McGrath = a little overrated these days

[marc71178]

Did he take wickets faster than Richard Hadlee?

Did he have as many chances as someone like Hadlee to come on, wrap up a tail and lower his S/R?

 

[Beleg]

What bugs me about McGrath is that he SHOULD NOT have been as successful as was. But he was. Compared to Donald, Wasim and Ambrose (the three best fast bowlers I have seen apart from McGrath) he didn't really look very dangerous, inocuous seeming length balls thrown at a comparatively gentle pace, with none of the verve and the style inherent in bouncers and yorkers - the hallmark of traditionally exciting bowling - however, he got the wickets. Regularly. You could chalk it upto luck once, helpful wickets twice, stupid batting thrice, but he did with a consistency I frankly have never seen anyone depict anywhere before.

So, in the end, even though I didn't really like watching McGrath bowl, and while he is no where near being my favourite player, I will have to grudgingly conceed that he is one of the greatest cricketers I have ever seen.

Oh, and the batting position of a player is not always the best indication of the quality of the ball that got them out.

 

[Slifer]

I'm a bit biased here but to b quite frank, I see no problem with crowning Mcgrath as possibly the greatest fast bowler of all time. Actually, I rate him slightly behind Marshall and slightly ahead of Hadlee. But overated he certainly is not. If u look at his record he is immaculate both at home and away. There is no one team that he has a bad record against and the only country where he kinda struggled was in Pakistan where he averages something like 31 (in only 3 tests i might add). The guy did all of this on some of the flattest, most batsman friendly wickets of all time. So he isnt express, so he doesnt have a deadly yorker blah blah blah. The fact of the matter is, he did his job as a fast bowler better than most, and did it effectively in both forms of the game and did it against everyone home and away. Very few bowlers can claim to have been this effective and consistent, hence y i would only rank Marshall over him.

 

[Son Of Coco]

What bugs me about McGrath is that he SHOULD NOT have been as successful as was. But he was. Compared to Donald, Wasim and Ambrose (the three best fast bowlers I have seen apart from McGrath) he didn't really look very dangerous, inocuous seeming length balls thrown at a comparatively gentle pace, with none of the verve and the style inherent in bouncers and yorkers - the hallmark of traditionally exciting bowling - however, he got the wickets. Regularly. You could chalk it upto luck once, helpful wickets twice, stupid batting thrice, but he did with a consistency I frankly have never seen anyone depict anywhere before.

So, in the end, even though I didn't really like watching McGrath bowl, and while he is no where near being my favourite player, I will have to grudgingly conceed that he is one of the greatest cricketers I have ever seen.

Oh, and the batting position of a player is not always the best indication of the quality of the ball that got them out.

I'm the distinct opposite to yourself, I loved watching McGrath bowl just to see how well he did what he did time after time. He was a bit like Warne in that something would probably happen 9 times out of 10. Someone on here (whose name will remain nameless) has consistently claimed McGrath was a lucky bowler, which I think comes down to a lack of understanding re: what bowling's about in the first place.

 

[Richard]

Oi you, you have an unpaid forfeit dating back 18 months.

 

[Burgey]

The thing about GDM was that, for a pace bowler, he had a great subtlety to his bowling that lots didn't. Because of his action, he could adapt and read a batsman's movements very late - an example is how he knocked over Kallis in the semi of the WC - Kallis moved late, and as McGrath said - he saw him move about a metre before he let the ball go, and adjusted with a perfect off stump yorker. Also, for a bloke who, by this year, had lost a fair bit of his pace, he still tied batsmen down on small grounds in the WC and got them out. Look at how he hit Pietersen and broke his rib in the CB series - he said to KP the ball before that he was starting to read him.
The guy was/ is a freak. The fact that he made something which is so difficult look so easy is a credit to him, but something which in some ways detracts from his mystique - he wasn't all fire and brimstone like a Lillee, didn't have the silky smooth action of Hadlee or the explosive pace of a a Marshall. With Lillee, people still remember the bristling moustache and the attitude, they still remember Marshall's awesome pace, Akram's volatile swing. It's a lot less exciting to look back and say "I remember McGrath's wonderful line and length", even though it's probably a greater attribute than even any of the other's I've mentioned.

 

[shortpitched713]

The best seamer of all time. And thats not overrating him one iota. In my mind the only ones who even rival him would be Marshall, Hadlee, and Ambrose. But for every quality that one of these bowlers would have in their favor McGrath would have something in his.

If you don't rate bowlers based on statistics it really comes down to a matter of opinion between about 5 or 6 guys. I personally rate McGrath as the best, but I don't mind if people don't based on more subjective criteria.