McGrath vs Jack Hobbs

[DrWolverine]

What does star power and aura have to do with winning?

Nothing.

 

[kyear2]

You’re thinking of Garner.


View attachment 43016

View attachment 43017

So 4, he wasn't and was well past opening bowling stage in '91. But you're correct.

He actually bowled really well in that 2nd Sydney lost, but that's not important here.

But 54 tests as an opening bowler and lost 4.
And he was injured in NZ and we got bowled out for 53 in Pakistan.

That's still pretty ridiculous.

 

[kyear2]

Nothing.

Yeah, really not sure why Warne gets most of the credit for that team's success.

 

[kyear2]

Back on topic. McGrath and Hobbs are both top 5 for me, Hobbs deserves so much credit for his performances and status in the formative years of test cricket, and I believe is much closer to Bradman (as a batsman) than most give him credit.

Just think McGrath was better, and faced more varied and better competition. He was the centre piece of one of the two greatest teams ever and a great winner and competitor.

 

[subshakerz]

According to ****ing you.

The impact he had in those years and how he also helped to shape the game was just as evident and important. And for you to call him a passenger is both disingenuous and idiotic.

Pls tell me where I call him a passenger. I just said he had it easier and his star burned for a shorter period. That's irrefutable. I dunno why it irks you but you need to mind your manners.

He won, that's literally the purpose of the game, and importantly, more often than not, he was the reason they won.

Ok but that isn't what a legacy is built on.

 

[_00_deathscar]

I don't mind the argument. Wouldn't use "impact". Marshall and McGrath had greater impact towards winning, Hobbs was the first Test ATG, the original master. Sachin played forever and has all the records.

Influence?

If it’s influence then it’s definitely neither of Marshall or McGrath

 

[subshakerz]

So 4, he wasn't and was well past opening bowling stage in '91. But you're correct.

He actually bowled really well in that 2nd Sydney lost, but that's not important here.

But 54 tests as an opening bowler and lost 4.
And he was injured in NZ and we got bowled out for 53 in Pakistan.

That's still pretty ridiculous.

I'm sure the rest of the team had nothing to do with it.

 

[_00_deathscar]

So 4, he wasn't and was well past opening bowling stage in '91. But you're correct.

He actually bowled really well in that 2nd Sydney lost, but that's not important here.

But 54 tests as an opening bowler and lost 4.
And he was injured in NZ and we got bowled out for 53 in Pakistan.

That's still pretty ridiculous.

Awwww did poor lil Marshee Warshee hurt his icky wicky toenail?

 

[kyear2]

Pls tell me where I call him a passenger. I just said he had it easier and his star burned for a shorter period. That's irrefutable. I dunno why it irks you but you need to mind your manners.


Ok but that isn't what a legacy is built on.

He didn't keep the engine running, he elevated a really good team to the greatest one ever at that point. And there's no doubt to the fact that he was the guy.

Heaven forbid that winning isn't what legacies are built on.

 

[kyear2]

If it’s influence then it’s definitely neither of Marshall or McGrath

Which is what I said. Hobbs and Tendulkar had greater influence for different reasons.

 

[kyear2]

Awwww did poor lil Marshee Warshee hurt his icky wicky toenail?

His back, but good one.

 

[DrWolverine]

If it’s influence then it’s definitely neither of Marshall or McGrath

Dennis Lillee may not top anyone’s list but he had more impact than any fast bowler in the last 50 years

 

[Coronis]

So 4, he wasn't and was well past opening bowling stage in '91. But you're correct.

He actually bowled really well in that 2nd Sydney lost, but that's not important here.

But 54 tests as an opening bowler and lost 4.
And he was injured in NZ and we got bowled out for 53 in Pakistan.

That's still pretty ridiculous.

So 5…. I don’t get why you’re trying to defend him… nobody, least of all me is trying to discredit him at all. Its basically the definition of a meaningless stat.

You thought it was two, it was five, its literally the smallest thing ever. The numbers are easily confused if you flip them.

 

[kyear2]

So 5…. I don’t get why you’re trying to defend him… nobody, least of all me is trying to discredit him at all. Its basically the definition of a meaningless stat.

You thought it was two, it was five, its literally the smallest thing ever. The numbers are easily confused if you flip them.

Really not a big deal, but I'll stick with 4. Just om principle as per the spirit of the argument.

You can obviously use which you prefer.

 

[subshakerz]

He didn't keep the engine running, he elevated a really good team to the greatest one ever at that point. And there's no doubt to the fact that he was the guy.

Heaven forbid that winning isn't what legacies are built on.

That's just objectively untrue. It already was the greatest team ever before he became a mainstay.

 

[subshakerz]

Dennis Lillee may not top anyone’s list but he had more impact than any fast bowler in the last 50 years

Yes. Most impactful pacer ever. Second would be Imran thanks to reverse and introducing pace as a Pak standard.

 

[kyear2]

That's just objectively untrue. It already was the greatest team ever before he became a mainstay.

From when?

They started to advance from 76, they took the unofficial world championship in '79(?) from Australia.

They became who they were to be from 83' / '84.

When ever a team is referenced as the greatest ever it's the '84 team and that's compared to the 48 Invincibles or the 2002 / 2003 Australian effort. Possible the 2008 South Africans

 

[kyear2]

Yes. Most impactful pacer ever. Second would be Imran thanks to reverse and introducing pace as a Pak standard.

Are you serious right now?

Ignoring the 2nd bit of nonsense.

Dennis Lillee may not top anyone’s list but he had more impact than any fast bowler in the last 50 years

Lindwall was the father of "modern" pace bowling, he was the first all time great. In between him and Lillee, there was Trueman, Davidson and Hall and Snow.

But yeah, Lillee made it ***y and exciting and brought it to a larger audience.

His impact came though in making Australia a great side in the 70's, and between Sobers and Viv he was probably the face of cricket.

Don't know about making fast bowling relevant though, it kinda was since Lindwall.

 

[DrWolverine]

His impact came though in making Australia a great side in the 70's

Dennis Lillee’s biggest impact was inspiring or putting the fear of fast bowlers in Lloyd and then him doing the same thing and dominating world cricket

 

[kyear2]

Dennis Lillee’s biggest impact was inspiring or putting the fear of fast bowlers in Lloyd and then him doing the same thing and dominating world cricket

So Lloyd wasn't the impactful one, it was Lillee and Thompson?

Interesting perspective though.