Is McGrath one of Australia's five best cricket players ever?

[C_C]

My Top 5 Australian players :

1. Bradman
2. Keith Miller
3. Adam Gillchrist
4. Glenn McGrath
5. Alan Davidson

 

[Tom Halsey]

I don't know how all these people judge all-time top fives, because you've never seen everyone.

But purely on statistics, he's got to be up there.

 

[silentstriker]

What about a top five of:

Lillee
McGrath
Waugh
Border
Miller

 

[silentstriker]

Crap, I don't have Bradman in that top five

Well, I can put him at #6

 

[steds]

What about a top five of:

Lillee
McGrath
Waugh
Border
Miller

No Bradman? Idiot.

 

[silentstriker]

No Bradman? Idiot.

No, Bradman wasn't a top five player.

 

[steds]

No, Bradman wasn't a top five player.

He batted in the top five during this match.

 

[SJS]

No, Bradman wasn't a top five player.

Freedom of speech rules..okay?

 

[howardj]

Generally I would agree. But whats happened since the pre-eminence of limited overs game in the scheme of things (starting around 1980) is that great bowling has been at a premium. A lot of interconnected events have led to a change and hence a drop in standards. Let me try to put them here

- Bowlers have started bowling to keep runs down rather than take wickets
- Bowling big out swing or in swing for example is dicey in ther limited overs gtame due to the restrictive wides rule
- the firelding restriction, the increasing freedom of the batsmen, the field placings mean that what was once termed a good ball is now thrashed by the likes of Sehwag with much lower probability of geting out
- Hence bowlers resort to learning new tricks (restrictive) like boling on the pads (except to Indians )
- the bats have become far better and hitting a six is far easier today than it was, even mi***** will clear the ground.

NOW what happens when these same bowlers and batsmen play test cricket.

- Batsmen carry the bad habits learnt in the limited over game into test matches
- on good wickets the Sehwags score triple hundreds without bothering to move either forward or back (excuse the slight exaggeration)
- a new generation of bowlers is here that finds swinging the new ball such a 'miracle' (I have heard Tendulkar saying that Pathan has a God given gift to naturally swing the cricket ball) Where as in the late sixties and seventies that I was playing cricket in Delhi it was impossible to come across a left arm new ball bowler who did not swing the ball in to right handers. I can name ten from Delhi league who swung twice as much as Pathan. There were old men in their forties (ex cricketers) who umpired in these games and played the odd weekend friendly and they would bowl you with swinging slow deliveries unless you were carefull and they ALWAYS landed on a length.

I am amazed at the fuss over movement in the air today. It was common place.

So what does this have to do with McGrath. THIS...

then when these bowlers come across a bowler like McGrath who jsut bowls ball after bloody ball on or just outside the off stump, moving it either way, these batsmen cant play. They are not used any more to bowlers who are so accurate AND who move the ball off the pitch and in the air.

This is not to decry McGrath's great craft but to emphasise that he is a rarity in today's world. He would have been a great bowler even thirty years ago but wouldnt have been a rarity.

Peoiple like Statham or even Shackleton would bowl like McGrath day in and day out but batsmen coped with them better because they (the batsmen) played other bowlers in the nets who also did the same though may not be with the same deadly accuracy.

Batsmen today have it easy because bowling standards have declined and when a good bowler like Warne or McGrath comes around he meets batsmen who have LOST the game to play them.

That is what I mean.

Sorry for this being so long but I am just writing as the thoughts come to my mind which always ends up long.

A large element of truth to that.

Excellent work.

 

[Francis]

I don't understand how most people rate Warne above Mcgrath - Mcgrath's had a spotless record on all sorts of conditions just like Warne (except India but that can probably be excused since most spinners have failed there) but has had far more success against the two best batsman of his era - Lara and Sachin. Infact he's come out even against both while Warne has rarely troubled them.

Warne, at his best could strike as good as any bowler in history. He striked a wicket every 38 balls in the Ashes. What hurts Warne were his poor years. People talk about Indians playing spin well, but to be fair, any team could've scored off Warne in the 2001 series. Because of this, Warne's figures don't show his true impact. Warne is the only cricketer in history to take the most wickets in a calendar year five times. In some of those years his strike-rate was incredible.

In 1994 his strike rate was around 42
In 2002 his strike rate was around 42
In 2005 his strike rate was around 45

In 1994 his average was around 18
In 2002 his average was around 19
In 2005 his average was around 22

This is unheard of in modern times. In 2005 and 1994 he did this with a fairly weak bowling attack too. You can argue this allowed to have more wickets and I might agree. But take somebody like Richard Hadlee who was the only great bowler NZ had with a decent attack which included Bracewell, and compare it to Warne.

To this day I don't think people realise that if Warne hadn't played a few horrid (and I can't stress 'horrid' enough) series, his figures would be nuts. I don't think people realise how bad his strike rate was in 1993 because batsman were had no clue how to play him so they stopped going after him... and yet it reflects as greatness because he changed the game and established himself as a force. Wickets were to come when players started to go after him. So stats show very little of the Shane Warne story unless you start to delve into his career.

Glenn McGrath isn't far behind at all. Brilliant cricketer. But he wasn't seen as "great" until around 1997-98. A bit like Warne he had a mediocre start to his career. He became Australia's best opening bowler soon enough by 1995. And it wasn't until around 1997 that he was seen in the same league as guys like Donald. But the key is McGrath hasn't the odd series where he was absolutely masacred. And some might think that makes him better. But if you measure IMPACT, and who won more games for Australia... it has to be Warne.

That being said, it's close. Two great cricketers.

 

[C_C]

I disagree with SJS's post about a terminal decline in bowling standards.
Its far more to do with bat-making technology and the ICC putting pressure to make pitches more batsmen friendly because the masses like high scoring affairs ( why dispatching a ball to the boundary is seen as 'more exciting' than seeing a batsman cut in half is beyond me, but then again, i was always a bowler who could bat a bit....).
True, the overall quality of pace bowling has declined in the recent years but McGrath's reputation isnt built on just paper castle. He muscled his way in the mid 90s, when pace bowling stock was perhaps at its richest after the halcyon 1975-late 80s period.
He formed his reputation alongside bowlers like Wasim,Waqar, Ambrose,Walsh,Donald and Pollock - bowlers who are/were good enough to walk into almost any lineup fielded before or after. His reputation is forged through his competence against the stalwarts of his day - he's had a even contest with lara and tendulkar, the two greatest batsmen of the last 15 years. And those two's reputation as batsmen are surpassed or matched perhaps only by Bradman,Sobers,Viv,Gavaskar and Greg Chappell.
Batsmen today are simply far more correct technically and have the qualities gained through mind-numbing practice drilled into them at a far greater level than batsmen of the distant past. As such, accurate bowlers, unless they have the metronomic accuracy of an alltimer like McGrath (ie, i am talking about the mediocre ones, who do the net servicing) are much less likely to 'score' against batsmen today.

Yes, the fast bowling stocks today are rather thin. But Flintoff,Harmison and Jones are collectively entering their prime, Akhtar is still worldclass, so is McGrath and Bond will be if he gets an extended stint. Nel and Ntini are quite good ( though not worldclass IMO) and bowlers like Pathan,Patel,Sreesanth etc. show promise. This is just a fallow period for fast bowlers, which happens from time to time - it was so for a 4-5 year period in the latter half of the 60s and early 70s(before the emergence of Lillee and Roberts) - Trueman was gone, Hall was fast declining and bowlers like Snow and McKenzie were the 'stalwarts' of that era and while they were very good, they were a trick or two short compared to the all-timers.The high scoring contests that are killing cricket IMO have actually less to do with bowling quality (which no doubt has declined from the late 90s/early 2000s) and much more to do with bat-making technology and the ICC's 'pro-batting' policy.

 

[marc71178]

People also forget his 94 in the Super Test. When Flintoff dismissed him people were like "yep Freddie did ti again" as if Gilchrist was bunnied. Gilchrist nearly made a century.

All well and good, but his stats against Flintoff in that match read - 10 balls faced, 6 runs scored, dismissed once.

So how exactly is that conquering Flintoff?

 

[silentstriker]

Freedom of speech rules..okay?

Blah, I am obviously not serious.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

All well and good, but his stats against Flintoff in that match read - 10 balls faced, 6 runs scored, dismissed once.

So how exactly is that conquering Flintoff?

It's not, though in fairness Gilchrist also scored a century in the ODI series against Flintoff, so that might have added to the perception that he was back in form and over his Flintoff problems.

 

[Ikki]

My Top 5 Australian players :

1. Bradman
2. Keith Miller
3. Adam Gillchrist
4. Glenn McGrath
5. Alan Davidson

Warne, C_C?

 

[C_C]

Warne, C_C?

Warne is at #6 for me.

 

[sirjeremy11]

I would rate Warne higher than Gilchrist. Gilchrist is an extraordinary batsman, and pretty good keeper.

But Warne is just a freak. And I don't even really like him. But I can appreciate how good he is.

 

[C_C]

I would rate Warne higher than Gilchrist. Gilchrist is an extraordinary batsman, and pretty good keeper.

But Warne is just a freak. And I don't even really like him. But I can appreciate how good he is.

Warne might be a great but Gillchrist has been the best player of the last 15 years overall IMO- his batting is in the 2nd tier (below the likes of Tendy-lara-Dravid-Ponting-inzy) and his keeping is pretty decent...its like having an allrounder who is a decent bowler but a superb bat....

 

[Anil]

I don't understand how most people rate Warne above Mcgrath - Mcgrath's had a spotless record on all sorts of conditions just like Warne (except India but that can probably be excused since most spinners have failed there) but has had far more success against the two best batsman of his era - Lara and Sachin. Infact he's come out even against both while Warne has rarely troubled them.

spot on!

 

[sirjeremy11]

Warne, C_C?

Yeah. I thought it was a joke as well. Apparently not.