Dravid goes to number 1 in test ratings

[Richard]

Nobody takes them seriously except for you. Seriously, name me one respected cricketing pundit who believes that McGrath gets his wickets because he is lucky rather than because he is one of the all time great seamers. ONE. Name me one respected cricketing pundit who believes we should discount all runs scored by a batsman if he is dropped. ONE. Name me one respected cricketing pundit who believes that all bowlers who have an ODI eco rate above 4.5 are useless... ONE. Oh that's right... there aren't any.

Hmm.. let me hear some who've even had the possibility suggested to them... no, that's right, no-one has probably ever heard it before.
If they did, of course, they'd almost certainly be stuck in their ways enough to try and find ways around it like so many of you guys have.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hmm.. let me hear some who've even had the possibility suggested to them... no, that's right, no-one has probably ever heard it before.
If they did, of course, they'd almost certainly be stuck in their ways enough to try and find ways around it like so many of you guys have.

They haven't had it suggested to them because it's bloody well idiotic! If someone were to suggest that McGrath was in fact not a good bowler but simply the luckiest man to ever walk the earth to a respected cricketing pundit he would dismiss the idea as absolutely ludicrous and cite 50+ test matches in which McGrath has shown himself to be a bowler of almost unparalleled class.

I mean, surely you can see why this is stupid, can't you? In any sport? What if someone were to suggest that Michael Jordan wasn't actually any good at basketball, he was just lucky? Barry Bonds is no good at hitting home runs, he just gets bad pitches hundreds of times every season? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Richard]

I don't know much about basketball or baseball so I don't know.
But any fool can see that I'm quite correct in stating that very few of McGrath's Test-wickets from 2001 onwards on flat pitches have come with wicket-taking deliveries.
Of course, people must then make excuses for that.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't know much about basketball or baseball so I don't know.
But any fool can see that I'm quite correct in stating that very few of McGrath's Test-wickets from 2001 onwards on flat pitches have come with wicket-taking deliveries.
Of course, people must then make excuses for that.

No, you are absolutely and utterly wrong, and saying such a thing indicates that you have a fairly limited understanding of what constitutes a wicket taking delivery. Frankly you have said so many ridiculous things on the topic that I'm inclined to wonder if you have ever batted in a serious cricket match in your life. For example suggesting that a movement of two inches off the seam was insufficient to trouble a batsman.

 

[Richard]

I've batted plenty of times, never very well.
That's totally and utterly irrelevant, of course - what matters is watching the deliveries and seeing what troubles a batsman, and a couple of inches movement doesn't.
Added to the fact that McGrath gets wickets most often with deliveries that there was no need to play at.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I've batted plenty of times, never very well.
That's totally and utterly irrelevant, of course - what matters is watching the deliveries and seeing what troubles a batsman, and a couple of inches movement doesn't.
Added to the fact that McGrath gets wickets most often with deliveries that there was no need to play at.

I agree that you don't have to be a masterful test quality batsman to be a good judge of cricket, but it does help to have SOME experience with what a batsman might be going through in any given situation, because frankly it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that two inches of movement isn't troublesome. Two inches is HEAPS of movement - more than you are ever likely to see with any single delivery on a flat pitch off the seam. And while you can adjust to two inches of movement and survive it, it's also more than capable of getting a good batsman out without requiring an error in his behalf.

And again I can only assume you haven't been watching McGrath lately. The fact is, people have tried the "leave everything that isn't hitting the stumps" approach against McGrath, and he simply adjusts his line to make the batsman play more often. It's not a huge step for a bowler of McGrath's quality to make, and when a bowler is making you play at every delivery on or above middle and off and suddenly one is a fraction outside off and leaving you it doesn't require a massive mistake on the behalf of the batsman to edge it. Nor does it require a major error to get trapped in front or bowled when you are in a negative frame of mind trying to leave everything outside off stump and one comes back into you and hits you in line.

Anyway, the "leave everything" tactic, despite your claims on the matter, has its own pitfalls. It basically leads to practically nothing being scored off McGrath, provided he doesn't get you out, which is a problem in a bowling lineup which contains Gillespie, Warne and Kasprowicz - all bowlers that are difficult to score off in their own right. You can't just see off McGrath and ignore an eco rate of 0.5, because you need to get runs from somewhere in order to win the match. Couple that with the fact that he is adept (and becoming moreso) with getting batsman who are dedicated to seenig him off out, and your plan falls through the floor, just like it did when various test sides tried it over the last few years.

The only effective way to combat McGrath's bowling is to take after him, and the few batsman who have had success against him in his peak period since the 98 Ashes have done that.

 

[Richard]

I agree that you don't have to be a masterful test quality batsman to be a good judge of cricket, but it does help to have SOME experience with what a batsman might be going through in any given situation, because frankly it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that two inches of movement isn't troublesome. Two inches is HEAPS of movement - more than you are ever likely to see with any single delivery on a flat pitch off the seam. And while you can adjust to two inches of movement and survive it, it's also more than capable of getting a good batsman out without requiring an error in his behalf.

No, it's not at all. 2 inches movement is less than a bat's width.
Just examine some deliveries that have moved a bat's width and see what the result is. Unless they're a very full length, and in the late 80s, it's not going to cause trouble.

And again I can only assume you haven't been watching McGrath lately. The fact is, people have tried the "leave everything that isn't hitting the stumps" approach against McGrath, and he simply adjusts his line to make the batsman play more often. It's not a huge step for a bowler of McGrath's quality to make, and when a bowler is making you play at every delivery on or above middle and off and suddenly one is a fraction outside off and leaving you it doesn't require a massive mistake on the behalf of the batsman to edge it. Nor does it require a major error to get trapped in front or bowled when you are in a negative frame of mind trying to leave everything outside off stump and one comes back into you and hits you in line.

Anyway, the "leave everything" tactic, despite your claims on the matter, has its own pitfalls. It basically leads to practically nothing being scored off McGrath, provided he doesn't get you out, which is a problem in a bowling lineup which contains Gillespie, Warne and Kasprowicz - all bowlers that are difficult to score off in their own right. You can't just see off McGrath and ignore an eco rate of 0.5, because you need to get runs from somewhere in order to win the match. Couple that with the fact that he is adept (and becoming moreso) with getting batsman who are dedicated to seenig him off out, and your plan falls through the floor, just like it did when various test sides tried it over the last few years.

The only effective way to combat McGrath's bowling is to take after him, and the few batsman who have had success against him in his peak period since the 98 Ashes have done that.

No, it's not. The "leave everything that doesn't hit the stumps" will invariably work. If he starts adjusting his strategy, it's simple - you adjust yours - block the straight ones, knock the ones down leg into the leg-side.
Leaving and blocking McGrath will certainly not lead to economy-rates of 0.5-an-over, more in the 2-an-over region in normal circumstances - and sometimes higher.
Even if it did, of course, it'd still be a hell of a lot better for him to get 20-10-0 than 20-60-4 or even 20-60-3.
If you try going after McGrath, it's very simple - unless you're exceptionally lucky, you'll get out, and that's why McGrath in ODIs not only bowls economically but takes wickets (on any pitch) - because in ODIs there's no alternative, the batsmen have to try to go after him.
No-one seems to realise that you just haven't got a chance if you try going after McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Warne - it doesn't work. Warne, of course, will usually get you out whether you try to go after him or not; Kasprowicz tends to offer a bit more than McGrath; and even Gillespie bowls poorly far more often than McGrath, which is why his Test-match economy-rate is only in the 2.9 region rather than the 2.5.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, it's not. The "leave everything that doesn't hit the stumps" will invariably work. If he starts adjusting his strategy, it's simple - you adjust yours - block the straight ones, knock the ones down leg into the leg-side.

This is so idiotic I don't know where to start. If it's so god damned simple why don't you think people have done it? Why do you think when people have tried this EXACT same strategy they have still failed against McGrath? If you get into a negative frame of mind and try and leave everything that isn't hitting the stumps he will adjust his line so you have to play most deliveries, and vary his line and length to induce an edge or to get one through your defence. You have this ridiculous idea that you have some sort of higher understanding of cricket and if only people had your tactical knowledge McGrath would get no wickets... but sorry mate, it's not true.

Have a look at it if you want. Who are the players who have been successful against McGrath in recent times? Sehwag was successful... Vaughan had a good time of it last ashes, Tendulkar and Lara have had some epic battles with McGrath but have both had times when they were on top... and what do these players all have in common? That's right... they went after him. McGrath can still get you out when you are trying to score off him of course, but because he relies so heavily on accuracy and getting the batsman into a defensive frame of mind and then working him out with subtle variations, hitting out against him takes his plans out of the equation. If you are good enough, you can score runs against him in this manner.

If you shut up shop against him he WILL get you out, because that is what practically every batsman in the world has tried to do against him and failed. I would suggest you review the McGrath/Dravid battle from the last Indian series for a perfect example, but you didn't watch it so you can't.

 

[Richard]

The time when McGrath was played best was 2001\02 - when, funnily enough, he was left a lot and bowled very economically but, apart from one Test, didn't get very good figures.

 

[neutralguy]

Dravid is the best at test cricket currently and gilchrist is more valuable because he keeps also well.

 

[social]

This is so idiotic I don't know where to start. If it's so god damned simple why don't you think people have done it? Why do you think when people have tried this EXACT same strategy they have still failed against McGrath? If you get into a negative frame of mind and try and leave everything that isn't hitting the stumps he will adjust his line so you have to play most deliveries, and vary his line and length to induce an edge or to get one through your defence. You have this ridiculous idea that you have some sort of higher understanding of cricket and if only people had your tactical knowledge McGrath would get no wickets... but sorry mate, it's not true.

Have a look at it if you want. Who are the players who have been successful against McGrath in recent times? Sehwag was successful... Vaughan had a good time of it last ashes, Tendulkar and Lara have had some epic battles with McGrath but have both had times when they were on top... and what do these players all have in common? That's right... they went after him. McGrath can still get you out when you are trying to score off him of course, but because he relies so heavily on accuracy and getting the batsman into a defensive frame of mind and then working him out with subtle variations, hitting out against him takes his plans out of the equation. If you are good enough, you can score runs against him in this manner.

If you shut up shop against him he WILL get you out, because that is what practically every batsman in the world has tried to do against him and failed. I would suggest you review the McGrath/Dravid battle from the last Indian series for a perfect example, but you didn't watch it so you can't.

McGrath's working over of Dravid in the series in which they've played against each other is precisely why I dont rate him as highly as some others. If you bowl a straight, good length delivery to him, it's odds on that he will hit the ball back to you.

The war of attrition attitude works against most bowlers but you need more against the first-choice Australian side. McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Kaspa will wear you down and eventually produce a delivery that gets you out.

With the exception of one innings (his 180), Dravid has spent a seeming eternity batting against Aus for, by his standards, negligible returns. In the process, the entire innings becomes becalmed.

Lara and Tendulkar may get out earlier on occasion, but they also make you pay when they get the opportunity and never allow the bowlers to dictate terms to them.

 

[Richard]

So Lara and Tendulkar are better than Dravid, just because they happen to have conquered Australia once or twice?

 

[social]

So Lara and Tendulkar are better than Dravid, just because they happen to have conquered Australia once or twice?

Not to mention every other test playing nation - and slightly more often than once or twice.

Dravid is a magnificent player with a fine technique and insatiable appetite for runs. He deserves the no. 1 ranking because of the amount of runs that he scores.

However, he can be, and often is, contained.

The only way to contain Lara and Tendulkar is to get them out.

Lara and Tendulkar are geniuses. Dravid is a craftsman.

 

[Richard]

And Dravid is quite clearly presently far better than them, even if he wasn't up to 2001.
It's how many, not how fast.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The time when McGrath was played best was 2001\02 - when, funnily enough, he was left a lot and bowled very economically but, apart from one Test, didn't get very good figures.

Firstly, McGrath has developed as a bowler since then. Secondly, McGrath was far from his best in that summer, as you would know if you actually bothered to watch him the rest of the time. As more people have adopted Stephen Fleming's approach to McGrath he has adapted his game to combat it, and once again I cite his battles with Dravid and the New Zealand team more recently as evidence of that. Those batsmen who seek to play in a negative fashion against McGrath INVARIABLY fail against him, and those batsman who seek to go after him, combat his plans with counter-attacking play and hit him out of the attack have a bit more success. This is evident, as I said, in the players who have done well against him recently - Sehwag, Vaughan, Lara, Tendulkar etc.

It's not that McGrath can't still get you out if you go after him, but because his plans rely on batsman playing in a defensive and negative fashion against him you have a better chance if you attack. I mean, think about it... you've seen McGrath play. If someone plays him like Dravid did he can spend all the time he likes getting them out. He can play with his line, his length, his pace... he can try moving the ball one way and the other, bowling bouncers, bowling yorkers... if he is being attacked he can't do these things. It is the situation where he can dictate the terms and the batsman remains permanantly on the back foot that McGrath does best in.

 

[aussie]

aussie

Added to the fact that McGrath gets wickets most often with deliveries that there was no need to play at.

ha ha ha, geeez richard now where did you get that load of codswallop from, i'm telling u mate dont let any respected cricket pundit hear you, keep your crazy comments right here let us suffer

 

[aussie]

aussie

Faaip i'll tell u the same thing i told Tec give up on richard its a waste of time

 

[Richard]

ha ha ha, geeez richard now where did you get that load of codswallop from

Watching the wickets he's got.

i'm telling u mate dont let any respected cricket pundit hear you, keep your crazy comments right here let us suffer

No, of course, couldn't have anyone being re-educated on the game of cricket that has had so many misunderstandings for so long, could we?

 

[Swervy]

Watching the wickets he's got.

No, of course, couldn't have anyone being re-educated on the game of cricket that has had so many misunderstandings for so long, could we?

hahaha..re-educated....hehehehehe

 

[Richard]

Firstly, McGrath has developed as a bowler since then. Secondly, McGrath was far from his best in that summer, as you would know if you actually bothered to watch him the rest of the time.

And very convenient that is. Any fool can tell that McGrath was exactly the same that winter as he was at The Oval the previous summer and the whole of the 2002\03 season; I watched him bowl, I read on his bowling, and I can tell that very clearly.

As more people have adopted Stephen Fleming's approach to McGrath he has adapted his game to combat it, and once again I cite his battles with Dravid and the New Zealand team more recently as evidence of that. Those batsmen who seek to play in a negative fashion against McGrath INVARIABLY fail against him

His battles with the New Zealand team say far more about their paucity than they do about anything else. Let's look at his wickets, shall we?
THE 'GABBA:
Richardson caught behind, poor stroke.
Sinclair lbw, poor decision.
Fleming caught slip, good leg-cutter.
ADELAIDE OVAL:
Fleming caught behind, beauty of a leg-cutter.
Astle caught off a slower-ball.
Vettori lbw.
Styris caught deep square, last-man slog.
Fleming bowled, far too late on the ball, poor stroke.
Oram caught behind, 'nother good-'un.
JADE STADIUM:
McMillan caught behind, reverse-away-swinger.
Astle lbw, inswinger.
McCullum, drive to point fielder, poor stroke.
Franklin lbw, inswinger.
O'Brien, typical tail-ender dismissal.
Martin, likewise.
Fleming lbw, poor decision.
BASIN RESEVE:
Fleming lbw, questionable decision, poor stroke anyway.
Marshall caught hooking, poor stroke.
Fleming lbw, played across the line, poor stroke.
Marshall lbw, poor decision, too high.
I don't, myself, see too many batsmen paying for playing negatively; a few paying for playing positively, but all in all it just shows that McGrath has bowled generally better against New Zealand this winter than he has since 2001, perhaps ever, using both cutters (esp at Adelaide) and swing (esp in New Zealand).
As for Dravid: in the 4-Test series he dismissed him twice, bowled by what sounds like a lovely off-cutter; and played at one he should have left, a dismissal we see so often with McGrath.
So basically we can see that since McGrath's return to Test-cricket (started in 2004 against SL - in which he was hugely effective on the uneven seamer and ineffective on the flat one) he might have developed as a bowler, quite possibly - but not because he can combat people leaving him, because he is more inclined to bowl swinging deliveries and cutters.
I'll not deny that McGrath has bowled far more good spells this season than he ever has since 2001.

and those batsman who seek to go after him, combat his plans with counter-attacking play and hit him out of the attack have a bit more success. This is evident, as I said, in the players who have done well against him recently - Sehwag, Vaughan, Lara, Tendulkar etc.

And just how much success has Tendulkar enjoyed against him post-2001\02? None - he's only played 2 Tests against him, after all, both in which he was severely restricted by injury.
Lara, too, has played just 2 Tests against him since then.

It's not that McGrath can't still get you out if you go after him, but because his plans rely on batsman playing in a defensive and negative fashion against him you have a better chance if you attack. I mean, think about it... you've seen McGrath play. If someone plays him like Dravid did he can spend all the time he likes getting them out. He can play with his line, his length, his pace... he can try moving the ball one way and the other, bowling bouncers, bowling yorkers... if he is being attacked he can't do these things. It is the situation where he can dictate the terms and the batsman remains permanantly on the back foot that McGrath does best in.

And sadly, just bowling a few Bouncers, a few Yorkers, changing your pace and length a little, doesn't actually get many wickets. Mostly it's just because batsmen eventually get bored or frustrated and play a poor stroke to a nothing delivery.
Whereas if someone's trying to attack him while bowling accurately they'll pay for it before too long, unless they're exceptionally lucky.