marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
More than who?Unattainableguy said:Yes, but the whole point being that McGrath goes for more.
More than who?Unattainableguy said:Yes, but the whole point being that McGrath goes for more.
Waseem Akram was clearly better,Kasper said:McGrath does not bowl good length balls, he bowls yorkers. What have you been watching buddy? He's the best finisher of an innings to ever pick up a cricket ball.
He was considered a death bowling specialist. He actually was more successful a lot of the time with the ball than the bat in ODI cricket. In his peak as a bowler he averaged in the 27-28-29 range with the ball, and had an eco rate around 4.3-4.4 despite bowling largely in the dying overs. With a mid 30s average with the bat at the time (higher than his average at the end of his career) he was a useful all-rounder, and was renowned for getting the ball in the right area in the dying overs. That reputation about died when he condeded 17 in an over in the first ODI at Bellrieve to let Pakistan score an unlikely tie.Link said:hmmmm, well thats something im very unfamiliar with
thats more on the side of what i was refering toFaaipDeOiad said:Not in the Wasim/McGrath/Lee/Garner/Pollock death bowling group in my view, but certainly good.
Can’t have seen much of him then.Unattainableguy said:He mostly bowls good-length balls
i strongly refute that claim, as will many others here i am sureKasper said:No way, McGrath best bowler to ever live, both forms of the game.
More than other fast bowlers. Now that's very simple!marc71178 said:More than who?
Kasper said:McGrath does not bowl good length balls, he bowls yorkers. What have you been watching buddy? He's the best finisher of an innings to ever pick up a cricket ball.
I can still recall the last over( of 3rd ODI when Pakistan came in Australia in 2002) where Wasim Akram smashed him for around 25 runs to set up a target of about 250 odd, and that really turned the tables on Australia. And McGrath didn't even attempt a single yorker!Tom Halsey said:Can’t have seen much of him then.
LOl! Akram was a far superior bowler in ODI.Kasper said:No way, McGrath best bowler to ever live, both forms of the game.
I meant names...Unattainableguy said:More than other fast bowlers. Now that's very simple!
You must be referring to Pollock of 4 or 5 years ago, because he hasn't been a good death-bowler for quite some time.FaaipDeOiad said:Not in the Wasim/McGrath/Lee/Garner/Pollock death bowling group in my view, but certainly good.
No, he's not, he's nowhere near as good as he used to be and when he bowls alongside Flintoff that's plain to see.FaaipDeOiad said:Gough is still quality at the death as well.
Pollock used to be pretty good until about 1999. WC99 was the last time he was reliable at the death.chooka_nick said:Pollock has fallen off of late but he used to be pretty good.
Not at all, wickets in hand don't make unhittable balls into hittable ones.Swervy said:I think pretty much any bowler will go for runs at the end if the opposition has wickets in hand
Hall sure is overrated because of that one over!Link said:Brett Lee, Freddy Flintoff and Andrew Hall i would rate as probally the best out of the lot
Come on, great bowler yes, but greatest ever? That is very hard to say (when trying to compare era's, quality of support bowling attack, quality of team etc.).Kasper said:No way, McGrath best bowler to ever live, both forms of the game.