Warne v McGrath

[Francis]

I wasn't saying Warne is better than McGrath based on one series. I'm simply saying it's silly to argue McGrath made a significant contribution in the 3rd and 5th Test because he didn't. He played terribly in the 3rd and 5th after playing extremely well in the 1st.

With respect to SilentStriker (who is one of my favourite posters here, despite our differences of opinion), but it felt like he was trying to defend McGrath in that series when he played terribly in the 3rd and 5th Test. I don't think that one series means Warne > McGrath, but you have to call a spade a spade and McGrath was dreadful. The fact that Australia drew those Tests instead of losing them is coincidental. We all saw that series and saw how off his game McGrath was after he hurt his ankle. Like I said, I don't think he ever got back to his best after that, despite occasional contributions worth noting from 2006-2007.

I will add though, if the 2005 Ashes stands for something in the McGrath v Warne debate, it's that McGrath never, in his career, bowled as well in a single series as Warne did that series, in my opinion. I also don't think McGrath ever bowled as well as Warne did against England in 1994 and Sri Lanka in 2004. Those were amazing series' for Warne. McGrath himself conceeds Warne's the best he ever played with or against.

You could perhaps argue that McGrath was more consistent than Warne and that Warne, at his best, was better than McGrath. It then becomes a balancing act. Although I personally think too much is made of Warne's drop in form, and McGrath's bowling from 1995-1997 is overrated - like I said, it's a 'revisionist' thing.

 

[Pratters]

I wasn't rebutting you per se. It as a general assessment of the recent discussion on the thread. Don't take it personally mate.

 

[Francis]

I didn't

 

[Slifer]

Mcgrath>Warne quite easily. More consistent against most teams and particularly devastating against the best batting line up he faced whereas Warne was treated like a school boy bowler!!

 

[subshakerz]

Warne for me, primarily because:

* He took more wickets in each Test (even though both men averaged around 5 per Test)
* Bowled longer spells in each Test (which is expected of spinners)

So what? Obviously, if you bowl much more in a test, you are expected to take more wickets. Just by bowling more you do not automatically become better. A better indicator is how often you do take wickets, strikerate, and McGrath is comfortably better than Warne here.

* Was the better 'big match' performer, in my mind (1999 World Cup, 2005 Ashes, 2004 Sri Lanka etc)

Debatable. Australia biggest tests were its series against India, strange how Warne never came to the fore then, even when he was not supposedly injured.

I use Kumble as an example because I feel Warne was Australia's go-to guy more often than McGrath, although not by much. Warne bowled the longer spells and took slightly more wickets per match IIRC. I really don't think 3 runs difference in average compares to the importance of getting that extra wicket.

You could put the argument another way, that Warne would not have been as successful if McGrath hadn't taken those top order wickets and established the pressure cooker for Warne to feed off.

 

[subshakerz]

Mcgrath>Warne quite easily. More consistent against most teams and particularly devastating against the best batting line up he faced whereas Warne was treated like a school boy bowler!!

Exactly. If you someone not named Warne but with his record and said he was better than McGrath, nobody would take you seriously. The problem is when Warne supporters only use his highs (such as Ashes 2005) to define Warne rather than point out the huge gaping hole in his record, his record against India, which disqualifies him from any serious consideration as the best bowler in this or any era.

 

[Ikki]

The point is you can't do a straight average/sr comparison because they are two bowlers that bowl at different times for different reasons. And without Warne, McGrath wouldn't be who he is - yes, I said that .

BTW, if McGrath said to you that Warne was better than him, would you take him seriously?

 

[Francis]

So what? Obviously, if you bowl much more in a test, you are expected to take more wickets. Just by bowling more you do not automatically become better. A better indicator is how often you do take wickets, strikerate, and McGrath is comfortably better than Warne here.

The more you bowl, the more you're expected to take wickets. ie. The More you become the go-to-guy for the side. I see my Kumble point seems to have gone way over your head. Warne bowled more because Australia saw him as more likely to get wickets over time. The point is they expected Warne to take more wickets per Test and he did. The time you do it in (and Warne wasn't much slower than McGrath mind you) is irrelevant. What's important is that your side gets 20 wickets.

Debatable. Australia biggest tests were its series against India, strange how Warne never came to the fore then, even when he was not supposedly injured.

2001, for me, is the major blemish on Warne's career because that's when the script was calling for him and it didn't happen. In 2004 he did pretty good - an average of 30 in unfavourable conditions against a country that plays spin well. I don't think Warne ever got much credit for that. Like I said, there are arguments for McGrath. But then there were a heck of a lot of times when Warne was the one who performed on the big stage.

People go a bit overboard on the Warne v India thing though. Tendulkar got the better of Warne, and South Africa got the better of Tendulkar, and Warne more (with the exception of 2006) regularly got the better of South Africa.

You could put the argument another way, that Warne would not have been as successful if McGrath hadn't taken those top order wickets and established the pressure cooker for Warne to feed off.

I love this argument. It's always, "Warne had McGrath to feed off". It's never "McGrath had to feed off Warne." Warne didn't take as many top order batsman as McGrath, which I mainly attribute to McGrath always bowling first , but Warne was masterly as dismissing top order batsmen such as Inzamam Ul Haq, Gary Kirsten, Darrel Cullinan, Graham Gooch (a great player of spin). Heck when McGrath dropped off in the Ashes it was Warne who took many of the top order wickets. For mine there's no doubt Warne was a great bowler to the top order.

 

[Slifer]

Francis the argument is not who was a better bowler to a particular batting position blase blase. The fact of the matter is, if this were a seam bowler with Warne's overall stats versus Mcgrath there's no doubt Mcgrath would come out on top. But just because Warne is a leggie, Australian , I dont know what he gets a pass. No doubt leg spin is one of the most difficult arts to master but man for man Mcgrath is definitely a better bowler than Warne. It's just the nature of the beast and common sense:
Great fast bowlers are usually better than great spinners.

 

[Burgey]

Debatable. Australia biggest tests were its series against India, strange how Warne never came to the fore then, even when he was not supposedly injured.

That's hindsight, nothing more.

Firstly, are you saying Warne wasn't injured in the test series in India in the late 90s? Because that's very harsh of you to say that. Plainly you don't like him/ rate him and that's fine, but if it's publicly stated a player is carrying an injury, then why would you doubt it?

Secondly, pre-2001 Australia would not have considered India their "biggest" test series. They lost there in 98 with no McGrath and an injured Warne. The mystique built up after 2001 (and rightly so). Warne couldn't play in 2003 at home, and he bowled well in India when Australia won there. He was ordinary in 2001 though.

But to imbue series v India pre-2001 as somehow Australia's "biggest" test is wrong, frankly. They smashed India here in 1999, lost there (as stated) in 1998 and before that the last series IIRC was here in 1991-92. Pre-2001 I'd think (and can only make an educated guess) Australia would have considered tests v SA, England and even WI to an extent a "bigger" test than India.

 

[Slifer]

I would say that for ne spin bowler India would be the ultimate test and Shane Warne quite frankly failed miserably.

 

[Francis]

Francis the argument is not who was a better bowler to a particular batting position blase blase.

I was just rebutting your statement that McGrath dismissed more top order batsmen and hence was better.

The fact of the matter is, if this were a seam bowler with Warne's overall stats versus Mcgrath there's no doubt Mcgrath would come out on top. But just because Warne is a leggie, Australian , I dont know what he gets a pass. No doubt leg spin is one of the most difficult arts to master but man for man Mcgrath is definitely a better bowler than Warne.

Wrong. I consider Dennis Lillee to be greater than Glen McGrath for the same reasons as Warne. Lillee had worse stats than McGrath (if you wanna really nit-pick a difference of two runs that is). Lillee took on a far greater bowling load than McGrath, and in fact Lillee bowled more overs per Test than Richard Hadlee did. Hadlee was New Zealand's go-to-guy. Yet in a much stronger side with better bowlers, more was expected of Lillee. Like Warne, Lillee averaged more wickets per Test. There are other reasons as well. So no there is no double-standard. This isn't about a spin bowler or a pace bowler being better than the other. I'm just saying the person who was the bigger reason Australia won is the better bowler.

It's just the nature of the beast and common sense:
Great fast bowlers are usually better than great spinners.

All you are thinking of is stats when you say that. That's all. You don't understand that a bowler can have worse stats and still be the bigger reason why a side won the game. Like I said, figures of 6-180 are better than 3-50 because you took more wickets and wickets are what win matches.

 

[Burgey]

I would say that for ne spin bowler India would be the ultimate test and Shane Warne quite frankly failed miserably.

But's that's not what was posted. It was suggested India series were Australia's "biggest test". And until 2001 they frankly weren't. One because they'd hardly toured there in years and two because when India came here they had their heads handed to them.

 

[Francis]

I disagree with that Burgey. While I don't agree with what Slifer is saying, I do distinctly remember all the talk about how India was Australia's final frontier and how they hadn't won there since the late 60s. In 1997 winning in India wasn't as big a deal, but by 2001 I'd say it was. The reaction of the Aussies in 2004 says it meant as much to them as any series they'd won. I remember Gilchrist crying etc.

 

[Top_Cat]

I disagree with that Burgey. While I don't agree with what Slifer is saying, I do distinctly remember all the talk about how India was Australia's final frontier and how they hadn't won there since the late 60s. In 1997 winning in India wasn't as big a deal, but by 2001 I'd say it was. The reaction of the Aussies in 2004 says it meant as much to them as any series they'd won. I remember Gilchrist crying etc.

That's exactly what he said.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Exactly. If you someone not named Warne but with his record and said he was better than McGrath, nobody would take you seriously. The problem is when Warne supporters only use his highs (such as Ashes 2005) to define Warne rather than point out the huge gaping hole in his record, his record against India, which disqualifies him from any serious consideration as the best bowler in this or any era.

I don't want to start up this debate again, but if that's the case then there's at least one other great bowler with a huge gaping hole in his record. Looks like the top two at least are disqualified from any consideration using your criteria.

 

[Slifer]

I was just rebutting your statement that McGrath dismissed more top order batsmen and hence was better.



Wrong. I consider Dennis Lillee to be greater than Glen McGrath for the same reasons as Warne. Lillee had worse stats than McGrath (if you wanna really nit-pick a difference of two runs that is). Lillee took on a far greater bowling load than McGrath, and in fact Lillee bowled more overs per Test than Richard Hadlee did. Hadlee was New Zealand's go-to-guy. Yet in a much stronger side with better bowlers, more was expected of Lillee. Like Warne, Lillee averaged more wickets per Test. There are other reasons as well. So no there is no double-standard. This isn't about a spin bowler or a pace bowler being better than the other. I'm just saying the person who was the bigger reason Australia won is the better bowler.



All you are thinking of is stats when you say that. That's all. You don't understand that a bowler can have worse stats and still be the bigger reason why a side won the game. Like I said, figures of 6-180 are better than 3-50 because you took more wickets and wickets are what win matches.

The diff in Mcgrath and Warnes WPM ratio is a matter of decimal points. The diff in their average and strike rate is decidedly in Mcgrath's favor. The teams against whom Warne had success are the same teams Mcgrath had success agaisnt (more or less). ANd i refuse to get into that Lillee argument with u again.

 

[subshakerz]

Wrong. I consider Dennis Lillee to be greater than Glen McGrath for the same reasons as Warne. Lillee had worse stats than McGrath (if you wanna really nit-pick a difference of two runs that is). Lillee took on a far greater bowling load than McGrath, and in fact Lillee bowled more overs per Test than Richard Hadlee did. Hadlee was New Zealand's go-to-guy. Yet in a much stronger side with better bowlers, more was expected of Lillee. Like Warne, Lillee averaged more wickets per Test. There are other reasons as well. So no there is no double-standard. This isn't about a spin bowler or a pace bowler being better than the other. I'm just saying the person who was the bigger reason Australia won is the better bowler.

Here's a question then:

Would you consider Lillee a better bowler than McGrath if Lillee averaged over 25 and never averaged less than 30 in a series against the West Indies (40 overall), never even winning a single match against them or even coming close to running through their lineup, even in series he was not injured in? I doubt it. The argument is if a pace bowler had Warne's record, he wouldn't come close to being rated as highly, that's a fact.

 

[Francis]

The diff in Mcgrath and Warnes WPM ratio is a matter of decimal points. The diff in their average and strike rate is decidedly in Mcgrath's favor. The teams against whom Warne had success are the same teams Mcgrath had success agaisnt (more or less). ANd i refuse to get into that Lillee argument with u again.

Yes I'm sure those three/four runs are a matter of life and death when it comes to winning Tests. Whether Warne took longer (and he didn't take longer by much) or cost a few more runs (and it's only three/four runs per wicket, c'mon), the fact is he took more 4fers and more 5fers in his career than McGrath.

Here's a question then:

Would you consider Lillee a better bowler than McGrath if Lillee averaged over 25 and never averaged less than 30 in a series against the West Indies (40 overall), never even winning a single match against them or even coming close to running through their lineup, even in series he was not injured in? I doubt it. The argument is if a pace bowler had Warne's record, he wouldn't come close to being rated as highly, that's a fact.

Don't try and second-guess me. Whether I'd rate Lillee better than McGrath if his career was different in the way you describe would depend on how big an influence he had on winning games, not on stats. So to try and create some hypothetical scenario based on stats simply won't work. I think if Lillee had the same impact on winning games in the scenario you mentioned that he did in his career, then yes I'd still rate him ahead of McGrath.

I've conceeded Warne's lack of success against India is a blemish. But if Lillee had the same impact that Warne did on winning matches (and there's an argument that he did), then yes I'd still rate him ahead of McGrath.

You're bogged down in this idea of stats mean everything. I don't rate Kumble in Warne ro Murali's league because I don't think he ever ultimately had as big an impact on winning games for his country as the other two did. The fact that Kumble has an average of 28 or so means nothing to me. If McGrath takes 3-60 every innings, he's doing his bit. He's got an average of 20, which doesn't hurt. But if he reaches a stage where he can't bowl anymore, and pace bowlers reach that stage, and a spinner keeps going and takes six wickets for say, 180 runs... well he's the more valuable player in the side isn't he?

But I don't rate Kumble in Warne and Murali's league because he's had a decent number of bowling performances that spanned 40 or so overs that haven't beared match-winning results. That said, he's bowled plenty of 40+ over innings that have beared match-winning results, and in that respect if he did that more often than I would rate him with Warne and Murali, despite whatever average he might have ended up with.

Like I said, my main contention is the best bowlers are the ones that win you matches, whatever their stats. McGrath and Warne both fit that criteria. I think Warne was slightly better in that regard.

 

[Francis]

Yes I'm sure those three/four runs are a matter of life and death when it comes to winning Tests. Whether Warne took longer (and he didn't take longer by much) or cost a few more runs (and it's only three/four runs per wicket, c'mon), the fact is he took more 4fers and more 5fers in his career than McGrath.

I'd like to expand on what I said here a bit more. McGrath was a bowler who often took figures around 3-60, which is fantastic and will always get you a spot in the side. And more imporant to my point, it means his average wont be hurt. But if Warne's taking more 4fers and 5fers with figures like 4-100 or 5-120 then that extra wicket is vital. It often didn't matter how many extra runs were scored, the point is Warne was the man to take the wickets. You can talk about economy or averages, but McGrath quite simply didn't take those extra wickets. Warne's amount of 5fers and 4fers illustrates this (and it's seldom that I'll use stats, but that stat can't be distorted).

You could perhaps argue that McGrath would have caught Warne if he played more Tests. Personally I doubt it, and McGrath left the game at the right time. Despite his stellar performances in the 2007 World Cup, his quality of bowling took a slide after the Edgbaston Test. He sort of silenced his critics in the 1st Ashes Test of 2006, but players like Stuart Clark and even Brett Lee (at times) were bowling better than him.

Also, McGrath would struggle getting 20 4fers and 8 5fers in 20 Tests (which is the margin he's behind Warne), considering he averaged around 5 wickets per match. McGrath's a great example of a bowler who often took 3 or so wickets per innings and didn't hurt his stats because he was economical. Of course he took tremendous 5fers and 4fers in his career, but not as often as Warne.

Essentially all this comes down to is, "who was the bigger reason Australia won?" I'd venture to say more often than not it was Warne. Hopefully this debate won't get too pedantic because there's 100s of things I could say that you could rebutt, but at the end of the day all that matters is who won the Tests for Australia.