Second greatest Australian

[Victor Ian]

Wasn't the voting before Warne started to have a dodgy shoulder, and he was scooting along at 5 wickets per match?

 

[BazBall21]

He was actually more destructive in terms of WPM from 2001-2005 (second peak) than he was from 1993-1997.

 

[Coronis]

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.

The real way to save test cricket.

 

[howitzer]

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.

The arrogance of this ****, thinking he's better than Border.

 

[Burgey]

The arrogance of this ****, thinking he's better than Border.

Look, I had to factor in his unfortunate decline. Pre-diagnosis, he takes first place and I get pushed down to third

 

[Coronis]

Look, I had to factor in his unfortunate decline. Pre-diagnosis, he takes first place and I get pushed down to third

Now we’re all just waiting on the Burgey decline.

 

[ma1978]

Miller should have been an option.

I like Colin Miller as much as the next guy but really?

 

[Daemon]

Look, I had to factor in his unfortunate decline. Pre-diagnosis, he takes first place and I get pushed down to third

You came like 15th in botm bitch calm tf down

 

[Burgey]

Won it twice, butter balls. Shut your whore mouth.

 

[subshakerz]

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

Without a doubt.

Without Warne, Australia would still have been undisputed no.1 team from 95 to 2007, it just would have just been more competitive. MacGill would have mostly taken Warnes role. The only place I would see them losing that they didnt is SL 2004.

Without McGrath, this would be a question because of how diminished the attack would be in his absence. Gillespie, Fleming, Lee and Kasprowicz would have struggled to make the same sort of impact in the early part of a test without McGraths control, Warne would have been required to bail them out in too many games in 3rd and 4th innings.

Without McGrath, they lose in WI in 95 and WI 99. They likely lose in India in 2004/5 too even though he wasn't main wickettaker but he was so pivotal in chocking their bats. They would also end up losing a surprise series or two at home somewhere in between since Warne wasn't nearly as effective at home in the 2000s.

 

[Prince EWS]

I like Colin Miller as much as the next guy but really?

This reminds me of the guy who genuinely thought we were voting James Faulkner as one of the greatest allrounders of all time.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Bradman

Then


Lillee
Gilly
Miller
Mcgrath
Warne
Smith
Trumper

IMO

 

[shortpitched713]

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.

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.

 

[kyear2]

Miller should have been an option.

As I said earlier, shouldn't have used that title, the main purpose was to determine which of the two were greater more pivotal to the Aussies success / dynasty.

 

[kyear2]

because sports is entertainment

That it is, and I guess it's like how persons get caught up with aesthetics with Kobe over, let's say Duncan, when Tim was more efficient in every way possible.

But here were talking about personality trumping performance on the field.

 

[ankitj]

I like Colin Miller as much as the next guy but really?

Outperformed Warne whenever he played against India, the best players of spin.

 

[ma1978]

That it is, and I guess it's like how persons get caught up with aesthetics with Kobe over, let's say Duncan, when Tim was more efficient in every way possible.

But here were talking about personality trumping performance on the field.

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

 

[shortpitched713]

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

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.

 

[ma1978]

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.

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.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

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