So what if McGrath wasn't numero uno for his entire career? Most players aren't.
But he was clearly the best from 2000-2006 other than when he was injured. That's a large portion of his career.
Nope.
Warne and Murali were both better at points in that time.
Warne was on such a different level to McGrath in the 2004 Sri Lankan Test series. Without Warne, Australia lose that series 2-0. McGrath, I felt, was the best bowler in the world from Perth 2004 to Lords in 2005. People ignore just how awesome he was in that short time frame. Warne took what, 96 wickets in 2005 was it? A world record? Warne was simply better.
McGrath didn't play for part of 2006 due to his wife, so I don't know where you got the idea he was the best in the world in 2006 from. Even in 2006 he was showing signs of slowing down, before speeding up later on.
Murali... I hated the way he kind of padded-up wickets in every game, but ignoring that, he was amazing from 2000-2006. Even when Lara was taking to him he managed to get fivers etc.
McGrath, yes I think he was the best from the end of 2004 to the middle of 2005. And Warne was really struggling with injury in 2000, and McGrath was clearly better in that time. But even when Warne was struggling with injuries and considering early retirement, he performed on par with McGrath in the 2001 Ashes. In 2002 they were about the same too.
I'd say it alternated between McGrath, Murali and Warne in the last decade. No way could I say with certainty McGrath was the best bowler in the world from a whole seven years.
How is keeping your stats tidy a bad thing?
Glenn McGrath was the best bowler in the world during the best decade for batting ever.
Keeping your stats tidy is a good thing, I never said it wasn't. But if you're going for 40 runs and taking no wickets, then the other side has wickets to spare to hit out. There were matches where McGrath didn't take wickets when needed, and it hurt Australia. THAT'S HARSH OF ME because in
most matches McGrath
did take wickets.
I remember when Shane Watson came onto the scene he got dropped and had a sook in the papers about being dropped. He made the claim he kept the other side under pressure by not going for much runs. Jeff Thompson came back at Watson in the media and made something clear, getting wickets is the bowlers first objective. If you're not taking wickets, you shouldn't be in the side. When McGrath went through a brief period of taking no wickets one game and no wickets the other etc, Australia suffered.
Of course keeping your stats tidy is important, but it's a secondary important to actually taking wickets. And of course McGrath not taking wickets, but still not going for many runs, it's an impressive accomplishment.
As for Bond, knowing your history I'm not surprised you don't want to go into it.
What do you mean?
Quite puzzling really that you talk about McGrath not taking wickets in ODIs and only containing. There are lots of factors that will get you wickets. One of the biggest reasons will be how carefully the batsmen play the bowler. The other teams were always wary of McGrath and would play him out lest he destroys them. It is not like other bowlers were conjuring wickets at their will whenever their team was not doing well. Stemming the flow of runs is very important in ODIs and not very easy to bowl all your 10 overs under 4 runs an over match after match especially in the 00s
I'm talking about matches where McGrath needed to take wickets, and didn't. Of course preventing runs from happening is important in ODI's.
