Why is McGrath NOT an all-time great?

[silentstriker]

100% not getting into this again.

 

[Matt79]

Oh come on! This is a point I'd be genuinely interested in your opinion on, and its not in the middle of another thread or anything. I'm not trying to score points on the whole GM-OLAS thing or the Grace/Trumper thing either...

 

[silentstriker]

Oh come on! This is a point I'd be genuinely interested in your opinion on, and its not in the middle of another thread or anything. I'm not trying to score points on the whole GM-OLAS thing or the Grace/Trumper thing either...

So tell me this, if he just preys on impatient batsmen, how come he averages 9.83 against Kallis and 10.00 against Dravid. Unless you think those are impatient men. The fact is he relishes the patient men because they can never score against him and eventually they'll nick one or misjudge one.

Thats his hall mark, he doesn't have the bad balls.

 

[adharcric]

Good point. He actually does better against technically correct batsmen (Dravid, Kallis, tentative Tendulkar) than he does against the aggressive type (Pietersen, aggressive Tendulkar). So yeah, Richards might own him but the rest ... GM averaging 20 back in the day?

 

[silentstriker]

Good point. He actually does better against technically correct batsmen (Dravid, Kallis, tentative Tendulkar) than he does against the aggressive type (Pietersen, aggressive Tendulkar). So yeah, Richards might own him but the rest ... GM averaging 20 back in the day?

Look, I don't want to go insane here with praise but even an aggressive batsman (Tendulkar) still eonly averages 22 against him. Lara does better, so does Laxman.

So if anything, the more aggressive you are, the better you do. He wouldn't be any less effective in bygone eras. Like you say, Richards might do well against him like Lara has done, but he'd be just as much of a thorn, if not more, against most of the others.

Its not just accuracy. He's a tall man, so he does get the ball at odd heights on perfect line and length. People call him a metronome as if its some sort of an insult.

 

[Matt79]

Good points. It was a theory, it sounds like its not a very good one, Dravid and Kallis are two of the more patient players going around today.

 

[nightprowler10]

Not the first time I've heard this argument to be honest, and it holds some weight as far as I'm concerned. But there are other things that you are not taking in to account. One of them being, as I once mentioned while comparing Wasim and Glenn, had he been in a different era, his game plan would be more than likely different to what it is now. He keeps bowling that nagging line because he is successful with it. In a different era when he might not have been as successful, he would more than likely use different methods, maybe experiment a bit more, increase his pace, etc. But you wouldn't see him using these tactics since, well like we say in America, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[nightprowler10]

Good points. It was a theory, it sounds like its not a very good one, Dravid and Kallis are two of the more patient players going around today.

Yes but not necessarily as technically correct as some of the players of the past.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes but not necessarily as technically correct as some of the players of the past.

Oh? I find it hard to believe that there have been too many technically better batsmen than Tendulkar or Kallis or Dravid. Equalled certainly, but few surpassed. Technique these days is in short supply but IMO Tendulkar's technique is about as 'correct' as any player is likely to ever get. Dravid and Kallis with their defense are in the same boat.

 

[nightprowler10]

Sure they're the most technically correct batsmen of our time, but as far as the McGrath debate goes, I doubt he would have this kind of success against someone with a better technique like, say Gavaskar.

 

[silentstriker]

Sure they're the most technically correct batsmen of our time, but as far as the McGrath debate goes, I doubt he would have this kind of success against someone with a better technique like, say Gavaskar.

Gavaskar had the better defense, but overall I don't think he had better technique than Tendulkar. Better than Dravid, yes.

 

[nightprowler10]

Gavaskar had the better defense, but overall I don't think he had better technique than Tendulkar. Better than Dravid, yes.

I never said Sachin though, did I?

 

[silentstriker]

I never said Sachin though, did I?

Oh, well yes Gavaskar did have better technique compared to Dravid. So maybe he would have averaged twice as much as Dravid.

 

[nightprowler10]

Oh, well yes Gavaskar did have better technique compared to Dravid. So maybe he would have averaged twice as much as Dravid.

Haha, could be, but somehow I doubt it. I really don't think technique has anything to do with the whole thing anyway. Inzamam averages 24 against McGrath, but his technique isn't all that great. Younis has a better technique from what I know about batting, yet averages 15 against McGrath. I guess its got to do with a batsman's approach towards him, like the way Lara gets on top of him, or the way Anwar used to.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Oh? I find it hard to believe that there have been too many technically better batsmen than Tendulkar or Kallis or Dravid. Equalled certainly, but few surpassed. Technique these days is in short supply but IMO Tendulkar's technique is about as 'correct' as any player is likely to ever get. Dravid and Kallis with their defense are in the same boat.

I'd say a lot of batsmen from previous eras had more developed techiques because of the occasional rank-bad pitches they used to have to play on. In the modern era players with glaring flaws (Hayden & Smith are the two that come to mind) can have very successful careers because of the very true pitches they play the majority of their cricket on.

Players like Dravid & Kallis are almost a throwback in that they're primarily defensive batters with largely flawless techniques. Ironically neither open. The last quote-unquote "proper" opener we had was dear old Rigor Richardson.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd say a lot of batsmen from previous eras had more developed techiques because of the occasional rank-bad pitches they used to have to play on. In the modern era players with glaring flaws (Hayden & Smith are the two that come to mind) can have very successful careers because of the very true pitches they play the majority of their cricket on.

Players like Dravid & Kallis are almost a throwback in that they're primarily defensive batters with largely flawless techniques. Ironically neither open. The last quote-unquote "proper" opener we had was dear old Rigor Richardson.

Agree. Sehwag too.

 

[Ikki]

McGrath's the greatest.

 

[mohammad16]

McGrath's the greatest.

at being overrated as being called the greatest bowler of all time

 

[PhoenixFire]

at being overrated as being called the greatest bowler of all time

Right on brother, want to join my society.

 

[shankar]

Look, I don't want to go insane here with praise but even an aggressive batsman (Tendulkar) still eonly averages 22 against him. Lara does better, so does Laxman.

How do you arrive at that 22 figure? Tendulkar averages close to 50 in matches against McGrath.