Warne v McGrath

[Uppercut]

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.

Quite. McGrath had such a repeatable action that he could perform at his peak for years and didn't get into anywhere near the amount of performance-hampering shenanigans Warne did. And you know what? That makes him a better player. All the injuries and **** that Warne can't just be ignored when judging how good he is. It all counts.

 

[JBH001]

Agreed. This is especially the case if one is picked to play test cricket, or thinks one good enough to play test cricket, injury and 'relearning' process, and all. If you are, then you should be judged on the performances you give. Anything else smacks of selective repositioning of goalposts. Selectivity and all, in terms of peaks and troughs, is fine, as long as the criteria is applied consistently.

 

[JBH001]

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".

I am not sure I disagree with you here. I implied as much when I said that pacers, in general, are better than spinners in general. But, for all that, and as much as I admire Murali and Warne, I would hesitate before putting them in a list of top 5 all time bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Yes, and check Macgill's stats when he replaced Warne and was not there:

AVG. 33.53 SR. 62

Kasprowicz didn't replace McGrath. You obviously haven't watched that much of Australia in the past 10+ years.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Whoosh. You're not on the page. When you argue with me, regarding a point I am making, I assume the point you're making is with regards to the context that I am discussing. And not just some random point you wish to make. That doesn't make sense.

 

[SJS]

I am not sure I disagree with you here. I implied as much when I said that pacers, in general, are better than spinners in general. But, for all that, and as much as I admire Murali and Warne, I would hesitate before putting them in a list of top 5 all time bowlers.

I dont even hesitate, I just dont.
....Warne because I dont rate him that high and Murali because of his action.

 

[social]

Two points :- a. Mcgrath didn't need favorable wickets to take his wickets b. Warne failed massively on the most favorable wickets he got.




And that is true conversely as well.

How so?

I can only think that you're implying that subcontinental tracks favoured Warne's style of bowling.

The reality is that they don't

 

[Ikki]

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.

Who cares whether in India it was that? They did not have a great attack. Their averages are reliant on who they played. You should name the top averages of the bowlers in the 90s and then their records in different countries if you want to be specific. For example, during the 90s India only played WIndies, S.Africa and Pakistan 3 each times at home. They played 7 against Sri Lanka in that period alone.

Also, why do I care about 95-01? I am talking about the whole of the 90s, that is when Tendulkar played.

EDIT: Having checked the 90s India was very good at home, but only better than WIndies when it comes to the top 4.

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.

Our friend Jono tried to talk about double-standards, not realising he doesn't know what he is talking about at all.

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

He is up for judgment, bar his injuries, he is still going along and is fit and young enough to continue. I don't care about his first 13 years, I take his whole career into context. You're just being selective - a la the Manan way described here, in that it being tedious. This is one of those ways.

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!

Nope, during the 90s Ponting averaged 50 against S.Africa. He wasn't good against the Windies, that is his 1/3 strong bowling attacks he didn't do well against. No arguments there.

 

[Ikki]

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.

No, I am not. Once again I think your English skills are stopping you from understanding the discussion.

A generation has nothing to do with a certain amount of years. Lindwall will have a generation and his career may last 15 years. Then Lillee will come along and bring another generation and his career may also last 15 years. That's 30 years worth, and 2 generations, where we have 2 all-time great bowlers.

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.

Batsmen are completely different. You only need 1 all-time great bowler and 1 good bowler beside them to have a pretty good attack. If you have one-all time great bat and one decent one, you're still up ****-creek.

If they produce more, that's great. But one for every generation is a master-class in production itself.

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

Yes, they were. They troubled the great batsmen of their time, were very consistent and lead an attack. Miller, Lindwall, Davidson, Lillee, McGrath all easily did that. The lesser likes like Reid and Alderman did it too, but to a lesser degree. That's all I said.

I said the difference between a McGrath and a Gillespie, for example, is smaller than the difference between a Warne and a Kumble.

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

I have. The problem is you haven't.

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

With all due respect, you don't know enough.

 

[subshakerz]

How so?

I can only think that you're implying that subcontinental tracks favoured Warne's style of bowling.

The reality is that they don't

Well, isn't it always put forward by Warne supporters that he prospered despite not having the most spin-friendly wickets found in the subcontinent?

 

[stephen]

Well, isn't it always put forward by Warne supporters that he prospered despite not having the most spin-friendly wickets found in the subcontinent?

Warne bowled best when the ball bounced. The Indian pitches are very flat.

 

[shankar]

Who cares whether in India it was that? They did not have a great attack. Their averages are reliant on who they played. You should name the top averages of the bowlers in the 90s and then their records in different countries if you want to be specific. For example, during the 90s India only played WIndies, S.Africa and Pakistan 3 each times at home. They played 7 against Sri Lanka in that period alone.

EDIT: Having checked the 90s India was very good at home, but only better than WIndies when it comes to the top 4.

How is that? From the figures I'm seeing they were better than facing WI and Pak. Anyway they were one of the best challenges available for a batsman during that period.

Also, why do I care about 95-01? I am talking about the whole of the 90s, that is when Tendulkar played.

I chose the period upto '01 because that is the period during which the batting averages rises sharply.

He is up for judgment, bar his injuries, he is still going along and is fit and young enough to continue. I don't care about his first 13 years, I take his whole career into context. You're just being selective - a la the Manan way described here, in that it being tedious. This is one of those ways.

That's a flawed method since it puts different tests to different players. It expects Tendulkar to continue scoring at the same rate for a period of close to 20 years. He continued playing after the first 13 years since although he wasn't not as good as before he was good enough to play for India.

It would be selective if I was taking out a chunk of 4-5 years, but I'm considering a period of 13-14 years which is the career length of most batsmen. The way to judge a batsman is to look at his peak in terms of quality and length. This way if someone is being overly selective it would reflect on the length of the peak.

Nope, during the 90s Ponting averaged 50 against S.Africa. He wasn't good against the Windies, that is his 1/3 strong bowling attacks he didn't do well against. No arguments there.

Batting averages vs SA don't increase until after 2001. In matches involving Donald or Pollock prior to 2002 he averages 40. I don't mind classifying this as a success. But the fact is batting against them or any other team becomes much easier post 2001.

Also I don't understand what you're trying to do by looking at Potning's success vs strong attacks prior to 2001. It doesn't change the fact that runs made post around 2001 are much easier than before.

 

[Fidel Castro]

I chanced to glance upon a few last posts and shock horror, the conversation has died a natural death, not entirely surprising considering the original question, which in itself is a dud, has only one answer. It is now replaced with mudslinging including eminent names like Tendulkar, Ponting, etc who have at best cursory relevance in such a thread.

McGrath by a country mile and then some more for me. Australian cricket was best or near to its best whenever he played. Not the same with Warne.

 

[duffer]

Wow look at who hijacked the thread and somehow made it into a Ponting vs Tendulkar. Incredible, can we please try and not make every thread the same?

 

[zaremba]

Wow look at who hijacked the thread and somehow made it into a Ponting vs Tendulkar. Incredible, can we please try and not make every thread the same?

Ah, but Ponting's bowling action is purer than Murali's. Therefore I prefer Kallis to Sobers.

 

[tait express123]

It is very hard to pick the better considering they both bowled diffrent styles Warne bieng the master of spin and Mcgrath just bowling line and length all day everyday.

 

[JBH001]

I dont even hesitate, I just dont.
....Warne because I dont rate him that high and Murali because of his action.

Ha! Fair enough.

Just out of curiosity, SJS. If you had no doubts as to Murali's bowling action, would you hesitate?

 

[SJS]

Ha! Fair enough.

Just out of curiosity, SJS. If you had no doubts as to Murali's bowling action, would you hesitate?

Not for long, I think Murali has done enough to be considered the most effective and penetrative spinner of all times - his grudge games in Australia notwithstanding. But I must hasten to add, this means having Murali bowl his 'wrong one' without a bent arm.

If one was to consider Murali purely on the basis of his off spin (plus all variations minus the doosra) I would still rate him the finest off spinner of all times but would rate Grimmett and O'Rielly as better bowlers.

 

[SJS]

Ah, but Ponting's bowling action is purer than Murali's. Therefore I prefer Kallis to Sobers.

 

[subshakerz]

Warne bowled best when the ball bounced. The Indian pitches are very flat.

If that's the case, then pitches in Australia should suit his bowling more. Which makes this entire argument that Warne was at a disadvantage by bowling in pace-friendly Australia most of the time somewhat meaningless....