Was Glenn Mcgrath ALWAYS a medium pacer, or did he bowl quick sometimes?

[Briony]

The fact that McGrath bowled at modest pace also helped his longevity.

When KP got hit in the ribs he'd charged him and was at shaking hands distance which didn't help him.

 

[Burgey]

The fact that McGrath bowled at modest pace also helped his longevity.

When KP got hit in the ribs he'd charged him and was at shaking hands distance which didn't help him.

So he was like Shaun Pollock, only taller and a fair bit better?

 

[kiwiviktor81]

Glenn McGrath was a poor man's Gavin Larsen

 

[Son Of Coco]

The fact that McGrath bowled at modest pace also helped his longevity.

When KP got hit in the ribs he'd charged him and was at shaking hands distance which didn't help him.

What didn't help him was McGrath saw him coming and dug it in.

 

[thierry henry]

In my recollection over the last 3-4 years of his career McGrath bowled some spells entirely in the 120s but sometimes bowled spells in the mid-high 130s as well- I believe it was simply a matter of him choosing what he felt was more effective. I definitely remember when he came to New Zealand in 04/05 he bowled quite sharply at times, and fair enough too because NZ batsman are not known for liking it fast and bouncy. I also recall spells in Australia (possibly when he took a bunch against Pakistan that same summer?) where he bowled full, swung it, and appeared to be operating in slow motion but was still super effective.

With his run-up, action and general level of athleticism he was never going to be express though.

 

[TT Boy]

Saw some footage of 1996 World Cup. Mcgrath had some BITE in his bowling, good pace and nippy. Post 2000, his bowling has been very accurate but BORING.

Secondly, how fast was Mcgrath in early to mid 1990's?

You for real?

 

[Pup Clarke]

TBH there's nothing really wrong with having the opinion that McGrath was "boring". Because alot of the time he chose to be that type of bowler. And I'm a big cricket fan as well and can see why some do find his style "boring".

 

[uvelocity]

I miss his pre series predictions and calling out batsmen who he would go on and dominate

 

[Son Of Coco]

TBH there's nothing really wrong with having the opinion that McGrath was "boring". Because alot of the time he chose to be that type of bowler. And I'm a big cricket fan as well and can see why some do find his style "boring".

He was boring if you consider a bowler getting people out a lot boring. He chose to be the type of bowler who was very, very effective. It's not his fault there are a number of people out there who don't have the ability to identify that and give it the recognition it deserves.

If you find watching a bloke who consistently pitches it in the right areas and nips it around (meaning there's nearly always a chance of something happening) boring then there's probably not much hope for you.

 

[marc71178]

Who was it who proclaimed him to be nothing but a lucky bowler?

 

[Top_Cat]

Take a wild guess. But it was only between the years of 1999 to 2005, where the techniques of apparently every batsman in world cricket went to pot and they were incapable of stopping nicks to the cordon.

 

[Black_Warrior]

It was interesting and I think he was one of the bowlers who always looked faster than he was because he was so accurate and gave you so little to work with. When speed guns came out, I remember batsmen commentating that they were surprised that his speed wasn't as high as some of the other bowlers.

If every delivery you get is very hard to negotiate, and you get it at an awkward line/length, sometimes it can 'appear' as more or less fast because you're simply having trouble with it. By the same token, the ball that broke 100mph (Akhtar) was a pretty ordinary delivery and I bet the batsman on strike woudn't have pinpointed it as the fastest delivery he has ever faced.

Plus, if you get hit at the right spot..you'll break ribs and heads whether the delivery is at 130kph or 150kph....

I wonder if you'd be able to differentiate if you got hit at 130kph vs 150kph (of course you'd have less time to react at 150kph but I mean in terms of pain).


Anyway to answer your question, my guess is he might have been averaging near 140kph at one point but I really doubt he averaged too far above that at any point (obviously a couple deliveries here and there could be faster).

I am not going to say that pace is not important though. You can still bowl well at 130 and 125 if you have other abilities like control, movement, variety etc. However the extra yard of pace is always a threat. The 100 mph Akhtar bowled might not be the greatest delivery. Fair enough but if you look back at some of the wickets Akhtar picked up, most of them were because he surprised the batsman or got the batsman to play a false shot because of extra pace.

Now there are of course the likes of Sami and Tait who bowl rubbish and go for runs..But if you bowl rubbish, you will get smashed regardless of whether you bowl at 150 or 120.

But pace is often important for penetration. I remember Shaun Pollock hardly troubling the top order batsmen in the last few years of his career. It was not that he was bowling tripe, its just that the pace at which he was bowling was just not troubling the batsmen.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Who was it who proclaimed him to be nothing but a lucky bowler?

Lol. Had a quiet "them were the days" chuckle there.

McGrath was no Craig White, that's for sure. Lacked the plucky Anglo-Victorian's ability to bowl wicket-taking deliveries. Or so I read once.

 

[Migara]

He bowled at the pace quick enough for the batsmen. Actually bowled slower at some batsmen. His amazing longevity may be attributed for being reserved at speeds he bowl. If bowled as a tear away, would have been a 90mph Tremlett esque bowler with bit more fitness.

 

[Black_Warrior]

A medium pacer can be an all time great bowler if you can bowl like McGrath so not sure what all the fuss is about