Second greatest Australian

[kyear2]

Warne or McGrath. Who was the key to the dynasty, who drove the car.

A few weeks ago I would have said that Warne was probably was one of the most over rated players in the history of the game(in context), but even a cursory glance at his performance in wins, it's genuinely arguable who was the more important of the two.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

We all know that it is Adam Voges

 

[Aidan11]

Warney for me.

 

[kyear2]

One argument for McGrath was that he was usually the one to make the initial breakthrough or take out the key opponent, but that wasn't absolute and Warne did his fair share of damage from that perspective as well.

 

[Slifer]

Respectfully, those two aren't the only two candidates for 2nd best Australian cricketer. The list should include:

Miller
Gilchrist
Greg Chappell
Border

 

[BazBall21]

Imo, the only objective argument for Warne against McGrath is that he was far more of a point of difference. That is admittedly a good argument, but I would take McGrath. I'd have Warne 4th out of the Australians.

 

[kyear2]

Respectfully, those two aren't the only two candidates for 2nd best Australian cricketer. The list should include:

Miller
Gilchrist
Greg Chappell
Border

Even if it's not for second, the main question is who is the greater if the two, and which was more responsible for the team's success.

 

[Adders]

I can not recall the No's but Aus win/loss ratio with or without McGrath was a far more sizeable difference to that of Warne. McGrath was far more significant to that team than Warne imo.

 

[Slifer]

Even if it's not for second, the main question is who is the greater if the two, and which was more responsible for the team's success.

In that case I'd go with McGrath. I've said it about a million times but Australia don't beat WI in the 90s without Glenn.

 

[howitzer]

I'm going for the Australian in excelsis.

 

[Coronis]

I can not recall the No's but Aus win/loss ratio with or without McGrath was a far more sizeable difference to that of Warne. McGrath was far more significant to that team than Warne imo.

W/L/D

Matches with Mcgrath: 84-20-20 W/L 4.2
Matches with Warne: 84-22-22 W/L 3.8
Matches with both: 71/16/17 W/L 4.4
Matches with only McGrath: 13-4-3 W/L 4.3
Matches with only Warne: 13-6-5 W/L 2.6

All calculated from McGrath’s debut.

Warne pre-McGrath: 8-4-5 WL 1.6
Warne in total no McGrath: 21-10-10 WL 2.1

 

[ma1978]

The answer is probably Mcgrath but Gilchrist gives him a good fight.

 

[kyear2]

W/L/D

Matches with Mcgrath: 84-20-20 W/L 4.2
Matches with Warne: 84-22-22 W/L 3.8
Matches with both: 71/16/17 W/L 4.4
Matches with only McGrath: 13-4-3 W/L 4.3
Matches with only Warne: 13-6-5 W/L 2.6

All calculated from McGrath’s debut.

Warne pre-McGrath: 8-4-5 WL 1.6
Warne in total no McGrath: 21-10-10 WL 2.1

So Pigeon it is.

So again, how the hell did Warne end up in the Wisden top 5. Marshall, McGrath, Imran all considerably more worthy imo.

 

[BazBall21]

So Pigeon it is.

So again, how the hell did Warne end up in the Wisden top 5. Marshall, McGrath, Imran all considerably more worthy imo.

Compton got a lot more votes than Malcolm Marshall so clearly the process got subjective at times. English media (big proportion of the jury) adored Warne and he received charismatic entertainer points. Point of difference gets lapped up too.

 

[kyear2]

Compton got a lot more votes than Malcolm Marshall so clearly the process got subjective at times. English media (big proportion of the jury) adored Warne and he received charismatic entertainer points. Point of difference gets lapped up too.

Outside of Bradman and Sobers, and to a lesser extent Hobbs, it got really subjective.

The charismatic / popular guys just get seriously over rated.

 

[BazBall21]

Outside of Bradman and Sobers, and to a lesser extent Hobbs, it got really subjective.

The charismatic / popular guys just get seriously over rated.

Makes it more surprising that your mate Keith Miller didn't get a vote.

 

[kyear2]

Makes it more surprising that your mate Keith Miller didn't get a vote.

Sobers apart, they didn't seem prone to all rounders. And Sobers may have been there for the batting alone.

My top 5, not that anyone would agree.

Bradman
Sobers
Marshall
Hobbs
McGrath

Tendulkar, Imran, Richards, Gilchrist close behind, Warne possibly 10th.

 

[ma1978]

So Pigeon it is.

So again, how the hell did Warne end up in the Wisden top 5. Marshall, McGrath, Imran all considerably more worthy imo.

because most observers of cricket don’t parse minute statistics

Warne was a delight to watch, revived what was seen as a lost art, and took a heap of wickets.
Mcgrath was in substance no different a bowler than Hadlee or Ambrose or Marshall or Imran or Akram or Lillee

Warne was like no one

 

[BazBall21]

because most observers of cricket don’t parse minute statistics

Warne was a delight to watch, revived what was seen as a lost art, and took a heap of wickets.
Mcgrath was in substance no different a bowler than Hadlee or Ambrose or Marshall or Imran or Akram or Lillee

Warne was like no one

Yeah point of difference is the argument for Warne over McGrath. Everyone in the 90s had a pace bowler closer to McGrath than a spin bowler closer to Warne except Sri Lanka and India. And Kumble wasn't nearly as close to Warne as Ambrose/Donald/Wasim were to McGrath.

 

[kyear2]

because most observers of cricket don’t parse minute statistics

Warne was a delight to watch, revived what was seen as a lost art, and took a heap of wickets.
Mcgrath was in substance no different a bowler than Hadlee or Ambrose or Marshall or Imran or Akram or Lillee

Warne was like no one

Didn't make him better.

And it's not minute stats. Marshall and McGrath were also key to their sides winning, had better surface stats and impact.

The lost art bit is the most overplayed line to justify his placement and ignores what Murali did.