FaaipDeOiad said:
No, neither of them are remotely close. Vaas on good form is closer, but he's still leagues behind McGrath, who is one of the all-time great seamers. Nobody in the world today comes close to him.
No, it's not that simple.
Vaas bowling at the top of his game is unparralled.
One would be inclined to wonder how ANYONE could be a good bowler by your standards. Not only are 70% of all-wickets undeserved, but only the balls that move a mile are counted as valid wickets. And, since you refuse to acknowledge the bowlers ability to bowl to a plan and out-think the batsman and instead only take interest in the wicket ball, the concept of variation basically goes out the window. If Warne gets a wicket with the one that goes straight on after an over of big spinning leg-breaks, he doesn't deserve the wicket because it didn't move a mile.
Rubbish, he used variation in movement, of course he deserves it.
It certainly wasn't a poor stroke. It was the logical stroke to play, but it turned-out to be wrong.
Anything which involves premeditation, and failing to pick change in length etc. is simply poor batting and the bowler doesn't deserve any credit for it.
And as for 70% of wickets are undeserved, I don't have any problem with a spell of 4 or 5 wickets where 2 of them were good bowling and the other 3 were poor strokes. What I have a problem with is a 5 or 6-for where every wicket came from a non-wicket-taking delivery.
Rubbish. The majority of wickets from bowlers who aren't one trick ponies who rely on the ball swinging or turning on a dustbowl come from the bowler using clever planning and variation to force the batsman into a mistake. The great bowlers of our time are clear evidence of that.
Yes, variation - mostly in amount of movement.
Not in anything else.
Again, utter rubbish. Some of the great bowlers in test cricket did not rely on large amounts of movement to get wickets, which is precisely why they were effective on flat wickets which all bowlers run into from time to time. Clearly a flat wicket is one which offers little in terms of assistance for the bowlers and as such lateral movement will not be particularly effective. McGrath relies on nagging accuracy, subtle variations and small amounts of movement, which is why he is so effective on flat wickets. Ambrose, another great bowler of our time, was not the sort who relied on large amounts of movement, and neither is Shaun Pollock. Some bowlers use extreme pace and intimidation to get wickets, and others still use large amounts of movement. Hell, Pathan moves the ball in the air more than McGrath as well. Is he a better bowler? Hoggard is a better swing bowler than McGrath, is he a better bowler?
All a flat pitch is strictly one even in pace and bounce. It's a term often used (including by me) as one offering nothing significant in turn or seam either.
And as for the assumption that on a flat pitch lateral movement won't be effective - eh? On a flat pitch you've got to either move the ball in the air or cut it (or bowl wristspin). That way you are suited to all conditions.
Ambrose hardly moved it in the air, but on a seaming pitch he seamed it and on a flat or turning pitch he cut it.
Pollock and McGrath whenever I've been watching have simply relied on poor strokes. And Pollock hasn't had as many in the last 3 years.
All good bowlers rely on movement - it's how often you can achieve that movement that determines how good you are.
This is just as idiotic as saying that Lee is the best bowler in the world because he is the quickest, and Shoaib is second.
Except there's no difference between their speeds.
