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

[Ikki]

Yet you lost the series and the only games you lost were when McGrath wasn't there so the 40 wickets thing is irrelevant.

This is the kind of reply I was waiting to get, but thought I'd wait for someone to make it before I spend any time with a response to flatten that notion. The above is just an interesting aside but lacks any context for discussing the actual tests involved. Only someone who didn't watch the series or is just interested in a snide response would even bring it up.

No one who watched that series came out with the notion of "whew, nevermind Warne who just had one of the greatest series of all time and almost carried the team to a win; McGrath just proved how much of a match-winner he is!"

McGrath played 3 tests, 1 win, 2 draws. But let's look closely.

1st Test:

1st innings: England skittle Australia out for 190. McGrath has an imperious opening, decimating the first 5 wickets for 21 runs. Lee and Warne get the rest - of particular importance Warne getting Pietersen who had started to get on top as England were getting close to our total. Australia limit England to 155 and go in 35 runs ahead.

2nd innings: Australia bat very well for the 3rd innings, adding 384 to the lead to give England 420 to chase with about 2 and a half days remaining. McGrath takes 4 in the second, but none in the top or middle order (GJ @ 7). Instead, as England build an 80 run opening partnership without a loss, Warne and Lee come in to take care of any glimmer of hope England were looking to have.

This is a Test where I'd agree that McGrath showed his match-winning capability with his 1st inning blitz, although, it's probably overstated as people tend to point to this innings and ignore much of the rest of the series.

3rd Test:

1st innings: England build a big 1st innings total of 444. McGrath goes 0/88, Warne and Lee 4 each. Australian batsmen, however, only manage a disappointing 302. That too in large part because Warne top-scored for the Australians with 90 runs.

2nd innings: England go in to bat already 142 runs ahead and looking to add quick runs to get Australia in with a decent enough total and enough time to win the match. McGrath takes 5/115, however going for over 5 runs an over. Warne goes wicketless as England declare with 4 wickets in hand and another 280 runs added to the total.

Australia have to go bat the last innings chasing 423. This inning was notable for Ponting's incredble 156, almost batting out the day to save the match. Warne again helps with the bat with an important 34. Ultimately, England run out of time needing only 1 wicket to win.

McGrath was not close to Warne in terms of importance in this game. McGrath took 5/201, Warne 4/173, yet Warne was also the 2nd highest run scorer for Australia with 124 runs with the bat (Ponting 163 runs). Without Warne and Ponting Australia had no chance to draw.

5th Test:

1st innings: England open the batting, putting up 373. McGrath takes 2/72; Warne takes 6/122. That doesn't show that of the top and middle order batsmen, McGrath only took Flintoff. English batsmen 1-5 were taken by Warne as McGrath struggled to break through. Australia put on 367 and aim to bowl England out cheaply for any hope to win the Test and retain the Ashes.

2nd innings: No mystery here, we didn't manage to win and hence lost the ashes. This innings though, McGrath helps out, and both he and Warne take out the top 7; and for a moment it look like we might be able to pull it off. McGrath finishes for 3/85 for the inning and Warne again takes 6 wickets for 120 odd.

Again, how could you even possibly argue that McGrath shared near the importance Warne did in such a match? The rain effectively guaranteed a draw but if not for that we may have even had a chance to win it because of Warne.

Now, these were just the matches that McGrath played. There were two other matches where without him Australia almost won, because of Warne. In the 2nd Test Warne took 10 wickets. Possibly just as important, he scored 50 runs; 42 of them in the 2nd innings stand with Lee and Clarke. We fall just 2 runs short of winning the game when Harmison takes Kasperwicz as Australia looked to win, without McGrath.

In the other Test McGrath didn't play (the 4th Test); Warne takes 8/133. England ended up winning by 3 wickets, even though they only needed to chase 129 runs. Warne and Lee were working miracles in that last inning and if the Aussie batsmen weren't so pathetic and had given England more than 129 to chase, we may have done it as the English top 7 were gone; only GJ and the tailenders remained.

Watching this series was amazing. It was incredible drama in almost every session. And the one guy that kept popping up and giving us a shot and performing miracles was Warne. To even suggest that McGrath came out that series on even equal footing - even considering the matches he played - with Warne is ridiculous. If Lee had the same series in terms of injury and correspondence with the results (let's say McGrath and Warne were fit instead) and in the Tests he played we didn't lose...anyone suggesting Lee was a bigger match-winner because we didn't lose in those Tests would be laughed out the room.

 

[Ikki]

Pretty much what Mark said.

Look at the title of the thread, I agree Warnes performance was one of the greatest ever............didn't win you anything though. If McGrath hadn't have missed 2 tests there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the Aussies would not have lost that series. I think the performances and the results clearly indicate who was the more valuable (for that series at least)

Read my post. Even without McGrath, all Warne needed was the batsmen to have an "average" series for their own ability and we would have won it. Warne outperformed McGrath whether he featured or not.

McGrath has many examples of being a great match-winner...Ashes 2005 wasn't one of them.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

It would be interesting to see how many wickets and at what average McGrath took against England. And how top-order heavy his wickets were.

I suspect lots; very low; and significantly.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Just checked statsguru - McGrath took 157 wickets in 30 matches against us, at an average of 20.92.

Warne played 36 matches, and took 195 at 23.25.

So the stats are kind of comparable, with neither blatently on top of the other.

Obviously 05 belonged to Warne.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

India is a kind of litmus test. You might expect McGrath would struggle on the sub-continent, but

Warne took 34 wickets at 43.11

McGrath 33 at 21.30.

Unbelivable really. McGrath was off the scale!

 

[andyc]

India is a kind of litmus test. You might expect McGrath would struggle on the sub-continent, but

Warne took 34 wickets at 43.11

McGrath 33 at 21.30.

Unbelivable really. McGrath was off the scale!

What has really sold me on McGrath's career is when you look at his breakdown by opponent/location, there's no real weakspot. His worst opponent was South Africa - 57 wickets from 17 matches at 27.33. So he still averaged 27 against his worst opponent. Location wise, it's much the same story - his worst there is Pakistan, where he has 19 from 5 matches at 31. I mean, the bloke was a ****ing machine.

 

[Ikki]

Warne had his issues with India, but why are they the litmus test in general? For a spinner, I can see the point but overall? I'd have considered our rivals for the #1 spot, which were S.Africa during that period of reign as more important. And yes, Warne was better against them than McGrath.

Ironically, McGrath did struggle (considering his standards) in SL and Pak.

What has really sold me on McGrath's career is when you look at his breakdown by opponent/location, there's no real weakspot. His worst opponent was South Africa - 57 wickets from 17 matches at 27.33. So he still averaged 27 against his worst opponent. Location wise, it's much the same story - his worst there is Pakistan, where he has 19 from 5 matches at 31. I mean, the bloke was a ****ing machine.

Look at his record in Australia vs the various countries. Against S.Africa and NZ in Australia his record isn't good: 31 @ 80 and 33 @ 73 respectively. Very consistent, but as I've brought up in other threads it's about as consistent as many of the greats (i.e. Donald) were.

 

[Prince EWS]

If McGrath hadn't have missed 2 tests there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the Aussies would not have lost that series

Quite likely true, but what if McGrath played that Tests instead of Warne rather than alongside him as you're suggesting? Australia would've lost the series anyway IMO and we'd all be sitting around saying how much they missed Warne.

I voted for McGrath, but I don't really think the 2005 series is a great example of why. Australia lost when McGrath was out but they likely would've lost if Warne was out too.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Warne had his issues with India, but why are they the litmus test in general? For a spinner, I can see the point but overall? I'd have considered our rivals for the #1 spot, which were S.Africa during that period of reign as more important. And yes, Warne was better against them than McGrath.

Ironically, McGrath did struggle (considering his standards) in SL and Pak.



Look at his record in Australia vs the various countries. Against S.Africa and NZ in Australia his record isn't good: 31 @ 80 and 33 @ 73 respectively. Very consistent, but as I've brought up in other threads it's about as consistent as many of the greats (i.e. Donald) were.

One could argue that South Africa just weren't versed in playing spin at all. I mean, how many great spinners have come out of SA in the past 20 years? By my reckoning it's a non-negative digit less than 1.

I think these things matter. If SA can't produce even primitively test-quality spinners; then their batsmen (who have plied much of their trade in SA) may then struggle when they come up against the likes of Warne.

 

[Himannv]

I thought Warne would win this poll with ease but it seems I was mistaken. I always felt he was their best chance of snatching a win even when things didn't go their way.

McGrath was definitely very consistent and is one of the best pace bowlers of all time, but Warne had that X factor about him that makes him an ideal choice for this sort of question. I think even most captains of that era turned to him when they needed to break a particularly solid partnership or bowl during the latter stages of an evenly poised test match.

 

[Ikki]

One could argue that South Africa just weren't versed in playing spin at all. I mean, how many great spinners have come out of SA in the past 20 years? By my reckoning it's a non-negative digit less than 1.

I think these things matter. If SA can't produce even primitively test-quality spinners; then their batsmen (who have plied much of their trade in SA) may then struggle when they come up against the likes of Warne.

The same could be conversely said for India and pace bowling, don't you think?

 

[Adders]

Quite likely true, but what if McGrath played that Tests instead of Warne rather than alongside him as you're suggesting? Australia would've lost the series anyway IMO and we'd all be sitting around saying how much they missed Warne.

I voted for McGrath, but I don't really think the 2005 series is a great example of why. Australia lost when McGrath was out but they likely would've lost if Warne was out too.

Well I do.......and it has been mentioned a few times in this thread as such.

A couple of things to consider. Not only did they lose the 2 tests McGrath didn't play in, at Old Trafford when he returned from the injury (clearly too soon) he returned his worst ever bowling figures.......so I don't think it's a stretch to say McGraths injury cost you 3 test wins.

Secondly, the Aussies had a perfectly capable replacement for Warne sat on the bench...........Dizzy and Kaspas (and Shaun Tait) performances show that there was no such capable replacement for GD McGrath.

 

[Adders]

The above is just an interesting aside but lacks any context for discussing the actual tests involved. Only someone who didn't watch the series or is just interested in a snide response would even bring it up.

No one who watched that series came out with the notion of "whew, nevermind Warne who just had one of the greatest series of all time and almost carried the team to a win; McGrath just proved how much of a match-winner he is!"

**** post. It is a perfectly reasonable pov. I can assure you I watched just about every ball of that series and I am not making a snide response............it is my opinion.

 

[Ikki]

You can have a perfectly reasonable POV, but I think we're stretching the meaning of reasonable by using a 3 Test sample of which said player was pretty crap for 2 of them. Especially to show that said player was the greatest match-winner for one of the greatest sides of all-time based on that 3 Test sample. McGrath's figures for the other two Tests: avg. 36, sr. 59.

Frankly, Warne was 2 runs away from winning the Ashes without McGrath. If McGrath's form in those Ashes were anything to go by, and instead Warne was out and McGrath was in; they weren't going to come any closer. Sure, maybe if he hadn't been injured he would have contributed more but that would be an opinion based on other Tests - not Ashes 05. Or you could say that had other batsmen than just Langer averaged above 40 Australia would have retained the Ashes with Warne anyway.

It's just not a good example. Surely, if you were summing up McGrath's legacy, or match-winning ability, you'd pick another more flattering series.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't know for sure who had or would have had the bigger impact on the '05 series (and Warne obviously did bowl and bat quite well) but there are a few things I know for sure;

- there is no way McGrath was fully fit in the Tests he played after Lords (was basically walking up to bowl in Manchester and still managed a, given, expensive 5)
- even relatively minor tearing of ligaments in one's foot or ankle means you're feeling it every time you hit the crease for months afterward and, consequently, it does change your technique and blunt your effectiveness as a bowler. It's not just the pain, though; transfer of momentum from the run-up to the delivery depends heavily on ankle and foot stability. You lose the ability to fully trust your body to bowl the ball where you want it to so naturally back off a bit.

From there, everything gets affected; pace, movement and general zip (read: seam) because you can't get through your action as powerfully as usual. Having watched the vast majority of the series, it was pretty obvious McGrath's foot was affecting his bowling. Everyone who's had to plough through 20+ overs with a twisted ankle can, I'm sure, attest to this and McGrath's injury was far worse than that or he'd have probably played at Lords.

 

[Top_Cat]

Look at his record in Australia vs the various countries. Against S.Africa and NZ in Australia his record isn't good: 31 @ 80 and 33 @ 73 respectively. Very consistent, but as I've brought up in other threads it's about as consistent as many of the greats (i.e. Donald) were.

FYI, for everyone else who's wondering where on earth those numbers came from, those are averages and strikerates.

The convention is to quote wickets and averages in which case McGrath's are 28 @ 31 for SA and 27 @ 33 for NZ.

Not that it means much in the context of his overall career, a couple of average Tests can blow our your numbers against one opponent pretty easily and, in McGrath's case, one bad series against NZ where they played him really well was all it took. Every bowler has soft spots in their record if you slice their career thinly enough, McGrath's no different.

 

[Jono]

Love when Ikki gets on his Warne is a mythical creature/Greek God who would win matches from nowhere and would thrive under pressure etc. posting. Couple of reasons.

1) He genuinely believes it, which is fair enough, so he argues it passionately.
2) Warne had one of the all-time great teams in the 2005 Ashes, bowling absolutely amazingly, and the team still lost

I realise you made a huge post saying why that isn't a counter-argument to your point, but I am sorry it is. When the bloke bowls as good as anyone may have ever bowled in a whole series, and he is surrounded by absolute champion batsmen, bowlers and fielders, and the team still loses... it shows he isn't the MVP. Or at the very least, its not proof that he is more important than McGrath.

 

[watson]

Glenn McGrath
Top Order (1-3) = 40.0%
Middle Order (4-7) = 34.8%
Lower Order (8-11) = 25.2%

HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph

Shane Warne
Top Order (1-3) = 23.0%
Middle Order (4-7) = 39.8%
Lower Order (8-11) = 37.1%

HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph

I wonder whether the impact of Warne was less than McGrath's (as suggested by some people in this thread) for the same reason that all spinners are disadvantaged when compared to fast-bowlers - they rarely get the new ball, and therefore don't often dismiss key/star top order batsman cheaply. After all, it's the Top 4 that generally make or break an innings. Although someone like Gilchrist at No.7 can come along later in the day and put the 'icing on the cake' for the batting side.

That is, Warne's figures might look great because he's bamboozled Fraser, Tufnel, and Devon Malcolm at the end of the innings. But if McGrath has picked up Atherton for a duck in the 3rd over, then this is far more likely to have destabalised the England batting order, and hence cause a win for the Aussie side.

 

[Ikki]

I realise you made a huge post saying why that isn't a counter-argument to your point, but I am sorry it is. When the bloke bowls as good as anyone may have ever bowled in a whole series, and he is surrounded by absolute champion batsmen, bowlers and fielders, and the team still loses... it shows he isn't the MVP. Or at the very least, its not proof that he is more important than McGrath.

No, it isn't because the response was that we hadn't lost with McGrath while he was playing those Ashes (which includes 2 draws of which Warne's importance was far more important). So if your point is strictly winning, the 1 game we won...you're basically saying the 1st Ashes test of 05 is why McGrath was the greatest match-winner of that great Australian team.

Moreover, as I said, I don't consider the fact that a match was directly won by a player when I define match-winner because no one player wins a match. Therefore I define it in terms of not strictly the result, but the impact a player could have on a game in turning the tide.

And the bolded is, frankly, garbage. Love ya mate, but utter tripe IMO. If those "champion" players performed anywhere near their level, then you'd have a point. Everyone bar Langer averaged in the 30s with the bat, and every bowler bar Warne and McGrath - who didn't play 2 tests - averaged 40+ with the ball.

Following that logic, if Bradman barely won Tests because his team couldn't help him win, he's not the MVP of the side. And when/if he does win, it's the guy who made a 50 (not Bradman who made 100+) who was more important.

If you don't think Warne should garner any praise as a "match-winner" by your definition, fine; but don't try to use McGrath when in the matches that McGrath was available Warne was more important on the whole. You're basically just giving him praise for being there alongside a better performing player.

That is, Warne's figures might look great because he's bamboozled Fraser, Tufnel, and Devon Malcolm at the end of the innings. But if McGrath has picked up Atherton for a duck in the 3rd over, then this is far more likely to have destabalised the England batting order, and hence cause a win for the Aussie side.

I actually looked at top batsmen both faced across their careers, country from country, and there was very little between them. I'll try to find the spreadsheet. And that encapsulates why Warne was so good. Despite the fact that he was a spinner, he still routinely took big batsmen. And what more, while McGrath would face the batsmen when they were unsettled; Warne would then have the trouble of trying to dislodge them because McGrath couldn't. As a spinner Warne also had to bowl more, without the new ball, on pitches routinely not suited for spin. In fact, during Warne's career there were only two countries where spin outdid pace - SL and India.

So while it is true that he got to bowl to the tail more, his figures are hindered in other ways as well.

 

[Ikki]

FYI, for everyone else who's wondering where on earth those numbers came from, those are averages and strikerates.

The convention is to quote wickets and averages in which case McGrath's are 28 @ 31 for SA and 27 @ 33 for NZ.

Not that it means much in the context of his overall career, a couple of average Tests can blow our your numbers against one opponent pretty easily and, in McGrath's case, one bad series against NZ where they played him really well was all it took. Every bowler has soft spots in their record if you slice their career thinly enough, McGrath's no different.

Yeah, I know, I just couldn't be arsed writing avg. and sr. all the time.

I agree with you in general though. I was just pointing it out because I remember I started a Donald thread, asking why he was so underrated, and people routinely said someone like McGrath just had a more complete record when you see that they're basically similar. Everyone bar Marshall, as far as I know, has a crap record here or there.