Warne or McGrath?

[a massive zebra]

He has a better average and SR, and by a fair distance too if you take out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Average is 2 runs lower and SR is 6 balls lower, give or take.

As I have shown many times before, averages and strike rates benefit from playing in a good team. Furthermore, Murali takes far more wickets per match and has claimed many more 5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls in a similar number of matches.

Having said that, I do not necessarily think Murali is any more effective than McGrath, just that, contray to TECs claim, there is very little in it.

 

[pietersenrocks]

Oh! I'm surprised Agarkar got 10 votes

 

[Pothas]

McGrath is not a great bowler, he is the greatest bowler.

A very bold claim

Having seen him at his best against England on the first day of the ashes id be inclined to agree with you.

However can you definetly say that he is better than Ambrose, Marshall and Garner?

Then there are the likes of Barnes and Fred Truman I couldnt possibly comment on these bowlers but there records are pretty special.

Then there is the problem of comparing him to the great spin bowlers. I couldnt say he was a greater bowler than Warne or Murali.

 

[silentstriker]

A very bold claim

Having seen him at his best against England on the first day of the ashes id be inclined to agree with you.

However can you definetly say that he is better than Ambrose, Marshall and Garner?

Not definitely, but I would say he is. He takes wickets at an excellent strike rates in a batsman friendly environment, and the thing that clinches it for me is that he takes so many top order wickets and doesn't make his living picking off tail enders (he has warne for that). He specializes the best wickets.

Then there is the problem of comparing him to the great spin bowlers. I couldnt say he was a greater bowler than Warne or Murali.

You can't directly compare a spinner to a pace bowler, so I don't even go into that.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

As I have shown many times before, averages and strike rates benefit from playing in a good team. Furthermore, Murali takes far more wickets per match and has claimed many more 5 wicket and 10 wicket hauls in a similar number of matches.

Having said that, I do not necessarily think Murali is any more effective than McGrath, just that, contray to TECs claim, there is very little in it.

Hahaha, you haven't "shown" any such thing. You've claimed it, and it's your opinion and nothing more. Regardless, what TEC said was that seamers generally have better averages and strike rates than spinners, and that's true. He never said that seamers take more wickets per match, or even remotely implied such a thing, probably because it's not true, particularly when you're talking about players from subcontinental teams.

McGrath has a better average and strike rate than Murali, and while it's fairly close with their full records it's not particularly when you take the minnows out of the equation. Whichever player you happen to think is better, it's an obvious fact that those particular statistical indicators generally favour seam bowlers. There's only three spinners of note in the post-war era with career averages 25 or under, and and there's dozens of fast bowlers. The only spinner in the post-war era with a strike rate even remotely close to 50 is MacGill, with 51 and a bit. As far as I know, the rest are all in the 55+ range.

In order for a spinner to maintain a better average and strike rate than a seamer you generally need the spinner to be a vastly superior bowler or to have a significant advantage in terms of assistance from the conditions (eg: Murali or Kumble on home pitches compared to their seamer teammates).

 

[Sanz]

Oh! I'm surprised Agarkar got 10 votes

Only ?

 

[Jono]

McGrath, even though I'm a leg-spinner myself who has probably been more inspired by Warne (and Kumble too mind you) then McGrath.

McGrath's just been the better bowler, period. Troubled the better batsman (Sachin and Lara in particular) more than Warne.

 

[Jono]

SS! I thought Benaud got it right when I saw his team first. Now, after reading his book "My spin on cricket" in which he has listed his second and third teams as well, I am confused. His other two teams kind of give you an idea of the selctoral process he employed. Though he manged to arrive at a good team in the end, the other teams show that his methods are not too sound, in my opinion. for example, he doesnt find a place for marshall in any of the teams. no. not hamish, i meant "the" marshall. malcolm. how can you choose 9 fast bowlers, three per team, and justify not selecting him?

the other problem i had was benaud managing to find a slot for g.pollock in team 3 but not compton in any of the teams. i dont understand people overlooking the great denis compton while choosing these teams. he was an attacking, all-round batsman who enjoyed success for a long time against all his opposition, all over the world. how can you ignore him?

benaud's third team has both kapil and botham in them. good entertainment i am sure. but is it the road to consistent success? will try and find the book and list those teams. you will understand why i doubt his selectoral process.

even in the all-time team you have quoted i would have hammond or lara in place of sachin. it is almost the perfect team. compared to bradman's XI this is a winner. hands down.

That's the one thing that made me raise an eyebrow when Benaud chose his three best XIs. I can see how he left out Marshall from the first XI, whilst not agreeing with it, but his continous ignoring of him in his 2nd and 3rd XI was quite surprising. Can't understand it at all.

 

[a massive zebra]

Hahaha, you haven't "shown" any such thing. You've claimed it, and it's your opinion and nothing more.

I have proved it as far as anything non factual can be proved, and this theory is generally accepted by far more prominent statisticians than yourself like Philip Bailey and Charles Davis. If the theory is nothing but mere fantasy then why does Malcolm Marshall have a better average and strike rate than Richard Hadlee or Jason Gillespie a better average and strike rate than Chaminda Vaas? There are numerous of other examples.

Regardless, what TEC said was that seamers generally have better averages and strike rates than spinners, and that's true. He never said that seamers take more wickets per match, or even remotely implied such a thing, probably because it's not true, particularly when you're talking about players from subcontinental teams.

I was actually replying to this sentence

There is simply no statistical comparison between the best spinner and the best pace bowler

so the wickets per match figure is relevant as it is an important factor when statistically comparing players, and I never denied that seamers generally have better averages and strike rates than spinners, that is patently obvious.

McGrath has a better average and strike rate than Murali, and while it's fairly close with their full records it's not particularly when you take the minnows out of the equation. Whichever player you happen to think is better, it's an obvious fact that those particular statistical indicators generally favour seam bowlers. There's only three spinners of note in the post-war era with career averages 25 or under, and and there's dozens of fast bowlers. The only spinner in the post-war era with a strike rate even remotely close to 50 is MacGill, with 51 and a bit. As far as I know, the rest are all in the 55+ range.

In order for a spinner to maintain a better average and strike rate than a seamer you generally need the spinner to be a vastly superior bowler or to have a significant advantage in terms of assistance from the conditions (eg: Murali or Kumble on home pitches compared to their seamer teammates).

All true. Good points well made.

 

[Slifer]

That's the one thing that made me raise an eyebrow when Benaud chose his three best XIs. I can see how he left out Marshall from the first XI, whilst not agreeing with it, but his continous ignoring of him in his 2nd and 3rd XI was quite surprising. Can't understand it at all.

Actually he didnt consider a single West Indian paceman for either his first, second, or third team which was downright foolish . For those who use the argument that they were more of a unit than individually brilliant then thats just a weak argument. Statistically, Marshall is the best paceman of all time: LOW SR, Low average, high wpm ratio, good econ. and a five-for every 3.7 tests even though he had alot of competition. Come to think of it, i dont recall Benaud saying that his XI was the best of all time, just the one he wood like to see playing together.

 

[a massive zebra]

Come to think of it, i dont recall Benaud saying that his XI was the best of all time, just the one he wood like to see playing together.

Really? Why would anyone want to watch Sunil Gavaskar more than almost any other player in the history of the game?

 

[Jono]

Yeah the playing one is true, but even then I can't for the life of me see why Benaud would not have Marshall in his top 3 best XIs even if it was just about who he'd like to watch. Marshall was awesome to watch from the limited footage I've seen, and my dad and grandad talk of him very highly in terms of entertainment.

Plus how could he know how good Syd Barnes would have been to watch play?

Still, gotta love Benaud because him naming an XI brought so much debate to the table.

 

[bagapath]

Yeah the playing one is true, but even then I can't for the life of me see why Benaud would not have Marshall in his top 3 best XIs even if it was just about who he'd like to watch. Marshall was awesome to watch from the limited footage I've seen, and my dad and grandad talk of him very highly in terms of entertainment.

Plus how could he know how good Syd Barnes would have been to watch play?

Still, gotta love Benaud because him naming an XI brought so much debate to the table.

well, benaud has seen more test cricket than anyone in the history of mankind! a wisden article claims he has seen 500+ tests live all over the world. he was a successful cricketer, superb captain, erudite commentator and looks like a gentleman. so no wonder his words carry weight. but malcolm marshall was, as you've said, an absolutely entertaining cricketer and a devastating fast bowler. someone you could watch for hours without getting bored. someone should ask richie to explain the reasons for leaving him out.

 

[Nate]

Very good point made earlier. Benaud didn`t neccessarily say this was the greatest side in the world, just one he liked.

McGrath for mine, although I voted Agarkar.

 

[tooextracool]

I was actually replying to this sentence
so the wickets per match figure is relevant as it is an important factor when statistically comparing players, and I never denied that seamers generally have better averages and strike rates than spinners, that is patently obvious.

i think its pretty obvious that i was referring to averages and SR there. What on earth is the point of referring to 5 and 10 wicket hauls when any intelligent person can see that there is nothing in it whatsoever? Warne too has more 5 and 10 wicket hauls than Mcgrath so it really is quite pointless. Yes so murali has more than the both of them, but you'd have to be an absolute dud if you couldnt figure out why. It might actually be because he bowls in the subcontinent in conditions that assist him far more. If for example you were to compare both their records away from home, you'd find that the number of wickets that they took per over or per game or whatever would be quite similar.