• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

adharcric

International Coach
dontcloseyoureyes said:
His record is nothing to be laughed at.
Definitely isn't, but comparisons with Imran, Sobers and Miller seem wrong. Usually we see names like Botham, Dev and Hadlee come up next.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Actually after some more in depth research about Dennis Lillee I decided that Glenn McGrath is actually a better cricket player than Lillee was, I think what a lot of people like about Lillee was his attitude and his look and how good he actually was tends to get hyped up slightly. But to be fair I don't think we will appreciate the greatness of McGrath and Warne until they retire and Australia are without their services.
 

dontcloseyoureyes

BARNES OUT
I don't know about Kallis. If his bowling had peaked at the same time his batting had, he'd be called an all-time great. I don't think he is, but I don't think he should cop as much flack as he does on this forum. The guy is a top cricketer.
 

bagapath

International Captain
Duke said:
Interesting selections, Bagapath. I was focusing on post WWII players, hence my omission of both Trumper and O'Reilly. I like your team.

The only point of disgreement I have is your selection of Arthur Morris over Hayden (or Mark Taylor or Bill Lawry or Bob Simpson for that matter). Morris averaged 46.48 in test cricket, compared to Hayden's 53.08. The argument that Morris faced better bowling attacks is, in my opinion, wrong. Ok, England were strong in the 1950s when Morris played the majority of his test cricket (think of bowlers such as Bedser, Trueman, Statham, Tyson, Laker and Lock), but the other teams in international cricket at that time were relatively weak (compared to now). In comparison, Hayden has made runs against high and low quality attacks from every test-playing nation in the world. Some people like to point out that his struggles in the Ashes series of 2005 showed a weakness against top-quality fast bowling, particularly against (reverse) swing. That's just a load of rubbish. Firstly, although he struggled, he did make 138 in the fifth test under a lot of pressure. A few of Australia's other batsmen (Martyn, Gilchrist, Katich, Clarke) struggled even more. Also, every batsman has a poor series at some stage (Morris in 1950/51, despite a double century). The fact that Hayden has bounced back so emphatically points to his talent, his commitment and his temperament.

at present we have the following batsmen averraging above 50. dravid, ponting, kallis, tendulkar, sehwag, lara, hayden, yousuf, haq and smith. and the following are very close to 50. gilchrist, sangakkara and jayawardene. i like hayden. but his 50 + average doesn't seem very special with 9 other guys in the same league in the same era. and two of them are openers like him. in the morris era only hutton was averaging above 50 among the openers. so i find morris's avergae of 46 quite comparable to, if not better than, haydos' 53. hayden is a strong contender for opening the all-time aussie XI. but i guess i alllowed my prejudice to romantacize the past to rule over cold, hard stats. hey, but is it not what this kind of a selection is supposed to be? you've made me think, duke. but i am going to stick to morris. :)
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Amazing how Trumper (considered the greatest Aussie batsman till Bradman exploded with runs) is so easily forgotten.

Wonder how many we consider giants wont be recalled fifty years hence.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
aussie said:
Well he did take a wicket in the WI, in World Series Cricket 1979 in the West Indies he took 23 wicket @ 28 if you do the maths, and even though its not part of his test record that series was definately played at a very competitive level.
The pitches in the WI in those days were probably just as seamer friendly as the ones in England or Australia. Certainly doesnt say much about his quality, especially when you consider that he took them at an average of 28 which is again not very special.

aussie said:
Yea his record in the sub-continent is poor for such a great bowler but he only played 4 test, due to World series cricket as well he missed 9 test in 1979 & 1980 on tours to India & Pakistan and being such a great bowler he could have well and done well if he had played in those series.
Or he might have failed miserably. It really is like me picking Shane Bond as the best bowler of all time. Fact is that he isnt proven in all conditions. And unlike Lillee at least he hasnt failed in the subcontinent when he has played there.

aussie said:
But overall i guess why some would have Lille over McGrath is probably that he was more lethal at his best the Pigeon..
Yet Mcgrath has the better SR despite playing in more batter friendly conditions and actually bowling in more than 4 tests in the subcontinent. Really the logic behind that argument is ludicrous.
 

Fratboy

School Boy/Girl Captain
tooextracool said:
Really i cant believe that so many people have Lillee in their top 5 ahead of Mcgrath? How on earth is someone who bowled primarily in batter friendly conditions and still ended up with a superior bowling record inferior to Lillee? Further how can someone who never took a wicket in the WI or India and took 3 wickets in Pakistan at an average of 101 be considered amongst the top 5 players ever?
:yes:

McGrath makes it to # 2 in my list of alltime great Aussies, ahead of even Warne.
 

Slifer

International Captain
Good for u and you'll hear no arguments from me. What a champion fast bowler that Mcgrath is!!!
 

PhoenixFire

International Coach
Right, here it is. I see McGrath as a good bowler, but not great or immortal. What do some people see in him that I don't. Pollock is just as consistent, but I have never heard him labelled great. Pollock has a better economy rate than McGrath too.
 

Slifer

International Captain
PhoenixFire said:
Right, here it is. I see McGrath as a good bowler, but not great or immortal. What do some people see in him that I don't. Pollock is just as consistent, but I have never heard him labelled great. Pollock has a better economy rate than McGrath too.
Mcgrath has a much better strike rate, better average and wicket per match ratio. Pollock indeed is a great bowler but with all due respect Mcgrath is just simply better!!
 

Top