And yet he does so well against the top order consistently and better than anyone in history? For example, he averages 17.50 against Gayle (in tests).adharcric said:Clearly he is, but he has a point somewhat. McGrath doesn't have that lethal yorker he can slip in to own an ultra-aggressive batsman. He'll keep bowling good-length deliveries and someone like Gayle will just swipe through the line and plaster those.
Dude chill out. He's an all-time great but he's not flawless. Batsmen like Gayle can get stuck into him because good-length deliveries are perfect for them when they're in that mode, particularly in one-day cricket. Akram had some advantages ... doesn't mean he was better than McGrath.silentstriker said:And yet he does so well against the top order consistently and better than anyone in history?
I'm simply pointing out that he averages 17.50 against Gayle . So thats pretty good. What are some of the other 'ultra-aggressive' batsmen are you talking about, so we can see if the claim has any merit?adharcric said:Dude chill out. He's an all-time great but he's not flawless. Batsmen like Gayle can get stuck into him because good-length deliveries are perfect for them when they're in that mode, particularly in one-day cricket. Akram had some advantages ... doesn't mean he was better than McGrath.
There probably aren't many and I'm not even talking about guys who have succeeded against McGrath because there are almost none. I'm just saying that in certain situations, McGrath's lack of a pacy yorker and bouncer allows the batsman to go after his good-length stuff. Then again, I realize that Gayle's outburst came off some short-pitched deliveries from McGrath.silentstriker said:I'm simply pointing out that he averages 17.50 against Gayle . So thats pretty good. What are some of the other 'ultra-aggressive' batsmen are you talking about, so we can see if the claim has any merit?
I am not disagreeing that McGrath is not perfect, I am questioning your claims because I was under the impression that only technically correct, slow scoring batsmen do well against him. That's all .
Plenty of Greigy potential there.sqwerty said:West Indies are ordinary.
You're kidding yourself if you thought the Aussies were under pressure at 2-80 with Chanderpaul; and Sarwan gone before 8 overs. All they needed was Gayles wicket and it was game over.
3 wickets in the first 10 overs - runs are meaningless.
Windies have an ordinary attack and if their batsmen can hit the Aussie attack like that you can guarentee they'll cop it back with interest when they bowl.
Flat track, fast outfield, Windies will be lucky to hit 240.
Aussies in a canter.,...was never in doubt
McGrath takes Lara for 2, you were saying?godofcricket said:Thats where i knew Mcgrath was never a great bowler, if a batsman attacks him he has no answer to it!!!!!! Gayle is just awesome.
Even after Gayle smashed him, he's only 23 for 1. So thats pretty good .pasag said:McGrath takes Lara for 2, you were saying?
I don't think Jono's brought his yet... Do you mean adharcric?silentstriker said:I withdraw my argument Jono .