Warne v McGrath

[Sanz]

If that's the case, then pitches in Australia should suit his bowling more. Which makes this entire argument that Warne was at a disadvantage by bowling in pace-friendly Australia most of the time somewhat meaningless....

Not to forget, If you grew up bowling on those pitches, you learn to bowl well on them much better than others hence you get the HOME advantage. For example Players like Kapil, Srinath had a much better home average than away from home.

This is another one of those arguments aimed at getting the 'sympathy' votes than having any logical explanation why Warne is better.

 

[Top_Cat]

If that's the case, then pitches in Australia should suit his bowling more. Which makes this entire argument that Warne was at a disadvantage by bowling in pace-friendly Australia most of the time somewhat meaningless....

Who has ever said that?

I think you're right; I dunno if the pitches made that much of a difference, tbh. Warne's record is pretty good in places like Bellerive and Brisbane where he generally played against teams he did well against away too. He didn't magically dominate against India at home, for example, but was better. He had to work really hard for wickets at home against them. That said, they never faced each other when Warne was at his best 1993-1997. That would have been an awesome contest had schedulers got it right and there wasn't such a massive gap between series' featuring Aus and India in the 90's. Personally, promoters got spooked by how badly India were beaten here in 1991.

 

[miscer]

You cannot compare a spin and fast bowler on traditional stats like bowling average. A spin bowler can bowl nearly 2x the overs because of the economy of action and so ends up taking far more wickets at a slightly higher average. Who is more likely to win you the match in that case?

apples and oranges.

 

[subshakerz]

Harder to argue who is a greater bowler. But easier to argue who was more valuable to Australia. It was McGrath.

McGrath set the tone even when he wasnt taking wickets, McGrath delivered at the crucial stages, McGrath neutralized the main opposition, and he did it with machine like consistency.

Australia noticeably suffered in series when McGrath was absent, like Ashes 2005 and India 1997. Australia's peak as a team from 95 to 2007 basically coincided with McGrath's bowling peak while Warne going through injuries and inconsistency from 1998 to 2001 didnt stop Australia from dominating.

 

[Slifer]

Harder to argue who is a greater bowler. But easier to argue who was more valuable to Australia. It was McGrath.

McGrath set the tone even when he wasnt taking wickets, McGrath delivered at the crucial stages, McGrath neutralized the main opposition, and he did it with machine like consistency.

Australia noticeably suffered in series when McGrath was absent, like Ashes 2005 and India 1997. Australia's peak as a team from 95 to 2007 basically coincided with McGrath's bowling peak while Warne going through injuries and inconsistency from 1998 to 2001 didnt stop Australia from dominating.

I'll say this, McGrath and Steve Waugh were the difference in the 90s when we played Australia. McGrath especially, kept Lara in check in Australia. Warne is an undeniable genius but he never really worried us as much as Mcgrath.

 

[Jack1]

Difficult to compare them since they are different type of bowlers, with different roles. But If I consider Tests and ODIs then McGrath is my vote, since I have to vote for someone.

 

[BazBall21]

I think McGrath

 

[ankitj]

Pretty even. Relative to others in their respective crafts they are both in top 2-3 of all time.