Who was the biggest match-winner in the great Australian side?

[Top_Cat]

Yeah and to add to that, McG is on record as saying Ponting's quick 1st day tons setting the scene for subsequent 400+ totals at 4+/over provided the platform for him to attack early. In the current side, McG would have to bowl very differently.

 

[Red]

I always loved Langer. Loved watching him transform from a dour middle order/#3 into an aggressive opener.

Loved watching him punch a cover drive off the first or second ball for 4. And he had that bat **** crazy element too. Awesome cricketer!

 

[Hooksey]

I always loved Langer. Loved watching him transform from a dour middle order/#3 into an aggressive opener.

Loved watching him punch a cover drive off the first or second ball for 4. And he had that bat **** crazy element too. Awesome cricketer!

We should remain ever thankful to Michael Slater for self destructing whilst on tour leaving Langer the only option to take his opening position. Without that rather unique opportunity presenting itself Langer probably would have fallen by the wayside.

 

[Ikki]

For me the question isn't about consistency, otherwise I would pick McGrath. It is about: who was the most likely to alter the match significantly in our favour and that was Warne. Many players made many significant contributions in that side; and they were all to one extent or another consistent; but when we needed a wicket or something huge to happen Warne was central to that time and time again. He'd do it across both formats as well. He's one of the most "clutch" sports persons I've ever seen - along with the guy in my avatar.

 

[harsh.ag]

For me the question isn't about consistency, otherwise I would pick McGrath. It is about: who was the most likely to alter the match significantly in our favour and that was Warne. Many players made many significant contributions in that side; and they were all to one extent or another consistent; but when we needed a wicket or something huge to happen Warne was central to that time and time again. He'd do it across both formats as well. He's one of the most "clutch" sports persons I've ever seen - along with the guy in my avatar.

Could you elaborate how he was better at that than McG. From my vantage point, it was Pigeon who did that. So I am intrigued.

Yeah and to add to that, McG is on record as saying Ponting's quick 1st day tons setting the scene for subsequent 400+ totals at 4+/over provided the platform for him to attack early. In the current side, McG would have to bowl very differently.

I agree with this, and that's why Ponting and McG are neck and neck for me.

Don't knock fish with icecream until you've actually tried it.

Fish and custard for mine. Mindblowing.

 

[Top_Cat]

For me the question isn't about consistency, otherwise I would pick McGrath. It is about: who was the most likely to alter the match significantly in our favour and that was Warne. Many players made many significant contributions in that side; and they were all to one extent or another consistent; but when we needed a wicket or something huge to happen Warne was central to that time and time again. He'd do it across both formats as well. He's one of the most "clutch" sports persons I've ever seen - along with the guy in my avatar.

Bill Clinton was average in The Balkans, tbh.

 

[Ikki]

Could you elaborate how he was better at that than McG. From my vantage point, it was Pigeon who did that. So I am intrigued.

IMO the term "match-winner" makes sense when you're referring to periods in the match that are more significant in getting to the result, because technically they're all match-winners or none of them are match-winners, as they only win off the efforts of each other.

For me, it was Warne, more than McGrath, that was getting out the important batsmen when they were making those runs. McGrath may get Lara out cheaply, for instance, but in that match it is Chanderpaul giving Australia trouble and scoring. It would then be Warne who'd come out and snuff that danger out, being the "match-winner" in that sense. The figures at the end might show McGrath a bit cheaper and faster in getting his wickets, but for me Warne more regularly made those match turning moments. If the batsmen tended to stay in after McGrath opened and weren't phased by his bowling on that day, it almost seemed like McGrath wasn't going to get them out that match - no matter how tidy he would remain for the rest of it, since he was so hard to score off of - but when Warne came on to face those settled batsmen he'd have the freakish ability to uproot them through sheer will.

In the end, whether those runs come a bit more expensive or not...you have to get those wickets to win those matches. If McGrath wasn't on form as an Australian I'd still be betting on Warne to make the difference. For me it was when Warne had no answer that got me the most disheartened, and that for me defines him as an incredible match-winner.

Bill Clinton was average in The Balkans, tbh.

Don't disrespect Larry Legend ****.

 

[uvelocity]

all went downhill since symonds went

 

[Flem274*]

depends on whether you favour height or weight when it comes to what you call big. warne or haydos probably the best compromises.

 

[smash84]

Has to be McGrath. Warne didn't step up when playing India. McG had no such hiccups

 

[Paul S]

Have to give it to McGrath. Not only did he perform consistently against most countries home and away, he also had top batsmen like Lara and Tendulkar under control. His absence clearly had a negative impact in major Test matches/series Australia lost.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

John Buchanan

 

[Geoffboycott]

Why is Stephen Waugh not an option? In the 90s he was Australia's and the world best player and was a big match winner. In the 00s I'd say McGrath or Warne.

 

[harsh.ag]

Why is Stephen Waugh not an option? In the 90s he was Australia's and the world best player and was a big match winner. In the 00s I'd say McGrath or Warne.

Others is an option and I considered putting him up there, but decided against it at the last moment.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

My heart tells me Warne; my head (and the 05 Ashes) tell me McGrath.

 

[Ikki]

The 05 Ashes tell you McGrath?

 

[Adders]

The 05 Ashes tell you McGrath?

What??, you don't think the 2005 Ashes is a good example to highlight why McGrath was the ultimate match winner??

 

[Ikki]

What??, you don't think the 2005 Ashes is a good example to highlight why McGrath was the ultimate match winner??

Not if you consider there was another guy on his team who took 40 wickets and had one of the greatest bowling performances of all-time.

 

[marc71178]

Yet you lost the series and the only games you lost were when McGrath wasn't there so the 40 wickets thing is irrelevant.

 

[Adders]

Not if you consider there was another guy on his team who took 40 wickets and had one of the greatest bowling performances of all-time.

Pretty much what Mark said.

Look at the title of the thread, I agree Warnes performance was one of the greatest ever............didn't win you anything though. If McGrath hadn't have missed 2 tests there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the Aussies would not have lost that series. I think the performances and the results clearly indicate who was the more valuable (for that series at least)