Second greatest Australian

[kyear2]

the difference in performance between warne and mcgrath is not statistically significant

and no one has created proper analysis to statistically quantify comparable performance in cricket

so you can't really say that

McGrath has a way better average and strike rate, way more top order wickets and took out the main threat way more often.

 

[Slifer]

All I know is this. Both McGrath and Warne played against the same Atg batting lineup. One was treated like a rank amateur and the other bowler more than held his own.

Someone commented it's because McGrath on pitches that favored him more...bullocks. Warne sucked in India where wkts favor spin and one of McGraths claim to fame is succeeding in the flat wicket era. Warne is more charismatic bla bla bla but just because great leg spinners are fewer and farer between don't make them better than the absolute top shelf fast bowlers. They aren't. McGrath > Warne.

 

[Line and Length]

The above explains in general terms why spinners make the team, but how do you compare them with seamers head to head? Cos on face value, I'm always going to say McGrath>Warne, but that's in lieu of a solid way to compare spinner output with seamer output.

You can't, or shouldn't, compare them head-to-head. We should simply accept that both would make an ATG Australian XI. Too many times we have player comparisons asking us to rate different cricket disciplines. It's a futile and needless excercise. By all means compare like with like but let's steert away with asking ridiculous comparisons such as 'Gilchrist v Miller' and 'Anderson v Ashwin'. Even comparing openers v middle order batsmen is (for me) an irritating comparison.

 

[subshakerz]

The spinner generally is better suited to a support role than a leading one, due to his long spell / over rate advantage. But outside of very favorable conditions, the leading strike bowler role will not be his.

There are only occasionally ever freak exceptions to this, like Murali. But yeah, there are advantages to a spinner, but since CW discussion mostly focus on the "lead" test bowlers, they rarely end up being that relevant in these convos, imo.

For average, I'd probably adjust down a spinners by 1.5 if he's the lone Frontline bowling spinner, but 1 or less if he has partners ( his intrinsic support value declines with each additional spinner). It's just a rule of thumb though, not too much science behind it.

The biggest disadvantage of any spinner is Day 1 of a test match assuming the pitch isn't broken up.

 

[subshakerz]

All I know is this. Both McGrath and Warne played against the same Atg batting lineup. One was treated like a rank amateur and the other bowler more than held his own.

Someone commented it's because McGrath on pitches that favored him more...bullocks. Warne sucked in India where wkts favor spin and one of McGraths claim to fame is succeeding in the flat wicket era. Warne is more charismatic bla bla bla but just because great leg spinners are fewer and farer between don't make them better than the absolute top shelf fast bowlers. They aren't. McGrath > Warne.

A lead pacer like McGrath sets the tone, controls the momentum and even when Australia weren't getting wickets you felt they were on top.

Warne was important for ATGs Australia's success, but McGrath was essential.

 

[Slifer]

You can't, or shouldn't, compare them head-to-head. We should simply accept that both would make an ATG Australian XI. Too many times we have player comparisons asking us to rate different cricket disciplines. It's a futile and needless excercise. By all means compare like with like but let's steert away with asking ridiculous comparisons such as 'Gilchrist v Miller' and 'Anderson v Ashwin'. Even comparing openers v middle order batsmen is (for me) an irritating comparison.

I especially agree with the bolded portion.

 

[ma1978]

A lot more pepppe derived joy from watching Warne play than Mcgrath. At a certain level of comparable accomplishment (and yes I see the argument for Mcgraths statistical superiority but that’s much of a muchness when you are comparing two ATGs) that matters.

same with someone like Wasim.

 

[Bolo.]

All I know is this. Both McGrath and Warne played against the same Atg batting lineup. One was treated like a rank amateur and the other bowler more than held his own.

Someone commented it's because McGrath on pitches that favored him more...bullocks. Warne sucked in India where wkts favor spin and one of McGraths claim to fame is succeeding in the flat wicket era. Warne is more charismatic bla bla bla but just because great leg spinners are fewer and farer between don't make them better than the absolute top shelf fast bowlers. They aren't. McGrath > Warne.

That was me.

Don't read it as Mcgrath having it easy on pitches... He definitely didn't. I just think Warne have it even rougher. They probably played 80% of games outside the SC

 

[Spark]

Their difference in average is almost a whole 4 runs per wicket ( 3.77 to be exact ). If that's not statistically significant over the course of a career, then I've been doing stats wrong my whole life.

This is not what "statistically significant" means.

the difference in performance between warne and mcgrath is not statistically significant

and no one has created proper analysis to statistically quantify comparable performance in cricket

so you can't really say that

This is also not what statistically significant means.

 

[ma1978]

This is not what "statistically significant" means.



This is also not what statistically significant means.

yes you are right

let’s just use the word meaningful

 

[Spark]

yes you are right

let’s just use the word meaningful

I mean in principle 4 runs per wicket is the nominal equivalent of 80 runs a game. It's a fair amount!

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

McGrath was definitely the better bowler. Warne probably the greater cricketer but that happens to be largely due to being at right time.

 

[shortpitched713]

you have been doing stats wrong your whole life (which explains many of your other views)

can't comprare pace bowler and spinner averages given when and how spinners eat up overs.

I'm fine with that concept, but the "spinner tax" for me ought to average out to something like 1.5 runs deducted from average, at most, and less if the spinner is bowling in tandem with another spinner. When I account for that situational spinner benefit 3.77 - 1.5 = 2.27, which is still enough for me to say that McGrath is statistically a more effective bowler.

Even adjusting for a tough era for Warne ( and McGrath too of course) Warne will end up falling short of the ATG pacers. Warne has a lot of great qualities, and is certainly an ATG, but eye-popping statistical prowess for a bowler is not one of them. (Got an absolutely gun SR for a spinner though.)

 

[shortpitched713]

There's a pretty big gap in career wickets though. And they mainly played on grounds that were kinder to quicks than spinners.

Eh, I'd expect Warne to have a greater WPM, because he can do the valuable task of churning through more overs, when required.

But it's still too big of a gap for me to explain away just with that factor. If I could have a critical spell in which only 1 of them gets to bowl from both ends, I want 2 McGraths, not 2 Warnes. McGrath is just a more high leverage bowler. Thankfully for Australia though, they could get the complementary virtues of each, on the same side.

 

[shortpitched713]

This is not what "statistically significant" means.

If we're going with a p-value definition of statistically significant, then our null hypothesis is the bowlers are the same. Putting aside the fact that one is a spinner and the other is a seamer (and thus has a lot of noise and apples to oranges factors to consider) for the sake of comparison, I'd damn sure think that a 3.77 difference in average would disprove a null of McGrath and Warne perform the same (by an average criteria) . Hell, with such a large sample of overs bowled I daresay you could disprove it with a much smaller average difference too.

 

[Spark]

If we're going with a p-value definition of statistically significant, then our null hypothesis is the bowlers are the same. Putting aside the fact that one is a spinner and the other is a seamer (and thus has a lot of noise and apples to oranges factors to consider) for the sake of comparison, I'd damn sure think that a 3.77 difference in average would disprove a null of McGrath and Warne perform the same (by an average criteria) . Hell, with such a large sample of overs bowled I daresay you could disprove it with a much smaller average difference too.

Only if you could demonstrate that both were iid sampled from the same underlying distribution, which you would have an extremely difficult time proving (which is in no small part because it's not true)

 

[shortpitched713]

Only if you could demonstrate that both were iid sampled from the same underlying distribution, which you would have an extremely difficult time proving (which is in no small part because it's not true)

I mean they are both humans bowlers so...

Actually, not quite sure what proving this would end up entailing though. Almost every sample could be picked apart, and determined to not quite be properly pulled ( or not reflecting the same distribution either ), it probably helps that it's really easy to pick this example apart in such a way.

 

[kyear2]

McGrath double up Warne is pretty definitive despite low vote count.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I mean in principle 4 runs per wicket is the nominal equivalent of 80 runs a game. It's a fair amount!

140 more wickets over a career is pretty significant too tbf

 

[Jumno]

Just go for McGrath. However Warnie's heroics makes him a special case too.