No they never played together, but they were both integral to the Australian side at its peak. I think it's fair to include both in the same theoretical side.
REading that piece by Mike Selvey again really brought me to tears. Thank u so much
Incorrect, McGrath began that 95 series as a third seamer and was promoted to opening bowler in the very next series against Pakistan, producing excellent results from there on. I highly doubt Australia would have become no.1 without McGrath in that series or after. McDermott was past his best at that point.
Holding and McGrath at least performed well overall against competent batting lineups such as India and England. NZ therefore is an abherration. A high SR against NZ means little, but a high SR for Lee against the only decent batting lineups (England, SA, India) he faced tells a lot more. You can't take his performance against WI and NZ and assume he will pick up wickets quickly against Richards and co.
You yourself don't find Warne>McGrath, neither do I. So, using your non-statistical argument, Warne should be still behind Marshall/Ambrose given that it's still highly debatable that McGrath is better than them.
You can treat spinners differently but only to a point. There's no use giving special excuses for them. In the end, the better bowler is the one who takes wickets most effectively. In the end, you can romanticize all you want, but performance counts most.
You say this after arguing that we can't read stats.
He was promoted to an opening bowler, not spearhead. McDermott, who you say was past his best, was the spearhead, ironically.
Lee has an SR of 62 against SA which is better than McGrath's. Against the best batting opposition of his day - India - he strike at 57 balls a wicket. Let's not forget how he debuted against a strong WIndies batting line-up in 2000 and struck at 32 for the series.
But they bowl at different points for different reasons. A bowler who bowls with the old ball will generally have a harder time taking wickets than one who bowls with the new ball. Spinners always come on later and generally have less shine to work with. They're also introduced when there are set batsmen. They're also asked to bowl many more overs which pace bowlers, as a matter of ability, can't do. So the idea that we can do a straight ratios comparison is absurd.
What a fine piece of writing indeed.
Lillee's WSC figures, IIRC, don't really move his average but push his SR to 50. And really, you wouldn't expect it to improve his figures at all...since the competition was filled with the best players around the world and was seen by all in the competition as the highest form of cricket played - higher than Tests even. Just take a glance at those line-ups. It's to his credit that it even does. Holding may have been faster than Lillee (probably in the 2nd half his career) but more feared? That is absurd. Everyone knew who "The Man" was then. The WIndians themselves lauded him. Hadlee worshipped him.
That is because Warne is not seen only as a bowler whose job is to take wickets. He is also seen as a great entertainer, somebody who could capture the imagination, bring the glamor back into a dying art, and attract crowds to his act. His overall impact as a cricketer is seen and not just his bowling otherwise he gets trumped by a few if only we look at the bowling.
This is a cop-out for those who simply try to write off Warne. Just read my signature; the two greatest bowlers of his time (McGrath and Murali) both consider Warne the greatest bowler of all-time. In pretty much every reputable list he is the highest placed bowler.
So I guess u also agree that Sobers is the greatest AR ever and Tendy is the 2nd greatest batsman of all time. Since that is the opinion of the same experts who rate Warne so highly.
No, I don't. Sobers, for different reasons than Tendulkar (who isn't, btw rated as the 2nd greatest of all time by those same experts). And my point isn't that you have to agree with these opinions either.
So? Allan Donald, Ambrose, and Brian Lara consider Wasim Akram as the best bowler, doesn't make him the greatest.
Thats very interesting but we have done this dance before but I wont waste u or my time by goin down that road. Just wanted to point out (no matter what u want to say) the obvious inconsistency in ur arguments. Somehow Lillee and Warne r the greatest (based on expert opinions ; and I can quote u on this) even though statistically quite a few bowlers leave them in the shade.
There are always players who have their fans; the point is who has the most fans. I think we know, clearly, that is Warne. Me bringing up Murali and McGrath wasn't just to name two; but that these are his most compared with contemporaries and they themselves think him the greatest. So the basis that they are fooled by glitz and glamour and the other things Warne brought isn't credible to me.
They don't though, and that is the point. No bowler leaves them "statistically" in the shade.
It's a cop out to suggest that his claim to fame is solely his performances as well. Warne came at a time when spin was dead in Australia and revived it. He was a natural entertainer and a colorful character. He made spin ***y again. He had the substantial backing of the English press when he started out that hyped him into a league of his own. All of this contributed to his legend.
Thats pretty surprising that u think that way, if I can be completely honest.Maybe there is hope for u yet LOLOLOLOL (sorry couldnt help myself).