The Secret of Glenn McGrath's Success

[Top_Cat]

What is the main reason behind Glenn McGrath's success;

Longevity.

Glenn McGrath will play his 53 consecutive Test match on Friday against England. That's a phenomenal statistic for him because in the top 20 Australian for consecutive Tests, he's the only BOWLER, let alone FAST bowler. The rest of the list are batsmen.

I guess it's not surprising considering he has the ultimate in smoothe, economical actions. He places very little stress on his body in general but virtually none on his back. So it goes a long way to explaining why he's rarely injured.

So yeah, an interesting facet of his game, don't ya think?

 

[Rik]

Also the fact that he bowls mainly outside off-stump and only the NZ batsmen have worked out that if you leave his deliveries bowled there...then he aims at the stumps and is easier to put away...

 

[Simon]

rik............. what does that have to do with his longevity? That just proves NZ can play him.
Most great fast bowlers would tell you McGrath has stayed so fit, because of his action. Its perfect. Others like lee have a few problems with their positioning when they bowl, but McGrath is straight up in his action.

 

[Rik]

Originally posted by broncoman
rik............. what does that have to do with his longevity? That just proves NZ can play him.
Most great fast bowlers would tell you McGrath has stayed so fit, because of his action. Its perfect. Others like lee have a few problems with their positioning when they bowl, but McGrath is straight up in his action.

Nothing, its just that he was talking about the reasons for his success, one of which is his line of attack.

 

[CricketGuru]

Well the secret to his success sure is his bowling action and his consistent line of bowling attack which is just outside off-stump, but the best contest is when he is bowling agaisnt Sachin Tendulkar he really knows how to distract his consistency and give him some beating

 

[Top_Cat]

Well the secret to his success sure is his bowling action and his consistent line of bowling attack which is just outside off-stump, but the best contest is when he is bowling agaisnt Sachin Tendulkar he really knows how to distract his consistency and give him some beating

Pfft, whatever.

Glenn McGrath averages 16 against India, has gotten Sachin 5 times in 14 innings and Sachin averages 10 runs less per innings (around 42) against Australia when McGrath is in the side compared to 54 overall and almost 68 when Glenn McGrath isn't in the side. Personally, he averages around 26 against McGrath's bowling alone.

Against India in general, even when India have gotten a big score (such as in the only Test in Calcutta in 1997 when Mongia got 152 or Laxman's innings'), Glenn McGrath has still taken wickets and kept the runs down. In fact when Laxman hit 281, Glenn McGrath bowled 39 overs (more than anyone else in the innings, including the only spinner Warne) and still only conceded 3/103. That's around 2.5 runs an over when the whole innings was moving at over 3.5 an over.

The number of times McGrath has got him equals the number of times Cronje and Donald got him so those three bowlers have got him the most in Tests out of any other bowlers.

Now, presented with the facts, there is no way you could say that Glenn McGrath has been dominated by Sachin in any way, shape or form. Sachin has gotten away a few times but Glenn McGrath, out of the 5 times he's got him, two of those were for zero, all LBW. Now that says something about how he bowls to Sachin and also how successful it is.

So actually, the opposite of what you're saying is the truth; Glenn McGrath has dominated Sachin in the Tests they've played against each other.

[Edited on 26/11/2002 by Top_Cat]

 

[royGilchrist]

TC something doesnt sound right about the subject of this thread.

I think...

Success = Longevity.

And not...

Longevity -> Success

Anyways you right, his bowling action is really the key behind his success (longevity).

But I would say it in another way, I have not followed McGrath's career as closely as you might have, but I think from very early on (maybe his teens or something) McGrath seems to have understood his goal completely....his goal is to be a successful bowler. And everything he has done in his career along the way has been keeping this goal in mind. If it meant cutting his pace down he did it, if it meant having a war of words on or off the field with the best opposing batsman, he did it, if he found out that it did not work with some batsmen he stopped doing it if it meant seaming slightly and keeping the ball short of length he did it, if it meant not swinging the ball a lot he did it, if it meant staying supremely fit and healthy he did it. So talent and 'theatrics' aside, he is the ultimate example of a bowler 'made', not 'born'. A bowler's bowler if you will.

 

[Top_Cat]

TC something doesnt sound right about the subject of this thread.

I think...

Success = Longevity.

And not...

Longevity -> Success

Anyways you right, his bowling action is really the key behind his success (longevity).

Well that's what I was really inferring I guess. I mean, being fit and healthy isn't enough; you actually have to be good. It just so happens that Glenn McGrath has endured a relatively injury-free run so he's always there ready to take wickets.

But I would say it in another way, I have not followed McGrath's career as closely as you might have, but I think from very early on (maybe his teens or something) McGrath seems to have understood his goal completely....his goal is to be a successful bowler. And everything he has done in his career along the way has been keeping this goal in mind. If it meant cutting his pace down he did it, if it meant having a war of words on or off the field with the best opposing batsman, he did it, if he found out that it did not work with some batsmen he stopped doing it if it meant seaming slightly and keeping the ball short of length he did it, if it meant not swinging the ball a lot he did it, if it meant staying supremely fit and healthy he did it. So talent and 'theatrics' aside, he is the ultimate example of a bowler 'made', not 'born'. A bowler's bowler if you will.

You pretty much say it all, mate. The thing which makes him good isn't just his ability to swing/cut/seam the ball. It's his brain and his personality. He plans what he wants to do and goes out there and does it which is half the battle. I mean, how many bowlers do you know are too proud to cut their pace or bowl the boring stuff etc.? I'd say the vast majority (including myself I plan everything but once I get out there, I just want to hurt a batsman or two! ).

Basically, Glenn McGrath isn't too proud to admit that he just sticks to a plan and doesn't rely on sheer pace or pure ability to be successful. As you said, a bowler's bowler. Glenn McGrath is held in highest esteem by those who play against him, I notice.

That's why I admire him. I admire Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram for their ability to do the fancy stuff but I admire the professionalism of Glenn McGrath to set goals and achieve them.

Having said that, there's a lot to be said for the execution. Glenn McGrath is a VERY talented bowler. If he says he'l get someone out with an inswinging yorker, he'll do it. If he needs to bowl the unplayable leg-cutter, he'll do it. So it's not all planning; you must have the execution too. Glen has both, which makes him a particularly horrible bowler to face!

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by Top_Cat
Personally, he averages around 26 against McGrath's bowling alone.

Just curious as to how you got this data ?

Against India in general, even when India have gotten a big score (such as in the only Test in Calcutta in 1997 when Mongia got 152 or Laxman's innings'), Glenn McGrath has still taken wickets and kept the runs down.

McGrath was remarkably out of sorts in that one off match in Delhi(not Calcutta) in 1996 when Mongia scored 152.Paul Reiffel bowled much better then McGrath in that match.And it wasn't that high scoring either....nobody got even 400 in that match.

So actually, the opposite of what you're saying is the truth; Glenn McGrath has dominated Sachin in the Tests they've played against each other.

I don't think it can be said that any single bowler has dominated Sachin over the years....not McGrath, not anybody else.McGrath and Sachin have had some very nice duels, and both have come even in my opinion in those contests with both getting a piece of the other.

 

[Top_Cat]

Just curious as to how you got this data ?

Cricinfo Statsguru, of course. Hey, he wasn't even the best in that regard. Sachin averages 12 against Alan Donald.

McGrath was remarkably out of sorts in that one off match in Delhi(not Calcutta) in 1996 when Mongia scored 152.Paul Reiffel bowled much better then McGrath in that match.And it wasn't that high scoring either....nobody got even 400 in that match.

Yeah and Glenn McGrath still took 1/56 off 29 overs in the first-innings. Pretty good bowling for someone who was 'out-of-sorts'.

I watched a lot of the very same match and I though he bowled pretty well. I remember him hitting Ganguly a few times and having him in some trouble as well.

I don't think it can be said that any single bowler has dominated Sachin over the years....not McGrath, not anybody else.McGrath and Sachin have had some very nice duels, and both have come even in my opinion in those contests with both getting a piece of the other.

1) I think Alan Donald might have something to say about whether no-one has dominated him, particularly since Sachin's average against SA is much lower than against anyone else (around 37) and it could pretty convincingly be said that Donald is the main reason behind that.

2) My perception is different. Maybe domination is too strong a word. But having watched them against each other, I'd say Glenn McGrath comfortably wins on points. So we differ.

 

[royGilchrist]

Interesting discussion developing, especially about tendulkar, hope it continues...

BTW, one weakness that I think is there in McGrath...if someone goes after him and succeedes for a bit, McGrath kinda forgets about his game plan and gets rattled.

 

[Top_Cat]

BTW, one weakness that I think is there in McGrath...if someone goes after him and succeedes for a bit, McGrath kinda forgets about his game plan and gets rattled.

Yeah, he used to be pretty bad for that. I don't think he lets batsmen get to him quite as much anymore but if some tail-ender is getting away with some runs, he still gets a little narky.

People always try to go after the line bowlers a little. Richard Hadlee suffered the same. Because he had such a good line, you had a fair idea of where the ball was going. Dean Jones used to do it and after having a pretty torrid time against him, hit 121* against Hadlee with a few 6's. Hadlee's hold on Jones was never quite the same after that.

 

[hourn]

McGraths strengths are:

- his ability to bowl great line and length ball after ball
- his stress free action, i reckon he could play for another 5 years
- has a great nack of picking weakness in batsmen
- height, and therefore, bounce

his weakness are:
- as mentioned, gets frustrated when taken too
- doesn't do much with the ball, although when you land it with such great accuracy you dont really need to

great bowler, and there really is no denying it. He doesn't look flashy. Doesn't bowl quick, althought he bowls with enough pace. Doesn't swing the ball much (can when its new and old), but he just has the ability to bowl ball after ball in the right spot for long periods.

 

[R_Powell_fan]

Well, you guys pretty much summed it up, increadible accuracy, and never say die attidute towards his game, he pretty much got himself where heis now.

 

[Gotchya]

Yeah, he used to be pretty bad for that. I don't think he lets batsmen get to him quite as much anymore but if some tail-ender is getting away with some runs, he still gets a little narky.

I remember during the world series match when Razzak hit him for 5 or 6 boundaries in an over. Every shot was a drive in front of the wicket. And I was really surprised to see him cluless. After the first three boundaries you would expect him to change what was going wrong. Its just that a lot of batsmen dont take it to him, which is probably becuase of Mcgraths precise line and length.

 

[Bazza]

Originally posted by royGilchrist
Interesting discussion developing, especially about tendulkar, hope it continues...

BTW, one weakness that I think is there in McGrath...if someone goes after him and succeedes for a bit, McGrath kinda forgets about his game plan and gets rattled.

Who doesn't? I know it doesn't always look that way but the guy is human after all!:rolleyes:

 

[Gotchya]

Who doesn't? I know it doesn't always look that way but the guy is human after all!

Maybe then you haven't seen him getting hit. What I meant in my earlier post is that when he does get hit, atleast I dont see him pulling a rabit out of the hat. You would see other bowlers respond differently to adventurous hitting. The only time I remember a plan to rein in an attacking batsman was in the WC99 against Klusener to bowl yorkers outside his offstump.

 

[WeptWindies]

Originally posted by aussie_beater
quote]

I don't think it can be said that any single bowler has dominated Sachin over the years....not McGrath, not anybody else.McGrath and Sachin have had some very nice duels, and both have come even in my opinion in those contests with both getting a piece of the other.

If the stats provided by TC are correct, then it appears to me that Glen has actually dominated Sachin!

 

[Top_Cat]

Maybe then you haven't seen him getting hit. What I meant in my earlier post is that when he does get hit, atleast I dont see him pulling a rabit out of the hat. You would see other bowlers respond differently to adventurous hitting. The only time I remember a plan to rein in an attacking batsman was in the WC99 against Klusener to bowl yorkers outside his offstump.

I think it's just a different way of thinking, really. When someone is hitting Glenn McGrath, he says to himself "You can't keep doing it. If I keep it in the same spot, I'll get you eventually." That time, Razzaq pumelled him but most other times, Razzaq has been rattled by him.

You're right, though. Other bowlers would try something different. Mind you, Razzaq was in really good form that day. I doubt anyone could have shut him down.

Mind you, if you actually remember specific times McGrath has been collared, you'd have to agree that means it hasn't happened often.

Also, I think you'd probably find that it's just a difference in attitude. All of the Aussie bowlers stick RIGIDLY to a plan, regardless of whether someone is getting hit around. I would venture to say that the other Aussie bowlers would have kept the ball in the same spot just like McGrath in that situation. A Wasim or Waqar might have tried something different to blast a batsman out but it's a different situation. They are EXPECTED to do something like that so if it doesn't come off and they get hit some more, no-one questions it. If Jason Gillespie were bowling to Brian Lara, getting hit and he tried a yorker and got smacked for six, he'd be out of the attack or berated for not sticking to the plan. It's just a different perspective.

 

[aussie_beater]

Originally posted by Top_Cat
My perception is different. Maybe domination is too strong a word. But having watched them against each other, I'd say Glenn McGrath comfortably wins on points. So we differ.

Going by those stats, you'd find that Sachin has scored only 2 runs or therabouts against Pollock and 8 runs against Cairns.So to say based on those stats that one bowler has "dominated" a batsman is not correct.

Say for example, Andy Caddick has dismissed Steve Waugh 8 times and has conceded only an average of 10 runs.That sounds like domination as per your logic right ?....but I think it would be stupid to say that Waugh has been dominated by Caddick over all these years of Ashes cricket. For an English bowler to get that title against Waugh is quite ridiculous in my opinion.

[Edited on 26/11/2002 by aussie_beater]