Second greatest Australian

[subshakerz]

McGrath has 110 plus games, or 13 years of consistent worldclass performance from 95 to 2007.

That is so far out of the norm of longevity for any fast bowler, like Tendulkars 157 tests of peak.

That is why I rate him so highly. Plus he wasn't smashed anywhere like Warne.

 

[honestbharani]

I think McGrath was the better bowler but Warne had the bigger impact IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Look, it's probably me.

I don't like to boast, but the question has been posed. Only Whitlam can be said to be categorically ahead in terms of achievement and the reverence in which he's held.

 

[kyear2]

I think McGrath was the better bowler but Warne had the bigger impact IMO.

How so?

 

[ataraxia]

How so?

Bowled more, fielded better, batted better.

 

[Line and Length]

Bowled more, fielded better, batted better.

... and had more charisma.

 

[honestbharani]

Bowled more, fielded better, batted better.

Yeah.. and while I dont buy this stupid narrative that he revitalized legspin around the world or anything, he was definitely box office and that definitely helps the prominence of the sport at least in Australia.

 

[kyear2]

So basically the last two responses basically came down to personality.

Don't see why that's a thing tbh.

 

[Adders]

So basically the last two responses basically came down to personality.

Don't see why that's a thing tbh.

Warne was just box office, a very rare superstar of our game. People tuned in or turned up just to watch him.

McGrath was brilliant, toss a coin for him and Marshall as GOAT imo but he was boring as bat****. To me he was far more important than Warne to that Aussie side wining games of cricket, but in terms of impact on the game.....nobody comes even remotely close to Warne.

 

[thierry henry]

Genuine question, knowing that this sort of thing gets done on CW - has anyone done a statistical analysis to try to explore the argument that spinners are worth their place in the side over seamers who are better performers at statistical face value?

Warne is a very good example of the general principle as I think it's pretty well accepted that he's an elite ATG bowler even though his average isn't. I also understand it to be pretty well accepted that spinners will generally have worse averages than pace bowlers. I take the main arguments justifying this to include:

- The performance of seamers is improved by adding variety to the attack with spinners
- Spinners can bowl longer spells, allowing seamers to bowl shorter and more effective ones
- Spinners are more effective than seamers in certain conditions and it is worthwhile having them in the team in case those conditions arise

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.

 

[Spark]

Without making a judgement on the comparison here, I'll just say that a lot of CW analysis and purely stat-based judgements (but I repeat myself) systematically and quite massively understates the importance of even decent, let alone great, spinners to the stability of a bowling attack.

Edit: Also will echo everything in the post right above mine.

 

[kyear2]

Genuine question, knowing that this sort of thing gets done on CW - has anyone done a statistical analysis to try to explore the argument that spinners are worth their place in the side over seamers who are better performers at statistical face value?

Warne is a very good example of the general principle as I think it's pretty well accepted that he's an elite ATG bowler even though his average isn't. I also understand it to be pretty well accepted that spinners will generally have worse averages than pace bowlers. I take the main arguments justifying this to include:

- The performance of seamers is improved by adding variety to the attack with spinners
- Spinners can bowl longer spells, allowing seamers to bowl shorter and more effective ones
- Spinners are more effective than seamers in certain conditions and it is worthwhile having them in the team in case those conditions arise

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.

And that's part of the premise of the thread.

 

[thierry henry]

I actually wrote out and then deleted quite a bit just now, tying myself in knots trying to explain why I think spinners having worse averages ultimately does mean that spinners are just a bit worse than seamers. Suffice to say that remains my default position.

 

[kyear2]

I actually wrote out and then deleted quite a bit just now, tying myself in knots trying to explain why I think spinners having worse averages ultimately does mean that spinners are just a bit worse than seamers. Suffice to say that remains my default position.

They can bowl longer spells, they are effective with the older ball, but with reverse swing, so are seamers.

On a torn up last day pitch they can be a handful, but I've seen Ambrose do the same.

They do have a place in most teams and a great one is as asset, but they are more limited than seamers and a bit easier to see off.

I still believe McGrath was move pivotal to the Aussie team though.

 

[Daemon]

Genuine question, knowing that this sort of thing gets done on CW - has anyone done a statistical analysis to try to explore the argument that spinners are worth their place in the side over seamers who are better performers at statistical face value?

Yes, I have run the numbers. Spinners are often better value to a side compared to a fast bowler because they can get through their overs quickly and we know based on empirical and anecdotal evidence that if over rates ever drop below what is acceptable, everyone stops enjoying the match immediately.

 

[thierry henry]

Yes, I have run the numbers. Spinners are often better value to a side compared to a fast bowler because they can get through their overs quickly and we know based on empirical and anecdotal evidence that if over rates ever drop below what is acceptable, everyone stops enjoying the match immediately.

This is important, but I’m conflicted because I’m pretty sure that once cricket becomes enjoyable it is by definition Bad Cricket

 

[ma1978]

So basically the last two responses basically came down to personality.

Don't see why that's a thing tbh.

because sports is entertainment

 

[Silver Silva]

Look, it's probably me.

I don't like to boast, but the question has been posed. Only Whitlam can be said to be categorically ahead in terms of achievement and the reverence in which he's held.

Definitely a CW GOAT

 

[Silver Silva]

Mcgrath for consistency everywhere, also helped win 3 ODI WC's for Australia.

 

[ankitj]

Miller should have been an option.