Who is The Greatest Australian Bowler?

[Richard]

World all time XI aswell.

Nah, World XIs without both could very easily be made. Unlike, for example, Garfield Sobers and Don Bradman.

 

[archie mac]

On uncovered pitches, they started to cover them in Aust in the 50s but England held out until the late 60s early 70s

It should be mentioned that fast bowlers were never the best on sticky wickets. In the early days before the 20s it was because they did not cover the bowlers run ups.

But even later it was the spinners and medium pacers that bowled best on the uncovered wickets. I can remember (reading) about 'Deadly' destroying Aust on a wet wicket circa 1968. I imagine fast bowlers were not that effective because the ball would stick into the pitch if bowled too quick

Also in England sticky wickets were never as bad as Australia, the MCG being the worst in the World, with only Hobbs and Sutcliffe mastering the 'G' when it was a true sticky. The reason the 'G' was so bad? The soil + the hot sun

 

[Lillian Thomson]

On uncovered pitches, they started to cover them in Aust in the 50s but England held out until the late 60s early 70s

It should be mentioned that fast bowlers were never the best on sticky wickets. In the early days before the 20s it was because they did not cover the bowlers run ups.

But even later it was the spinners and medium pacers that bowled best on the uncovered wickets. I can remember (reading) about 'Deadly' destroying Aust on a wet wicket circa 1968. I imagine fast bowlers were not that effective because the ball would stick into the pitch if bowled too quick

Also in England sticky wickets were never as bad as Australia, the MCG being the worst in the World, with only Hobbs and Sutcliffe mastering the 'G' when it was a true sticky. The reason the 'G' was so bad? The soil + the hot sun

It wasn't really a wet wicket that suited Underwood, it was when it started to dry out he was at his most "Deadly". Seamers benefited from wet wickets in England, the best example being the Edgbaston Test of 1975 when Denness put Australia in and then it rained and England were caught on it twice. You've never seen a bowlers eyes light up the way Max Walkers did when he saw those conditions.

 

[archie mac]

It wasn't really a wet wicket that suited Underwood, it was when it started to dry out he was at his most "Deadly". Seamers benefited from wet wickets in England, the best example being the Edgbaston Test of 1975 when Denness put Australia in and then it rained and England were caught on it twice. You've never seen a bowlers eyes light up the way Max Walkers did when he saw those conditions.

Yes, but as I understand it wet pitches only became stickies once the sun started to dry them out. I think the 1882 match saw Massie take the long handle before the sun started to dry out the wicket and make it sticky

And for those who don't know Max Walker was not a fast bowler as such, not sure if he would have been as fast as McGrath?

I think McGrath would have bowled well on a sticky

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes, but as I understand it wet pitches only became stickies once the sun started to dry them out. I think the 1882 match saw Massie take the long handle before the sun started to dry out the wicket and make it sticky

And for those who don't know Max Walker was not a fast bowler as such, not sure if he would have been as fast as McGrath?

I think McGrath would have bowled well on a sticky

That's correct and it was the "sticky" that Underwood was lethal on (not to mention those that were mysteriously infected with fungas). Max Walker wasn't an express fast bowler, that's why I described him as a "seamer". On a wicket turned green by rain he was far more difficult to cope with than the greater pace of Lillee and Thomson.

 

[archie mac]

That's correct and it was the "sticky" that Underwood was lethal on (not to mention those that were mysteriously infected with fungas). Max Walker wasn't an express fast bowler, that's why I described him as a "seamer". On a wicket turned green by rain he was far more difficult to cope with than the greater pace of Lillee and Thomson.

What was the name of that fungas? Furrisim?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What was the name of that fungas? Furrisim?

I couldn't remember how to spell it either, that's why I put fungas.

 

[archie mac]

I couldn't remember how to spell it either, that's why I put fungas.

Fair enough

 

[subshakerz]

LOL @ every criteria.

Could be the fact that Warne does great regardless whether McGrath is there whilst McGrath becomes just good without Warne?

Also, I'll just go with McGrath's own opinion on this one .

Ahem, how come Warne's record is great while McGrath's record is just good if McGrath still has a better average and economy rate? Does that make sense?

No one is going to argue Warne was a better sight to watch. But in terms of consistency, penetration, economy, record against all opposition, record in different playing conditions and record against the best batsmen of the era (Lara and Tendulkar), McGrath is his superior hands down. And the fact that Warne never even came close to ever running through the best batting lineup and best players of spin in his time, the Indians, is a big divider between the two bowlers. One can hem and haw about how he might have been injured for a series, but that still leaves him with a glaring hole in his resume.

Let's face facts, if Tendulkar averaged 20 or so against Australia, we wouldn't even consider comparing him with Lara. We shouldn't have any different standards for Warne. You judge the best by how they play against the best.

 

[Laurrz]

Ahem, how come Warne's record is great while McGrath's record is just good if McGrath still has a better average and economy rate? Does that make sense?
.

was thinking the same thing...
I think they both equally fed off pressure together.. if anything McGrath arguably helped Warne more as he took care of the top order so many times

i tend to agree, McGrath against Lara/Tendulkar > Warne against Lara/Tendulkar... and McGrath in India and against India > Warne in India and against India... thats where McGrath is ahead of the great man
(mind you i still voted Warne)

 

[JBMAC]

Having serious thoughts about the Original List and be blowed if I can come up with any good reason as to why Gillespie is even mentioned in such company.

 

[honestbharani]

McGrath, ftw.


Easily the best Aussie bowler I have seen.

 

[The Masterplan]

Warne...

 

[Ikki]

Ahem, how come Warne's record is great while McGrath's record is just good if McGrath still has a better average and economy rate? Does that make sense?

Maybe because he has a piss-poor SR for an all-timer, for this era?

Warne: AVG: 26.15 ;SR: 55.2
McGrath: AVG: 23.34 ;SR: 61.5

Whilst Warne's record is even better than his original IMO, just a raise of 0.6 runs but 2 balls SR better; McGrath adds 2 runs onto his average and 11 SR. Not even close.

No one is going to argue Warne was a better sight to watch. But in terms of consistency, penetration, economy, record against all opposition, record in different playing conditions and record against the best batsmen of the era (Lara and Tendulkar), McGrath is his superior hands down. And the fact that Warne never even came close to ever running through the best batting lineup and best players of spin in his time, the Indians, is a big divider between the two bowlers. One can hem and haw about how he might have been injured for a series, but that still leaves him with a glaring hole in his resume.

Because on the same hand, McGrath was rarely an extraordinary cricketer. He was just, what you said, consistent. Warne was a fighter and made the impossible happen - and was also consistent. Look at Warne's 4fers/5fers/10fers then look at McGrath. It gives a big insight into the high proportion of innings where Warne cleaned up a group of batsman - batsmen McGrath couldn't get first, seeing as he bowls first - and changed the game.

McGrath, although probably the most consistent bowler of all-time, actually has a glaring deficiency in taking 4-5 bowlers on the run, whereas Warne actually does not. Best batsmen and players of spin on the run? Did you miss the Test vs the World XI? That had the best players of spin and best batsman in the same team. Suffice to say, Warne owned them.

Here's a table to give an insight:

Let's face facts, if Tendulkar averaged 20 or so against Australia, we wouldn't even consider comparing him with Lara. We shouldn't have any different standards for Warne. You judge the best by how they play against the best.

Here are some facts we should face:

As you can see, against top batsmen (including Tendulkar) it is very much evenly spread. Apart from the freakish nature that Lara keeps getting trapped to McGrath, it's notably matched. And this, from a spinner who faces these guys after McGrath does. So judging the best V the best, I know who I am picking - and even if I wanted to pick Glenn, he wouldn't let me .

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe because he has a piss-poor SR for an all-timer, for this era?

Warne: AVG: 26.15 ;SR: 55.2
McGrath: AVG: 23.34 ;SR: 61.5

Whilst Warne's record is even better than his original IMO, just a raise of 0.6 runs but 2 balls SR better; McGrath adds 2 runs onto his average and 11 SR. Not even close.



Because on the same hand, McGrath was rarely an extraordinary cricketer. He was just, what you said, consistent. Warne was a fighter and made the impossible happen - and was also consistent. Look at Warne's 4fers/5fers/10fers then look at McGrath. It gives a big insight into the high proportion of innings where Warne cleaned up a group of batsman - batsmen McGrath couldn't get first, seeing as he bowls first - and changed the game.

McGrath, although probably the most consistent bowler of all-time, actually has a glaring deficiency in taking 4-5 bowlers on the run, whereas Warne actually does not. Best batsmen and players of spin on the run? Did you miss the Test vs the World XI? That had the best players of spin and best batsman in the same team. Suffice to say, Warne owned them.

Here's a table to give an insight:

Here are some facts we should face:

As you can see, against top batsmen (including Tendulkar) it is very much evenly spread. Apart from the freakish nature that Lara keeps getting trapped to McGrath, it's notably matched. And this, from a spinner who faces these guys after McGrath does. So judging the best V the best, I know who I am picking - and even if I wanted to pick Glenn, he wouldn't let me .

Um, count how many runs they scored off those bowlers, not just # of wickets. Tendulkar annihilated Warne on numerous occassions, while he never quite managed to get on top of McGrath, and indeed, McGrath came out ahead many times. Similar to Lara.

 

[Ikki]

Um, count how many runs they scored off those bowlers, not just # of wickets. Tendulkar annihilated Warne on numerous occassions, while he never quite managed to get on top of McGrath, and indeed, McGrath came out ahead many times. Similar to Lara.

You can't count how many they scored off Warne or McGrath. And in fact, the batsmen above would have scored runs off McGrath first, seeing as they would have faced him first, and then Warne would have taken the wicket. Also, restricting runs is only one aspect of bowling. Whilst McGrath was better than it at Warne, let's not pretend Warne leaked runs here.

Looking at the poll, I think it's quite accurate between the top 3.

 

[Engle]

Even if McGrath had every stat in his favor vs Warne, one must take into consideration their different bowling styles (seamer vs spinner). Warne would walk into an AT World XI, whereas McGrath would have a much harder task competing against the likes of Marshall, Trueman, Ambrose, Akram et al.
The same would apply in an Aussie AT XI.

Warne stands higher amongst his ilk than McGrath does amongst his.

 

[Richard]

Only because there are more outstanding seamers than outstanding spinners (and most of the outstanding spinners are fingerspinners in any case, and fingerspin was and could only be outstanding in the days of uncovered wickets).

In any case, as I've said many times, seamers > spinners under equivalent. IE, Malcolm Marshall > Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralitharan, comfortably. Or Angus Fraser > Anil Kumble

If I was to pick an XI under the assumption of covered pitches, I'd never remotely consider a spinner, even a top-notch wristspinner.

 

[Slifer]

Good point that Richard. One has to dig really deep to prove Warne was a better bowler than Mcgrath. And as much as Shane Warne is in the top 3 greatest spinners of all time (arguably) the same can be said of Glenn Mcgrath in regards to pace bowler.

 

[howardj]

SKW.

Go down the nets and see how hard it is to land big turning leggies on the pitch, let alone on the spot.

And Warne endured.