Why McGrath is the best

[Slifer]

He's 37 and has 542 Test wickets.I think you have a fair chance that any rating you make now will not deviate significantly.

Me personally, I'd rate him as at least equal to Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose. etc. As far as I'm concerned he's in the very top echelon and I don't think there's any way that group can be separated.

Exactly and esp. Ambrose as both played in essentially the same era and both have very similar records

 

[archie mac]

Can you name some that are better?

I am not saying others are better, just that he is not clearly the best, maybe at the end of his career we will be able to say that.

I hope people are not getting the impression that I do not rate McGrath, I just feel the amount of Tests now played gives players the chance to take 500+ wickets. Where as when players like Tate were at their peak and an automatic selection for England, he only played 39 Tests in 11 years.

It is also hard to know what sort of speed some of the earlier greats bowled at, but if we include medium/fast-fast/medium bowlers but try an exclude fast bowlers then some names I would throw up would include:

SF Barnes
Maurice Tate
Alec Bedser
Alan Davidson
Fazal Mahmood
Richard Hadlee
Terry Alderman

 

[silentstriker]

I am not saying others are better, just that he is not clearly the best, maybe at the end of his career we will be able to say that.

I hope people are not getting the impression that I do not rate McGrath, I just feel the amount of Tests now played gives players the chance to take 500+ wickets. Where as when players like Tate were at their peak and an automatic selection for England, he only played 39 Tests in 11 years.

It is also hard to know what sort of speed some of the earlier greats bowled at, but if we include medium/fast-fast/medium bowlers but try an exclude fast bowlers then some names I would throw up would include:

SF Barnes
Maurice Tate
Alec Bedser
Alan Davidson
Fazal Mahmood
Richard Hadlee
Terry Alderman

Sure, and I feel McGrath is #1. Its not clear and its not obvious (its not like Bradman and second best). But out of those, if I had to choose one over their whole career, it would be McGrath.

 

[howardj]

Me personally, I'd rate him as at least equal to Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose. etc. As far as I'm concerned he's in the very top echelon and I don't think there's any way that group can be separated.

Yeah I'd agree with that.

Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose, Akram and McGrath.

They're the top echelon, that I've seen heaps of footage of.

Ranking them is a futile, hair-splitting exercise.

 

[Swervy]

Wheres Richard...he would tell you that McGrath is just a lucky bowler

Personally I would have McGrath just a tad below Hadlee(who probably pips it for best I have ever seen),and Marshall, and about the same as Ambrose,Lillee and maybe slightly ahead of Akram , Imran etc

 

[archie mac]

Sure, and I feel McGrath is #1. Its not clear and its not obvious (its not like Bradman and second best). But out of those, if I had to choose one over their whole career, it would be McGrath.

No worries, I just remember someone posting he was clearly the best, and I just don't agree with that