Warne or McGrath?

[nightprowler10]

Surely not? What has Murali got that Dave Mohammed doesn't?

The Murali charm.

 

[Sanz]

I would say the bowlers aren't seen as being as good because the pitches don't help them as much. A lot of 'good' bowlers of today would become great if they had the 1970's pitches to help them.

I doubt it. I think someone like Dennis Lilee would probably have a much better strike rate and overall average in the present era than he ended up with.

Once again, I would like to know more about the pitches you are talking about, because the pitches I have watched cricket on in late 70s and throughout the 80s in the subcontinent were much more Flatter than they have been in last 5-10 years. I certainly cant say much about the 70s-80s pitches in Australia,Eng, WI, because I didn't see anything there during those days.

Indian batsmen did so well in Australia in 2003-2004 series without Mcgrath, however on the same pitches in 1999-2000 series, we were mauled and none of our batsmen (with the exception of few innings by SRT/LAX) could stand up to Mcgrath/Warne etc.

 

[Sanz]

The Murali charm.

'ch' is suppsoed to be silent.

 

[Sanz]

Surely not? What has Murali got that Dave Mohammed doesn't?

Murali (like Mcgrath) is Human, Dave is God. It's not really fair to compare Gods with Humans.

 

[a massive zebra]

Bradman called Bedser the best bowler of all time, right up until his death. That's good enough for me.

This is simply not true. He actually always considered Bill O'Reilly the greatest bowler he had ever faced or watched.

 

[PhoenixFire]

This is simply not true. He actually always considered Bill O'Reilly the greatest bowler he had ever faced or watched.

I have read a quote in his Autobography that stated otherwise.

 

[marc71178]

It is arguable that Warne isn't even the best spinner in the world right now. You can't say that about McGrath.

No, you could.

McGrath is definitely not the best spinner in the world right now.

 

[a massive zebra]

Fair play, but I wouldn't put him in my top 10, needless the No1/. For me that would have to be either Wilfred Rhodes, Titch Freeman or Alec Bedser.

Tich Freeman?

During the 20s some county sides were first class in name only - having being completely decimated by the great war. No one could rout these mediocre county sides like Freeman but he really was exposed as a liability when up against quality Test batsmen and he therefore struggled to even make the England side for most of his career.

Top county batsmen and nearly all international players had the ability to completely nullify his flight and spin with their quality footwork and straight bats, and Freeman never had enough skill or variety to deceive these players. For an example of how massively his fortunes changed when up against completely different standards of opponent, note that Freeman took 231 wickets at 11.59 against Leicestershire or 253 wickets at 11.71 against Northamptonshire, and yet managed just 142 wickets at 26.06 against Surrey and averaged a monstrous 57.37 in Tests against Australia.

 

[tooextracool]

I have to agree with all of that. Except putting Akhtar, Gillespie and Donald in the same category as Ambrose and McGrath.

But regardless of that, no there haven't been as many spinners as good. That doesn't necessarily mean they would be more suited to start a team with. I still think a strike bowler is more important in a team.

I just think that there are enough fast bowlers in the last decade or so that were not significantly worse than Mcgrath and could therefore replace him in the side. The same cannot be said about Warne, whos closest replacement is Murali and an extremely large gap.

 

[tooextracool]

Of course anyone has a right to prefer to watch whoever they want, but the fact of the matter is that McGrath has been a far more effective and important bowler for Australia.

Perhaps I should have said those who believe Warne is a better bowler are simply following the typical ill educated media bandwagon.

I dont think anyone is arguing that Warne is a better bowler. There is simply no statistical comparison between the best spinner and the best pace bowler, because its quite obvious that a pace bowler will come up with the better average and SR. That is just how the game works, spin bowlers bowl more and take more time to work their batsmen out. However when you pick a side, very few great sides in the history of cricket had a great spinner in them, while all of them had at least 2 great pace bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

I doubt it. I think someone like Dennis Lilee would probably have a much better strike rate and overall average in the present era than he ended up with.

Once again, I would like to know more about the pitches you are talking about, because the pitches I have watched cricket on in late 70s and throughout the 80s in the subcontinent were much more Flatter than they have been in last 5-10 years. I certainly cant say much about the 70s-80s pitches in Australia,Eng, WI, because I didn't see anything there during those days.

Indian batsmen did so well in Australia in 2003-2004 series without Mcgrath, however on the same pitches in 1999-2000 series, we were mauled and none of our batsmen (with the exception of few innings by SRT/LAX) could stand up to Mcgrath/Warne etc.

I think to an extent you are right. Pitches in the subcontinent(India and Pakistan) were flatter in the 70s and 80s than they are now. Just looking at the results, youd often see 0-0 results in a 3 game series in the subcontinent. The pitches in the subcontinent now are actually a bit more sporting in that sense however i dont think the difference is that significant(not in pakistan anyways). However pitches and conditions in Australia, England and WI(the most obvious example) are much much flatter than the pitches in the 70s and 80s. I think this more than makes up for the subcontinent situation.

 

[bagapath]

I find Benaud's all time XI much better:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Donald Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Vivian Richards
6. Gary Sobers
7. Imran Khan
8. Adam Gilchrist
9. Shane Warne
10. Sydney Barnes
11. Dennis Lilliee

Mine would be almost exactly the same except McGrath and one of Marshall/Ambrose would be in there for the last two spots.

SS! I thought Benaud got it right when I saw his team first. Now, after reading his book "My spin on cricket" in which he has listed his second and third teams as well, I am confused. His other two teams kind of give you an idea of the selctoral process he employed. Though he manged to arrive at a good team in the end, the other teams show that his methods are not too sound, in my opinion. for example, he doesnt find a place for marshall in any of the teams. no. not hamish, i meant "the" marshall. malcolm. how can you choose 9 fast bowlers, three per team, and justify not selecting him?

the other problem i had was benaud managing to find a slot for g.pollock in team 3 but not compton in any of the teams. i dont understand people overlooking the great denis compton while choosing these teams. he was an attacking, all-round batsman who enjoyed success for a long time against all his opposition, all over the world. how can you ignore him?

benaud's third team has both kapil and botham in them. good entertainment i am sure. but is it the road to consistent success? will try and find the book and list those teams. you will understand why i doubt his selectoral process.

even in the all-time team you have quoted i would have hammond or lara in place of sachin. it is almost the perfect team. compared to bradman's XI this is a winner. hands down.

 

[Poker Boy]

Maybe its because I'm NOT Indian - but Warne.There aren't that many great leg-spinners around and add to that his slip-fielding (apart from the Oval 2005) his batting and his captaincy (I KNOW he's not captain of Australia but that's their mistake) and you have a better pacjage than McGrath.

 

[Poker Boy]

Surely not? What has Murali got that Dave Mohammed doesn't?

600 Test wickets....

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

On current form, I would rate Makhaya Ntini ahead of McGrath as far as fast bowling in ODIs and Tests go.

Any particular reason for that? Ntini's a good bowler and all but he's nowhere near McGrath's class, not even in recent times.

Not sure what you consider "current form", but in their last 20 tests McGrath has 96 wickets @ 20.72 compared to Ntini's 100 wickets @ 24.49, and that includes without question the best period of Ntini's career, while McGrath has come back from injury several times and missed a fair amount of cricket during those 20 tests. Plus he's toured India and so on while Ntini's played 12 of those tests at home and 4 in the West Indies.

McGrath's only played one test in 2006, but last year he took 62 wickets @ 21.81 to Ntini's 47 @ 24.85.

In ODI's it's a bit closer and I'd say McGrath's only marginally better due to his superb economy rate, but I don't think this debate is really about ODIs anyway.

 

[Poker Boy]

About Benaud's team v Bradman's team...Richie's team is nearly perfect - I'd make two changes. The first would be would be Marshall for SF Barnes. In Barnes' day there wasn't the amount of Test cricket there is now so you judge by FC records. Barnes - by his own choice - oreferred to play minor counties cricket so didn't have the career figures in FC he could have. And I'm biased but Knott for Gilchrist. Better wicketkeeper and he scored Test centuries against the Lillee/Thomson Aussies and the Windies pace attack in the "grovel" series. I don't think Gilchrist could have done that. As for the Don's team -how long before his death did he pick it? Two few batsmen, too many bowlers. Why 5 bowlers AND Sobers? And times have changed - these days you need your wicketkeeper to bat.

 

[a massive zebra]

There is simply no statistical comparison between the best spinner and the best pace bowler, because its quite obvious that a pace bowler will come up with the better average and SR. That is just how the game works, spin bowlers bowl more and take more time to work their batsmen out.

Well that is not strictly true as McGrath is no better than Murali statistically.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

I find Benaud's all time XI much better:

1. Jack Hobbs
2. Sunil Gavaskar
3. Donald Bradman
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Vivian Richards
6. Gary Sobers
7. Imran Khan
8. Adam Gilchrist
9. Shane Warne
10. Sydney Barnes
11. Dennis Lilliee

I almost agree with Richie Benaud's All Time XI but only after swaping Akram/Ambrose for Dennis"I'm a greentop bully"Lillee & Brian Lara for either Richards or Tendulkar.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well that is not strictly true as McGrath is no better than Murali statistically.

He has a better average and SR, and by a fair distance too if you take out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Average is 2 runs lower and SR is 6 balls lower, give or take.

 

[silentstriker]

i would have hammond or lara in place of sachin. it is almost the perfect team. compared to bradman's XI this is a winner. hands down.

That's because you're a traitor.