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

[Anil]

he is for me:

bradman
chappell
lillee
mcgrath
warne

are the aussie top 5 for me

[howardj]

Originally Posted by SJS

You dont think he was good enough ?

Yeah man, I was just getting at the fact that you only have one (and even that is a maybe) 1985-present player in your team.

Neil Harvey is often derided for having nothing positive to say about current day players - hence my remark.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by howardj

Thanks for that, Neil Harvey.

Only one (even that's a maybe) 1985-present player?

Thats true. I do believe that overall standards have fallen in recent times - with individual cases of brilliance, mostly from the countries other than the first two.

That the West Indies was the one country that kept up standards till about the eighties.

That newer countries like India and pakistan produced a few superstars as the game matured in those countries during thie same period.

I dont think it is a bias towards "my" generation since these are not cricketers that can be so classified.

If we take cricket in a country like England where it has been played for over two hundred years and Australia where it has been played for a hundred and fifty, it may not be surprising to find that there are not THAT many from recent years.

An all time England team may find older players than an all time Australian side for example and an all time Windies team would find even younger players than that.

It is easy to look at current cricketers, their records and tell ourselves that the older players wouldnt have been this good. What we tend to forget is that THESE cricketers, if they were born 50 years agao would ALSO have been different. A sportsman has to be compared to his own contempraries. If Bradman was head and shoulders above his peers in the 1930's then he would have been head and shoulders above his peers (maybe at a different level) in the 1990's.

A Jesse Owens would not be a laggard in todays time just because his time appears slower. He would have benefitted from all the technologoical advances, better traing methods, better tracks, better speed measurement etc and have been a giant still. Hence Trumper in my list.

[steds]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

No.

But by jiminy, he's stiff.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by SJS

.

It is easy to look at current cricketers, their records and tell ourselves that the older players wouldnt have been this good. What we tend to forget is that THESE cricketers, if they were born 50 years agao would ALSO have been different. A sportsman has to be compared to his own contempraries. If Bradman was head and shoulders above his peers in the 1930's then he would have been head and shoulders above his peers (maybe at a different level) in the 1990's.

A Jesse Owens would not be a laggard in todays time just because his time appears slower. He would have benefitted from all the technologoical advances, better traing methods, better tracks, better speed measurement etc and have been a giant still.

Oh, I totally agree with all of that. Very well stated. Equally though, it applies in the reverse to chaps like McGrath and Gilchrist - who, in my view, stand so far out from their contemporaries. Moreover, I don't think we should (and Im not saying that you neccessarily are) think less of the skill of today's greats, just because the technology, science etc is better.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by howardj

Yeah man, I was just getting at the fact that you only have one (and even that is a maybe) 1985-present player in your team.

Neil Harvey is often derided for having nothing positive to say about current day players - hence my remark.

I have Healy who along with Bob Taylor, I consider as the two GREATS of the modern era who will stand tall against the earlier era greats like Evans and Oldfield,

Similarly greats from newer nations like Imran and hadlee would be TALL in any company any time in history.

Same for the Lillee's, Richards, Lara's and Tendulkars and the South African greats of the early 1970's viz Barry Richards, Pollock and Mike Proctor.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Both of them played in periods where the ball generally held sway, and both excelled in the most difficult of circumstances against the best bowlers.

yea i agree both excelled againts the best bowlers of their era, but Border faced a slightly better bowlers overall i think.

For Border he would have faced:

WI: Roberts, Holding, Marshall, Patterson, Walsh, Ambrose, Croft, Garner, Bishop
PAK: Imran, Qadir, Waqar, Wasim, Sarfraz
ENG: Botham, Underwood, Fraser (probably)
IND: Venkat, Chandrasekar, Dev, Bedi, Prasanna
NZ: Hadlee, Chatfield (if you rate him)

For Waugh:

WI: everyone except Roberts, Garner & Croft but who have faced the Benjamins & Bishop
PAK: Same plus Shoaib, Saqlain & Mushtaq
ENG: only truly good bowlers england would have had during Waugh's time are Gough, Fraser & Caddick.
SRI: Murali & Vaas
NZ: Hadlee (probably), not sure if he faced him in tests.
IND: Dev (probably), Kumble, Harbhajan, Srinath
SA: Donald, Pollock, DeVilliers, Kallis

Looking at this well maybe your right not much difference in the quality tbh, it will just be a matter of who you prefer i guess..

[silentstriker]

I would not be against rating McGrath as the best pace bowler to ever come out of Australia. McGrath gets top order wickets, and he gets them everywhere, under all conditions, and has been doing it for long time.


For sustained brilliance, no one beats McGrath.

[shankar]

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.

[SJS]

Originally Posted by howardj

Oh, I totally agree with all of that. Very well stated. Equally though, it applies in the reverse to chaps like McGrath and Gilchrist - who, in my view, stand so far out from their contemporaries. Moreover, I don't think we should (and Im not saying that you neccessarily are) think less of the skill of today's greats, just because the technology, science etc is better.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

What about a top five of:

Lillee
McGrath
Waugh
Border
Miller

No Bradman? Idiot.