Warne v McGrath

[gwo]

rofl thats gold.

 

[ozone]

Really? Was Stuart MacGill that bad? Did Australia all of a sudden start losing when he came into the attack? When McGrath was playing, his next best replacement was Gillespie, was he that much better than MacGill?

No, Stuart MacGill wasn't that bad, Shane Warne was just that good. If MacGill had been anywhere near the standard of Warne, I think the Aussies would have played with two spinners throughout this period TBH.

So yes, I would prefer Gillespie + Warne than McGrath + MacGill.

 

[Richard]

If it was for a single game, I'd probably go Warne, but if it was for a whore series or career, I'd take McGrath, hands down.

Andrew Cameron - master of deliberate ***ual-innuendo-inducing "typos".

 

[aussie]

Personally i think this is a useless comparison.

Their value to Australia in the dominant era was equal, they complimented each other superbly.

Plus most IMPORTANTLY, when it came down to the test of their greatness each on respective occassion where able to carry the Australian attack when one wasn't playing or not 100%, i.e McGrath vs WI 99, Warne Ashes 05...

 

[GIMH]

Warne fairly easily. Even as a big McGrath fan, it's laughable how overrated he is on CW.

Interesting, would like to hear more on this

That doesn't mean Warne was better bowler. It just means Warne was more better than his competition than McGrath was from his.


I seriously do not think there has been a player that is more overrated than Warne. In the history of the game. At least some luddites don't rate Murali for his action, so that brings his stock down - though Murali would be perilously close to #2 on that overrated list (even though I think Warne is a better player).

McGrath, on the other hand, is the most underrated player of all time. People don't give him enough credit for what he has done in the flat-pitch/crazy bat era. They really don't respect his ability to go after the best. It's sad, and odd that they were both contemporaries.

SS, why is it that you don't rate spin bowlers?

I voted Warne, but really, not much to choose, and I'll openly admit that Warne's enigma probably just swings it for me

 

[silentstriker]

Basically: Warne+Next best seamer >>> McGrath+Next best leggie

Or McGrath + Next best seamer, if that seamer was anywhere near McGrath's quality.

 

[silentstriker]

SS, why is it that you don't rate spin bowlers?

I rate them just fine, they can be useful. To me, great fast bowlers are just more useful, contribute more, have less weaknesses, and lead to more wins than spin bowlers of "equal" or better stature. We're not talking about Sreesanth vs. Shane Warne here, of course. We're talking about the greatest of fast bowlers.

 

[Anil]

I voted Warne, but really, not much to choose, and I'll openly admit that Warne's enigma probably just swings it for me

i can understand english and south african folks rating warne sky-high just because he continually shredded their lineups but what is this enigma factor because of which warne would be rated higher than mcgrath? you do know that the single most important reason for england winning the ashes in '05 despite warne's exceptional efforts was that mcgrath slipped on a cricket ball and injured himself after the 1st test, right?

 

[aussie]

i can understand english and south african folks rating warne sky-high just because he continually shredded their lineups but what is this enigma factor because of which warne would be rated higher than mcgrath? you do know that the single most important reason for england winning the ashes in '05 despite warne's exceptional efforts was that mcgrath slipped on a cricket ball and injured himself after the 1st test, right?

Yes because the partnership of McGrath & Warne would have made the difference in that series. Not a one-man show.

If McGrath was the one taking the 40 wickets & Warne had stepped on the cricket ball of injured himself in some other way. England still would have won.

Thats why its useless comparing them.

 

[Ikki]

i can understand english and south african folks rating warne sky-high just because he continually shredded their lineups but what is this enigma factor because of which warne would be rated higher than mcgrath? you do know that the single most important reason for england winning the ashes in '05 despite warne's exceptional efforts was that mcgrath slipped on a cricket ball and injured himself after the 1st test, right?

Probably had more to do with our batsmen TBH. Australia were 2 runs away from winning the 2nd Test without McGrath and in the 5th it was all Warne...had he kept that catch it probably would have been over. McGrath was there for 3/5 matches as well, lest we forget.

The reason that Warne is held in such high regard is because he was a clutch player. He brought it when the match was on the line or the opposition were getting the better of us. McGrath as high as I regard him, doesn't come close to Warne in that aspect. McGrath to his credit was so consistently good that he tended to peg the opposition back before it got to that point, but performing under pressure/when the match is in the balance > when it isn't.

 

[Anil]

Yes because the partnership of McGrath & Warne would have made the difference in that series. Not a one-man show.

If McGrath was the one taking the 40 wickets & Warne had stepped on the cricket ball of injured himself in some other way. England still would have won.

Thats why its useless comparing them.

if they had been together it would obviously have been a fairly comfortable win for the aussies, as it is, it was a narrow loss and and in my opinion a fully fit mcgrath would have been the difference-maker with or without warne and inspite of all flintoff's heroics....once again as bowlers, mcgrath was better and that's the reason for my opinion, you may or may not choose to agree...

 

[zaremba]

Probably had more to do with our batsmen TBH. Australia were 2 runs away from winning the 2nd Test without McGrath and in the 5th it was all Warne...had he kept that catch it probably would have been over. McGrath was there for 3/5 matches as well, lest we forget.

Lest we forget, the most important factor for the 2-1 scoreline in '05 was the weather. But for the rain saving Ye Crims at Old Trafford and the Oval it would have been 4-1 to England.

Much has been written about the cancellation of the 06/07 Ashes but it's a great pity that the series didn't take place, because at that stage I've no doubt that England would have retained the Ashes Down Under. And now I fear that our chances of keeping hold of the urn this summer are pretty slim because (a) Australia are starting to look handy again and (b) England have not a single bowler of Test class.

 

[Ikki]

Lest we forget, the most important factor for the 2-1 scoreline in '05 was the weather. But for the rain saving Ye Crims at Old Trafford and the Oval it would have been 4-1 to England.

Much has been written about the cancellation of the 06/07 Ashes but it's a great pity that the series didn't take place, because at that stage I've no doubt that England would have retained the Ashes Down Under. And now I fear that our chances of keeping hold of the urn this summer are pretty slim because (a) Australia are starting to look handy again and (b) England have not a single bowler of Test class.

LOL. The last test the weather saved you guys, so 1-1 on that account. Both teams won one test pretty convincingly and then there's the test that was won/lost by 2 runs. It was, actually, a very even series...and mostly because of Warne's heroics. It was quite some sight on the 5th test that they were even throwing the new ball to Warne...he was that good.

 

[Ikki]

if they had been together it would obviously have been a fairly comfortable win for the aussies, as it is, it was a narrow loss and and in my opinion a fully fit mcgrath would have been the difference-maker with or without warne and inspite of all flintoff's heroics....once again as bowlers, mcgrath was better and that's the reason for my opinion, you may or may not choose to agree...

McGrath was there in 3 of the 5 tests. Awesome at Lords, very ordinary at The Oval and pretty crap at Manchester.

 

[zaremba]

LOL. The last test the weather saved you guys, so 1-1 on that accord. Both teams won one test pretty convincingly and then there's the test that was won/lost by 2 runs. It was, actually, a very even series...and mostly because of Warne's heroics. It was quite some sight on the 5th test that they were even throwing the new ball to Warne...he was that good.

I'm only half-joking when I say we would have won at the Oval but for the weather. Don't forget Australia needed something over 300 in the last innings. It's not as though the Aussies' style of play was overly influenced by the rain earlier in the game either, given the weirdly defensive approach they adopted in much of their 1st innings.

Anyhow a great great series which sadly will not be reflected this summer. England's bowling at present brings a whole new level of despair to the word "toothless".

 

[Ikki]

I'm only half-joking when I say we would have won at the Oval but for the weather. Don't forget Australia needed something over 300 in the last innings. It's not as though the Aussies' style of play was overly influenced by the rain earlier in the game either, given the weirdly defensive approach they adopted in much of their 1st innings.

Anyhow a great great series which sadly will not be reflected this summer. England's bowling at present brings a whole new level of despair to the word "toothless".

Yeh, it could have gone either way had there been more time but I recall feeling that the Aussie batsmen had finally turned a corner and became "decent" (LOL) when Langer and Hayden built their partnership. Call me an optimist but I thought we could have had it if we had a day extra.

That series is unlikely to be repeated. It had everything. It was the greatest series I have ever seen and I was on edge for a month watching it unfold. For me, Warne cemented his spot in the pantheon of Cricket as he dragged the giant carcass that was the Australian Test team at that time and almost pulled them over the line. In the last innings, the way Warne was cleaning up your top order after being trusted with the new ball was a sight to see. If he had held onto Pietersen's edge early on in his innings I think you would have been bowled out for less than 200 and we stood a chance with enough time to steal the series.

It was just an exhilarating series and I hope to see one more like it before I'm 6 feet under. However, you need a showman to create that kind of atmosphere and as I agree with Gidgeon Haigh, there'll probably be another Bradman before there is another Warne.

 

[subshakerz]

The reason that Warne is held in such high regard is because he was a clutch player. He brought it when the match was on the line or the opposition were getting the better of us. McGrath as high as I regard him, doesn't come close to Warne in that aspect. McGrath to his credit was so consistently good that he tended to peg the opposition back before it got to that point, but performing under pressure/when the match is in the balance > when it isn't.

Exactly, which is why I say McGrath was the major driving force behind Australia's success. He would maintain the pressure from the outset, either by keeping the runs down or taking the wickets of the top dogs (one area where he is notably better than Warne). Australia with McGrath had this aura of invincibility even when Warne was not available or MacGill stepped in. Australia without McGrath suddenly gave the opposition confidence that they had a chance (though they would still lose in the end).

 

[Sanz]

Wow, never thought I would read this sort of stuff about Mcgrath. Now Mcgrath didn't perform during clutch/Pressure situations apparently because he was so good that he would clean most of the top order batsmen early ?

The discussion level on this forum has gone down mostly because of some people making some ridiculously outlandish claims to win their argument.

 

[silentstriker]

McGrath was there in 3 of the 5 tests. Awesome at Lords, very ordinary at The Oval and pretty crap at Manchester.

How many games did they lose with McGrath in the team?

 

[Son Of Coco]

There have been several bowlers as good as McGrath in the last 20 years. There has been no spinner remotely as good as Warne or Murali during the same period. That alone says a lot.

Warne was a considerably more intelligent bowler than McGrath.

Not sure about that statement...it's wandering down the path of 'he just ran in and bowled it in the same spot all the time'.

Warne worked batsmen out brilliantly...McGrath wasn't far behind in my opinion. You have to be a pretty intelligent bowler to work over players like Lara time and time again. Or to focus on the team's batting strengths at the start of a series and then go and get your man during it.

As for the poll itself...it's too hard and is making my head hurt!