And how does he? 2/3rds of his wickets are upper-middle order which suggests Warne got batsmen out that McGrath couldn't and were hence settled.
Obivously the majority of your wicket are going to be upper-middle, given that there are more such batting positions in a team. But his percentage of lower order wickets (37%) is higher than all of the other great bowlers listed, even the spinner Murali.
Really, so much rubbish here that I insult myself by arguing. There are many tests that Warne did better than McGrath and he 'stemmed the tide' and it would be equally as stupid to say that without Warne, the main man, McGrath wouldn't do as well - which can actually be statistically verified..
Really? I struggle to think of an occasion when Warne was absent and McGrath was present and the attack struggled. In fact, McGrath's average is tests played without Warne remains pretty much the same.
His tests come either when he was green, in which he has ridiculously bad figures and in that period.
And he does have good figures against them. Last series he took at avg. of 30 and SR of 60 in India. And he missed the best pitch to bowl against India, a pitch where Clarke took 6 for 9.
Give me a break, an average of 30 and a strike rate of 60 are supposed to be impressive? His best was 6/125, hardly a great effort. What you fail to mention is that his opposite spinners Kumble and Harbajan completely outbowled Warne in the series. Face it, even at his best, he couldnt run through an Indian side on spinning wickets.
That's rubbish. Which noticeable edge? They scored runs off him as well as anyone. Just because he took Lara's wicket often doesn't mean Lara didn't score mountains of runs against him and Australia.
I think McGrath dealt with many a batsman well and often the best batsmen in the opposition. However, it is not always the best batsman of the opposition that is performing the best in a certain match or in a certain instance and they are more dangerous than their better partners. It is just as important to get these fellows out, which Warne has done more than anyone. This is something stats won't tell you, how often, when needed, Warne changed the game around.
But taking Lara's and Tendulkar's wicket more than anyone does say that McGrath
overall was succesful in combatting them and he generally got the better of their exchanges. Cant say the same for Warne, who usually ended on the receiving end. And other good players of spin have dominated Warne as well, including Salim Malik, Sidhu, and Kevin Peitersen. How many players have completely dominated McGrath?
To me it doesn't. Their aren't as many pitches conducive to spin as they are to pace, and especially in Australia, so I think Warne is greatly hindered on that aspect.
So what? McGrath was hindered in the sub-continent, but performed well there.
For me, neither Marshall nor McGrath trump Lillee as the greatest fast bowler of all time. And he, like Warne, has an 'imperfect' record. Warne's contemporaries and Lillee's both rank them the greatest in their respective disciplines if not of all-time. So not only do I have a loose definition of the 'greatest bowler ever' but so do most cricket pundits and a lot of those guys actually have claim for the title itself.
Not all of his comtemporaries rank him the best bowler ever, and most good players of spin such as Mark Waugh, Salim Malik, Kevin Peitersen and Sidhu rated Murali higher.
Aside from mentioning his contemporaries, you have yet to give one convincing reason Warne is better than McGrath.
