• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Warne/McGrath vs Hadlee/Kallis

Which Test combination is greater?

  • Hadlee/Kallis

  • Warne/McGrath

Results are only viewable after voting.
B

Bolo.

International Captain
sayon basak said:
Could you mention some of those reasons?
Click to expand...
The main reason I rate Warne above the quicks is the fact that bowling spin effectively is hard. Other than Murali, the gap between him and other modern spinners is stupid.

Any spud can get a wicket with a moving new ball. We need players who can both bowl grunt overs, and take wickets in them. Warne is way ahead of quicks from this perspective. He also ends up with more WPM than almost all quicks, which is something I rate highly. Other than the fact that Warne is a spinner, I'm not sure any of this applies in relation to Hadlee.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
Sliferxxxx said:
Umm no.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure they would win them a few games they otherwise wouldn’t. Seales and Shamar are good prospects and all, but can you imagine if Warne/McGrath were playing for the Windies in this current series? Fairly certain we lose at least one of the two matches.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
I'm starting to think that Hadlee might be a better bowler than Warne. Almost all the reasons I rate Warne above all the quicks don't apply to Hadlee.
Click to expand...
Not really a controversial opinion, to be honest. You'd find most of the forum would rate the top three (four, in my case) over the top two (three, in my case) spinners.
 
kyear2

kyear2

Hall of Fame Member
Johan said:
Not really a controversial opinion, to be honest. You'd find most of the forum would rate the top three (four, in my case) over the top two (three, in my case) spinners.
Click to expand...
Not controversial at all. What's controversial is having Warne higher in the first place.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
Johan said:
Not really a controversial opinion, to be honest. You'd find most of the forum would rate the top three (four, in my case) over the top two (three, in my case) spinners.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be controversial. I know. Just musing on my personal ratings.
 
Sliferxxxx

Sliferxxxx

State Vice-Captain
Coronis said:
Pretty sure they would win them a few games they otherwise wouldn’t. Seales and Shamar are good prospects and all, but can you imagine if Warne/McGrath were playing for the Windies in this current series? Fairly certain we lose at least one of the two matches.
Click to expand...
Like which game? McWarne are certainly better than Seales and Shamar no contest but as much as I rate bowlers over batsmen, you still do need runs to work with. And McWarne would also have to deal with WI catching/fielding. They may restrict Australia to a lower score but trust me, somehow WI would find a way to score less. Much less.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
You can bowl out the opposition for 150 consistently and the current West Indies batting unit would still make sure 75% games are lost. Pitful.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy said:
I mean it kinda is common sense really
Click to expand...
True, Weekes averages high 50s, Thorpe and Greenidge are similar mid 40s batsmen, identical averages and Thorpe was better away in Australia and Asia while Greenidge was better at home. Thorpe has the tax of being the fireman and having to carry England every game, while Greenidge has the opener tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top