Cricketeres of the century (so far....)

[Jono]

Gatotade tells me the best cricketers are yet to be seen so imagine none of these names will be part of the list come 2100. That or Gatotade is lying.

 

[OverratedSanity]

McGrath took 297 Test wickets during the 2000s, and 266 wickets during the 1990s so I guess he is nominally a bowler of the 21st century based on raw numbers.

However, I still feel him to be a bowler of last century because his best battles were with Michael Atherton and Brian Lara during the mid-to-late 90s. He was at the height of his powers during that period.

McGrath at Lord's 2005 was in the 2000s, hence McGrath is a player of the 2000s. Didn't really have a "peak" at all, really though. Just one incredible high plateau

 

[CricAddict]

It's interesting to assess what makes McGrath an ATG.
He was accurate, but so was Fraser and Hendricks.
He was relentless, but so was Roberts and Hadlee.
He bowled the outswinger, but it was inferior to Trueman's or Lillee's.
He bowled the inswinging yorker, but it was inferior to Lindwall's or Waqar's.
He got steep bounce, but not as much as Ambrose.
He attacked with the bouncer, but it was not as devastating as Marshall's.
He could be aggressive, but not like Lillee.
He could intimidating, but not like Thomo or Snow.

So while no one facet of McGrath's bowling represents the absolute peak, he happened to be very good at absolutely everything. And it was the sheer quantity of very good deliveries piled on-top each other that eventually overwhelmed the very best batsman more often than not.

The bowling Tendulkar. Tendulkar was the allrounder of batting while Mcgrath was the allrounder of bowling.

 

[Red]

Gatotade tells me the best cricketers are yet to be seen so imagine none of these names will be part of the list come 2100. That or Gatotade is lying.

Companies don't lie to sell products. Don't be so cynical.

 

[Furball]

Ridiculous to say 'nobody else comes close' when there's a perfectly legitimate argument for Steyn >McGrath. Which ever way you argue, it's certainly 'close'.

McGrath took his wickets between 2000 and 2007 at a cost of 20 runs per wicket in a massively batting friendly era.

Steyn, as incredible as he is, takes his wickets at almost 3 runs more and has played in a more bowling friendly era.

 

[Adders]

McGrath took his wickets between 2000 and 2007 at a cost of 20 runs per wicket in a massively batting friendly era.

Steyn, as incredible as he is, takes his wickets at almost 3 runs more and has played in a more bowling friendly era.

Yeah look, I'm definitely in the McGrath > Steyn camp but to say it's not even close is just wrong.

 

[Slifer]

Really??? This argument again?? I'm with those who think that there isn't much to chose between Steyn and Mcgrath. Because no matter what Mcgrath achieved in 2000-07, the fact is, over all he averages just one run less than Steyn but Steyn has a much better SR. Added to that, I sincerely doubt that the era that Mcgrath bowled in was that much more batsman friendly than the current, if at all. Just that Oz were the only team with an all time attack at the time and so his exploits got magnified. But still boundary ropes are still pulled in, bat technology are still evolving to give more advantage to batsmen, wickets are still flat etc etc etc.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Mitchell Johnson could rate as the only bloke who could make the top 5 and bottom 5.

 

[Shri]

Considering only players who debuted on or after 2000:

Steyn
Sehwag
Sangakarra
Clarke
ABdV
KP
Hussey
Flintoff
Younis Khan
Ajmal

Brett Lee debuted on Dec 26 '99. Conflicted about including him.

 

[Red]

Really??? This argument again?? I'm with those who think that there isn't much to chose between Steyn and Mcgrath. Because no matter what Mcgrath achieved in 2000-07, the fact is, over all he averages just one run less than Steyn but Steyn has a much better SR. Added to that, I sincerely doubt that the era that Mcgrath bowled in was that much more batsman friendly than the current, if at all. Just that Oz were the only team with an all time attack at the time and so his exploits got magnified. But still boundary ropes are still pulled in, bat technology are still evolving to give more advantage to batsmen, wickets are still flat etc etc etc.

Maybe they're both just really good?

 

[Slifer]

Maybe they're both just really good?

No they both are really great, with Mcgrath (imo) ranking as arguably the greatest of all time. But he is not head and shoulders above Dale Steyn, for that matter none of the other great pacers are head and shoulders above Steyn. They're all in the same class more or less

 

[Red]

No they both are really great, with Mcgrath (imo) ranking as arguably the greatest of all time. But he is not head and shoulders above Dale Steyn, for that matter none of the other great pacers are head and shoulders above Steyn. They're all in the same class more or less

Which is what I meant. I should have said "maybe they're both really great" then.

Arguing over the top ten-fifteen quicks of all time is pretty pointless. In the end it might as well just come down to your favourites.

 

[Slifer]

I agree. Maybe u should tell that to the poster(s) who concluded that no fast bowler post 2000 compared to Glenn Mcgrath, when Dale Steyn clearly does

 

[andyc]

It's interesting to assess what makes McGrath an ATG.
He was accurate, but so was Fraser and Hendricks.
He was relentless, but so was Roberts and Hadlee.
He bowled the outswinger, but it was inferior to Trueman's or Lillee's.
He bowled the inswinging yorker, but it was inferior to Lindwall's or Waqar's.
He got steep bounce, but not as much as Ambrose.
He attacked with the bouncer, but it was not as devastating as Marshall's.
He could be aggressive, but not like Lillee.
He could intimidating, but not like Thomo or Snow.

So while no one facet of McGrath's bowling represents the absolute peak, he happened to be very good at absolutely everything. And it was the sheer quantity of very good deliveries piled on-top each other that eventually overwhelmed the very best batsman more often than not.

Reminds me of this quote from a Roebuck article on McGrath:

Some bowlers strike terror in the heart. Others dazzle. This blighter just took your wicket. Cheaply.

I think that sums it up. At the end of the day he was just very, very good at taking wickets regardless of the conditions or the batsmen.

 

[Furball]

Really??? This argument again?? I'm with those who think that there isn't much to chose between Steyn and Mcgrath. Because no matter what Mcgrath achieved in 2000-07, the fact is, over all he averages just one run less than Steyn but Steyn has a much better SR. Added to that, I sincerely doubt that the era that Mcgrath bowled in was that much more batsman friendly than the current, if at all. Just that Oz were the only team with an all time attack at the time and so his exploits got magnified. But still boundary ropes are still pulled in, bat technology are still evolving to give more advantage to batsmen, wickets are still flat etc etc etc.

Not between 2000 and 2007.

 

[Slifer]

That's irrelevant. Mcgrath and Steyn are comparable end of story. Mcgrath is in no way head and shoulders above him.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's interesting to assess what makes McGrath an ATG.
He was accurate, but so was Fraser and Hendricks.
He was relentless, but so was Roberts and Hadlee.
He bowled the outswinger, but it was inferior to Trueman's or Lillee's.
He bowled the inswinging yorker, but it was inferior to Lindwall's or Waqar's.
He got steep bounce, but not as much as Ambrose.
He attacked with the bouncer, but it was not as devastating as Marshall's.
He could be aggressive, but not like Lillee.
He could intimidating, but not like Thomo or Snow.

So while no one facet of McGrath's bowling represents the absolute peak, he happened to be very good at absolutely everything. And it was the sheer quantity of very good deliveries piled on-top each other that eventually overwhelmed the very best batsman more often than not.

Dan to post about Matt Henry.