Fast bowler survival round quarter and semi finals

[G.I.Joe]

McGrath over Marshall by a mile, actually. Standout performer in the 00's. If the batsmen of the 00's get penalised for the Al Qaeda effect, McGrath deserves massive props too.

Hadlee in the second. Better SR and WPM ratio.

 

[Somerset]

Malcolm Marshall and Sir Richard Hadlee.

 

[Slifer]

McGrath over Marshall by a mile, actually. Standout performer in the 00's. If the batsmen of the 00's get penalised for the Al Qaeda effect, McGrath deserves massive props too.

Hadlee in the second. Better SR and WPM ratio.

By a mile?? Not even by a whisker tbh

 

[Ikki]

TBH, I see Marshall's record as slightly more complete, but GI Joe's point does sway me towards McGrath - although not to the same extent. I also think McGrath bowled to better attacks, even disregarding the flattening of pitches.

 

[Slifer]

TBH, I see Marshall's record as slightly more complete, but GI Joe's point does sway me towards McGrath - although not to the same extent. I also think McGrath bowled to better attacks, even disregarding the flattening of pitches.

Sure Ikki. And Mcgrath being Aussie has nothing to do with it. Marshall's record is not slightly more complete it is much more complete. And i still maintain that Mcgrath was not a standout during the 90s when other greats were around. They retired and all of a sudden Mcgrath's achievements got magnified because he supposedly thrived in a batsman friendly era. But i maintain that it's purely speculative to assume that bowlers like Ambrose, Waqar, Akram etc would have done badly post 2000.

And the better attacks thingy doesnt really fly either. India apart, i cant think of lineups now that were better during Mcgrath's time. (Pak, WI, NZ no).

 

[Teja.]

He made it to the top 8, which is a fine achievement for someone with his career statistics.

And just because McGrath smashed him doesn't mean much. McGrath pretty much would smash any bowler in history.

EDIT: Or don't you remember the massacres of English batsmen at his hands?

Waqar's 'career statistics' are hurt due to the extra years he played on in the 00s tbf. IN his 'days'(the 90s, an entire decade), He could play 56 games(due to Pakistan not playing many tests) and when past his bowling days in the 00s, He played a whooping 29 games in 3 years. I fully expected Mcgrath to beat Waqar and with good reason, but if compared to say Ambrose(Who was also primarily a 90s bowler)

EDIT:-SR of 40 for a decade! What a man!

Ambrose
Matches:-71
Wickets:-309
Wpm:-4.3
Avg.:-20.14
SR:-52.2
5w:-21(30%)
10w:-(4.2%)

Waqar
Matches:-56
Wickets:-273
Wpm:-4.9
Avg.:-21.7
SR:-40.9
5w:-21(37.5%)
10w:-5(8.9%)

This is of course speculation, but one might wonder what would have happened if Waqar played for a team which played more test matches. Must be noted that the wpm and the hauls are even more impressive due to the fact that Waqar got his 5wpm with intense competition for wickets within his team.

 

[Slifer]

IMO Mcgrath, Ambrose, Mcgrath, Donald, Wasim, and Pollock are all very close for bowler of the 90s with only people's personal taste to separate one from the other tbh.

 

[Himannv]

IMO Mcgrath, Ambrose, Mcgrath, Donald, Wasim, and Pollock are all very close for bowler of the 90s with only people's personal taste to separate one from the other tbh.

Of those you mentioned, personally feel that Wasim was a real standout in the 90's.

 

[Teja.]

IMO Mcgrath, Ambrose, Mcgrath, Donald, Wasim, and Pollock are all very close for bowler of the 90s with only people's personal taste to separate one from the other tbh.

No Waqar? Not to start a fight, Genuine question. Statistically and visually the best qualified IMO.

 

[Slifer]

No Waqar? Not to start a fight, Genuine question. Statistically and visually the best qualified IMO.

Whoops oversight on my behalf. Waqar is def in the argument, infact he's right at the very top tbh.

 

[stephen]

IMO Mcgrath, Ambrose, Mcgrath, Donald, Wasim, and Pollock are all very close for bowler of the 90s with only people's personal taste to separate one from the other tbh.

McGrath gets considered twice

 

[stephen]

Sure Ikki. And Mcgrath being Aussie has nothing to do with it. Marshall's record is not slightly more complete it is much more complete. And i still maintain that Mcgrath was not a standout during the 90s when other greats were around. They retired and all of a sudden Mcgrath's achievements got magnified because he supposedly thrived in a batsman friendly era. But i maintain that it's purely speculative to assume that bowlers like Ambrose, Waqar, Akram etc would have done badly post 2000.

And the better attacks thingy doesnt really fly either. India apart, i cant think of lineups now that were better during Mcgrath's time. (Pak, WI, NZ no).

The thing is, McGrath got better after 2000. His average went down over the period in a time when batting averages soared. The 90s were more a case of him not having hit his peak yet.

 

[Burgey]

Sure Ikki. And Mcgrath being Aussie has nothing to do with it. Marshall's record is not slightly more complete it is much more complete. And i still maintain that Mcgrath was not a standout during the 90s when other greats were around. They retired and all of a sudden Mcgrath's achievements got magnified because he supposedly thrived in a batsman friendly era. But i maintain that it's purely speculative to assume that bowlers like Ambrose, Waqar, Akram etc would have done badly post 2000.

And the better attacks thingy doesnt really fly either. India apart, i cant think of lineups now that were better during Mcgrath's time. (Pak, WI, NZ no).

SA, England, SL yes, though..

You don't think McGrath was a stand out bowler in the 90s (from say 95 onwards)?

Jeez you've got some lofty standards. He was a pretty bloody fine bowler for the latter part of that decade tbh. And he continued to be such in the 00s.

No one says the others would have done poorly in the era McGrath bowled well in. But as you say, it's speculation. I don't know if you dislike McGrath or whatever, but the bloke took wickets everywhere, against everyone, at a low average and a decent strike rate, and did it for pretty much longer than everyone else, and in an era where batting averages sky-rocketed and pitches were/ are considered generalyy very flat.

Perhaps though, he doesn't stand out.

That's not to say he's necessarily the greatest bowler ever, but I'd think he belongs in the argument. I mean, Ikki's post was hardly an unreasonable one tbh, not like he ****-canned Marshall or anyone else for that matter.

But if people are entitled to come on here and speculate that Waqar well belongs in the final because his relatively short peak was so amazing, then I fail to see how it's outrageous to suggest that McGrath belongs in the argument, given he did it all for so long, against everyone, everywhere.

But hey, he didn't have that big, ***eh inswinging yorker...

 

[Days of Grace]

Both McGrath and Marshall bowled to some fairly rank English batting lineups in their respective careers.

Marshall had a field day in 1984, 1986 and 1988. Bear in mind also that Marshall bowled to arguably the weakest Australian team in history during the twin 1984 series'.

The question is who bowled to the better English batting lineup?

 

[Burgey]

Both McGrath and Marshall bowled to some fairly rank English batting lineups in their respective careers.

Marshall had a field day in 1984, 1986 and 1988. Bear in mind also that Marshall bowled to arguably the weakest Australian team in history during the twin 1984 series'.

The question is who bowled to the better English batting lineup?

It's like trying to sort out which dregs in a slops tray at a pub tastes better, isn't it?

 

[Teja.]

If the Sehwags and Haydens of the world are not given as much credit because they averaged 50 in this era, Mcgrath definitely should be given a lot more credit for averaging 20 in a Batsman friendly era. Fantastic Bowler, that Mcgrath. Have him right in my top 5 after Waqar, Hadlee, Marshall and Trueman. Best Pacer to emerge from Australia IMO.

 

[stephen]

If the Sehwags and Haydens of the world are not given as much credit because they averaged 50 in this era, Mcgrath definitely should be given a lot more credit for averaging 20 in a Batsman friendly era. Fantastic Bowler, that Mcgrath. Have him right in my top 5 after Waqar, Hadlee, Marshall and Trueman. Best Pacer to emerge from Australia IMO.

Pretty much everyone picks McGrath/Lillee as their first two fast bowlers in an AT AUS XI.

What people seem to forget a bit is that McGrath:

Spearheaded Australia's victory over the West Indies in 1995
Lead the Australian fast bowling attack for 12 years
Averaged 20.5 in the 00s
Took a higher proportion of top and middle order wickets than any other bowler ever
Is by far the highest wicket taking bowler in World Cups
Targeted the best batsmen in the opposition's team and usually won
Was a huge part of every successful "groundbreaking" tour - WI '95, India '04 and many others.

 

[Teja.]

Pretty much everyone picks McGrath/Lillee as their first two fast bowlers in an AT AUS XI.

What people seem to forget a bit is that McGrath:

Spearheaded Australia's victory over the West Indies in 1995
Lead the Australian fast bowling attack for 12 years
Averaged 20.5 in the 00s
Took a higher proportion of top and middle order wickets than any other bowler ever
Is by far the highest wicket taking bowler in World Cups
Targeted the best batsmen in the opposition's team and usually won
Was a huge part of every successful "groundbreaking" tour - WI '95, India '04 and many others.

Yes, fully agree. Has a genuine case for being the finest ever. I picked Waqar ahead of him not because I think Mcgrath is not a bloody good bowler, Just that I'd pick Waqar ahead of anyone.(and not for visual/aesthetic reasons)

I think Mcgrath is underrated because, to put it this way, If bowlers were symbols of real life events(for lack of a better term), Waqar/Donald symbolized war, Warne/Akram symbolized Romance, Mcgrath symbolized construction and capitalism. IMO.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, fully agree. Has a genuine case for being the finest ever. I picked Waqar ahead of him not because I think Mcgrath is not a bloody good bowler, Just that I'd pick Waqar ahead of anyone.(and not for visual/aesthetic reasons)

I think Mcgrath is underrated because, to put it this way, If bowlers were symbols of real life events(for lack of a better term), Waqar/Donald symbolized war, Warne/Akram symbolized Romance, Mcgrath symbolized construction and capitalism. IMO.

Haha, that is a killer summary of their "symbols".

Thanks to Burg for saving me a post. You would have thought I said Brett Lee was better than Marshall with that reaction.

 

[BoyBrumby]

But if people are entitled to come on here and speculate that Waqar well belongs in the final because his relatively short peak was so amazing, then I fail to see how it's outrageous to suggest that McGrath belongs in the argument, given he did it all for so long, against everyone, everywhere.

But hey, he didn't have that big, ***eh inswinging yorker...

Just to expand on this slightly, I think where McGrath's concerned even his staunchest advocates would concede he wasn't as exciting a bowler to watch as some of the blokes he's up against. Because of his metronomic accuracy he was, to my eyes at least, primarily a defensive bowler. He'd constantly put the ball in Sir Geoffrey's "corridor of doubt" and the small variations of seam would do the rest.

Wonderfully effective, but not as likely to moisten the gusset as a ball that swings in a foot and castles a bloke. Now, when the subject of who's the greatest batsman is discussed blokes with amazing records like Sutcliffe and Barrington are routinely dismissed because they weren't as easy on the eye as (say) Hobbs or Sachin and had "defence first" MOs. Same principle applies to McGrath, IMHO.