C_C ...my man ..... You are a "breath of fresh air"....
C_C ...my man ..... You are a "breath of fresh air"....
dont be silly. It will be called the 'world' ofcourse.... i aint changing the name of the planet.Originally Posted by marc71178
excellent post man.. corridor of uncertainty is the best region to bowl, and I wanted to add little bit on speed of the bowler where you touched a little bit. Mcgrath being a medium pace bowler helps him a great bit, because a batsmen is more confused timewise to medium pace than a fast pace bowler. Even if a bowler who bowls 95+ with same style and accuracy as Mcgrath will not have the same success because, the batsmen will not have smaller time to react, and most likely leave the balls alone and wont nick as much. And last even if the batsmen play and nick at 95+, its in his favour a bit as the ball will travel much faster and more likley to travel over keeper and slip fielders.
OH HE HATE ME
Superb Post C_C. You definately are one of the top posters on CW
A very good post, add McGrath's movement off the wicket into and away from the batsman and you get a very good idea of why he is so potent. (You may have already said this, I skimmed the middle bit! haha)Originally Posted by C_C
As excellent piece C_C, well done.
A couple of small additions/comments.
Variation. While he isn't known for moving the ball a long way, McGrath has almost all the 'tricks', and when you can move the ball 2 inches in or 2 inches out, that's 4 inches the basman has to cover. He also varies the bounce to a higher degree than most bowlers, meaning he creates doubts on 2 different axes.
As you mentioned, he bowls well within himself pace-wise. What you didn't mention is that this gives him yet another variation.. Most bowlers have an 'effort ball' that's around 5-10kmh faster than normal, McGraths is 10-15 kmh faster.
You mentioned that the players who have handled him better are instinctively attacking. I'd agree with this, but what you didn't cover is that these batsmen have to face other bowlers at the other end, and generally speaking, these bowlers require a different approach. A purely instinctual attack will get you into a lot of trouble against the likes of Gillespie and Warne, so those few players who can do this with enough skill to succeed against McGrath probably wont last long enough to really trouble him. That leaves only the very top batsmen ( Lara, Tendulkar ) who can attack McGrath and retain the presence of mind to change their approach when they're at the other end.
Even the greatest players can't succeed in a vaccuum.
well CC mate here comes another compliment superb post, agreed on everything i must say when i first say its lenght i wasn't that interested. I think most of us knows how superb McGrath is but i dont think we could have contructed a better analysis on him.
I would like to see how would anaylse 4 other modern greats Lara, Tendulkar, Warne & Murali
Do one on ponting as well.
Mgrath is the best bowler I have seen. I'm only 18 but I've seen Akram, younis, Ambrose and Walsh and Imo Mgrath is better than all of them.
(although younis was my fav to watch)
To me, its extremely difficult to deciede rank between McGrath and Ambrose.
They are both alltime greats of the highest callibre.
In my opinion, on a favourable pitch, Ambrose is more deadly and on an unfavourable pitch, McGrath is more deadly.
On a pitch like Perth, 90s Durban, Sabina park etc., i would pick Ambrose over McGrath.
On a pitch like Sydney, Antigua, Bangalore etc., i would pick McGrath.
McGrath IMO is physically fitter and more robust than Ambrose, who had knee problems at the same age as McGrath and at an older age, McGrath is better....but at a younger age (below 30), i think Ambrose was better.
McGrath has more wickets while Ambrose has a slightly better average...i think this is due to the bowlng attacksthey were a part of. Early on in his career, Ambrose had more support than McGrath did but McGrath has had a more consistent support - in the latter half of his career, Ambrose was a lone warrior with Walsh and the next best WI bowler was considerably off World Class stature. McGrath has Warne all his career and able/excellent support in the form of McDermott/Fleming/Gillespie/Kaspa....all of whom are better than the likes of the Benjamin duo, Dillon, Rose, King, etc.
McGrath has faced the best batting lineup of the two and did superbly while Ambrose IMO faced a cumulative superior batting resistance in his career. Ie, while Ambrose hasnt faced a batting lineup of the ilk of IND, he had to contend with Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa - an aggregate superior batting lineup, since IMO RSA had better depth through the 90s and OZ + ENG + NZ were overall better batting force than the overall competition McGrath faces.
Its too hard for me to differentiate but another 2-3 seasons of brilliance and i would give it to McGrath.
Next in line IMO is Wasim Akram. To me, he is one of the biggest underachievers in test cricket......'under achiever ? with 400 wickets @ 23 ?HA!' may say soem fo you but the tools Akram had at his disposal boggles the mind and i wonder why he doesnt have 500 wickets @ 18-19 average.
His variety was stunning- he has singularly the BEST variety of all bowlers i''ve ever seen with the best overall mastery of different deliveries- accuracy/consistency was in the same league of mcGrath-Ambrose, was considerably more menacing than either of the two on dead wickets but strangely a lesser force on favourable wickets. I've seen him beat the edge and outfox batsmen more often than any other bowler...Akram IMo bowled the most wickettaking deliveries for one of the least returns in terms of wickets that i've ever seen.
I would slot him after the Ambrose/McGrath duo.
From the 90s bowling crop, Next in line IMO is Donald. He was a brilliant bowler and while not as potent as McGrath/Ambrose on favourable wickets, he was just as devastating on unfavourable wickets as McGrath. He sacrificed a bit of control for that extra oomph in pace and as a result was both more destructive and less consistent than Akram,Ambrose and Pidge.
Donald was, IMO, the best 'strike' bowler of them all barring Younis.....he was superior in getting batsmen that wernt well set but once the batsman got set, Donald had less options and struggled more to get the batsmen out than Ambrose,McGrath and Akram.
Next in line IMO is Shaun Pollock of the 90s. In one sentence, he is/was a slightly inferior model of Ambrose-McGrath. Same philosophy, same skills but a shade below.
The next one, IMO, is Coutrney Walsh.
He was a 'good bowler' most of his career but made a very strong finish and makes a good case for the 'great' category based on his longetivity and record. He became a really classic strike bowler late in his career when he perfected the slower ball - his primier weapon later on in his career IMO.
Walsh was just as consistent as McGrath, Ambrose and Akram but had lesser tools and variations to torment the batsmen. Not as good a strike force as Donald-Akram-Younis but not as good at getting set batsmen out like Ambrose, McGrath and Akram.
And then, there is Waqar Younis. I cant help but feel a lil bit guilty at rating Waqar behind all these players because of his injury-affected career but thats how his career turned out in the bottomline i guess.
Waqar MK-1 was singularly the best fast bowler i've ever seen. period. better than Hadlee, Marshall, Lillee, Ambrose, Akram and McGrath. Period.
he got excellent swing at super high speeds ( by some estimation, Waqar may've been the fastest bowler of all alongside Akhtar, Lee, Holding, Thommo, Patterson,Tyson and Gillchrist - while no one timed him at his furious best in the late 80s/early 90s, he was clocking 155kph in 95, after 2 serious back injury that robbed him of pace) , was the best proponent of reverse swing and had intimidation oozing out of him.
But Waqar MK-2 was merely decent. After 2 serious back injuries that required him to remodel his action, he lost the pace that made him deadly.
IMO, i rate him and the likes of Donald lower because they are more dependent on pace than McGrath-Ambrose-Akram etc. Waqar's philosophy wasnt consistency but stunningness. His bowling revolved around producing that 'magic ball' which would even fox Bradman at 299. He has produced more stunning deliveries IMO than anyone and closest to him is Akram....but he has bowled a heap of codswallop far more often than any of these bowlers have.
In a sense, Waqar was the deadliest of them all but also the easiest to pick apart.
If Waqar had remained fit, i wouldnt mind wagering that he would've ended up as the greatest bowler of them all......but as it stands, he isnt.
After him, i would say the next best bowler of the 90s was Gillespie. He IMO, was a better bowler in the 90s than he is now, particularly before his collision with Tugga that led him to lose a bit of zing in the speed department.
He was essentially an inferior model of Donald-Waqar in terms of devastation but slightly more consistent.
One knock against him is that he isnt so good when he doesnt have his support cast of McGrath-Warne and is too inconsistent. Dizzy is just as likely to average 18 with the ball next series as he is 40......but a good bowler nonetheless.
After him i would rate Fanie deVillers, another mighty underachiever in the game. Fanie was a seam bowler of the highest callibre with an Ambrosian/McGrathian consistency and control. Was capable of swinging the ball both ways extremely well and one of the best swingers before pitching alongside Marshall and Akram.
After him, i would rate Srinath. He was a good swinger of the ball with a cracker of an inswinger and one of the fastest the subcontinent has ever produced- till his shoulder injury, Srinath was consistently faster than Donald. Wasnt very consistent with his line and length and wasnt in the same mould of devastation as Waqar-Donald-Akram either... IMO, overusing him and lack of any support in the pace department makes him appear more lacklustre than he really is.
Was very good at unfavourable conditions but mediocre when conditions favoured the fast bowlers.
So thats my top 10 list from the 90 and since :
Ambrose/McGrath, Akram, Donald,Pollock, Walsh, Waqar,Gillespie, deVillers and Srinath.
hmmm i reckon akram probably deserves to be above McGrath and Ambrose. As much as I hate to say it (cos he got so many aussies out) the guy was an absolute gun with new and old ball and knew how to bowl every trick in the book.
WCC - Manager of Warwickshire
I largely agree with your assessment of 90s pacers. One bowler I feel you are doing a slight disservice is Ian Bishop, who despite his injury problems was an absolutely frightening bowler in the early part of the 1990s, better than Srinath in my opinion. Perhaps Shoaib Akhtar is a little unlucky to miss out as well, but his performances have never quite matched his ability.
For me the Ambrose/McGrath question is tilted slightly towards McGrath by the nature of the wickets they have played on at their peak. Through the 1990s wickets were usually quite helpful for seamers in the West Indies, Australia, England and South Africa. All these places are largely flat wickets today. And while I agree that Ambrose is superior on a helpful wicket and McGrath superior on a flat wicket, and that both are excellent on either surface, I feel that bowling well against the higher quality batting lineups of today on flat wickets is a greater feat, and as the pitches have become more flat, McGrath's average has gone down.
Also, as you pointed out McGrath has more wickets and Ambrose a lower average, but McGrath's average is actually falling quite rapidly at the moment with his latest run of excellent form. Ambrose's average did not drop below 21 until around 2 years before his retirement, which is probably where McGrath finds himself today, and with his recent form he has moved closer to Ambrose than might be assumed. For the sake of comparison, here is the top 10 pacers since World War 2 by average, as of the end of the Australian tour of New Zealand.
Frank Tyson (1954-1959) - 76 wickets @ 18.57
John Wardle (1948-1957) - 102 wickets @ 20.39
Alan Davidson (1953-1963) - 186 wickets @ 20.53
Ken Higgs (1965-1968) - 71 wickets @ 20.75
Malcolm Marshall (1978-1991) - 376 wickets @ 20.95
Joel Garner (1977-1987) - 259 wickets @ 20.98
Curtley Ambrose (1988-2000) - 406 wickets @ 20.99
Neil Adcock (1953-1962) - 104 wickets @ 21.11
Glenn McGrath (1993-) - 499 wickets @ 21.23
Fred Trueman (1952-1965) - 307 wickets @ 21.58
The next five is where we see more 90s bowlers coming in - Pollock, Donald, Hadlee, Imran and Miller. Only a few months ago, Pollock and Donald were ahead of McGrath.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
I forgot about Bish...
Slot him in and bump-off Srinath.
Akhtar ? no.
He did jack diddly squat in the 90s....i am looking at it both from 'who did well in the 90s' as well as 'how good are they actually' perspective...at the end of 90s, Akhtar had an average of 40 with the ball...and on the whole, he is atleast 4-5 seasons of excellence short of matching the names above.
As per McGrath-Ambrose debate goes...like i said, i think its very close and i can see people picking either one of the two.....how well you do as a bowler is not only your skills but also in light of the batting units you face, pitch support and bowling cast support.
I am slightly tilted towards Ambrose in all honesty...simply because he faced an overall superior batting cast than McGrath with much less consistent support.....but i can see people picking either one of the two.
I think Mgrath over Ambrose becasue he has bowled at better players and got worked them out recently on flatter pitches.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)