Has there been a GREATER bowler than GD Mcgrath ?

[Dhondy]

Dhondy :- BTW I do consider Wasim to be the best bowler in ODIs closely followed by Garner. Am I right in my thinking or do you have stats to prove otherwise.

I didn't follow ODIs that closely so don't really have an idea. However, statistically, there is no evidence for Wasim's superiority over McGrath. Interestingly, India have a better ODI record against McGrath than any other nation.

[Lurker]

Mcgrath is an all-time great alright but the greatest?? He wasnt greatest of his time let alone greatest of all time. He was very much a taller version of Richard Hadlee and still was not as good as Hadlee himself. And lets not even go Dennis Lillee route who was so much more a complete bowler than Mcgrath and at a faster pace. Amongst his compatriots I would rate Wasim, Ambrose and Donald(in that order) ahead of Mcgrath. Mcgrath benefitted immensly for playing for the strongest team for a dozen or so years. Sure he was one of the reason why he made it the strongest team but even without him Australia would have been champion. Without Akram Pakistan would have been pants, same with West Indies without Amby or South Africa without Donald. When Pakistan was thought of as "mercurial" in 90s who really made that possible? Inzamam? or Ijaz Ahmed? Clearly it was Wasim alongside Waqar. And I dont need to suggest Wasim was much better bowler than Waqar. Another little thing to note is anytime a batsmen nicked Mcgrath the catch was taken. Pretty much half the catches, if not more, were dropped off Akram. The only one who took catches off him was the keeper. Still the bowler was good to outsmart the batsmen and get him out. Taking nothing away from Mcgrath who I rate highly I dont see how he would have overwhelmed a Sunny Gavaskar, or even a Boycott, as much as he did to an Atherton. The technicians would just grind him and wait for the bad ball. I do attribute Mcgrath's success partially due to lack of technique, and concentration, of modern day batsmen. xxx

[patriot]

Taking nothing away from Mcgrath who I rate highly I dont see how he would have overwhelmed a Sunny Gavaskar, or even a Boycott, as much as he did to an Atherton. The technicians would just grind him and wait for the bad ball. I do attribute Mcgrath's success partially due to lack of technique, and concentration, of modern day batsmen.

So, Dravid and SRT lacked technique and concentration ? I am not saying they were easy for Mcgrath, but the certainly just always wanted to see his spell off, apart from the hyper extremely rare bad ball.

[yoda]

Donno about the greatest, but quite possibly the most disciplined bowler ever. Bowled within his limits, keeping to strict line and length and waiting for the batsmen to make the mistakes.

[Lurker]

So' date=' Dravid and SRT lacked technique and concentration ? I am not saying they were easy for Mcgrath, but the [b']certainly just always wanted to see his spell off, apart from the hyper extremely rare bad ball.

Dravid and SRT accorded Wasim Akram the same status. If seeing off a bowler is the criteria I can assure you most batsmen would see off Akram, Ambrose or Donald. The only difference were Aussie batsmen who would attack and of course Mcgrath did not play against them.

[patriot]

..then what in your opinion makes the others " better" than Mcgrath. Mcgrath has the numbers in his favour.

Amongst his compatriots I would rate Wasim, Ambrose and Donald(in that order) ahead of Mcgrath. Mcgrath benefitted immensly for playing for the strongest team for a dozen or so years. Sure he was one of the reason why he made it the strongest team but even without him Australia would have been champion.

You say this even after seeing how Mcgrath's absence has taken the MAXIMUM toll on the Aussie juggernaut in test matches? Do you know who won man of the series in the 2007 WC ? ON the contrary because he had Warne and a consistent Gillespie in his side Mcgrath finished up with 560 odd wickets, had he been a one man attack like Richard Hadlee for NZ, Mcgrath would have ended up with 700 + wickets.

[nballa]

wasim had more spectacular 'moments' of brilliance with the ball, while mc grath was the better bowler. if i were to watch cricket replay clips on youtube out of boredom i find myself searching for wasims videos not mc grath and im sure 90% of the people would do the same. also stats dont paint an accurate picture. they dont reveal how many toe crushers or balls reverse swinging a yard into the batman bowled by a bowler. in that respect wasim smokes mc grath.

[Lurker]

..then what in your opinion makes the others " better" than Mcgrath. Mcgrath has the numbers in his favour.

This reminds me of a conversation that I had about Kapil vs Imran. I was told Kapil and Imran took 200 wickets in 50 and 42 something tests respectively and that explained the gulf between the two as a bowler. When I looked further I saw they both have played exactly same number of innings to get to 200. Bottomline figures are misleading. If Mcgrath and Akram both played 100 test you can bet Mcgrath would bowl in about 180 innings to Akram's 165 or so. This is of course based on fact Aussies won most matches and hence the opposition would play 2 innings, something that was never the case with PAkistan. Plus of course if you ever watched a Pakistan match you know how good their fielding is as compared to Aussies, and that amounts for a lot of lost wickets for Akram.

ON the contrary because he had Warne and a consistent Gillespie in his side Mcgrath finished up with 560 odd wickets, had he been a one man attack like Richard Hadlee for NZ, Mcgrath would have ended up with 700 + wickets.

If thats your criteria then this thread is redudant considering how Marshall beats McGrath in number of wickets/tests, better bowling average and the team members he played alongside. Fighting for wickets with Holding-Robers-Garner is lot more fierce than fighting with Warne-Gillespie-Lee.

[Mamu]

wasim had more spectacular 'moments' of brilliance with the ball, while mc grath was the better bowler. if i were to watch cricket replay clips on youtube out of boredom i find myself searching for wasims videos not mc grath and im sure 90% of the people would do the same. also stats dont paint an accurate picture. they dont reveal how many toe crushers or balls reverse swinging a yard into the batman bowled by a bowler. in that respect wasim smokes mc grath.

That is exactly the point nballa -- Wasim had flashes of brilliance which he could not sustain over a periiond of time -- even the length of a series. Test cricket is not about being GREAT in 10 overs of one match -- but be consistently good over a 5 match series to win it and Wasim lacked that ability -- which is demonstrated in his overseas record.

[nballa]

That is exactly the point nballa -- Wasim had flashes of brilliance which he could not sustain over a periiond of time -- even the length of a series. Test cricket is not about being GREAT in 10 overs of one match -- but be consistently good over a 5 match series to win it and Wasim lacked that ability -- which is demonstrated in his overseas record.

you are right, but i am speaking purely from entertainment/excitement point of view. watching mc grath bowl was like watching paint dry. the ball lands exactly at the same spot over and over again, which requires immense skill no doubt. in terms of GREATNESS i would put them both at the same level.

[patriot]

If thats your criteria then this thread is redudant considering how Marshall beats McGrath in number of wickets/tests, better bowling average and the team members he played alongside. Fighting for wickets with Holding-Robers-Garner is lot more fierce than fighting with Warne-Gillespie-Lee.

Thats untrue. Mcgrath + Gillespie + Warne = 6.78 WPI Marshall + Garner + Holding = 6.9 WPI The difference is fractional BUT ....Warne bowls a considerably larger proportion of Aussie overs. Warne: 149 balls/innings Mcgrath: 120.36 balls/innings Thats a difference of 5 overs/ innings or 10 overs/match. Mcgrath's strike rate is 51.9 . Had he bowled equal no of overs to Warne he would have had 70.2 more wickets ( 30/51.9 * 243) in the 243 innings he bowled at his strike rate and ended up wth! 634 wickets !! Also Mcgrath bowled in an era OF FLATTRACKS...where dozens of mediocre batsmen average 50 + unlike Marshall where pitches were far more condusive to fast bowling and there was no limit on bouncers.

[Dhondy]

Mcgrath is an all-time great alright but the greatest?? He wasnt greatest of his time let alone greatest of all time. He was very much a taller version of Richard Hadlee and still was not as good as Hadlee himself. And lets not even go Dennis Lillee route who was so much more a complete bowler than Mcgrath and at a faster pace. Amongst his compatriots I would rate Wasim, Ambrose and Donald(in that order) ahead of Mcgrath. Mcgrath benefitted immensly for playing for the strongest team for a dozen or so years. Sure he was one of the reason why he made it the strongest team but even without him Australia would have been champion. Without Akram Pakistan would have been pants, same with West Indies without Amby or South Africa without Donald. When Pakistan was thought of as "mercurial" in 90s who really made that possible? Inzamam? or Ijaz Ahmed? Clearly it was Wasim alongside Waqar. And I dont need to suggest Wasim was much better bowler than Waqar. Another little thing to note is anytime a batsmen nicked Mcgrath the catch was taken. Pretty much half the catches, if not more, were dropped off Akram. The only one who took catches off him was the keeper. Still the bowler was good to outsmart the batsmen and get him out. Taking nothing away from Mcgrath who I rate highly I dont see how he would have overwhelmed a Sunny Gavaskar, or even a Boycott, as much as he did to an Atherton. The technicians would just grind him and wait for the bad ball. I do attribute Mcgrath's success partially due to lack of technique, and concentration, of modern day batsmen. xxx

Most of these arguments have already been taken apart by Patriot. They are subjective and circumstantial (i.e. if this had been in place, that would have happened), and bear no relation to what transpired on ground. When you put forward arguments like Australia's superior slip catching or overall superiority should bias judgement in favour of Wasim, you really are clutching at straws.

[riya]

No one statistically.

[rainy day]

That was a just a general dig. More power to him if indeed he has better stats than SRT against McGrath. I am sure something similar to could be said about Laxman against Warne. BTW I do hold Anwar in high esteem myself, but comparing against SRT would be a whole different matter.

I was being cheeky mate, i don't consider Anwar as good as SRT.

[Lurker]

Thats untrue. Mcgrath + Gillespie + Warne = 6.78 WPI Marshall + Garner + Holding = 6.9 WPI The difference is fractional BUT ....Warne bowls a considerably larger proportion of Aussie overs. Warne: 149 balls/innings Mcgrath: 120.36 balls/innings Thats a difference of 5 overs/ innings or 10 overs/match. Mcgrath's strike rate is 51.9 . Had he bowled equal no of overs to Warne he would have had 70.2 more wickets ( 30/51.9 * 243) in the 243 innings he bowled at his strike rate and ended up wth! 634 wickets !! Also Mcgrath bowled in an era OF FLATTRACKS...where dozens of mediocre batsmen average 50 + unlike Marshall where pitches were far more condusive to fast bowling and there was no limit on bouncers.

Your entire premise is based on statistics which seems pretty weird for someone who wants to discuss the Greatest Fast bowler. I mean if you want to do it by stats please feel free to write a calculation engine. How can you measure the greatness of a fast bowler by number of balls/innings? (Incidentally here also Marshall beats Mcgrath with 116 to 120 bowled by Mcgrath). So not only did Marshall has better average, better strike rate, more wickets per test, better number of balls per innings and also better competitors in his own team. So it is a pretty slam dunk case for him really...if you go the whole statistical route like you seem to have gone. As for Warne and bowling more, well thats the nature of the game. Warne is a spinner and spinners do bowl more by nature of the game. To say if Warne was not bowling Mcgrath would be taking more wickets is ridiculous. All things considered Shane Warne will make All time XI more often than Glenn Mcgrath would. xxx

[patriot]

So not only did Marshall has better average, better strike rate, more wickets per test,and also better competitors in his own team. So it is a pretty slam dunk case for him really...if you go the whole statistical route like you seem to have gone. xxx

The difference is so marginal thats its irrelevant and is purely because of the nature of the pitches between the 2 eras. You are comparing an era of pitches where you have batsmen like Samaraweera,Jayarwardene, Younis Khan, Mohammed Yousuf, Graeme Smith, Chanderpaul averaging 50+ , to an era where only a handful averaged such. A point that you tried to duck even earlier.

[Dhondy]

Lurker the wily fox has cleverly used an old ploy used by some debators. If you can't prove that A>B, try and show C>B, and somehow reach a default conclusion to support your original argument, totally ignoring the fact that C>>A, and therefore B>A.

[Lurker]

The difference is so marginal thats its irrelevant and is purely because of the nature of the pitches between the 2 eras. You are comparing an era of pitches where you have batsmen like Samaraweera' date=Jayarwardene, Younis Khan, Mohammed Yousuf, Graeme Smith, Chanderpaul averaging 50+ , to an era where only a handful averaged such. A point that you tried to duck even earlier.

Alternately it can also be attributed to the simple fact that Malcolm Marshall was the better bowler of the two, plain and simple. Now you can try to dissect it by suggesting Samarweera(who????) has a great average but that does not alter the fact. If you would toe the line of stats, which you have, you won't be able to put Mcgrath ahead of Marshall. Now lets try to do it the correct way and show me how was McGrath a better bowler than Marshall?? Was he faster? Had better control? Were his bouncers more feared? Were his leg cutters more deadly? Or could he reverse swing it at 90 mph? Give me some pointers that I can hook onto. As for now my point remains, Wasim/Amby and even Donald were a better bowler. xxx

[patriot]

Alternately it can also be attributed to the simple fact that Malcolm Marshall was the better bowler of the two, plain and simple. Now you can try to dissect it by suggesting Samarweera(who????) has a great average but that does not alter the fact. If you would toe the line of stats, which you have, you won't be able to put Mcgrath ahead of Marshall. Now lets try to do it the correct way and show me how was McGrath a better bowler than Marshall?? Was he faster? Had better control? Were his bouncers more feared? Were his leg cutters more deadly? Or could he reverse swing it at 90 mph? Give me some pointers that I can hook onto. As for now my point remains, Wasim/Amby and even Donald were a better bowler. xxx

You are talking in tangents. Wasim and Donald played in the same era as Mgrath where statistically Mcgrath is better off then both of them. Donald and Wasim both provided for better theatre, but not results. Donald was an awesome watch but was taken apart by Australians who were the only team that had batsmen who played fast bowling well. Mcgrath throughout his career has dominated every single team and top batsman without any exception. Needless to say Mcgrath was mentally far more tougher. Wasim who carried much more of his teams bowling burden then Mcgrath dint even average 4 wckets per match, so a comparison with him is futile. You are simply denying a well known fact that pitches ( even in places like WI) have flattened out of sight from the 80's to the late 90's and especially the decade of 2000s and test cricket has become much more batsmen friendly. If you deny this fact , it makes no sense arguing with you. The only thing I was trying to point out is how half a dozen mediocre batsmen through the 2000's have averaged 50+, something that only about 5 batsmen in the 80's did. ( the likes of Viv Richards, Gavaskar, Miandad, Greg Chappell ) For Mcgrath to have a marginally lesser bowling record compared to Marshall that he does in this day and age makes Mcgrath the numero uno for sure IMO. And don't forget that even for that marginally lesser average Mcgrath has 200 odd more wickets than Marshall.

[Lurker]

Wasim and Donald played in the same era as Mgrath where statistically Mcgrath is better off then both of them. Donald and Wasim both provided for better theatre, but not results. Donald was an awesome watch but was taken apart by Australians who were the only team that had batsmen who played fast bowling well. Mcgrath throughout his career has dominated every single team and top batsman without any exception. Needless to say Mcgrath was mentally far more tougher.

You better make up your mind on what the meat of your argument is. You keep harping on stats and when cornered you will move to a different style of reasoning. If your assertion is indeed statistical then please shut down this thread as you wont be able to prove how McGrath was the greatest ever(which is the topic of this thread last time I checked).

Wasim who carried much more of his teams bowling burden then Mcgrath dint even average 4 wckets per match, so a comparison with him is futile.

I hope you see the stupidity of that argument. Wasim Akram = 104 Tests 414 wickets = 3.98 wickets/Test Mcgrath = 124 Tests 563 wickets = 4.54 wickets/Test Now look closely. Wasim Akram = 104 Test = 181 innings= 414 tests = 2.287 wickets/innings bowled in McGrath = 124 Test = 243 innings = 563 wickets = 2.316 wickets/innings bowled in Whoopee doo thats a statistical difference of 0.029 wickets per innings!! A glorious case of 3 extra wickets every 100 innings bowled?? So much so for Mcgrath taking wickets and Wasim struggling yada yada. I hope you will now see how little stats can show. Indeed a case can be made that Mcgrath played in a superior team. 243 innings in 124 Tests means he bowled in both innings in all but 5 test! Obviously his numbers would be up. Not to mention any time a nick was made the catch was taken by Aussies, clearly not so by Pakistan.

For Mcgrath to have a marginally lesser bowling record compared to Marshall that he does in this day and age makes Mcgrath the numero uno for sure IMO. And don't forget that even for that marginally lesser average Mcgrath has 200 odd more wickets than Marshall.

Using flat pitch argument is redudant for someone who is yet to make a case for why Mcgrath was better. You have clearly not seen Marshall in action and it beggars explanation that instead of trying to know about him you are on a one-track-mode of why Mcgrath was better. I repeat what I said in one of my earlier post - Now lets try to do it the correct way and show me how was McGrath a better bowler than Marshall?? Was he faster? Had better control? Were his bouncers more feared? Were his leg cutters more deadly? Or could he reverse swing it at 90 mph? Give me some pointers that I can hook onto. Go right ahead. xxx