-
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.
Prime McGrath Vs Prime Steve Smith
- Thread starter vidiq
- Start date
DrWolverine
International Vice-Captain
Why not?
Steven Smith was easily the best batsman during his peak easily ahead of his peers and arguably had the second best peak after Bradman.
Glen McGrath was not really a standout fast bowler in 1990s. One could argue that McGrath stood out in 2000s because all the other greats retired.
Ambrose in August 2000.
Walsh in April 2001.
Donald in February 2002.
Akram in May 2002.
Steven Smith was easily the best batsman during his peak easily ahead of his peers and arguably had the second best peak after Bradman.
Glen McGrath was not really a standout fast bowler in 1990s. One could argue that McGrath stood out in 2000s because all the other greats retired.
Ambrose in August 2000.
Walsh in April 2001.
Donald in February 2002.
Akram in May 2002.
Having a great batting peak isn't on the same level as a great bowling peak though in this case. I'll take the bowler averaging 20 with ~5WPM all day over the batter averaging 70. McGrath has more impact on winning games and raises a Test team more than Smith would.
Patience and Accuracy+Gut
State Vice-Captain
In that case The 20 Greatest peaks of all time would feature 1 Batsman ( Bradman) and 19 bowlers. Peak Smith is easily ahead of Peak McGrath. Idk how this is even.
Patience and Accuracy+Gut
State Vice-Captain
Peak Smith from those years 2014-2019 was the best batsman the world had ever seen, probably the highest level any batsman/ bowler had ever reached bar Bradman. He just look so far ahead of the pack. Peak Kohli was very incredible and Smith was so far ahead. I will be very surprised if anyone ever surpasses that.
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Lol a bat averaging 70 plus is insane though. The only way I take the bowler is if the rest of the bowling is horrible.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
What if the bowler is averaging 15
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Obviously bowler I was referring to a post of a bowler averaging 20 which is more standard worldclass.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Murali. The guy was taking nearly 8WPM.
DrWolverine
International Vice-Captain
The latter is more rare.
If you consider 80 innings as minimum criteria, there have been only 5 batsmen in history who averaged 70+.
Yeah and? Why would you not take great bowlers having great peaks over great batters? They impact winning far more with their wicket taking and restrictions of runs at that level than batters do with scoring runs/preserving their wickets.
He wouldn't have won a lot of games without his bowling attack being Cummins/Starc/Hazlewood though.
What does rarity of achievement have to do with impact on winning games? Without McGrath Australia don't have the greatest Test team of all time. Smith doesn't match that.
DrWolverine
International Vice-Captain
One person cannot win games.
If McGrath played for 2000s WI team, do you think he would have won them so many games like he did for Australia?
If McGrath played for 2000s WI team, do you think he would have won them so many games like he did for Australia?
He'd have won them more games than they eventually did (assuming he replaces a bowler in that side). They wouldn't be 2000s Aus because it's a team game and you need great players to be the greatest side, but that's an asinine ask for any player to be that sort of super carry. You can however note how important McGrath was to that Aus side by how they fared without him at his best.
subshakerz
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Once again you commit the fallacy of more useful = better performer.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Pretty sure Smith would’ve done the same, no?
You can also note how important Smith was by how they fared without him at his best.
You think McGrath performed worse than Smith by taking 400 wickets at 20/48? Wtf is this. I'd kill most of you to have prime McGrath play for India atm.
Winning Tests requires a strong bowling attack more than a strong batting lineup. Smith doesn't help as much as people believe in that hypothetical scenario (of being on a poor Test side) since that team still has to go out and take 20 wickets as well as they can to win games.
Coronis
Hall of Fame Member
Just saying, they win about twice as many matches as they lose with Smith, and lose more matches than they win without him.
It's a much stronger argument for McGrath in that case. Australia had a record of (W-D-L, no ties) 56-11-16 with McGrath, 2-3-3 without him (within the periods of the OP).