Pollock averaged 36.85 against Australia with the ball. On that basis, no way! AT 5 wickets a test that's about 80 more runs he would need to make than McGrath (~45 if we go heaed 2 head).
The fact is that Warne is one of the most overrated cricketer in history (I can think of Botham as someone even more overrated). He never delivered a match-winning spell against India yet gets lauded as some superman. Unlike McGrath or Marshall, there are are a list of batsmen who consistently topped Warne, such as Salim Malik, Sidhu, Laxman, and Pietersen. He was a consistent second best to both Lara and Tendulkar. His average and strikerate are well below most worldclass fast bowlers. No doubt he was best of his breed, but if I were captain I wouldn't hesitate for a second to choose McGrath over him.
So they wouldn't like a Murali in their team because he was a failure against Australia? or wouldn't India want a player like Warne playing for them? I think that was a wrong way to look at it.
Agree with you.Indians are the best players of spin.Warne never really performed against them in both forms of the game.Can't be rated as the best when you fail against the best.He's overrated because of The Ashes performances.Close to 200 wickets against ENG.Played 1/4 of his career against ENG.Warne shouldn't be put ahead of bowlers who performed against all the teams.Murali on the other hand has taken 100+ wickets against IND & he bowled some great match winning spells again them.Only bowled one great spell in IND at Kotla.Saqlain is the only spinner who did well in IND during last 2 decades.
With respect to the original question posed by Jono, yes. I think it's adequate to explain why he may not be rated as highly as McGrath, in terms of like for like replacement, despite overall records being close and Pollock being a better batsman.
Well, here too, he hasn't...
Sorry, last time I checked he was just ahead of Tendulkar. Still, the point stands that he does not seem to be rated that highly by his peers. I don't think Shane Warne rated him in the top 10 cricketers he played with or against, which seems to be the feeling of quite a number.
Warne's list was biased though, so can be taken with a huge pinch of salt.
Akram was named in Cricinfo's all time World XI by a panel of experts, ahead of both McGrath and Ambrose, so you don't think it is possible or even likely that quite a few people would consider him to be the greatest cricketer of the last 20 years.
Warne to take the blame for that.He just couln't do it against India during a good amount of matches in tests.ODI record is even worse.Even that new guy Mendis was able to trouble India big time.Don't remember Warne doing anything good in WI as well (apart from taking last 3 tailender wickets in the match where Waugh made 200).Mcgrath has always been the impact player who did it against top players.This recent trend of bagging Warne for his record against India is starting to get on my nerves a bit. Everybody seems to be getting in on it these days...
