Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Winning games of cricket has the square root of **** all to do with what you'd rather watch though.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)
- Thread starter Prince EWS
- Start date
aussie tragic
International Captain
Right, because Lillee, Thommo, Lee, Johnson, Starc, etc have never totally destroyed opposition batsmen to win the game lol
Test_Fan_Only
First Class Debutant
Yes they did and so did McGrath.
Faster might be better to watch, more exciting but as far as winning cricket games excitement and entertaining means nothing. It is effectiveness that matters. That is why Steve Waugh was a much better batsman than Mark Waugh, effectiveness not how good to watch. McGrath was might effective, and while I do not personally agree he is the all time number 1, he deserves to be very highly rated.
aussie tragic
International Captain
Actually I dont think I rate McGrath in the top 10 Australian pacers, I mean that puts him in the 4th XI. So more than likely I want my pace bowlers to have actual pace. ffs Shane Watson bowled faster than McGrath.
As for Steve Waugh, one of the most boring batsmen ever. Would much rather have Mark Waugh, Dean Jones, Kim Hughes and Greg Chappell fill my middle order
As for Steve Waugh, one of the most boring batsmen ever. Would much rather have Mark Waugh, Dean Jones, Kim Hughes and Greg Chappell fill my middle order
aussie tragic
International Captain
Lol, I think I'm channeling Kerry Packer...he didn't care about reputation or records, he just wanted the most exciting cricketers on the park 
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Having a guy who is at the worst the 5th greatest fast bowler of all time in your country's 4th XI is pretty much just as egregiously wrong. Apparently an average of 21 in the most batting friendly era ever doesn't count. Even Burgey isn't with you on that one, lol.
aussie tragic
International Captain
Really, worse than having Australia Hall of Famer, ICC Hall of Famer, Australian XI of the century player at 83 all-time. In good faith, McGrath could make the Lead bowler of 3rd XI, or maybe first change bowler of 2nd XI
SillyCowCorner1
Request Your Custom Title Now!
This is really a staggering assessment
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Yes, not staggeringly good either, I hasten to add.
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Lower average in era where every noteworthy batsman has 10 runs docked off his average for having it too easy. Did it for longer and did it in more varied conditions. Simply was better. Look, this isn't even an argument. McGrath is probably the 2nd guy picked after Bradman, alongside Gilchrist. This is even before getting into things like % top order wickets. It's just that clear-cut. I love copying Lillee's action and he must've been a great competito AND he's one of the greatest fast bowlers but c'mon, McGrath is a rung above - only because he's absolutely elite tho.
Lillian Thomson
Hall of Fame Member
Although I don’t agree with the McGrath fan boys, some of whom just think he has nice legs, I’m a bit surprised by the idea that he was boring. He was certainly accurate and could bowl his stock ball with great accuracy on a flat wicket. That doesn’t equal boring in my book. When there was a bit in the wicket he could hit the right lengths but also had variation when the conditions required it.
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
McGrath wasn't all that fun to watch. Maybe because he was always getting out the batsmen I liked to watch, in boringly predictable ways.
I did learn to enjoy his bowling in his latter years though. Especially loved his performance in the first Test of Ashes 2006-07. Australia had racked up 600+ on an absolute road, I think the wicket had one crack and McGrath just kept hitting it.
I did learn to enjoy his bowling in his latter years though. Especially loved his performance in the first Test of Ashes 2006-07. Australia had racked up 600+ on an absolute road, I think the wicket had one crack and McGrath just kept hitting it.
GoodAreasShane
Cricketer Of The Year
The idea that McGrath was never quick is just blatantly wrong too. Not as fast as Cracker Holdsworth (few were) but he was definitely sharp in the early NSW days
Test_Fan_Only
First Class Debutant
Dismissing McGrath because he did not bowl fast enough is the completely stupid. That he was extremely effective at a slower pace just shows how skilled he was as a bowler. There is a lot of difference between selecting a team that you like and selecting the best team possible.
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Look, I don't necessarily agree with Lillee at 83 or whatever but it's less hairbrained than this. Would have saved the effort if I'd known you were this much of a drongo.