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

[smash84]

Yeah, I know, I just couldn't be arsed writing avg. and sr. all the time.

I agree with you in general though. I was just pointing it out because I remember I started a Donald thread, asking why he was so underrated, and people routinely said someone like McGrath just had a more complete record when you see that they're basically similar. Everyone bar Marshall, as far as I know, has a crap record here or there.

Even Marshall averages 30+ in NZ IIRC. If you dissect a record so much, you are bound to come up with something

 

[Migara]

Look at his record in Australia vs the various countries. Against S.Africa and NZ in Australia his record isn't good: 31 @ 80 and 33 @ 73 respectively. Very consistent, but as I've brought up in other threads it's about as consistent as many of the greats (i.e. Donald) were.

Warne at home, 63 vs IND, 32 vs SL if nit picking is the name of the game.

 

[Ikki]

Even Marshall averages 30+ in NZ IIRC. If you dissect a record so much, you are bound to come up with something

True, but I'd still probably regard his record as the most complete if you're simply looking at home and away with good averages and strike rates. Imran is close too.

Anyway, whether a player's record is perfectly complete doesn't discount him from being a big match-winner IMO. I was simply showing that McGrath is not perfect himself.

 

[Red]

It's funny when we talk about averaging 30 as a bowler as a negative. It's about neutral imo

 

[Ikki]

It's not that he only averaged 30+ but that he struck very poorly (70s and 80s IIRC).

 

[kyear2]

Yeah, I know, I just couldn't be arsed writing avg. and sr. all the time.

I agree with you in general though. I was just pointing it out because I remember I started a Donald thread, asking why he was so underrated, and people routinely said someone like McGrath just had a more complete record when you see that they're basically similar. Everyone bar Marshall, as far as I know, has a crap record here or there.

Very true, nice to know you are coming around slightly, though I know it wouldn't elevate him in your overall ratings.

Even Marshall averages 30+ in NZ IIRC. If you dissect a record so much, you are bound to come up with something

3 matches.


Back on topic, McGrath definately for me with Ponting right behind, after that Warne and Gilchrist in no particular order. Your key players are generally your opening bowler and you dominant batsman (normally #3, sometimes #4) and McGrath generally took on and out the top guns/order from the opposition and generally set up Warne to finish off proceedings. Ponting on the other hand was often sheltered by Hayden and Langer above and buffered below by Gilchrist ect below. That tips it for McGrath for me over Ponting.

 

[L Trumper]

Can't believe I am the only one who picked Gilly. His contributions in almost all of Australia's great victories during 1999-2004 is never been seen before or since for a WK. It is no coincidence that Australia's true dominance all over the world started with his entrance to the team. Obviously his batting tailed off after 2005 though.

 

[watson]

It's funny when we talk about averaging 30 as a bowler as a negative. It's about neutral imo

I agree. Any bowler with an Average of <30, and a Strike Rate <65 (<75 for a spinner) has had a good series. If it's his career stat's then he is a very good bowler indeed.

Sometimes I think that we set the bar too high because we spend too much time ogling at Marshall, Imran, and Hadlee.

 

[Riggins]

Can't believe I am the only one who picked Gilly.

I can't believe Marto wasn't an option. Did none of you watch cricket before Dave Warner came along?

 

[harsh.ag]

I can't believe Marto wasn't an option. Did none of you watch cricket before Dave Warner came along?

Again, for ones who would like to vote for Marto or Waugh or Haydos are welcome to go for 'Other' and state their preference, at the same time cursing me for not including their names as full time candidates

But how do you justify Marto being a bigger match-winner than Punter and Gilly? Quite curious.

As an aside, I was going to point out that Australia had no discernible problems while Warne was banned for 1 year from Feb 03 to Feb 04, but then I saw that they only played Zim, Bang and SL in that period - <Potential for great cricket experiment down the drain>.
They won the WC easily enough, though of course that shouldn't be given much of a weight.

 

[Top_Cat]

Reckon the guys who participated might hold a different view.

 

[Riggins]

But how do you justify Marto being a bigger match-winner than Punter and Gilly? Quite curious.

Given the fair, consistent and unbiased used of statistics in here I'd probably go for an argument based on the only important series' for that team being away in India and Sri Lanka. Man of the Series in both therefore most valuable. Also if he didn't get sawn off every second day in 2005 we probably win the series.

And I agree with TC, the WC should have some bearing and Marto's 88* with a shattered finger was maybe the greatest ODI knock of all time.

 

[Ikki]

Very true, nice to know you are coming around slightly, though I know it wouldn't elevate him in your overall ratings.

Have I ever said otherwise?

Being in my top 3 fast bowlers of all-time is a high place to be and the reason he isn't outright 1st is something I've discussed before.

 

[Tangles]

Marto? Riggins obviously trollin

 

[benchmark00]

Hayden went through a period where he was the best player in the world. During that time he bullied opposition into submission, and by the time he was out their backs were broken and the rest of the batting order were left to pick at the carcus.

Bloke is a grade A ****, but he was phenomenal when on. Reckon he played his part in winning Australia plenty of matches.

 

[subshakerz]

This is the kind of reply I was waiting to get, but thought I'd wait for someone to make it before I spend any time with a response to flatten that notion. The above is just an interesting aside but lacks any context for discussing the actual tests involved. Only someone who didn't watch the series or is just interested in a snide response would even bring it up.

No one who watched that series came out with the notion of "whew, nevermind Warne who just had one of the greatest series of all time and almost carried the team to a win; McGrath just proved how much of a match-winner he is!"

McGrath played 3 tests, 1 win, 2 draws. But let's look closely.

1st Test:

1st innings: England skittle Australia out for 190. McGrath has an imperious opening, decimating the first 5 wickets for 21 runs. Lee and Warne get the rest - of particular importance Warne getting Pietersen who had started to get on top as England were getting close to our total. Australia limit England to 155 and go in 35 runs ahead.

2nd innings: Australia bat very well for the 3rd innings, adding 384 to the lead to give England 420 to chase with about 2 and a half days remaining. McGrath takes 4 in the second, but none in the top or middle order (GJ @ 7). Instead, as England build an 80 run opening partnership without a loss, Warne and Lee come in to take care of any glimmer of hope England were looking to have.

This is a Test where I'd agree that McGrath showed his match-winning capability with his 1st inning blitz, although, it's probably overstated as people tend to point to this innings and ignore much of the rest of the series.

3rd Test:

1st innings: England build a big 1st innings total of 444. McGrath goes 0/88, Warne and Lee 4 each. Australian batsmen, however, only manage a disappointing 302. That too in large part because Warne top-scored for the Australians with 90 runs.

2nd innings: England go in to bat already 142 runs ahead and looking to add quick runs to get Australia in with a decent enough total and enough time to win the match. McGrath takes 5/115, however going for over 5 runs an over. Warne goes wicketless as England declare with 4 wickets in hand and another 280 runs added to the total.

Australia have to go bat the last innings chasing 423. This inning was notable for Ponting's incredble 156, almost batting out the day to save the match. Warne again helps with the bat with an important 34. Ultimately, England run out of time needing only 1 wicket to win.

McGrath was not close to Warne in terms of importance in this game. McGrath took 5/201, Warne 4/173, yet Warne was also the 2nd highest run scorer for Australia with 124 runs with the bat (Ponting 163 runs). Without Warne and Ponting Australia had no chance to draw.

5th Test:

1st innings: England open the batting, putting up 373. McGrath takes 2/72; Warne takes 6/122. That doesn't show that of the top and middle order batsmen, McGrath only took Flintoff. English batsmen 1-5 were taken by Warne as McGrath struggled to break through. Australia put on 367 and aim to bowl England out cheaply for any hope to win the Test and retain the Ashes.

2nd innings: No mystery here, we didn't manage to win and hence lost the ashes. This innings though, McGrath helps out, and both he and Warne take out the top 7; and for a moment it look like we might be able to pull it off. McGrath finishes for 3/85 for the inning and Warne again takes 6 wickets for 120 odd.

Again, how could you even possibly argue that McGrath shared near the importance Warne did in such a match? The rain effectively guaranteed a draw but if not for that we may have even had a chance to win it because of Warne.

Now, these were just the matches that McGrath played. There were two other matches where without him Australia almost won, because of Warne. In the 2nd Test Warne took 10 wickets. Possibly just as important, he scored 50 runs; 42 of them in the 2nd innings stand with Lee and Clarke. We fall just 2 runs short of winning the game when Harmison takes Kasperwicz as Australia looked to win, without McGrath.

In the other Test McGrath didn't play (the 4th Test); Warne takes 8/133. England ended up winning by 3 wickets, even though they only needed to chase 129 runs. Warne and Lee were working miracles in that last inning and if the Aussie batsmen weren't so pathetic and had given England more than 129 to chase, we may have done it as the English top 7 were gone; only GJ and the tailenders remained.

Watching this series was amazing. It was incredible drama in almost every session. And the one guy that kept popping up and giving us a shot and performing miracles was Warne. To even suggest that McGrath came out that series on even equal footing - even considering the matches he played - with Warne is ridiculous. If Lee had the same series in terms of injury and correspondence with the results (let's say McGrath and Warne were fit instead) and in the Tests he played we didn't lose...anyone suggesting Lee was a bigger match-winner because we didn't lose in those Tests would be laughed out the room.

Sorry, I'm not buying this. McGrath was clearly recovering from injury for the 3rd and 5th test.

Warne was in the best form of his life, yet without a fit McGrath, yet England were still able to score 400+ on the first day for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th tests, giving them the momentum to win the series. That would have been inconceivable if McGrath were fit and available, especially after he wrecked England in the first test.

 

[uvelocity]

Hayden went through a period where he was the best player in the world. During that time he bullied opposition into submission, and by the time he was out their backs were broken and the rest of the batting order were left to pick at the carcus.

Bloke is a grade A ****, but he was phenomenal when on. Reckon he played his part in winning Australia plenty of matches.

cooks a mean stew itbt

 

[Riggins]

Yeah I think that was a typo, benchy meant a grade A cook.

 

[uvelocity]

believe haydos was the creator of the zinger pie itbt

 

[Riggins]

A fat snack bully