Who is The Greatest Australian Bowler?

[howardj]

Having said that, Macca had no real statistical weaknesses at all, plus he was incredibly economical. The thing I loved about Macca was that he'd get a guy in the 1st innings of the 1st Test, and then never let him up off the canvass for the remainder of the Series. It was usually one of the opposition's bluechip players as well. Disgusted and appalled at people who reckon Lillee was better than Macca. For effectiveness, Macca was the greatest quick of all time. As one critic said, he never frightened batsmen...he just got them out.

 

[silentstriker]

SKW.

Go down the nets and see how hard it is to land big turning leggies on the pitch, let alone on the spot.

Surely that should not be a factor? Anyway, McGrath did not have a 'Oh my God, nothing I do works' team, and generally did better against everyone else too, so to me the choices is clear. But Warne made leg spin really popular, so he clearly comes out on top in terms of 'effect on cricket'.

 

[Top_Cat]

Even if McGrath had every stat in his favor vs Warne, one must take into consideration their different bowling styles (seamer vs spinner). Warne would walk into an AT World XI, whereas McGrath would have a much harder task competing against the likes of Marshall, Trueman, Ambrose, Akram et al.
The same would apply in an Aussie AT XI.

Warne stands higher amongst his ilk than McGrath does amongst his.

Bit unfair, isn't it? There are usually three quicks and one spinner in any given side so obviously there's going to be more competition when you compare with others.

As for who's the better bowler, I reckon there are too many points of difference between the crafts to say with authority or without many caveats. Relative difficulty to bowl quick vs spin is a valid point but so is the fitness required to be a top-level quick vs top-level spinner. Quicks get a new ball but spinners get more overs (unless we're talking McGrath, of course....). All of these factors make comparison too difficult to be credible I think.

As far the intangibles, I watches both of these guys for pretty much all their careers and in the early days when Taylor was captain, Warne was without a doubt the go-to guy for a wicket or to clean up an innings which where momentum was headed back to the batting side. Post 1997 and it was a very different story, though. McGrath was definitely the man Steve Waugh relied on to bring back late in the to break up a troublesome partnership. Warne's role in the team changed post 1997 and I don't think he was a big fan of it but, let's face it, he didn't have the consistent performances to argue the point either. It wasn't for nothing that Warne's average from about 1997-2001 was closer to 30 than 25. He was rightly dropped and when he came back, was notably circumspect in his bowling and a far more humble because he didn't have the big leggie or flipper to knock over someone getting on top. In effect, he had to unveil the inner-McGrath and rely on subtle variation, suffocating accuracy, etc. Only when he came to terms with that did he seem to become a consistent wicket-taker again. He obviously saw merit in McGrath's style because he bowled it's leg-spinning equivalent for the last part of his career and together, from 2001 onwards, they were tough to play against together.

As for McGrath being consistent but not knocking over bags of wickets, Kaz mate, that is really unfair on McGrath. McGrath did what Gillespie did in knocking over regular bags of 2/3-fers but in Tests and in ODI's, McGrath went several steps further and absolutely destroyed opposition batting line-ups regularly which, really, Warne only did regularly pre-1998. Even now, I hesitated to use the word destroy but only because he did it quietly and efficiently whereas you usually associate destroy with someone like Steyn or Akhtar. But when you look at some of the performances such as various performances at Lords, the MCG, Port-of-Spain and many others, it's hard to see otherwise.

 

[Top_Cat]

Having said that, Macca had no real statistical weaknesses at all, plus he was incredibly economical. The thing I loved about Macca was that he'd get a guy in the 1st innings of the 1st Test, and then never let him up off the canvass for the remainder of the Series. It was usually one of the opposition's bluechip players as well. Disgusted and appalled at people who reckon Lillee was better than Macca. For effectiveness, Macca was the greatest quick of all time. As one critic said, he never frightened batsmen...he just got them out.

Most of the time that was true but when McGrath tried to scare someone, he was bloody good at it too. In the 1999 WC when he and Fleming wrecked India's top-order in their super-6 match, I remember him bowling a couple of bouncers to Robin Singh that made me wince. One in particular, Singh didn't even see and he just put his glove in front of his face and hoped the ball would hit it. The ball rebounded from his glove and flew to fine-leg, landing just inside the rope which tells you how much heat was on it. I remember David Gower saying "Well..... Singh would have seen several lives flash before his eyes...." Spot-on, it was a nasty bumper. McGrath was capable of them but most of the time he played the percentages.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Bit unfair, isn't it? There are usually three quicks and one spinner in any given side so obviously there's going to be more competition when you compare with others.

That's a bit of a logical fallacy.

 

[Richard]

Disgusted and appalled at people who reckon Lillee was better than Macca.

Absolutely. I'm not convinced there was much between them and I've said for a while now that I can't really split them, but how anyone can think Lillee clearly better - as so many do - is beyond me.

 

[Ikki]

As for McGrath being consistent but not knocking over bags of wickets, Kaz mate, that is really unfair on McGrath. McGrath did what Gillespie did in knocking over regular bags of 2/3-fers but in Tests and in ODI's, McGrath went several steps further and absolutely destroyed opposition batting line-ups regularly which, really, Warne only did regularly pre-1998. Even now, I hesitated to use the word destroy but only because he did it quietly and efficiently whereas you usually associate destroy with someone like Steyn or Akhtar. But when you look at some of the performances such as various performances at Lords, the MCG, Port-of-Spain and many others, it's hard to see otherwise.

No mate, I don't mean McGrath never took big bags of wickets, but less consistently than Warne and, in fact, other great fast bowlers - as I exemplified with Hadlee. And to say Warne only destroyed batting line-ups pre-98 is unfair. Since he came back against Sri Lanka he has done much better than he ever did in the 90s.

McGrath is a fantastic bowler, but I'd rather more the bowler who's more likely to take 4-5 wickets at good value than one that is more likely to take 2-3 at good value. And especially the one who is most likely to take those wickets in the more dire of situations.

 

[neville cardus]

00s : murali
90s: ambrose
80s: hadlee
70s: lillee
60s: gibbs
50s: truman
40s: bedser
30s: oreilly
20s: tate
00s: barnes
90s: spofforth

It would be interesting to know how you came up with the final item on your list, as Spoff's last Test was played almost three years before the 1890s began. Give him the 'eighties and Turner the mention that he so richly deserves in the form of the 'nineties.

 

[neville cardus]

I think the 1882 match saw Massie take the long handle before the sun started to dry out the wicket and make it sticky

You think correctly, although he played pretty well even when things became viscid.

Murdoch's effort in the same innings is sold grossly short. He did not have the grace period to get his eye in that was afforded to Massie and was unfortunate to be run out through a combination of poor calling from Garrett and magnificent fielding by Hornby and Studd. Don't let Wisden fool you: Billy was a maestro on the sticky dog.

 

[bagapath]

It would be interesting to know how you came up with the final item on your list, as Spoff's last Test was played almost three years before the 1890s began. Give him the 'eighties and Turner the mention that he so richly deserves in the form of the 'nineties.

i stand corrected. it should have been as you have written or i should have given the 19th century honors to spofforth without bothering to divide into decades.

 

[archie mac]

You think correctly, although he played pretty well even when things became viscid.

Murdoch's effort in the same innings is sold grossly short. He did not have the grace period to get his eye in that was afforded to Massie and was unfortunate to be run out through a combination of poor calling from Garrett and magnificent fielding by Hornby and Studd. Don't let Wisden fool you: Billy was a maestro on the sticky dog.

Who would you rate the better? Murdoch or Charlie Bannerman?

 

[subshakerz]

No mate, I don't mean McGrath never took big bags of wickets, but less consistently than Warne and, in fact, other great fast bowlers - as I exemplified with Hadlee. And to say Warne only destroyed batting line-ups pre-98 is unfair. Since he came back against Sri Lanka he has done much better than he ever did in the 90s.

McGrath is a fantastic bowler, but I'd rather more the bowler who's more likely to take 4-5 wickets at good value than one that is more likely to take 2-3 at good value. And especially the one who is most likely to take those wickets in the more dire of situations.

Come on. Percentage of 5 and 4 wicket hauls is hardly a totally definitive measure of consustency. Check how much the wickets cost and how often then come and you get difficult results. You simply selected a rather flimsy and arbitrary statistical criteria where Warne has an advantage while ignoring all the other categories that show McGrath as more consistent and adaptable. McGrath is simply a better wicket-taker than Warne when you factor in everything, and there is no major category where Warne is his better.

Also, when you pointed out the main batsmen dismissed by Warne and McGrath, you incorrectly showed Warne and McGrath having dismissed Tendulkar on only three occasions while McGrath actually has dismissed him twice as many times. If you were to show how many runs the batsmen scored and how many more tests Warne has played against the batsmen, the fact that Warne lags behind McGrath is obvious.

 

[Top_Cat]

McGrath is a fantastic bowler, but I'd rather more the bowler who's more likely to take 4-5 wickets at good value than one that is more likely to take 2-3 at good value. And especially the one who is most likely to take those wickets in the more dire of situations.

The truth of the matter is that, post 2000, McGrath was better at exactly that than Warne. The number of wickets against opponents doesn't really bear this out as much as it should, though. As I said, McGrath was definitely Steve Waugh's and Rick Ponting's go-to guy for any sorely needed wicket either early in the day or late in the day, Ashes series' in the 00's notwithstanding. There's no getting away from the fact that Warne had to bowl many more overs for his wickets post-2000, even against his former bunnies South Africa. Not his fault because he was just getting older, injuries taking their toll, etc. whereas McGrath was largely injury-free during that period and his career as a whole.

 

[Ikki]

Come on. Percentage of 5 and 4 wicket hauls is hardly a totally definitive measure of consustency. Check how much the wickets cost and how often then come and you get difficult results. You simply selected a rather flimsy and arbitrary statistical criteria where Warne has an advantage while ignoring all the other categories that show McGrath as more consistent and adaptable. McGrath is simply a better wicket-taker than Warne when you factor in everything, and there is no major category where Warne is his better.

Well, you simply can't show much each wicket actually cost because they don't count specifically how many runs a batsman scored of a specific bowler. Secondly, McGrath faces batsmen that are unsettled, whereas Warne has to come in and pry them out when McGrath and co. can't. The sheer number of wickets Warne has had to take in precisely this fashion puts all the 'major' category talk to shame. The fact that Warne has taken a 3rd of his wickets in the upper order, this when Australia has had arguably the best fast bowling openers of the past era, puts him on a different level. Warne took wickets when it was extremely hard and critical.

Also, when you pointed out the main batsmen dismissed by Warne and McGrath, you incorrectly showed Warne and McGrath having dismissed Tendulkar on only three occasions while McGrath actually has dismissed him twice as many times. If you were to show how many runs the batsmen scored and how many more tests Warne has played against the batsmen, the fact that Warne lags behind McGrath is obvious.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll check the rest out. I had to do that manually a while ago so forgive the mistake, it was not my intention to mislead. I had a few more wrong too; thank the lord for the new Statguru.

Anyway, I fixed that, I think I got Alec Stewart wrong for Warne and Thorpe wrong as well for McGrath so I fixed them. Warne still has a fantastic record, especially when you take into account that he has to come after McGrath and co. yet the difference between him and McGrath in matches/chances/wickets (can't be 205 matches :P) is 9%? Quite amazing, in fact, for a spinner. Because what the above doesn't show are the times McGrath got the batsmen mentioned here without Warne even getting a bowl.

 

[Ikki]

The truth of the matter is that, post 2000, McGrath was better at exactly that than Warne. The number of wickets against opponents doesn't really bear this out as much as it should, though. As I said, McGrath was definitely Steve Waugh's and Rick Ponting's go-to guy for any sorely needed wicket either early in the day or late in the day, Ashes series' in the 00's notwithstanding. There's no getting away from the fact that Warne had to bowl many more overs for his wickets post-2000, even against his former bunnies South Africa. Not his fault because he was just getting older, injuries taking their toll, etc. whereas McGrath was largely injury-free during that period and his career as a whole.

Yes, that last point is key. Warne was getting older and faced potential career ending injuries. He was also banned. So through the early 2000's he was hardly there. It was until 2002 that Warne headed back and played like he used to. He got banned for the whole 2003 and then he came back in 2004 to start playing consistently again. He really only gave away that "go-to-guy" mantle away for 2 years while he was playing and 1 year while he was banned. The 5-fers/10fers here are telling again. Since 2004 McGrath had only 6 5fers whilst Warne had 14 5fers and 4 10fers. Even in that slump Warne still managed big hauls. Post 2000 for both: Warne, McGrath. Warne again with more of the hauls and actually has a better SR than McGrath - simply amazing.

 

[Slifer]

Ok so if u had to choose 4 Mcgraths or 4 Shane Warnes to make up ur bowling attack who would u choose? I know who i wood choose, considering one is a champion bowler against all comers (esp against the best batting line up outside his own team).

 

[Ikki]

Would depend where it's played TBH and against whom. But most times Warne. Although I say that because I think him the better bowler. As a 4-spinner attack I am not sure of one that was seriously successful whereas there have been 4-pacers before who've been successful.

 

[subshakerz]

Would depend where it's played TBH and against whom. But most times Warne. Although I say that because I think him the better bowler. As a 4-spinner attack I am not sure of one that was seriously successful whereas there have been 4-pacers before who've been successful.

You can go on about percentage of 5-wicket hauls for some period or so (sorry but that seems like a very arbitrary criteria of greatness), but the fact is that McGrath simply has too many advantages and accomplishments in his corner that Warne does not have. Even the most jaundiced Warne fan would admit:

-McGrath statistically overall is superior than Warne when it comes to strike rate, average, economy, etc. and most major criteria

-McGrath hasn't experienced extended loss of form or injuries as Warne has, and has overall been more consistent

-McGrath has proven his success against all opposition and in all conditions moreso than Warne

-McGrath has given the two best batsmen of the age, Lara and Tendulkar, far far more trouble than Warne has

-McGrath has impressed against the best batting lineup he faced, India, both in India and at home. Warne ended up with an embarassing average of 47 in 14 tests. Whether one considers him a failure or unlucky due to injuries, it still leaves the fact that he has never run through an Indian lineup and has a big hole in his resume, while McGrath does not

Given that one holds the two bowlers in roughly the same league and the abnove is true, its hard to see why McGrath should be rated less than Warne. If Warne didnt have the glamor attached to him, this wouldnt even be a question.

 

[Ikki]

You can go on about percentage of 5-wicket hauls for some period or so (sorry but that seems like a very arbitrary criteria of greatness), but the fact is that McGrath simply has too many advantages and accomplishments in his corner that Warne does not have. Even the most jaundiced Warne fan would admit:

Because it is a very telling stat. Compare McGrath with all the top bowlers of the era. He falls short in this very category quite often, and against lesser bowlers if I may be frank. It shows why people have adored Warne and showered him with 'match-winner' praises. Well, he's taken more bigger hauls and especially in the most memorable of circumstances.

McGrath statistically overall is superior than Warne when it comes to strike rate, average, economy, etc. and most major criteria

Statistically, Shaun Pollock is also ahead of Warne as well. Statistically, Allan Donald is ahead of McGrath. Statistically, Waqar Younis wipes the floor with both of them. The point is how that happened and why it happened.

-McGrath hasn't experienced extended loss of form or injuries as Warne has, and has overall been more consistent

Yet it is to Warne's credit that he came back and redefined himself and was successful again. You can't blame players for getting injured (unless it's something stupid like McGrath walking over a ball), you can blame them to some extent for not coming back and doing well again.

Anyway, after some search it shows that McGrath has missed more matches than Warne.

From their debuts to their retirements, Warne has 32 missed matches and McGrath has 33.

-McGrath has proven his success against all opposition and in all conditions moreso than Warne

Warne has also proven himself in all conditions and against all opposition. Even in India against India he came away with 30 avg. and 60 SR whilst missing the most spin conducive pitch in the series - one where Clarke got 6 for 9.

You have to factor in moreso that Warne bowled half his career at home where there is only 1 spin conducive pitch whereas McGrath is spoiled at home.

Even away, overall there are more seam-friendly pitches than spin-friendly.

-McGrath has given the two best batsmen of the age, Lara and Tendulkar, far far more trouble than Warne has

Not sure 'far far' more trouble is apt. But to even concede that, 2 batsmen of many is hardly a talking point. Lara reckons Wasim Akram is better than McGrath btw, try suggesting to him that McGrath is statistically better than Akram.

-McGrath has impressed against the best batting lineup he faced, India, both in India and at home. Warne ended up with an embarassing average of 47 in 14 tests. Whether one considers him a failure or unlucky due to injuries, it still leaves the fact that he has never run through an Indian lineup and has a big hole in his resume, while McGrath does not

Er, who said it was the best? S.Africa also had the best, outside Australia, during a time and Warne overran them. Whereas McGrath has a crap record against S.Africa. The coincidence that the 'best' batting line-up also managed to be the best players of spin in the world, possibly ever, and one of the worst against seam faced Warne/McGrath should be underlined here.

Given that one holds the two bowlers in roughly the same league and the abnove is true, its hard to see why McGrath should be rated less than Warne. If Warne didnt have the glamor attached to him, this wouldnt even be a question.

Because whilst 2/40 is statistically great, 5/125 is actually better in real terms. Because when it actually counted, more times than not, it was Warne that stepped up. It's to these ends that McGrath himself emphatically backs Warne as the greatest bowler of all-time. Maybe you're suggesting that McGrath is fooled by the glamour?

 

[neville cardus]

Who would you rate the better? Murdoch or Charlie Bannerman?

Murdoch by a Roman mile. What he did for Australian batting was much like what W.G. did for English batting: he laid the pavage for both successors and contemporaries. Would Bonnor, Massie, McDonnell, Alick, Giffen and Horan have been remotely as successful had not Murdoch shown them the way?

Much is made of Australia's pre-Sheffield bowling, and rightly so, because its batting, even with the aforementioned giants, was derisory. Time and time again, Murdoch was the only immoval object standing in the way of humiliation.

Charlie Bannerman's fame rests on two unbreakable records and little more. He was probably Murdoch's equal on a flat track, but not a pimple on him on a wet one. Murdoch was the more responsible of the two (largely because he was responsible for more), and also more resolute and reliable. Bannerman pleased the aesthetes no end, but even they would have to admit that, were they looking for someone to bat to keep them out of Hades' Halls, they would go for the pertinacious Murdoch.