Has McGrath ever been dominated?

[Shehezaada]

Doesn't wash. How did Lara & Vaughan flay McGrath while their teams were getting hammered? And was the match situation any different when Sachin scored off Fleming or Warne? Stop sitting on the fence' date=' and give credit where it's due.[/quote'] You have to look at the game plan. Tendulkar couldn't dominate McGrath because of the risks involved. Just on a length outside off stump all the time. Fleming and Warne were easier to score off of. McGrath he looked to keep at bay, not actively looking to score runs. I am giving credit where it's due. McGrath is an excellent bowler and probably the one bowler in history that gave Tendulkar the most problems he's ever faced. But to say he's dominated him is not accurate, in my opinion.

[Shehezaada]

I'm guessing you haven't watched much of those games. Tendulkar didn't go after him because he 'couldn't afford to', he didn't go after him because McGrath's precision in bowling meant he never had that opportunity. Fleming, Warne, Gillespie, etc were all serious wicket-taking threats. Tendulkar didn't buckle down to ensure they didn't break through; he went after all of them. When he had the chances to attack McGrath, he also did it - but most of the time McGrath's bowling clipped his wings and left him unable to really dominate.

I have seen plenty of tapes on visits to India when Tendulkar was batting against McGrath. I always recall Tendulkar leaving most of them outside off and giving McGrath the respect he deserved. I didn't mean that Tendulkar didn't go after him because he couldn't afford to...as if he was just laying back and playing safe when he KNEW he could kill McGrath any time he wanted. Obviously McGrath was so precise Tendulkar really couldn't dominate him...a point that I've already made before. Fleming, Warne, Gillespie were wicket taking threats sure but you can't defend against all of them can you? The point I'm trying to make is not that Tendulkar ever dominated McGrath. I don't think McGrath was ever dominated. But I don't think McGrath ever dominated Tendulkar, psychologically, or cricket wise speaking.

[Shehezaada]

Is he sitting on the fence or trying to hang from it? :winky:

Still growing biyatch!

[Dhondy]

It's difficult to debate with you S., because you haven't studied science, you see, not in a serious way as a career path, at least. That's why you come up with sentences devoid of rigour such as "Ignore the stats, look at the match situation". That's why you quote JK Rowling type scenarios such as a basketball player growing 10 inches at the age of 20. It just makes one feel one is wasting time, really. The stats are up there, quoted by Tapioca. It reinforces what many, including die hard fans of Sachin such as Thal have long suspected, having watched the two players duel, growing up, yet to you, all that doesn't matter, because you have already reached your conclusion, evidence be damned. That's what I mean by an approach devoid of scientific rigour. That is reflected in the other thread as well. You have quoted a little known for profit company who advocate stretching exercises to grow taller and a couple of anecdotes that are almost impossible to verify. You know, for those of us who have slaved all our lives, examining our own learning, thoughts and actions to make sure that they conform to evidence, to fact, this kind of unshakeable belief, based on ignorance, is laughable. If you really want to debate, go out there, read some scientific reviews on how human beings grow and why they stop growing when they do, and then come and argue. I say this not in a condescending way, but to save yourself and myself a lot of time.

[Shehezaada]

It's difficult to debate with you S., because you haven't studied science, you see, not in a serious way as a career path, at least. That's why you come up with sentences devoid of rigour such as "Ignore the stats, look at the match situation". That's why you quote JK Rowling type scenarios such as a basketball player growing 10 inches at the age of 20. It just makes one feel one is wasting time, really. The stats are up there, quoted by Tapioca. It reinforces what many, including die hard fans of Sachin such as Thal have long suspected, having watched the two players duel, growing up, yet to you, all that doesn't matter, because you have already reached your conclusion, evidence be damned. That's what I mean by an approach devoid of scientific rigour. That is reflected in the other thread as well. You have quoted a little known for profit company who advocate stretching exercises to grow taller and a couple of anecdotes that are almost impossible to verify. You know, for those of us who have slaved all our lives, examining our own learning, thoughts and actions to make sure that they conform to evidence, to fact, this kind of unshakeable belief, based on ignorance, is laughable. If you really want to debate, go out there, read some scientific reviews on how human beings grow and why they stop growing when they do, and then come and argue. I say this not in a condescending way, but to save yourself and myself a lot of time.

Look man, let's keep those threads seperate aight?. I'm not concerned about that stuff at this stage because I really don't have the time to go out and study how people grow. All I know is that I'm doing it and I'm gonna continue to do it. I have school, and then cricket, and that alone is taking up so much of my time that I can't unfortunately go out and study other stuff. For Tendulkar vs McGrath, it's my personal opinion that McGrath has not dominated Tendulkar. Looking at the match conditions, and the game plans, everything combined, I don't see the word Dominance really describing the scenario. Dominance to me, from a bowling point of view, is the ability to create a mental block in a player "That you Can't play me". Being scared to face up to that bowler. Always look like getting out to that bowler. That is dominance. Has McGrath had the upper hand on Tendulkar? Sure. McGrath is the one who's troubled Tendulkar most. If not 50-50 between the two, then atleast 60-40. Tendulkar has got his own on as well.

[Anakin]

Cricket is not science. And even there, there is context to everything including numbers. Stats without context never really gave the whole picture as lots of people repeated found out. I've always respected McGrath and Donald, probably the two bowlers who bothered SRT the most.

[Dhondy]

Cricket is not science. And even there, there is context to everything including numbers. Stats without context never really gave the whole picture as lots of people repeated found out. I've always respected McGrath and Donald, probably the two bowlers who bothered SRT the most.

In this thread, I was not advocating the use of science in cricket, although that is very important as well, but the use of scientific principles in our discussions, because that is within our remit. In this particular case, it means rising above our natural bias as Indians and examining the Sachin v McGrath scenario through unjaundiced eyes. Over many years of watching these two lock horns- and there was no other duel I'd rather watch- I often felt Sachin's primary premise was to see McGrath off. How cautious he was, was evident at last from the blog stats that Tapioca quoted. It is an astonishing piece of statistic, and as it confirms my long-held suspicions, I'd say the context is right too. Refute me if you like, but you must use something better than personal opinion. I can see that S. has already yielded 10%.:winky:

[Anakin]

Leaving out someone's most deliveries doesn't prove total dominance either, I suppose that's what S meant. But McGrath gets the edge over SRT since SRT's plan/strategy didn't totally pay off. BTW, I'm very curious how you formulate cricket dominance using scientific principles without natural bias.

[Shehezaada]

Hope this is enough Stats for you Einstein. This is Tendulkar vs McGrath in Australia in 1999. Results to follow in next post: Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 57 Runs Scored: 12 Balls Left: 33 Played and Missed: 5 Boundaries: 2 Astonishingly 58% were left alone, something which I was pointing out earlier about McGrath's game plan to Tendulkar. On off and again. 2nd innings: Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 2 Runs Scored: 0 Balls Left: 1 Played and Missed: 0 Boundaries: 0 2nd Test: India trailing by 394, Tendulkar walks in Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 34 Runs Scored: 10 Balls Left: 11 Played and Missed: 1 Boundaries: 0 2nd innings: Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 19 Runs Scored: 10 Balls Left: 5 Played and Missed: 0 Boundaries: 0 3rd Test: India batting first and it's 30/2 Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 20 Runs Scored: 20 Balls Left: 4 Played and Missed: 1 Boundaries: 4 2nd Innings: Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 2 Runs Scored: 4 Balls Left: 0 Played and Missed: 0 Boundaries: 1

[Shehezaada]

Hope this is enough Stats for you Einstein. This is Tendulkar vs McGrath in Australia in 1999. Results to follow in next post: Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 57 Runs Scored: 12 Balls Left: 33 Played and Missed: 5 Boundaries: 2 Astonishingly 58% were left alone, something which I was pointing out earlier about McGrath's game plan to Tendulkar. On off and again. 2nd innings: Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 2 Runs Scored: 0 Balls Left: 1 Played and Missed: 0 Boundaries: 0 2nd Test: India trailing by 394, Tendulkar walks in Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 34 Runs Scored: 10 Balls Left: 11 Played and Missed: 1 Boundaries: 0 2nd innings: Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 19 Runs Scored: 10 Balls Left: 5 Played and Missed: 0 Boundaries: 0 3rd Test: India batting first and it's 30/2 Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 20 Runs Scored: 20 Balls Left: 4 Played and Missed: 1 Boundaries: 4 2nd Innings: Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 2 Runs Scored: 4 Balls Left: 0 Played and Missed: 0 Boundaries: 1

A summary of the work above Tendulkar vs McGrath in the 1999 Australia series in Australia. I went through the ball by ball commentary that Cricinfo has. Balls Faced From McGrath - 134 Runs Scored - 56 Balls Left - 54 Played and Missed/Not in Control - 7 Strike Rate - 41.8 Boundaries - 7 Astonishingly, Tendulkar was able to leave 40% of McGrath's deliveries! Which is what I've been saying all along, McGrath attempted to work him outside the off stump but Tendulkar just ignored it. Why play at them when you can get out? Another important statistic is only 7 plays and misses out of 134, which is 5%. Hardly dominating figures. Again, the downside to this statistical analysis is that we 1) Leave out match context 2) Rely on the commentator to tell us what's going on. Also, there are instances of - no run in the logs, of which benefit of doubt I gave to Tendulkar (considering it a ball he didn't leave, but was in control of). More to come.

[Dhondy]

BTW' date=' I'm very curious how you formulate cricket dominance using scientific principles without natural bias.[/quote'] I'll happily answer that question. There are several ways. Probably the best is what Tapioca did, which is look at the ball-by-ball stats between the two- number of runs scored, number of times dismissed, the scoring rate and compare that with the overall batting average and scoring rate in bilateral encounters, thus indicating whether that particular bowler has the wood on the batsman. So for example, Sachin averages only 88/6= 14.67 personally against McGrath, but 2.5 times that against all Aussie bowlers when McGrath is in the team. This suggests that he fares far worse against McGrath vis-a-vis other Aussie bowlers. Since all the protagonists have figured in the same matches, you virtually take the pitch and playing conditions out of the equation. Unfortunately, all too often, ball by ball stats are unavailable. A way to get around this may be to use a concept called "construct validity", where you look at surrogate parameters and see whether they consistently support the superiority of one player over the other. So for example, you could say that if Sachin was really dominated by McGrath, then his performance against Oz would be far better if McGrath were not in the team. If the stats show that this is indeed the case, then your hypothesis has "construct validity". Thus, Sachin's average when playing in the 18 innings (9 Tests) when McGrath was in the opposition was 36.77. He scored at 55 runs per 100 deliveries in these matches, scored 2 tons (11.1%), remained not out on 0 occasions, and scored 88 4s or 6s, @ 4.9 per innings. OTOH, when McGrath did not feature, Sachin played Australia in 20 Tests over 37 innings. His average rose to 62.26, he scored @ 62.3 runs per 100 deliveries, amassed 8 tons (21.6%), remained not out on 6 occasions (16.2%), and scored 261 4s or 6s, @ 7.05 per innings. Since the above show that Sachin averages considerably higher against an Aussie side lacking McGrath, scores faster and more boundaries and 6s, scores more tons, is more likely to remain not out, your hypothesis that McGrath dominates Sachin has construct validity, i.e. is likely to be true. You can test out the differences using simple statistical tests such as the chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. These are likely to tell you whether such differences arose by chance. The problem with construct validity is that it can be affected by confounders- i.e. variables that have a bearing on the outcome, but not related to either Sachin or McGrath's skills. For example, the reason Sachin may have scored higher when McGrath wasn't in the opposition may have been because other skillful bowlers such as Warne were missing, and this was indeed the case on the 2003-4 tour, or because a majority of those matches were played in India rather than Australia, or because the pitches were easier. In some cases you can control for these variations, for example by looking at home and away stats, but in other cases you can't. The important thing though is to look through these tools, and not trust your, or indeed anybody else's opinion, because of the subjectivity involved. Then you can't go wrong.

[Shehezaada]

This is Tendulkar vs McGrath in India in 2001. Results to follow in next post: Test 1 Innings 1 Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 27 Runs Scored: 4 Balls Left: 12 Played and Missed: 2 Boundaries: 1 Test 1 Innings 2 Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 24 Runs Scored: 8 Balls Left: 16 Played and Missed: 0 Boundaries: 2 Test 2 Innings 1 Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 4 Runs Scored: 2 Balls Left: 1 Played and Missed: 2 Boundaries: 0 Test 2 Innings 2 Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 6 Runs Scored: 0 Balls Left: 1 Played and Missed: 1 Boundaries: 0 Test 3 Innings 1 Number of Balls Faced vs McGrath: 41 Runs Scored: 12 Balls Left: 18 Played and Missed: 2 Boundaries: 2 Did not face McGrath in final innings of 3rd Test

[Dhondy]

Why are you putting in so much work simply to demonstrate that Sachin leaves a majority of deliveries by McGrath? That's exactly what I said- to the effect that he plays out McGrath and tries to score off the others. He was still dismissed 6 times and managed to score very few runs- that's the telling statistic. BTW, where did you find the ball-by-ball on Cricinfo for 1999? I couldn't find it.

[Shehezaada]

Results of Tendulkar vs McGrath in India in 2001 Balls Faced From McGrath - 102 Runs Scored - 26 Balls Left - 32 Played and Missed/Not in Control - 7 Strike Rate - 25.5 Boundaries - 5 Tendulkar couldn't score as freely compared to earlier in Australia, but was able to leave 31.3% of the deliveries bowled to him by McGrath. He only played and Missed about 6.8% of the time. So again, I see more of what I've been talking about. McGrath has given Tendulkar a LOT of trouble, even dismissed him 5 times legit (one of them was bowled for 0, but India was 20 runs away from winning the match with 7 wickets in hand, so who the hell cares). But looking deeper into the stats, Tendulkar's S/R (and also his runs scored) are directly affected by the fact that he was able to leave, 36% of them. The plan is/was simple. Just play McGrath out and score off the rest. See Dhondy, stats are like a lamp post. You can use it to shed light on your points (your hypothesis, we talkin enough science for you yet?), or you can hang onto it for dear life without looking at anything else. Obviously 88 runs in however many innings and 6 dismissals looks bad. Looks real bad. But put it into a match situation, the game plan, the greatness of McGrath and the strategy of both India and Team Tendulkar, and your gonna see a whole different ball game. Tendulkar could have gone and attacked McGrath a lot more. Sure. But the gameplan was to deny McGrath, let him bowl maiden after maiden, and then look to score runs off others. Didn't always work, but it doesn't mean that McGrath dominated him.

[graphic23]

Why are you putting in so much work simply to demonstrate that Sachin leaves a majority of deliveries by McGrath? That's exactly what I said- to the effect that he plays out McGrath and tries to score off the others. He was still dismissed 6 times and managed to score very few runs- that's the telling statistic. BTW, where did you find the ball-by-ball on Cricinfo for 1999? I couldn't find it.

I would also like to know where the ball-by-ball is. Dhondy, I'd like to argue one point with you though. While I will also agree with you that McGrath has seen a considerable amount of success v. Sachin, I do think the # of balls that Sachin left off McGrath had to do with the fragility of the batting lineup around him (if only a part of the total reasoning). Given his mindset in the 90s, he'd have fancied his chances of scoring off McGrath if were granted the same batting lineup that he enjoys today. While the chances of being out vs. McGrath were much higher than for any other bowler, I'd have thought he would have tried something different apart from playing him off. But this is again just a hypothesis, and it could be that McGrath exploited that weakness in his batting that most other bowlers couldn't even find (barring Donald and Pollock, perhaps).

[Dhondy]

To S.- Would you agree that despite not trying to score off McGrath, the fact that he was dismissed on 6 occasions by him, i.e 1 in 3 occasions that he bowled to him and more than any other Aussie bowler in those matches, bowlers like Warne, Gillespie and Fleming, who Sachin did attack, speaks volumes for the hold McGrath had on Sachin?

[Mr. Wicket]

But this is again just a hypothesis' date=' and it could be that McGrath exploited that weakness in his batting that most other bowlers couldn't even find (barring Donald and Pollock, perhaps).[/quote'] Yes. And this is something statistics won't show, that people need to watch games and understand the sport to get these conclusions. Some people obviously like to just take statistics, skew the way they look at them and use them only to support a conclusion that's already been reached and they're not willing to move from. Take the stats on SRT v. McGrath. Those stats can be read in any way. Someone can look at those and hypothetically say that Tendulkar didn't have shots to take on McGrath; McGrath was defensive against Tendulkar and kept bowling things he couldn't play shots to so he wouldn't get hit by Fleming, etc. Those statistics don't make any references to the fact that McGrath knew how to remove Tendulkar when he was in an aggressive mood; taking the Sydney 00 one as an example - getting him with a subtle shift back in length and a change of pace/dip when Tendulkar was playing too far forward and reaching for the ball. Or when Tendulkar was new at the crease, such as in the Champions Trophy in 06, McGrath knew how to work him over outside the off stump, making him play and miss, edge deliveries and eventually nicking something with steep bounce outside off and a combination of deliveries cutting in, straightening and moving away off the seam. Worth watching McGrath's whole spell that game, or the full ball by ball footage of games such as the Sydney 00 or Nagpur tests. Or even the World Cup 99 dismissal, where he had worked out plans to dismiss Tendulkar by inducing certain strokes to certain lengths, and executed them flawlessly. Statistics only show much. Watching McGrath's bowling to great batsmen and understanding the thought and planning behind those dismissals gives you a far better idea than just searching for stats on Cricinfo and Cricketarchive and pulling out the ones that best support a pre-conceived conclusion. There are some of us who say that McGrath could dominate Sachin, not because the stats say so but because McGrath knew how to clamp Tendulkar down in both the limited overs and test forms of the game and dismiss him, and that's something we've picked up watching both men over the majority of their careers. The fact is that McGrath knew how to bowl to Tendulkar when he was in attacking moods for the most part, knew what to bowl when he expected Tendulkar to come out playing shots hard to induce a dismissal, and knew how to bowl to him when Tendulkar was new at the wicket, grafting or tentative, to draw him into mistakes.

[Dhondy]

I would also like to know where the ball-by-ball is. Dhondy, I'd like to argue one point with you though. While I will also agree with you that McGrath has seen a considerable amount of success v. Sachin, I do think the # of balls that Sachin left off McGrath had to do with the fragility of the batting lineup around him (if only a part of the total reasoning). Given his mindset in the 90s, he'd have fancied his chances of scoring off McGrath if were granted the same batting lineup that he enjoys today. While the chances of being out vs. McGrath were much higher than for any other bowler, I'd have thought he would have tried something different apart from playing him off. But this is again just a hypothesis, and it could be that McGrath exploited that weakness in his batting that most other bowlers couldn't even find (barring Donald and Pollock, perhaps).

I wish to raise three points in response to the ones you highlighted, Graphic. First, by leaving a large number of deliveries, Sachin was acknowledging that his odds of success in attacking McGrath were considerably more unfavourable than against other bowlers, that he was more likely to get out if he did so. Secondly, others from equally poor teams have attacked McGrath and averaged as much or better than Sachin against an Australian team with McGrath in it- players such as Vaughan & Lara. I'd be less disposed to saying that these batsmen were dominated by McGrath, in that light. Thirdly, McGrath did indeed exploit Sachin's reluctance to attack him, particularly with that fabled pull shot, for reasons best known to him in Test cricket. The shoulder before wicket was a direct consequence of that.

[Shehezaada]

To S.- Would you agree that despite not trying to score off McGrath' date=' the fact that he was dismissed on 6 occasions by him, i.e 1 in 3 occasions that he bowled to him and more than any other Aussie bowler in those matches, bowlers like Warne, Gillespie and Fleming, who Sachin did attack, speaks volumes for the hold McGrath had on Sachin?[/quote'] OK. You don't seem to be getting it. Have you ever played Sports in a League, or joined even an intramural team with a coach? There are certain things called game plans, which are put into place ESPECIALLY against great players, ie McGrath. From my understanding, Tendulkar realized that leaving McGrath alone was the best way of handling him. No sense playing shots to balls just outside off because his abilities with the seam of the ball. Now your question, well if Tendulkar was so keen on letting McGrath NOT break through, then isn't it embarassing that DESPITE all this gameplan to not let him break through, he still got him 6 times? Well let's look at the situations. You can take out 2 immediately. The first dismissal was bowled in Delhi, with India about 30 runs away from victory with 7 wickets in hand. It was their first encounter in test cricket, I don't think this gameplan was in action back then, whatever. So we take it out, and also take out the Shoulder before wicket production in Australia. The next dismissal was in Australia in the third test. Tendulkar blasted 45 off 52 balls, including a 14 run thumping in McGrath's over, when he came back and got him LBW? Was it out, it was dicey, and for my money, seemed to be a little high. The next dismissal in India, caught behind after Tendulkar made 76. He played McGrath confidently though the innings, again leaving a LOT of the deliveries that he potentially could have scored off of. But McGrath got him with a standard delivery, but AFTER he scored 76. This innings is a classic example of what I'm trying to say. The gameplan was to see off McGrath and get runs off others - which he did, about 70 of them - and THEN he falls to McGrath. Which is why the runs against McGrath seem pitiful, but really he wasn't looking to score against him anyways. The next dismissal LBW playing across the line early in the innings. No arguement. The next two dismissals again there's no arguement, Tendulkar gone fair and square. Of course though he was EXTREMELY rusty and was pretty much half fit. So to answer your question, yes, the runs look pitiful in the end, but looking at the match situation and the fact that he wasn't looking to score runs against him in the first place, and the fact that some dismissals are dodgy (also one that is pretty irrelevant), I think that McGrath has not dominated Tendulkar.

[Mr. Wicket]

Well let's look at the situations. You can take out 2 immediately. The first dismissal was bowled in Delhi' date=' with India about 30 runs away from victory with 7 wickets in hand. It was their first encounter in test cricket, I don't think this gameplan was in action back then, whatever.[/quote'] So based on your speculation, we just ignore a clear instance of McGrath removing Tendulkar comprehensively and without any of the doubt from an LBW? Because you "don't think this gameplan was in action, whatever"? This is the point Dhondy and I have made earlier. Don't try and pick and choose statistics and moments just to go along with your set-in-stone conclusion. Look at all the available evidence, all the numbers, matches, dismissals, etc, rather than dropping and choosing things at your whim and dropping other things that seem dubious only to you. Then see what it leads to.