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.
Big difference however:
Warne bowls after the pacers of Australia do their thing - and they usually take wickets. So there is often nothing but 5-6 wickets left, 3 being the lower end of batsmen. Whereas Murali bowls from the first batsman down and still takes almost as many tail-enders as Warne.
All the others being opening pacers, they haven't had the problem of bowling after a spinner like Warne and Murali, so it's not much of a surprise that their order will be tilted also.
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.
Yes, statistically, Warne does better when McGrath isn't there than to how McGrath does when Warne isn't there. However, they are small margins, credit to both Warne and McGrath. IIRC, both have an increase about 2 runs on their average but Warne's SR improves.
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.
If that isn't impressive, neither is Murali's best performance in India against India: 31 at 59.5.
The big difference being that Warne missed the best pitch of the series. As I said, Clarke got 6 for 9 weaving his spin on such a pitch. If Warne had bowled he would have surely improved his figures.
Indian players doing well at home is not the issue here. Because their performances in Australia are hardly backing such a theory.
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?
Apart from Lara, who has been taken abnormally by McGrath, all the other batsmen compare with the number of times they've been taken by both bowlers.
It's really a credit to Warne that he stacks up so well. The fact that he has to face most of these batsmen usually after McGrath has, it impedes him from doing much better. And when he does come in and McGrath hasn't taken them, he is facing settled batsmen which is why they often have clocked up runs and the situations are seemingly more dire than when McGrath blasts them on a duck.
So what? McGrath was hindered in the sub-continent, but performed well there.
It is about the fact that every time they're not on a spin-conducive pitch Warne has to work even harder, which is plenty more times than not.
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.
Great names. Also, Murali also considers Warne as the best
.
Aside from mentioning his contemporaries, you have yet to give one convincing reason Warne is better than McGrath.
If the 2005 Ashes didn't convince you that Warne can handle it without McGrath, nothing will convince you of anything.
You're kidding, right? There was no way anyone had any chance of playing that ball unless they played an absolutely terrible shot.
