Fast bowler survival round quarter and semi finals

[gwo]

McGrath
Hadlee

TBH, think the top 2 in the world are in the first semi-final and the only reason I'm picking McGrath (as I can't really split them otherwise) is because I'm Australian.

 

[Zinzan]

Marshall & Hadlee & I think the Pope's Catholic

 

[JBH001]

McGrath is a great bowler, but I think him a tad over-rated.

Marshall and Hadlee

 

[L Trumper]

Maco [going to win the whole damn thing] & Hadlee

 

[The Sean]

McGrath is a great bowler, but I think him a tad over-rated.

How so?

 

[Burgey]

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.

Yeah, got no probs with this whatsoever. Just thought Slifer's dismissal of him as not a stand out needed the undisguised contempt I tried to give it.

 

[Himannv]

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.

Agree completely. Well put.

I think McGrath is a fantastic bowler, just not better than Marshall. Second best of all time isn't really the worst thing is it?

 

[weldone]

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.

I hope you realise that Sehwag's and Hayden's era is slightly different than McGrath's era. McGrath's era can be compared to Lara's era (or, Steve Waugh's or Sachin's, to an extent).

Though the two eras are not mutually exclusive, and McGrath has been hugely successful in Hayden's and Sehwag's era too; but that's a different story altogether.

Though I believe McGrath trully deserves to be in the semis here, but that too is a different story.

 

[Teja.]

I hope you realise that Sehwag's and Hayden's era is slightly different than McGrath's era. McGrath's era can be compared to Lara's era (or, Steve Waugh's or Sachin's, to an extent).

Though the two eras are not mutually exclusive, and McGrath has been hugely successful in Hayden's and Sehwag's era too; but that's a different story altogether.

Though I believe McGrath trully deserves to be in the semis here, but that too is a different story.

Mcgrath did average 20 in the Sehwag/Hayden era. I never said he belonged to the era, though he hit his peak in it.

 

[Days of Grace]

Mcgrath did average in the Sehwag/Hayden era, I never said he belonged to the era, though he hit his peak in it.

Ha?

 

[Teja.]

Ha?

Edited now, forgot to place 20 after 'average'. Mcgrath was also a bloody fine bowler in the 90s, and hence belongs to the Brian Lara Era(95-07) which also coincides with this era, rather than being an out-and-out 00s bowler.

 

[Slifer]

Yeah, got no probs with this whatsoever. Just thought Slifer's dismissal of him as not a stand out needed the undisguised contempt I tried to give it.

I never dismissed Mcgrath son. I took issue with the poster who said Mcgrath was much better than Marshall when he isnt. And i stated what i would think is common sense. If Mcgrath could thrive post 2000 i dont see ne reason y his fellow greats from the 90s (and beyond) couldnt thrive either.

 

[Ikki]

I never dismissed Mcgrath son. I took issue with the poster who said Mcgrath was much better than Marshall when he isnt. And i stated what i would think is common sense. If Mcgrath could thrive post 2000 i dont see ne reason y his fellow greats from the 90s (and beyond) couldnt thrive either.

Haven't you made the argument before against Lillee about his record in the subcontinent? I may be wrong, but if you have, isn't this the same thing?

"I don't see why his fellow greats could succeed there and he couldn't".

 

[Xuhaib]

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.

so what does Sami and Agarkar symbolize Poverty?

 

[Slifer]

Haven't you made the argument before against Lillee about his record in the subcontinent? I may be wrong, but if you have, isn't this the same thing?

"I don't see why his fellow greats could succeed there and he couldn't".

u must have me confused but if i I did im man enough to admit i was wrong. I know i consider MM over Lillee. And thats because Marshall has a much-more well rounded record among other factors. Besides that, Im pretty sure Lillee would have done well in the sub-con (probably not as well as MM).

 

[Himannv]

Isn't it time to call this?

 

[Blakus]

Might add my 2 cents first. Marshall and Hadlee are my choices. Although I find it almost absurd that I'm turning down Mcgrath and Ambrose.

 

[stephen]

Isn't it time to call this?

After I have some lunch.

 

[stephen]

Hadlee and Marshall are through

Hadlee 18 def Ambrose 8

Marshall 19 def McGrath 7

Hadlee and Marshall progress to the gold medal clash while McGrath and Ambrose will duke it out for third place.