The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Logan]

It almost seemed like the bloke would take a wicket at every single delivery. I can't
.

I didn’t say McGrath wasn’t great. I just said I would place him behind Marshall, Steyn and Hadlee among ATG greats.

For me, his only deficit was he wasn’t able to single handedly destroy batting lineups in Asian pitches like he did elsewhere. I have seen him completely destroy batting lineups in Aus/SA/Eng/WI/NZ but for some reason he couldn’t do it in Asian pitches. He has a fantastic average and SR in Asia. He regularly picked up 2 wickets and 3 wickets almost every innings but didn’t blow away the opposition like a Marshall or Steyn even once.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I have never seen more effective bowler than Mcgrath in my lifetime.. It almost seemed like the bloke would take a wicket at every single delivery. I can't believe any bowler can be better, not even Marshall; however I have been assured by almost everyone who saw these two players in action that Marshall was better..

Mcgrath's only weakness was that he would get really frustrated when things didn't go his way ie. when batsmen went after him (in ODI) or when he didn't get wickets (in tests). Those occasions were few and far between though.

Yeah McGrath is one of the first picked in ATG XI for mine, along with Bradman and Gilchrist. Pointing at career averages and saying that Steyn and Hadlee were just as good isn't right.

edit: may underrate Marshall, don't know much about him other than what I've read. He probably pushes McGrath for that no. 1 quick spot

 

[Bolo]

Imram + hadlee = McGrath + atg bat.

Does anyone genuinely believe that McGrath was a better bowler than hadlee and imran combined? If you only give the ball to imran when it is reversing you end up with a 6wpm+ bowler who averages 20. And this ignores the fact that imran, when on song, has a case for being the best conventional swing bowler ever, and the fact that sometimes genuine pace is the only thing that gets the job done.

 

[Red]

and the fact that sometimes genuine pace is the only thing that gets the job done.

That's the worst attempt at trying to rationalise why McGrath wasn't the best ever that I've ever heard. Woeful.

 

[Coronis]

Ashes

Hutton
Hobbs
Bradman
Smith
Ponting
Hammond
Gilchrist
Warne
Truman
Lillee
McGrath

SC

Gavaskar
Sehwag
Sangakkara
Tendulkar
Kohli
Dhoni
Imran
Akram
Kumble
Waquar
Muralitharan

ROW

Richards
Greenidge
Richards
Lara
Kallis
Sobers
Cameron
Hadlee
Marshall
Steyn
Tayfield

ftr the ashes xi was purely based on ashes series.

 

[Red]

I didn’t say McGrath wasn’t great. I just said I would place him behind Marshall, Steyn and Hadlee among ATG greats.

For me, his only deficit was he wasn’t able to single handedly destroy batting lineups in Asian pitches like he did elsewhere. I have seen him completely destroy batting lineups in Aus/SA/Eng/WI/NZ but for some reason he couldn’t do it in Asian pitches. He has a fantastic average and SR in Asia. He regularly picked up 2 wickets and 3 wickets almost every innings but didn’t blow away the opposition like a Marshall or Steyn even once.

Bit of a furphy this Asian thing and McGrath. Still took 4 wickets a test in India at an avg of 21 in 8 tests. In Pakistan he played only 4 tests so it's not really enough to judge, but he took 4 wickets per test at 31. In SL was only 4 tests for only 10 wickets, but at least one of his spells in those four tests made a big contribution to a win.

Overall his record in Asia really is pretty good...overall average of 23 and close to 4 (3.7) wickets per test.

FWIW, his record in Asia is pretty much comparable to Steyn's (4.1wickets) per test with McGrath having a slightly better average. Yet Steyn is often lauded a subcontinent hero.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com


All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[akilana]

I have never seen more effective bowler than Mcgrath in my lifetime.. It almost seemed like the bloke would take a wicket at every single delivery. I can't believe any bowler can be better, not even Marshall; however I have been assured by almost everyone who saw these two players in action that Marshall was better..

Mcgrath's only weakness was that he would get really frustrated when things didn't go his way ie. when batsmen went after him (in ODI) or when he didn't get wickets (in tests). Those occasions were few and far between though.

That’s how I felt when watching many other ATG bowlers bowl. He is one of many contenders for the best bowler ever title but people act like he was the bowling equivalent of Bradman.

 

[Chrish]

That’s how I felt when watching many other ATG bowlers bowl. He is one of many contenders for the best bowler ever title but people act like he was the bowling equivalent of Bradman.

I have been following Cricket since 90s and been lucky to watch so many ATG bowlers. But no other bowler has given me that feeling, compared to when Mcgrath came to bowl against my favorite batmen. Guys like Steyn pulled out mystical spells out of no-where that ran through the sides. Mcgrath on the other hand was the most consistently threatening bowler I have seen. Even when he wasn't taking wickets, he was putting pressure on batsmen by not giving any runs.

 

[Bolo]

That's the worst attempt at trying to rationalise why McGrath wasn't the best ever that I've ever heard. Woeful.

Not sure why you are so desperately trying to find comments I'm not making. Sometimes only spin or seam or swing will get the job done. Genuine pace is no different.

I'm not comparing McGrath to a single bowler. Try addressing what I'm actually saying

 

[kyear2]

Imram + hadlee = McGrath + atg bat.

Does anyone genuinely believe that McGrath was a better bowler than hadlee and imran combined? If you only give the ball to imran when it is reversing you end up with a 6wpm+ bowler who averages 20. And this ignores the fact that imran, when on song, has a case for being the best conventional swing bowler ever, and the fact that sometimes genuine pace is the only thing that gets the job done.

I can't agree with anything here.

First if all, I have McGrath as one of the top 3 quicks ever. Period. As stated previously Hadlee is close and somewhere in the 5 to 7 range. Imran I have somewhere closer to 15th ish. So while I can understand the argument for Hadlee, for me personally, not for Imran. Also Imran was a good lower order batsman, not an ATG bat.
Next, if you gave any bowler the ball only when it's swinging they would end up with that average. Though that was Marshall's average, just saying.
And finally, no. While genuine pace is sometimes a benefit, skill is what ultimately gets the job done.

When selectors are picking actual teams, do you think they actually say, Bob is a better bowler than Sam, butSam may be a better batsman, so let's go with him. I can even see a need for a batting all-rounder, because going In a test match with only 4 bowlers can be fraught with danger. But imagine picking the guy who will bat at 10 or 11 and saying no, we need a better batsman? I've heard Paine is a decent enough keeper, but he isn't scoring enough runs, never heard that said about Glenn McGrath, or Dale Steyn.

Look, at the end of the day you win matches by bowling out a team twice, pick the bowlers best equiped to do that. Period.

Hutton
Hobbs
Bradman
Tendulkar
Richards / Kallis
Sobers
Gilchrist
Hadlee / McGrath
Marshall
Warne
Steyn

Squad and compromise XI

 

[kyear2]

ftr the ashes xi was purely based on ashes series.

I figured.

Just went with the idea. Pretty sure I missed some names and the balance on the AC is pretty off.

 

[Red]

Not sure why you are so desperately trying to find comments I'm not making. Sometimes only spin or seam or swing will get the job done. Genuine pace is no different.

I'm not comparing McGrath to a single bowler. Try addressing what I'm actually saying

You're disparaging McGrath in the post and finish it by asserting that "sometimes genuine pace is the only thing that gets the job done." I am addressing what you are saying. Your implication was clearly that if McGrath was quicker he'd be better, it was intended to slight him. And it's not even true, in relation to McGrath (who for the record was more than quick enough).

 

[smash84]

You're disparaging McGrath in the post and finish it by asserting that "sometimes genuine pace is the only thing that gets the job done." I am addressing what you are saying. Your implication was clearly that if McGrath was quicker he'd be better, it was intended to slight him. And it's not even true, in relation to McGrath (who for the record was more than quick enough).

It's not really a slight though.

Chappell rated Lillee ahead of McGrath because according to him lillee could do everything that McGrath could and he could do it 10 miles quicker. I don't think the idea is to insult McGrath but to point out that for two similar bowlers, pace would win out.

Of course you can disagree with the basic premise of Chappell's statement but that's a different matter.

 

[kyear2]

That’s how I felt when watching many other ATG bowlers bowl. He is one of many contenders for the best bowler ever title but people act like he was the bowling equivalent of Bradman.

Many is a bit of a stretch. I can think of 7 tops and that's being generous and including spinners. If I'm being forthright, probably 6 and the main competition among the top 3 or 4.

 

[trundler]

This is giving me horrible flashbacks. We've had this exact argument among the exact same people a few dozen times already. Can we instead talk about Smith or something?

 

[Red]

It's not really a slight though.

Of course it is, in the context of this conversation. You can't even pretend it isn't.

Chappell rated Lillee ahead of McGrath because according to him lillee could do everything that McGrath could and he could do it 10 miles quicker. I don't think the idea is to insult McGrath but to point out that for two similar bowlers, pace would win out.

I'm a massive fan of Lillee, but I think McGrath was the better and more rounded bowler. Marginally, but definitely. 10 miles quicker means nothing.

Of course you can disagree with the basic premise of Chappell's statement but that's a different matter.

Well yeh, I do, and that's also why I was disagreeing with Bolo.

 

[Red]

This is giving me horrible flashbacks. We've had this exact argument among the exact same people a few dozen times already. Can we instead talk about Smith or something?

I don't think we've had this exact argument amongst the exact same people a few dozen times in the 12 months you've been on the forum. And this sort of argument is what this forum is for. Thanks for your concern though. I hope the "horrible flashbacks" aren't too traumatic.

 

[kyear2]

Of course it is, in the context of this conversation. You can't even pretend it isn't.



I'm a massive fan of Lillee, but I think McGrath was the better and more rounded bowler. Marginally, but definitely. 10 miles quicker means nothing.



Well yeh, I do, and that's also why I was disagreeing with Bolo.

Everyone is a bit partial to the players they played with and I'm sure Lillee saved his and his brother's asses quite a few times.

But McGrath is just that bit better than Lillee.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think McGrath is quite a lot better than Lillee. Are we really surprised that an old bloke that played with Lillee overrates him?

I see Lillee as a bit like Flintoff as a player, a great cricketer but, because of his immense aura and impact, overrated a bit

 

[trundler]

I don't think we've had this exact argument amongst the exact same people a few dozen times in the 12 months you've been on the forum. And this sort of argument is what this forum is for. Thanks for your concern though. I hope the "horrible flashbacks" aren't too traumatic.

It gets boring as ****. I know how you feel, I know how Bolo feels and I know what Kyear2's thoughts on the subject are. Why revisit it when no one's going to change their minds? It's very dull reading.