Glen mgrath, the least talented, all time great

[steds]

Not true, he mugged me at last years Wimbledon.

Skull material from LT.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not true, he mugged me at last years Wimbledon.

You're Rafael Nadal & I claim my five pounds!

 

[PhoenixFire]

I think I understand what Mohammed is trying to get at, it's just that he hasn't put his point across very eloquently, that's all.

No doubt McGrath is a very fine bowler, and that he is in the top 10 quicks of all time, but he is not as talented as someone like a Wasim Akram or a Waqar Younis in my eyes. Obviously his mastery of line and length were something that Waqar Younis didn't quite have, but McGrath lost pace in the department of swinging it and pace.

 

[silentstriker]

No doubt McGrath is a very fine bowler, and that he is in the top 1 quicks of all time

Fixed that for you.

 

[PhoenixFire]

You don't know when to stop do you

Here is the closest thing you're ever going to get for me to call Glenn McGrath great, and you go and blow it. Quit whilst you're winning.

 

[silentstriker]

You don't know when to stop do you

I've got the stamina to wear down heathens like you. Your McGrath bashing will not escape me.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I've got the stamina to wear down heathens like you. Your McGrath bashing will not escape me.

Why don't you convert your energies to trying to convince people that Wilfred Rhodes was the 2nd best bowler of all time, after McGrath of course.

 

[silentstriker]

Why don't you convert your energies to trying to convince people that Wilfred Rhodes was the 2nd best bowler of all time, after McGrath of course.

Eh, its not in me to lie.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What does your ranking of all time bowlers go then? Just wondering.

 

[silentstriker]

What does your ranking of all time bowlers go then? Just wondering.

For pace?

1. McGrath
2. Marshall
3. Trueman
4. Barnes
5. Ambrose

Something like that, aside from #1, you can probably flip the order around as you see fit between #2 - #5. They are all pretty close.

Barnes only because I feel bad not including anyone from that era. I have a suspicion he would be destroyed in the modern game...but no way to prove it.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Fair enough, I agree with you on a major part of that list.

 

[aussie tragic]

For pace?

1. McGrath
2. Marshall
3. Trueman
4. Barnes
5. Ambrose

I knew you were fanatic about him, but now he's the best ever?

btw, how come he's averaging 30+ over his last 5-tests, & thats with a 6-50 at the Gabba?

 

[adharcric]

Why don't you convert your energies to trying to convince people that Wilfred Rhodes was the 2nd best bowler of all time, after McGrath of course.

On the basis of what? He had plenty of opportunities in test cricket and he was nothing spectacular.

 

[silentstriker]

I knew you were fanatic about him, but now he's the best ever?

What do you mean 'now'? I've always thought this. And statistic evidence, as well as simple common sense provides support to this claim.

btw, how come he's averaging 30+ over his last 5-tests, & thats with a 6-50 at the Gabba?

Wait till the end of the Ashes. And he's the only great bowler to go through a patch thats lean?

 

[C_C]

I think the whole 'accuracy = practice, not skill' factor is vastly misrepresented and it often reeks of someone who hasnt really bowled giving that opinion.
You dont just get accuracy of a McGrath or Ambrose or Murali by just practicing. And no, i disagree that its an innate talent that people are born with as well.
It is a developed talent completely- but the 'talent' here is knowing your body like you'd expect the terminator to. For unless you knew and were able to visualize what you'r doing exactly (almost in an out-of-body like experience where you imagine watching yourself do stuff) you wont be able to control your movements well enough to land a ball on the dime everytime. You'd have to first realize what exactly your body is doing- and by that i mean knowing which muscles are at play and by how much. Then you gotto figure out how changing one little aspect changes the ball comming out of YOUR hand. Then you gotto practice for countless hours while already armed with this information.
The 'talent' here is purely mental so i can see how this can be rated as a 'non-physical' talent.
However, it is talent too and if anything, guys like McGrath or Tendulkar, who are less talented physically but light years ahead mentally, are , if anything, more to be respected than the likes of Lara or Waqar. They didnt just drop from the womb with an innate talent but they developed their talent by applying mind over matter.
And given that human existance is thousands of years of cumulative proof of brains over brawn, i dont see how it cant be respected more.

 

[adharcric]

1. McGrath
2. Marshall
3. Trueman
4. Barnes
5. Ambrose

Something like that, aside from #1, you can probably flip the order around as you see fit between #2 - #5. They are all pretty close.

Marshall > McGrath for me. Forget pace, Marshall tops McGrath on the basis of performance and matches him for consistency. The only chance McGrath has is because he played on flatter wickets, but it's not enough IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Marshall > McGrath for me. Forget pace, Marshall tops McGrath on the basis of performance and matches him for consistency. The only chance McGrath has is because he played on flatter wickets, but it's enough IMO.

Yea. Also, to add to that, McGrath also has a greater number of top order wickets. But Marshall would be the closest to McGrath for me, but McGrath edges it out.

 

[aussie tragic]

Wait till the end of the Ashes. And he's the only great bowler to go through a patch thats lean?

Once established (since 1980), Marshall never averaged 30+ over 5 consecutive tests.

 

[silentstriker]

Once established (since 1980), Marshall never averaged 30+ over 5 consecutive tests.

He also retired after 81 tests at the age of 33, where McGrath is still going after 100+ tests at the age of almost 37.

 

[Nishant]

For pace?

1. McGrath
2. Marshall
3. Trueman
4. Barnes
5. Ambrose

Something like that, aside from #1, you can probably flip the order around as you see fit between #2 - #5. They are all pretty close.

Barnes only because I feel bad not including anyone from that era. I have a suspicion he would be destroyed in the modern game...but no way to prove it.

Never knewyou loved him so much!!! But, i guess..he's quite good! But, u sure about no. 1