The Secret of Glenn McGrath's Success

[Victor Ian]

While most of that is true, taking wickets builds more pressure than keeping the runs down. I'd rather have my spearhead have a lower strike rate than a lower ER.

When accessing a strike rate does time, or do balls count? Let's say McGrath bowled through his overs quicker thus taking wickets more frequently than one of those extra quick but extra time taking bowlers, would that matter more? I'm not saying this is the case, and it would be a fun excercise to calculate, if someone had the know-how. I guess the same applies for most spinners compared to fast bowlers with their enhanced strike rates. I'm just curious if balls per wicket are the best measure when time per wicket would be the practical pressure the players would feel?

 

[DriveClub]

Ntini was a very good bowler, I'm not sure why he's getting underrated here so much. Pollock another south african great.

 

[Victor Ian]

Pollock was brilliant. McGrath took less roughly 5 w/m and Pollock roughly 4w/m. McGrath averaged 2 less for the wickets he took. Perhaps that extra wicket taken by someone other than pollock came at 30 average. Pollock scored 30 extra runs per match. Who is more valuable?

Can I fairly say 4 common wickets times 2 runs (8 runs) + the difference for the other wicket (9 runs) = 17 runs is less than 30 runs batting advantage therefore Pollock wins?

 

[Black_Warrior]

What's happened over the past week or so to make like half of CW start hating bowlers who *only* perform an important role to a decent standard? Lyon's copping it in the SA/Aus, thread, Morkel's taking the heat here and even Philander was being panned before Australia collapsed.

I wouldn't say they are connected. Lyon's copping it because some of the Aussie posters hate on Ashwin for his numbers outside of SC so now they are copping it on the nut.

I love how people quote numbers at me.

Gillespie in his prime was an absolute beast of a bowler, and averaged 23-24 in those years, the long tail of his career inflated his average..... but I also love how you miss out, oh I dunno, the greatest bowler of the modern era in Shane Warne and don't mention him as a reason as to why McGrath might have performed better than counterparts.

Very few partnerships survived McGrath, Gillespie and Warne in their pomp.

I didn't miss anything. It's just a stupid thing to say that McGrath is great because he had Gillespie and Warne. The exact opposite could be argued as well..Gillespie benefited from having McGrath at one side..and when he didn't have McGrath like Ashes 2005 in the game McGrath missed or the India 2003 series, he wasn't exceptional.

Look I love Gillespie as a bowler and I hate doing, but you're making some really ridiculous arguments.

Then we can also say that none of the WI greats of the 80s were all that because they all had each other...or Ponting only performed well because he batted after Langer and Hayden.

If you put McGrath in the Indian team with Ishant and Stuart Binny, he would still be as good a bowler skillwise, he just would not have the exact same numbers. But what he could do with the ball, his skillset, fitness would not depend on who he bowls with.

 

[Blocky]

Pollock was brilliant. McGrath took less roughly 5 w/m and Pollock roughly 4w/m. McGrath averaged 2 less for the wickets he took. Perhaps that extra wicket taken by someone other than pollock came at 30 average. Pollock scored 30 extra runs per match. Who is more valuable?

Can I fairly say 4 common wickets times 2 runs (8 runs) + the difference for the other wicket (9 runs) = 17 runs is less than 30 runs batting advantage therefore Pollock wins?

In that case, no one has been more valuable than Jacques Kallis and bits and pieces players like Daniel Vettori should be rated ahead of true specialists like McGrath.

Good game.

 

[Black_Warrior]

We're all about extremes here on CW. You're either a goat or a spud. Winning big or lollapsing. Loveable or a troll. Far left or far right. With us or against us. No nuance, no complexity, no grey. We're gonna make CW great again, believe me.

***** copying my posts and ideas once again.

 

[vcs]

Pollock was on the decline when Steyn came in but he was still undoubtedly good. Morkel is inconsistent but a good bowler in his own right, Ntini had an excellent run in 06-08, Kallis is a useful 5th bowler, Philanders been awesome, even guys like Nel and co were hardly completely terrible. Steyn has always had good to great support throughout his career.

An argument can be made that Philander's outbowled Steyn since he came into the side. Yes, it's partly due to Steyn's injuries, and he's still bowled a number of standout series-defining spells despite those injuries, but it's close enough.

*keeps banging Philander drum*

 

[Black_Warrior]

Ntini was a very good bowler, I'm not sure why he's getting underrated here so much. Pollock another south african great.

Ntini won a poll on CW recently

Worst bowler to get 300 test wickets

 

[DriveClub]

Ntini won a poll on CW recently

Worst bowler to get 300 test wickets

He's better then lee

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah I was surprised by that poll. Comfortably better than Lee, Zaheer and probably slightly better than Vaas tbh.

 

[andruid]

That opening spell at Lords in the 2005 Ashes

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Yeah I was surprised by that poll. Comfortably better than Lee, Zaheer and probably slightly better than Vaas tbh.

And Vettori

 

[listento_me]

Yeah, I didn't mean to put Moeen down quite so much there - I agree with your assessment of him, it's just that at the point when I had that particular conversation he was going through a phase of not bowling well at all. I'm generally a fan of his.

Yeah, I agree with that. I just wish England would use him correctly for once.

Outside Philander - who do you think he's had in most of his tests?

Aging, weary Pollock, Kallis and Ntini
Inconsistent Morkel.

Steyn's attack hasn't been as bad as the ones Asif had to contend with or Jimmy for quite a while and before the rise of Broad.

 

[Adders]

Steyn's attack hasn't been as bad as the ones Asif had to contend with or Jimmy for quite a while and before the rise of Broad.

Eh?? Jimmy has always had good/very good bowlers around him......Flintoff, Harmisson, Hoggard etc

 

[andruid]

Eh?? Jimmy has always had good/very good bowlers around him......Flintoff, Harmisson, Hoggard etc

I thought that Jimmy.and Stu were pretty much jointly handed the England attack responsibilities by Peter Moores?

 

[honestbharani]

When accessing a strike rate does time, or do balls count? Let's say McGrath bowled through his overs quicker thus taking wickets more frequently than one of those extra quick but extra time taking bowlers, would that matter more? I'm not saying this is the case, and it would be a fun excercise to calculate, if someone had the know-how. I guess the same applies for most spinners compared to fast bowlers with their enhanced strike rates. I'm just curious if balls per wicket are the best measure when time per wicket would be the practical pressure the players would feel?

You are just proving that Ravi Jadeja is the GOAT bowler.

 

[Adders]

I thought that Jimmy.and Stu were pretty much jointly handed the England attack responsibilities by Peter Moores?

That may be right and happened in the NZ tour of 2008? But Jimmy debuted in 2003 and was in and out of the side a bit prior to that.

I just couldn't see where LTM came up with the notion that Jimmy had poor bowlers around him as that's not the case at all.

 

[Furball]

Ntini won a poll on CW recently

Worst bowler to get 300 test wickets

Presumably Harbhajan was omitted from the poll?

 

[Furball]

Anyway, McGrath > all

 

[Blocky]

What no one seems to understand or realise....

If you have limited support around breaking partnerships or taking "set" batsmen out, then obviously your average will be inflated because you'll be spending more time trying to get set batsmen out yourself and less time bowling at new batsmen. During his pomp McGrath could often go away after a spell knowing that a wicket would likely fall to one of many of the bowlers that played with him (MacGill, Warne, Gillespie as the main lights) - that would have lowered his average, it doesn't mean he's not a brilliant/superb bowler, but look at his wickets per test strike rate in comparison to Steyn or Hadlee, who have freakishly similar statistics.

McGrath took 87 tests at a time that Warne took 92 tests to get to 400 wickets. They often bowled in tandem and were great at ripping through sides.

Steyn and Hadlee took 80 tests, Steyn bowled less balls to 400 wickets than any other bowler and did this without ever having a world class spinner in his line up, nor the luxury of a lengthy period with someone like Gillespie - if Rabada had been around five years ago, then maybe you'd have a point in the line that he had good support but no other bowler was taking wickets at a rate of return that Steyn was for South Africa - if they had been, South Africa would have been dominant in almost all conditions considering their god tier batting line up when Graeme Smith, Jacque Kallis, ABDV and Hashim Amla were all together.

McGrath is easily in the top 10 pace bowlers of the modern era, but Steyn is probably #1.