The better half of McWarne...without McGrath, Warne's figures are merely good whereas McGrath's figures without Warne are still fantastic. Helped out Warne more than people realize by keeping it tight AND taking wickets at the same time from one end.
Yes because McGrath bowled those leg breaks for Warne and put them on the right spot damn near five times out of six. Lord knows Warne needs McGrath to bowl those great deliveries to get his wickets... without McGrath, how would Warne ever get a wicket? McGrath didn't bowl for Warne my friend. I was interested to hear, when McGrath announced his retirement, that McGrath himself considers Warne the best he's ever played with or against. He thinks Warne is the best cricketer he's ever seen.
Being realistic, the only way any bowler gets help from the other end is when runs are so dried up, batsmen start to feel pressure and start going for shots. There are exceptions to this, such as finding it hard to get used to the bounce of Joel Garner after Malcolm Marshall has bowled etc. In my long experience in seeing the two Australians bowl, teams have most often been content to let the run-rate drop and just try and see both of them off.
Warne's not economical because of McGrath, and Warne's bad deliveries always got put away. But people don't say "oh he should be bowling good because McGrath is on the other end." They acknowledge his bad form, but his good form gets underrated because he had "help". Warne proved in 2005 he can carry a team (in the Ashes) when nobody else was performing, and he got wickets he wouldn't have got in that series thanks to McGrath sucking in the 3rd and 5th Test. Warne's figures without McGrath aren't as good his ones when McGrath plays, but that's got a lot with Warne being an average bowler before the 1992 Sri Lankan test.
Also, McGrath wasn't anything special until around 1995, yet he was in the team while Warne prospered in the team from 1993-1994 - thus helping the stats that show Warne doing well with McGrath. Statistically Warne's best year was 1994, yet McGrath was just an average player then. McDermott was inconsistent as well. Really Warne carried muh of the bowling that year - 61 wickets in 8 Tests or something (I can't be stuffed to check that). It's absolute non-sense. I've seen Warne bowl brilliantly many many times with very little help. His stats are helped in years like 1994 where the fast bowling in Australia was lacking (McGrath still young and green, McDermott carrying injuries etc).
Anyway that's enough of that crap, this whole "McGrath helped him" makes little sense... I mean McGrath was of some help, but no way near the way people say, and I'll say it, I think Warne's figures would be better without McGrath. I'm not saying he would be a better bowler without McGrath, but his stats would be better because he'd have more oppotunity to get wickets. This whole "Warne stats would be much worse without McGrath" is just an unlogical method of thinking that detracts from Warne's legacy. But enough of responding to that,this is a McGrath tribute thread...
------------------------------
McGrath is probably one of the five best fast bowlers ever and that's incredible given the level of fast bowling depth cricket has produced. Ironically he may be best remembered for being man of the tournament for this world cup. Aside from that he hasn't had a lot of stand-out distinguished moments, other than being contistently awesome and winning game after game for Australia.
I also think his reading of batsmen is amazing. You can't just bowl the same line and length and expet it to work, because batsman will shuffle across creases etc and do different things. McGrath contantly changed his line and length to still cramp the frustrated batsman, and that's a remarkable gift.
Yeah probably one of the five best fast bowlers ever, and maybe the best line and length bowler ever considering his other great peers like Richard Hadlee were more varied in their attack. McGrath could be successful despite a lack of speed and a lack of swing. Tremendous.
.
