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

[Ikki]

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.

LOL, do you actually think McGrath has never conceded 400+ on the first day? It happened in the very next series against WI and again against England in the next Ashes in Australia.

It wasn't Warne that didn't restrict them, it was everybody else. Apart from Warne and McGrath all the other bowlers averaged 40+ for that series. So without McGrath, he is bowling with a Bangladesh level support and still almost winning those Tests. Warne took 40 wickets in a 5 Test series at a ridiculous average and SR...McGrath hasn't ever had a series like that. If Warne was bowling consecutively at both ends you'd have a point.

And if McGrath being injured is now a reason for why he didn't bowl well...then why would you use Ashes 05 as an example of his match-winning? You can't say that in the matches he played we didn't lose to point out how important he was then claim that you can't use his bad form against him because he wasn't fit in those very matches. Make up your minds.

 

[Coronis]

Darren Lehmann. Australia won over 80% of the tests he played in.

 

[subshakerz]

LOL, do you actually think McGrath has never conceded 400+ on the first day? It happened in the very next series against WI and again against England in the next Ashes in Australia.

It wasn't Warne that didn't restrict them, it was everybody else. Apart from Warne and McGrath all the other bowlers averaged 40+ for that series. So without McGrath, he is bowling with a Bangladesh level support and still almost winning those Tests. Warne took 40 wickets in a 5 Test series at a ridiculous average and SR...McGrath hasn't ever had a series like that. If Warne was bowling consecutively at both ends you'd have a point.

No way England would have been able to run away with 400+ on first day for 3 consecutive tests if McGrath was fit and available, especially after the way McGrath schooled them in the first test. The fact that they managed to do so despite Warne bowling so well simply shows how important McGrath was in setting the tone, leading the attack and keeping the pressure. His performance affected the entire attack, you miss this point.

And if McGrath being injured is now a reason for why he didn't bowl well...then why would you use Ashes 05 as an example of his match-winning? You can't say that in the matches he played we didn't lose to point out how important he was then claim that you can't use his bad form against him because he wasn't fit in those very matches. Make up your minds.

No need to confuse the issue. The point is simply to show that when either McGrath is out of the attack (2nd and 4th tests) or isnt match fit (3rd test), basically when a fit McGrath is unavailable, Australia's attack took a big hit and England were able to dictate terms rather easily on the opening mornings.

We use the Ashes 2005 as a great example because the contrast between the quality of Australia's attack in the 1st test with a fit McGrath and the rest of the series was so stark.

 

[subshakerz]

In reply, McGrath simply was the most important player in ensuring Australia stayed at the top. It is no coincidence that Australia became no.1 by beating West Indies in 1995, the same series McGrath came of age as a world class bowler. Since then, McGrath took the new ball and Australia dominated. It should be noted that Warne was bowling very well since 1993 but Australia only became no.1 when McGrath truly emerged.

McGrath's importance is beyond mere statistics. He was the leader of the attack. By virtue of being opening bowler, he set the pressure from the beginning regardless of whether he took early wickets or not. The very sight of McGrath with the new ball demoralized opponents, as they knew they were in for a struggle and runs would be hard to come by. He gave the space for the rest of the bowling lineup, like to Lee and Gillespie, to breath and attack.

McGrath was a machine. Unlike Warne, he was equally dangerous on the first day or last day, relied less on pitch conditions and was more consistent. He targetted the big fish, like Tendulkar and Lara, both of whom had the advantage over Warne. What an asset for a captain to have a opening bowler who can produce quality day in, day out on any type of surface.

 

[kyear2]

In reply, McGrath simply was the most important player in ensuring Australia stayed at the top. It is no coincidence that Australia became no.1 by beating West Indies in 1995, the same series McGrath came of age as a world class bowler. Since then, McGrath took the new ball and Australia dominated. It should be noted that Warne was bowling very well since 1993 but Australia only became no.1 when McGrath truly emerged.

McGrath's importance is beyond mere statistics. He was the leader of the attack. By virtue of being opening bowler, he set the pressure from the beginning regardless of whether he took early wickets or not. The very sight of McGrath with the new ball demoralized opponents, as they knew they were in for a struggle and runs would be hard to come by. He gave the space for the rest of the bowling lineup, like to Lee and Gillespie, to breath and attack.

McGrath was a machine. Unlike Warne, he was equally dangerous on the first day or last day, relied less on pitch conditions and was more consistent. He targetted the big fish, like Tendulkar and Lara, both of whom had the advantage over Warne. What an asset for a captain to have a opening bowler who can produce quality day in, day out on any type of surface.

Lots of excellent points there.

 

[Slifer]

In reply, McGrath simply was the most important player in ensuring Australia stayed at the top. It is no coincidence that Australia became no.1 by beating West Indies in 1995, the same series McGrath came of age as a world class bowler. Since then, McGrath took the new ball and Australia dominated. It should be noted that Warne was bowling very well since 1993 but Australia only became no.1 when McGrath truly emerged.

McGrath's importance is beyond mere statistics. He was the leader of the attack. By virtue of being opening bowler, he set the pressure from the beginning regardless of whether he took early wickets or not. The very sight of McGrath with the new ball demoralized opponents, as they knew they were in for a struggle and runs would be hard to come by. He gave the space for the rest of the bowling lineup, like to Lee and Gillespie, to breath and attack.

McGrath was a machine. Unlike Warne, he was equally dangerous on the first day or last day, relied less on pitch conditions and was more consistent. He targetted the big fish, like Tendulkar and Lara, both of whom had the advantage over Warne. What an asset for a captain to have a opening bowler who can produce quality day in, day out on any type of surface.

AWTA completely and i mentioned as much in my opening post. I said it b4 and I'll say it again, without Mcgrath I doubt Oz would have had the upper hand vs the WI in the 90s.

 

[Slifer]

In reply, McGrath simply was the most important player in ensuring Australia stayed at the top. It is no coincidence that Australia became no.1 by beating West Indies in 1995, the same series McGrath came of age as a world class bowler. Since then, McGrath took the new ball and Australia dominated. It should be noted that Warne was bowling very well since 1993 but Australia only became no.1 when McGrath truly emerged.

McGrath's importance is beyond mere statistics. He was the leader of the attack. By virtue of being opening bowler, he set the pressure from the beginning regardless of whether he took early wickets or not. The very sight of McGrath with the new ball demoralized opponents, as they knew they were in for a struggle and runs would be hard to come by. He gave the space for the rest of the bowling lineup, like to Lee and Gillespie, to breath and attack.

McGrath was a machine. Unlike Warne, he was equally dangerous on the first day or last day, relied less on pitch conditions and was more consistent. He targetted the big fish, like Tendulkar and Lara, both of whom had the advantage over Warne. What an asset for a captain to have a opening bowler who can produce quality day in, day out on any type of surface.

AWTA completely and i mentioned as much in my opening post. I said it b4 and I'll say it again, without Mcgrath I doubt Oz would have had the upper hand vs the WI in the 90s.

 

[smash84]

you dont get them too much better than Glenn ****ing McGrath