Warne performed poorly against India because he was always injured or recovering from injury .
Ah ok, thanks.Exaggerated version of a plethora of reasons used to excuse Warne's performances vs India on here. Bad form/injury/recovering from injury/divorce etc. etc. Basically he never played India at 100%.
In terms of win/loss i believe the 90s went like this:SA were better opposition to McGrath than WI in 90s.
McGrath in SA in 97 and 2001 was superb though, not so much at home against SA where Warne did the damage.All the quicks from Donalds era from RSA/Aus turned to water when playing each other. ATGs like Pollock and Mcgrath, as well as excellent bowlers like De Villiers and Gillespie were limping to just over 3WPM. Donald was the only quick from either side getting close to 4 with a significant amount of games IIRC. And thats with him playing his last 2 series against Aus, when his body broke down. Quirk of timing.
Look how far ahead of the others he is before that, as well as the quality of guys he was outperforming.
The only quick who could be relied on to take wickets in RSA AUS games until years after he retired. I assume you are marking everyone else down as well, and more so than him?
Heh, would like to see the mental gymnastics it took for the fora to come up with thisExaggerated version of a plethora of reasons used to excuse Warne's performances vs India on here. Bad form/injury/recovering from injury/divorce etc. etc. Basically he never played India at 100%.
Guess he got real lucky that things so consistently went his way while he was bowling. Real, real lucky to end up in the top handful all of SRs, averages and wpm of quicks ever. It almost sounds like he was good enough to ensure things tended to go his way.Nah I’m marking him down because he was as hard as a lemonade sandwich when things went against him. It was actually cringeworthy to watch
Pretty likely. But not sure its meaningful. I highly doubt Donald would have done a better job for WI than Garner did.I think the case of Shaun Pollock is instructive. Averaged less than Donald in the 90s during their respective peaks but at no point was considered a better bowler. I think if Garner had played with Donald it would have ended up similar.
Teams tend to put their best pacers up front with the new ball, no? The only exception I can think is Pat Cummins, but he is recognized as the best in the attack which Garner wasnt.Pretty likely. But not sure its meaningful. I highly doubt Donald would have done a better job for WI than Garner did.
All of the greats adapted to their roles in their teams.
Mcgrath >Hadlee > Steyn> Mcgrath in terms of what they brought to their teams, cos it was what they needed to be.
Nobody is close to Garner as something like a change bowler. He is uniquely good. Doesnt make him the best bowler, cos the best almost always open, but it is also unfair to hold his role against him.
Very typically, yes. But not always. Sometimes balance is better served by having someone else open.Teams tend to put their best pacers up front with the new ball, no? The only exception I can think is Pat Cummins, but he is recognized as the best in the attack which Garner wasnt.