Who was the biggest match-winner in the great Australian side?

[harsh.ag]

In perhaps the greatest Test team of all time, who would you rate as the biggest match-winner?

Australia suffered many of their significant losses (though not all) in the absence of Glen McGrath:

Ashes 2005 (Birmingham and Nottingham, both matches McGrath was absent
Border-Gavaskar Trophy 2003 (Adelaide)
Border-Gavaskar Trophy 1998 (Chennai and Kolkata)

They managed fine without Warne when he was banned, though that doesn't take away from the genius of the man.

With the bat, it has to be Ponting I guess, while Gilchrist was a pivotal member in so many ways.

Besides these, if you think of somebody else, then please share.

 

[kyear2]

In perhaps the greatest Test team of all time, who would you rate as the biggest match-winner?

Australia suffered many of their significant losses (though not all) in the absence of Glen McGrath:

Ashes 2005 (Birmingham and Nottingham, both matches McGrath was absent
Border-Gavaskar Trophy 2003 (Adelaide)
Border-Gavaskar Trophy 1998 (Chennai and Kolkata)

They managed fine without Warne when he was banned, though that doesn't take away from the genius of the man.

With the bat, it has to be Ponting I guess, while Gilchrist was a pivotal member in so many ways.

Besides these, if you think of somebody else, then please share.

That is an excellent question that requires some thought. Leaning towards McGrath or Ponting. Gilchrist was just just demoralizing to teams coming in at 7 just to continue or increase the onslaught.

 

[dhillon28]

Glen McGrath- easily

 

[Slifer]

(Purely from a West Indian perspective) but it has to be Glenn Mcgrath. Gilchrist and Ponting came along when we were already a dire team ne way so we wouldve gotten beaten regardless. When we actually had a decent it was Steven Waugh and Glenn Mcgrath who made the difference for Australia. More so Mcgrath because he turned it on home and away. Warne we didnt fear that much though he did at times did well vs us but he didnt utterly demoralise us the way Glenn did

 

[Expressway76]

Mcgrath for sure.

 

[Adders]

Yeah definitely McGrath......not sure how to find it but I recall that the Aussies win/loss ration with him in the side to when he wasn't was absolutely ridiculous.

As the OP mentioned you only have to look to the 2005 Ashes to answer this question.

Surely Ponting shouldn't even be in the mix for this?? As great as he was in his pomp he was present through the Aussie transition into mediocrity.

 

[robelinda]

McGrath easily for me.

 

[Hooksey]

Not an easy question to answer because the reason they were so dominant is that they were a great 'team'.

 

[Top_Cat]

If the Aussie side of that era was a pimp, Warne and Ponting were the guns, Gilchrist was the flashy hat, Hayden was the cane and Marto the rings but Glenn McGrath was the heartbeat. The other guys maketh the pimp but McGrath was the reason they were alive in the first place.

 

[Justo]

McGrath for me. All the others had pretty good replacements if they ever got injured except for Gilchrist who was a luxury to have.

 

[Bahnz]

While Warne was definitely my favourite player from that team, it's probably McGrath who was the most crucial. I cursory look at the stats in the 1995-2007 period sorta backs this up. Overall, Australia played 143 matches, winning just over 67% of them and losing only 15%. McGrath missed 27 matches, and Warne missed 29 during this time.

When Warne was missing, Australia still won 62% of their matches, and lost only 21%. When McGrath was missing, Australia won just 56% of their matches and lost nearly 26%. This doesn't consider the number of matches played against minnows or anything (both players missed two matches against each of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh), but it seems about right. Both players were crucial, but McGrath was just that bit more vital.

 

[benchmark00]

Stuart MacGill.

Australia only won 67.74% of the matches McGrath played.

Australia won 70.45% of the matches MacGill played.

#facts #truthbombsdropped

 

[Top_Cat]

Simon Cook

#impactplayer

 

[Jono]

McGrath easily for me.

Not an easy question to answer because the reason they were so dominant is that they were a great 'team'.

Love the juxtaposition here.

 

[Coronis]

Gotta be McGrath.

 

[Hooksey]

Love the juxtaposition here.

Don't knock fish with icecream until you've actually tried it.

 

[NUFAN]

In some ways I think they are two different things. The player that we could least afford to be without was definitely McGrath but I wouldn't necessarily rate him in first place as the greatest match winner as a Ponting first innings of the series ton, a blitzing Gilchrist knock and Warne's 5th day heroics were huge for Australia and really showed the dominance of our team.

Basically I'm saying McGrath wasn't as flashy as others and obviously he was a beast and we would win matches thanks to him, but Aussie brilliance was just as often associated with the three other names (and more) that I've mentioned.

 

[Hooksey]

In some ways I think they are two different things. The player that we could least afford to be without was definitely McGrath but I wouldn't necessarily rate him in first place as the greatest match winner as a Ponting first innings of the series ton, a blitzing Gilchrist knock and Warne's 5th day heroics were huge for Australia and really showed the dominance of our team.

Basically I'm saying McGrath wasn't as flashy as others and obviously he was a beast and we would win matches thanks to him, but Aussie brilliance was just as often associated with the three other names (and more) that I've mentioned.

The highlighted portion reflects my feelings as well.

20 wickets are the most import target in winning a test match, and McGrath & Warne were obviously the go-to men in that regard.

 

[Red]

Agree with Nufan there. McGrath just constantly did the job, over and over again.

Gilchrist or Warne more likely to do something outstanding and dramatic. But McGrath just as likely to do something as them. Hard question!

 

[watson]

Agree with Nufan there. McGrath just constantly did the job, over and over again.

Gilchrist or Warne more likely to do something outstanding and dramatic. But McGrath just as likely to do something as them. Hard question!

It's a hard question because it's difficult to say which is the most important component in winning a Test match;

1. Top-order wickets
2, Late-order, and 5th Day wickets
3. Solid runs at the top of the order
4. Fast runs in the middle-order, and great wicket-keeping.

I suspect that top-order wickets is slightly more important than the other 3 factors - therefore McGrath.

However, it's a bit like asking, 'What is the most important component in a motor car?'

1. Wheels
2. Engine
3. Drive-shaft
4. Windscreen wipers.

Well, in a storm, the car is going no where useful if the driver can't see a thing out of the windscreen. It just depends....