Warne or McGrath?

[Matt79]

Warne for me. He has an X-factor over McGrath IMO.

 

[Dravid]

McGrath by miles. Warne is a great bowler and on spinning tracks he will just rip through the opponent. McGrath's constent line and length can get him a wicket on any pitch at anytime. Even when he is 37, he doesn't bowl one ball wide of the stumps, everything on off stump, and good of length. That can get very annoying to the batsman and they can easily give away their wicket by making a mistake.

 

[telsor]

McGrath is probably the better bowler, both great and consistant.
Warne is a better allround player and has that extra, almost magical, ability to sieze a match but the neck and make it 'his'.

Really it would depend who else was in my team, but I chose Warne, with sheer entertainment value being the tiebreaker.

 

[Pothas]

I think i would have Warne. This may be slighlty due to Hampshire bias. As bowlers i do think there is much between them and I see them very much as a joint atack and therefore hard to compare and rank one higher than the other. If i was building a side around one though i would have Warne and i would make him my captain.

 

[andmark]

Warnie takes wickets when needed.

 

[Slifer]

I think it is highly erroneous to compare spinners and Pacemen but in this case I will. Mcgrath outshines Warne in most of the signficant bowling categories (SR, Average, Econ). I have also seen Warne taken to the sword way more often than Mcgrath has. And whoever it is that said that one can find many more Glenn Mcgrath I challenge that person to. Right now we have several great/good spinners in world cricket :Kumble, Harbajan, Macgill, Murali, Kaneira. But aside from maybe Shaun Pollock there r no bowlers worthy of being in the Glenn Mcgrath category of greatness.

 

[BoyBrumby]

As a Pom I'm instinctively drawn to the quality spinner; in my time watching us we've produced some pretty decent seamers (no-one in McGrath's class, but frankly who has?) but nay a spinner with a sub-30 test average.

People who speak of the "X-Factor" definitely have something too; Warne bowls those balls that no one else seems to. If I were choosing a bowler I'd pay my hard-earned to watch I'd certainly go for Warney. McGrath is a craftsman (perveyor of finest line & length since 1994); Warne the showman.

 

[PhoenixFire]

It is arguable that Warne isn't even the best spinner in the world right now. You can't say that about McGrath.

McGrath isn't the best fast bowler in the world at the moment, not in my books anyway. It is just a freak of nature that we have the two best spinners since Underwood, Laker and Lock. Underwood may have been slightly after those two, but in general they were. Warne and Muralidharan, are both great spinners, and you couldn't say there has been a great spinner since Dave Mohammed.

 

[Slifer]

WHo is the best fast bowler then?

 

[PhoenixFire]

On current form, I would rate Makhaya Ntini ahead of McGrath as far as fast bowling in ODIs and Tests go.

 

[tooextracool]

Warne for me. Mcgrath maybe more efficient, but there is no one in world cricket that can bowl a ball like Shane Warne does. There have been many great fast bowlers, but very few quality spinners IMO.Add that to his batting and leadership skills and he gets my vote 10 out of 10 times.

 

[tooextracool]

I think it is highly erroneous to compare spinners and Pacemen but in this case I will. Mcgrath outshines Warne in most of the signficant bowling categories (SR, Average, Econ). I have also seen Warne taken to the sword way more often than Mcgrath has. And whoever it is that said that one can find many more Glenn Mcgrath I challenge that person to. Right now we have several great/good spinners in world cricket :Kumble, Harbajan, Macgill, Murali, Kaneira. But aside from maybe Shaun Pollock there r no bowlers worthy of being in the Glenn Mcgrath category of greatness.

I like how you've thrown in any half decent spinner in that list and then restricted the pacemen to just the all time great ones. Way to prove your argument there.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'm not sure how anybody could label Danish Kaneria good/great, but it confuses me.

 

[Matt79]

I think it is highly erroneous to compare spinners and Pacemen but in this case I will. Mcgrath outshines Warne in most of the signficant bowling categories (SR, Average, Econ). I have also seen Warne taken to the sword way more often than Mcgrath has. And whoever it is that said that one can find many more Glenn Mcgrath I challenge that person to. Right now we have several great/good spinners in world cricket :Kumble, Harbajan, Macgill, Murali, Kaneira. But aside from maybe Shaun Pollock there r no bowlers worthy of being in the Glenn Mcgrath category of greatness.

But selectors do compare pace bowlers with spinners all the time, when they decide whether to include a third seemer for a second spinner, or even a fourth quick instead of a slow bowler at all. Its one of the more common team balance issues selectors grapple with.

 

[silentstriker]

I like how you've thrown in any half decent spinner in that list and then restricted the pacemen to just the all time great ones. Way to prove your argument there.

Yea. Murali/Warne are much closer than Pollock/McGrath though.

 

[tooextracool]

Yea. Murali/Warne are much closer than Pollock/McGrath though.

Pollock in his prime wasnt too far behind, as you can probably see in his stats. But seriously if you look at great fast bowlers around during Mcgraths career - Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Akthar, Akram, Pollock, Gillespie etc you can clearly see that there were several bowlers that werent too far behind. I dont think in the last 30 years theres been a spinner remotely in the same class as Warne and Murali.

 

[silentstriker]

Pollock in his prime wasnt too far behind, as you can probably see in his stats. But seriously if you look at great fast bowlers around during Mcgraths career - Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Akthar, Akram, Pollock, Gillespie etc you can clearly see that there were several bowlers that werent too far behind. I dont think in the last 30 years theres been a spinner remotely in the same class as Warne and Murali.

I have to agree with all of that. Except putting Akhtar, Gillespie and Donald in the same category as Ambrose and McGrath.

But regardless of that, no there haven't been as many spinners as good. That doesn't necessarily mean they would be more suited to start a team with. I still think a strike bowler is more important in a team.

 

[a massive zebra]

McGrath gets most of the big wickets for Australia, a high proportion of Warne's victims are tailenders (actually the highest proportion among all bowlers with over 300 wickets). McGrath has caused the very best like Lara and Tendulkar difficulties - Warne just gets hammered against them. McGrath is far more consistent and much less reliant on conditions - he hardly ever has a bad series and can boast a good record against all teams (worst average 25), while Warne averages nearly 50 against India and 40 in West Indies. Also Warne is very dependant upon the presence of McGrath and averages a Kumbleesque 28 without him, while McGrath is relatively unaffected by the absence of Warne.

Statistically it is a no contest and IMO those people that prefer Warne are simply following the typical ill educated media bandwagon.

 

[Sanz]

Statistically it is a no contest and IMO those people that prefer Warne are simply following the typical ill educated media bandwagon.

AMZ, it's fine if you want to pick Mcgrath over Warnie, but please dont speak for others. Some of us do watch cricket and have a right to decide who we prefer to watch play.

 

[a massive zebra]

AMZ, it's fine if you want to pick Mcgrath over Warnie, but please dont speak for others. Some of us do watch cricket and have a right to decide who we prefer to watch play.

Of course anyone has a right to prefer to watch whoever they want, but the fact of the matter is that McGrath has been a far more effective and important bowler for Australia.

Perhaps I should have said those who believe Warne is a better bowler are simply following the typical ill educated media bandwagon.