2nd greatest living cricketer

[Victor Ian]

Shoaib couldn't stay on the park. Excellent when fit but otherwise, a spud, like bond.

Subshakers suffers from overanalysis of small cherry picked stats syndrome. As general standardizing goes, all bowlers of the 2000s get a downward adjustment of their averages because batting in general had a better average. Whether this is because it was all roads, just heaps of great batsmen, or equipment, is irrelevant. All of that decades bowlers are better than analysis by spreadsheet suggests.

 

[Burgey]

As general standardizing goes, all bowlers of the 2000s get a downward adjustment of their averages because batting in general had a better average

Unless you’re comparing McGrath to other ATG pacers who have similar stats, in which case this curiously is never mentioned

 

[subshakerz]

Asian pitches weren't road in 90s. Check average of Srinath in IND or Vaas in SL.

So as a pace bowler you would prefer to bowl in Pakistan in the 90s rather than Australia in the 2000s?

 

[subshakerz]

Shoaib couldn't stay on the park. Excellent when fit but otherwise, a spud, like bond.

Subshakers suffers from overanalysis of small cherry picked stats syndrome. As general standardizing goes, all bowlers of the 2000s get a downward adjustment of their averages because batting in general had a better average. Whether this is because it was all roads, just heaps of great batsmen, or equipment, is irrelevant. All of that decades bowlers are better than analysis by spreadsheet suggests.

Yet Shoaib still managed 144 wickets in 33 tests @ 22 in that decade.

You seem to be so knee deep in this '2000s flat era' argument that it is eschewing your analysis. Did pitches suddenly switch to flat in the year 2000 or what is it a gradual trend throughout the decade?

I would rather penalize the batsmen for inflated stats, which is obviously the case, rather than present McGrath as somehow the Sydney Barnes of the decade.

 

[sunilz]

So as a pace bowler you would prefer to bowl in Pakistan in the 90s rather than Australia in the 2000s?

Absolutely. Atleast Asian pitches assisted reverse swing. Australian pitches in 00 was pancake.

 

[Victor Ian]

Yet Shoaib still managed 144 wickets in 33 tests @ 22 in that decade.

You seem to be so knee deep in this '2000s flat era' argument that it is eschewing your analysis. Did pitches suddenly switch to flat in the year 2000 or what is it a gradual trend throughout the decade?

I would rather penalize the batsmen for inflated stats, which is obviously the case, rather than present McGrath as somehow the Sydney Barnes of the decade.

1). Shoaib was a ****ing legend. Easy pick if he is gauranteed to play. But he's not. Pity.

2) you can't penalise batsman without rewarding the bowlers. We'll you can, if you're a ....

 

[subshakerz]

1). Shoaib was a ****ing legend. Easy pick if he is gauranteed to play. But he's not. Pity.

2) you can't penalise batsman without rewarding the bowlers. We'll you can, if you're a ....

Ok, if Shoaib could do that well in the 2000s then there is no reason Donald, Wasim and Ambrose couldnt either yes?

 

[Victor Ian]

Ok, if Shoaib could do that well in the 2000s then there is no reason Donald, Wasim and Ambrose couldnt either yes?

He could not do it for long. It broke him. Ambrose may have had less bounce or found his edges going for boundaries. Ditto Donald. Wasim would have had to find a different way to get the ball reversing, what, with the extra scrutiny, and he may not have been afforded so many tail end wickets.

 

[stephen]

Bowling averages in Australia in the 00s.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Only two non Australians averaged under 29. And one of those was Steyn.

 

[subshakerz]

He could not do it for long. It broke him. Ambrose may have had less bounce or found his edges going for boundaries. Ditto Donald. Wasim would have had to find a different way to get the ball reversing, what, with the extra scrutiny, and he may not have been afforded so many tail end wickets.

How well would Ambrose, Wasim and Donald have done compared to McGrath in the 2000s by your estimate assuming they played as much as McGrath did and were in their prime?

 

[Victor Ian]

How well would Ambrose, Wasim and Donald have done compared to McGrath in the 2000s by your estimate assuming they played as much as McGrath did and were in their prime?

Probably about 10 percent worse. If McGrath was at his peak in the 90's we'd be declaring him the clear best bowler of that decade too.

 

[Prince EWS]

Unless you’re comparing McGrath to other ATG pacers who have similar stats, in which case this curiously is never mentioned

I mention it. This is why I think he was the GOAT.

 

[Victor Ian]

Ohhhhh - Come on Subsie! Just because you posted a big boo boo doesn't mean you have to delete it and deny me the win. Put it back so I can ridicule it.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Ambrose and McGrath also got to routinely dine out on hapless English batting throughout their careers. Donald played half as much against ENG and was tracking along with similar returns. Like others have said, an incredibly underrated bowler and only a shade below the other two among the greatest of the era.

 

[Victor Ian]

Agree with respect to Donald. I'm bored of this topic now.

The truth is, ALL of the all time greats are all time great. Put them in someone else's boots and they would perform the same, plus/minus normal statistical variation. But those who DID something are always better than those who PROBABLY would have done it.

 

[subshakerz]

Ohhhhh - Come on Subsie! Just because you posted a big boo boo doesn't mean you have to delete it and deny me the win. Put it back so I can ridicule it.

yeah I misread your comment hehe. Actually, from what I gather, you are saying they would average in the 22 range, which to me is still fine and hardly that much higher than what they did in the 90s. So in that sense I dont disagree but I dont see how the 'flat 2000s'is really a big deal.

 

[Victor Ian]

yeah I misread your comment hehe. Actually, from what I gather, you are saying they would average in the 22 range, which to me is still fine and hardly that much higher than what they did in the 90s. So in that sense I dont disagree but I dont see how the 'flat 2000s'is really a big deal.

You've been a great sport. I called you a ... and you took it like a man.

 

[trundler]

I mention it. This is why I think he was the GOAT.

Especially considering this effect was more pronounced in Australia than anywhere else and the 00s had the highest concentration of great batsmen.

 

[The Sean]

I'm surprised how often Donald is referred to as under-rated on CW - he seems exceptionally highly (and fairly) rated in these parts, moreso than in the outside world that I can see.

One of the more jarring examples of Donald's rating in some of the wider cricketing community is from Geoff Armstrong, who a lot of us know from his 100 Greatest Cricketers book. In that book he picked nine all-time XIs and extraordinarily didn't find a spot for Donald in any of them.

 

[The Sean]

Ambrose and McGrath also got to routinely dine out on hapless English batting throughout their careers. Donald played half as much against ENG and was tracking along with similar returns.

McGrath (30/124) and Donald (17/72) played almost exactly the same proportion of their Tests against England.