Glenn McGrath-Our Lord and Saviour V Glenn McGrath-The Fifth Best Australian Bowler

[silentstriker]

Part One - Stats

80 points for stats (800/Ave = 40; 1000/SR = 20; 4* Wkts/Mat = 20)

1. Barnes: 100.7 (should be disqualified for being freakish)
2. Marshall: 78.9
3. Garner: 75.7
4. Trueman: 75.7
5. Hadlee: 75.6
6. Donald: 75.6
7. McGrath: 74.4
8. Younis: 74.1
9. Ambrose: 73.0
10. Lillee: 73.0
11. Davidson: 72.0
12. Imran: 70.1
13. Holding: 70.0
14. Akram: 68.1
15. Roberts: 66.6

Good start, but you aren't counting other things in your stats, i.e opposing batsman averages. Otherwise you would miss a very key component of why I rate McGrath so high: being so good even though he plays on roads.

 

[silentstriker]

People from the sub-continent tend to be down on Lillee because he never achieved anything in that part of the world. But injury and other circumstances meant he only played one series there and that was on rolled mud where the much heralded Imran took only a handful of wickets in two matches. The spinners did the bulk of the bowling and the star man was the less than immortal Iqbal Quasim.

Also, I know of two bowlers who succeeded, and even dominated on even those pitches: Marshall and McGrath. One of many reasons why they are my top two.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Also, I know of two bowlers who succeeded, and even dominated on even those pitches: Marshall and McGrath. One of many reasons why they are my top two.

Too many years in between to make that comparison, especially in the case of McGrath.

 

[silentstriker]

Too many years in between to make that comparison, especially in the case of McGrath.

When I say "those", I don't mean 'subcontinent'...I mean simply roads. Subcontinent is not the holy ground for cricketers...its just another area that you need to be good in. Just like you need to be good on bouncy wickets.

I.E, a lot of subcontinent batsman can be overrated if they stink it up on bouncy tracks (i.e Indian top order). By the same token, a lot of bowlers (or batsman, like Ponting) can be overrated if they do not do well bowling on flat tracks or facing spinners on spinning tracks.

 

[aussie tragic]

How about this then? (used 200 Wkts as minimum criteria)

Part One: Pure Stats (75 Points)

Formula: (800/Ave = 40) + (1000/SR = 20) + (3 x Wkts/Mat = 15)

1. Marshall: 73.5
2. Garner: 71.2
3. Trueman: 71.1
4. Donald: 71.0
5. Hadlee: 70.6
6. McGrath: 69.9
7. Younis: 69.9
8. Ambrose: 68.9
9. Lillee: 67.9
10. Imran: 66.0
11. Holding: 65.9
12. Akram: 64.1
13. Pollock: 62.8
14. Lindwall: 62.7
15. Roberts: 62.3
16. Walsh: 61.8

Part 2: Era Batting Stats (10 Points)

Part 3: Written history (10 Points)

Part 4: Peer Ratings (5 Points)

 

[silentstriker]

Very nice. I recommend 65-20-10-10 weight system weight (the 65+20 are both stats, but if you want to count them separately). Also in your stats, can you add economy rates too? Thats another important one. And also add % of top order (top three, or top seven, whichever) wickets. After all that, I'll be happy.

 

[silentstriker]

I also want to say, if after those changes, if Lillee comes out ahead of McGrath..I'll move Lillee into my top five or six bowlers of all time and admit I was wrong about him .

 

[silentstriker]

BTW, you are doing a great job. I love ranking systems like these.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

MacGrath has a good economy rate because he's happy to put the ball on a length outside the off stump for hours on end and wait for the batsman to make a mistake instead of trying to make something happen.

 

[silentstriker]

MacGrath has a good economy rate because he's happy to put the ball on a length outside the off stump for hours on end and wait for the batsman to make a mistake instead of trying to make something happen.

If that was true, how come his strike rate is less than Lillee? Obviously he is not waiting for 'hours' if he's taking wickets as often as Lillee was? The S/R difference is minute so for all practical purposes, he's doing it just as often as Lillee.

 

[aussie tragic]

If that was true, how come his strike rate is less than Lillee? Obviously he is not waiting for 'hours' if he's taking wickets as often as Lillee was?

Umm Lillee's SR is 52.0, while McGrath's is 51.7 (and climbing) so not much in it....

 

[silentstriker]

Umm Lillee's SR is 52.0, while McGrath's is 51.7 (and climbing) so not much in it....

Yea, read my edited post. The point is he isn't waiting for hours, considering his strike rate.

 

[PhoenixFire]

SS, would you admit that McGrath is detrimental to the game, as he forces people to block/leave continuously for hours upon end, thus enhancing the sterotype of Test Cricket being slow and dull, to the non followers?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

If that was true, how come his strike rate is less than Lillee? Obviously he is not waiting for 'hours' if he's taking wickets as often as Lillee was? The S/R difference is minute so for all practical purposes, he's doing it just as often as Lillee.

The term "hours" is known as using exaggeration to make a point. The difference is that MacGrath has been given many decisions that weren't really out because the umpires are intimidated by his resemblance to Horatio Nelson.

 

[silentstriker]

SS, would you admit that McGrath is detrimental to the game, as he forces people to block/leave continuously for hours upon end, thus enhancing the sterotype of Test Cricket being slow and dull, to the non followers?

But he doesn't, does he? He strikes for a wicket just as often as Lillee did. So how can he be forcing people to block or leave? Considering when they leave the ball, their off stump gets uprooted.

 

[silentstriker]

The difference is that MacGrath has been given many decisions that weren't really out because the umpires are intimidated by his resemblance to Horatio Nelson.

Right.

 

[silentstriker]

The term "hours" is known as using exaggeration to make a point. .

What point is that? He strikes as often as Lillee did. So obviously your point is invalid. Unless you want to make the same case for Lillee?

 

[PhoenixFire]

But he doesn't, does he? He strikes for a wicket just as often as Lillee did. So how can he be forcing people to block or leave? Considering when they leave the ball, their off stump gets uprooted.

But he doesn't force anything to happen does he, not like a Waqar Younis or a Malcolm Marshall. I'm not digging at him for being boring, I just wanted to get your opinion on it.

 

[silentstriker]

But he doesn't force anything to happen does he, not like a Waqar Younis or a Malcolm Marshall. I'm not digging at him for being boring, I just wanted to get your opinion on it.

I don't understand what that means. Uprooting your off stump isn't forcing anything to happen? Forcing a guy to play every delivery (and nick one to slip) because he makes them unsure of their offstump location is not making anything happen?

What exactly do you mean, 'force anything to happen'?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What point is that? He strikes as often as Lillee did. So obviously your point is invalid. Unless you want to make the same case for Lillee?

While MacGrath is deliberately bowling wide to bore the batsman, Lillee was bowling unplayable deliveries that the batsman weren't good enough to get a touch. Unfortunately the result is the same statistically with the ball ending up in the keepers gloves.