance is vs South Africa where in matches involving Donald or Pollock he averaged 40.

So now in the 2000s, not only has Tendulkar still not changed much in terms of his success against great attacks, but he has failed to beat the lesser teams on easier pitches to bat.

Talking about Tendulkar's performance after 2002 as if he was still up for judgement is ridiculous. He already had 13 years of extraordinary performance. It's unfair to judge his performance over a far longer period than the batsmen who he's compared with.

The way to judge a batsman is to look at his peak performance - in terms of quality and length. The fact that he had some extra years where he was a lesser player obviously doesn't take anything

Whereas what changes with Ponting is that he not only continues batting better against the better bowling teams, but he gains the consistency against the lesser teams; so much so that in their overall records Ponting eclipses Tendulkar.

His average in this period benefits from the fact that batting is easier vs all teams. For example

He has 1600+ runs @ 60 vs SA post 2001. Look at the average of top order batsmen vs SA post 2001 compared with the period before. It increases from 31.45 to 39.59!

1175 runs vs WI @ 83. Average against WI for top order batsmen goes from 35.5 to 49.5!

 

[Jono]

I'd bet Ikki doesn't take into account Gilly's mediocre performances since 2005 in denigrating his rating of him.