2nd greatest living cricketer

[ataraxia]

2000-09

Murali averaged 21
Warne, Donald and Pollock 25
Steyn 24
Akthar and Bond 22
Walsh 20
Ambrose 18

Even post prime Waquar managed 28.

Averaging 21 is great, nothing out of the world though. Especially when you are playing for the super dominant team.

no

 

[ataraxia]

a simple no is the best argument because it's utterly unrefutable. no logic "errors" to poke a straw man at, no reasonable assumptions to unreasonablise. and you get likes for it

 

[Gob]

World's best batsman was in his team.
Sachin and Lara.. more of 90s stars.
Dravid always struggled against great pacers.

Jesus christ mate get something right for once. Lara had an incredible run in 00s. Slump Tendulkar only faced McGrath in 2 tests. There were Kallis, Smith, Sangakkara, Yousef, Inzamam, Dravid, Sehwag, KP and many others feasting on the flattest wickets world may have ever seen and McGrath averaged 20.5

How about this for a track.

Ftr those tests in WI happened at the same time his wife was diagnosed

And to put things in to a perspective here are non aus batting averages of the decade. Numbers of players averaging more than their career averages


Surely I can't make this any easier for you
Edit
I wasn't actually aware that McGrath had such a great record in 00s. I knew it was good but not this good and now I'm genuinely contemplating whether he was better than MM

 

[trundler]

I can't wrap my head around the disingenuousness required to suggest that McGrath's average was nothing special and that there were no good batsmen around in the 00s.

 

[bagapath]

if anyone claims that McGrath is the greatest bowler that ever lived, they have a fair case.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

if anyone claims that McGrath is the greatest bowler that ever lived, they have a fair case.

Thats fair. But, saying McGrath did unimaginable in flattest era of 00s is plain wrong. All other quality bowlers around then did well too. Any of Akram, Donald, Ambrose could have done the same if they were in the place of McGrath.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Jesus christ mate get something right for once. Lara had an incredible run in 00s. Slump Tendulkar only faced McGrath in 2 tests. There were Kallis, Smith, Sangakkara, Yousef, Inzamam, Dravid, Sehwag, KP and many others feasting on the flattest wickets world may have ever seen and McGrath averaged 20.5

How about this for a track.
View attachment 29621
Ftr those tests in WI happened at the same time his wife was diagnosed

And to put things in to a perspective here are non aus batting averages of the decade. Numbers of players averaging more than their career averages
View attachment 29620

Surely I can't make this any easier for you
Edit
I wasn't actually aware that McGrath had such a great record in 00s. I knew it was good but not this good and now I'm genuinely contemplating whether he was better than MM

Sachin and Lara were better in 90s.
00s was the easiest era for batsmen.
McGrath was the best bowler, but there was no serious competition ( only Akthar to an extent ).

 

[bagapath]

00s was the easiest era for batsmen.
McGrath was the best bowler

that settles it.
makes pigeon extra special in the 00s

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I can't wrap my head around the disingenuousness required to suggest that McGrath's average was nothing special and that there were no good batsmen around in the 00s.

There were good batsmen. I was talking about Sachin, Lara and Ponting.
McGrath avg was special as it would be in 90s.. Nothing more than that.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

that settles it.
makes pigeon extra special in the 00s

Slightly better than Akthar.

 

[trundler]

other quality bowlers around then did well too. Any of Akram, Donald, Ambrose could have done the same if they were in the place of McGrath.

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bike.

 

[subshakerz]

Thats fair. But, saying McGrath did unimaginable in flattest era of 00s is plain wrong. All other quality bowlers around then did well too. Any of Akram, Donald, Ambrose could have done the same if they were in the place of McGrath.

Yeah, I think people overstate the 'flat era' argument. The reason that the 2000s was more batting friendly was partially due to flatter pitches, but mainly it was that after Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Walsh and Ambrose retired, there were just relatively fewer worldclass bowlers in that era that succeeded them, making it easier for batsmen to score heavily. The few that did pop up (Shoaib, Asif, Bond) played relatively fewer matches.

As mentioned before, unlike the 80s and 90s, not a single great bowler played throughout the entire decade.

 

[bagapath]

Slightly better than Akthar.

out of the 21 test series he averaged above 26 in twice and averaged under 20, nine times.

 

[trundler]

Slightly better than Akthar.

If Akhtar doing almost as well over a third of the number of games diminishes McGrath's standout legacy, Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, and Imran coexisting means they were all meh.

There were good batsmen. I was talking about Sachin, Lara and Ponting.
McGrath avg was special as it would be in 90s.. Nothing more than that.

There were many more great batsmen than any other decade. SA, Pakistan, India and obviously Australia each had their strongest middle orders ever. McGrath averaging 20.5 when the overall average in Australia was closer to mid-30s (from memory) was obviously crazy.

 

[Bolo.]

Forget the 20.5. A number of bowlers had similarly good home performances for the decade. Going at 19.x away, and sub 20 in all but 1 country (2 games only) is what is really impressive.

 

[trundler]

I mean, yeah sure pace bowling stonks were not especially high in the 2000s but McGrath being the lone ATG is still a point in his favour. And that's all I said it was. Guy made top orders **** themselves, day in and day out. Everywhere. Never went missing. Took 4.5 wickets per match despite playing *124* tests. Was basically the Tendulkar of bowling without choking and with some added X factor.

 

[subshakerz]

If Akhtar doing almost as well over a third of the number of games diminishes McGrath's standout legacy, Marshall, Hadlee, Garner, and Imran coexisting means they were all meh.

There were many more great batsmen than any other decade. SA, Pakistan, India and obviously Australia each had their strongest middle orders ever. McGrath averaging 20.5 when the overall average in Australia was closer to mid-30s (from memory) was obviously crazy.

Well to be fair, Pakistan had a horrible batting lineup when McGrath faced them in 2002 and a fairly weak one in 2004 without Inzi for most of the series. Their best batting lineup was arguably in 99. WI were obviously a bit weaker than what he faced in the 90s. SAs great middle order only blossomed after McGrath retired. India and England were definitely stronger. He didnt play in Sri Lanka where it was a runfest in the 2000s.

Not to diminish McGraths achievements but I think if other ATGs were around they would have still done well.

 

[trundler]

That Pakistani lineup he took 8/24 against was pretty good. Absolutely demolished em. Yeah, SA peaked in 08-12 but they were still fairly strong back then, way better than in the 90s.

Just look at what happened to Australia when McGrath wasn't there. They could only draw India at home kudos to that extremely OP batting lineup. And then there's the '05 Ashes..

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bike.

Ok.
McGrath was the only ATG pacer in early and Mid 00s, naturally he became the best.
It would be the same with any other ATG.

If you think Donald would have been a 30 avg bowler in 00s, then there is no point in calling him ATG.

 

[ankitj]

McGrath in 2000s. It's crazy:

.