What's new

Shane Warne or Glenn McGrath - Who had more of an impact?

Shane Warne or Glenn McGrath - who had more of an impact?

  • Total voters
    54
S

Sam99

Local Club Star
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
Runs
1,767
So basically who had more impact on game Shane Warne or Glenn McGrath


 
I think it was fair to say that Warne would have not had such impact without McG continually knocking over the top order.
 
Mcgra easily,considering both format of the game that's not even up for debate
 
McGrath was a brilliant bowler -- no question about it. Utterly disciplined and bowled like a machine.

But I have to put Warne ahead of him. Warne was a genius with the ball in his hand. Could get it to spin on pretty much any surface and was great all over the world (except in India) against all opposition (except India). He was equally effective in Tests and ODIs, and eventually even in the T20s when he led Rajasthan Royals to championship win in the very first IPL. He was the best captain Australia never had and a reliable slip fielder. A handy lower order batsman too (came very close to scoring a Test hundred).

His biggest achievement, however, is that he single-handedly revived the art of aggressive spin bowling. He made spin bowling a legitimate attacking option and inspired a generation of bowlers to take up spin.

I have nothing against McGrath, but I'll put Warne ahead on points.
 
Additional comments:

To me the cricketing nirvana is watching McGrath, Warne and Gillespie bowl against Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman. Happened several times during their careers. In terms of the standard of the game, and pure joy of watching competitive cricket, you can not go higher than watching these six players duke it out on a cricket ground. Priceless!
 
McGrath was better IMO, just less exciting to watch and less rare in what he did. Fast bowlers tend to have better averages than spin bowlers and outperform, but of course both are needed. For Warne you could probably only name one spinner in Murali to challenge him. While for Mcgrath there's probably several, Marshall, Lillee, Ambrose etc that you could compare/argue were better than him.
 
Warne because no other spinner in the history of cricket even comes close to his legacy
 
Idk how to add poll which would be better i guess , unsure how this forum works. #NeedHelpMods
 
McGrath. Warne survived of rough patches and teams like England and New Zealand who had no idea how to play proper spin bowling. Everytime I watched him in Odis he was not special at all. Australians and English love hyping their players up.
 
Warne was slaughtered by Indians, and some times when heat was on by Lara and Sri Lankans. It was McGrath who always brought things under control. I can only remember very few occasions McGrath getting pasted.
 
McGrath was the ultimate bowling machine.

No one has mastered bowling in the corridor of uncertainty like he did.
 
Impact is a pretty commonly used word in cricket yet there is no real clear cut meaning to it.
I have to think about it with respect to the bowling make up. Considering the impact of 2 bowlers, one a pacer, the other, a spinner. A team usually uses 3 pace bowlers and 1 or at most 2 spinners in the team. It is pretty hard to look at the impact of bowlers with 2 different expertise. For example, there was just one spinner for Aus ie Warne, so depending on whether he bowled well or not, it was solely on him to change Australia's fortunes to win the match (1 spinner, he would be judged by how he controlled one end or running through the middle order) but for a pacer, if Mcgrath didn't do well, it could have been shadowed by performance of other pacers to take the wickets, so even if he had an odd off day in the field, it could well have been masked owing to presence of 2 other pacers or even 3, but for a spinner, he has to bowl the most no. of overs in a test match for a single bowler more often than not, so with a spinner having a poor day would lead to greater scrutiny and emphasis on his performance.

Not taking anything away from Mcgrath, but if Warne would do bad, it would become very noticeable but the same could not be said of McGrath because of the cushion of having other pacers.

In light of their roles in team, Warne's achievements would become more noticeable and hence more "Impactful"
 
Warne.One of the greatest cricketers of all time.

McGrath also has a case for being the GOAT and is one of the best bowlers of all time,but IMO Warne had more impact.
 
Arham_PakFan said:
Warne.One of the greatest cricketers of all time.

McGrath also has a case for being the GOAT and is one of the best bowlers of all time,but IMO Warne had more impact.
Click to expand...

The comments so far are near to 50:50 in favour of each bowler
Just shows how hugely influential both these master bowlers were to their team
Perhaps if you take into account his batting and fielding abilities, and the fact that he reinvented aggressive legspin bowling, and the general combative aura he exuded in his prime, I would give Warne the edge, but only just.
 
Warne was arguably the biggest reason why Aus won 1999 world cup- particularly his brilliance in the semi finals vs South Africa.

McGrath took a boat load of wickets in world cups but never really dominated and single handedly brought his team back when they were in trouble- vs SA in 1999, vs Sri Lanks/Nz in 2003 etc. McGrath was not the kind of bowler who could potentially get 3-5 wickets when his team posted a low total.

That being said, McGrath had a better overall record in tests and wasn't poor against any particular opposition like Warne was against India.

Its a toss up
 
hk031992 said:
Warne was arguably the biggest reason why Aus won 1999 world cup- particularly his brilliance in the semi finals vs South Africa.

McGrath took a boat load of wickets in world cups but never really dominated and single handedly brought his team back when they were in trouble- vs SA in 1999, vs Sri Lanks/Nz in 2003 etc. McGrath was not the kind of bowler who could potentially get 3-5 wickets when his team posted a low total.

That being said, McGrath had a better overall record in tests and wasn't poor against any particular opposition like Warne was against India.

Its a toss up
Click to expand...

If Warne was reason for Aus to win 1999 world cup then McGrath is surely a big reason for Aus to win 2003 , 2006 Ct & 2007 World Cup.McGrath used to take wickets of top batsman in opposition in both normal matches & world cup matches. (sachin , lara , dravid)
 
Robert said:
I think it was fair to say that Warne would have not had such impact without McG continually knocking over the top order.
Click to expand...

Warne was arguably even more dominant before McGrath reached his peak. In late 1992-1994, Warne showed he could have a huge impact without MGrath
 
Warne by some fair margin. A fact well supported by stats.Warne secured 17 MOM in 145 matches while Glen got 11 in 124 matches. Warne makes to most of All time world 11 , but Glenn mostly misses that.
 
Warne for sure. Not just with the ball, but also on an individual bases. He was also decent with the bat despite not scoring any test centuries. McGrath was actually boring too watch though he was very good. If Shane Warne saw this thread then he would find it insulting.
 
Energetic said:
Warne for sure. Not just with the ball, but also on an individual bases. He was also decent with the bat despite not scoring any test centuries. McGrath was actually boring too watch though he was very good. If Shane Warne saw this thread then he would find it insulting.
Click to expand...

How will shane warne find this thread insulting?

Edit: this thread is about who had better impact on team not who is better bowler.
 
Last edited:
If you mean impact as in influence on the game, then Warne as he redefined the role of the spinner.

However, if by impact you mean on Australia's success, then surely McGrath had more impact. While Warne was playing superbly from 1992-1994, it was only with the emergence of McGrath as a worldclass bowler from 1995 onwards, winning the series in the WI, that saw Australia become no.1.


He set the tone by making sure the opposition was on the backfoot from the beginning. He targeted the best opposition batsmen, such as Lara and Tendulkar, who did quite well against Warne. Even when he didnt take many wickets, he kept the pressure up and the opposition couldnt get away.

It is worth noting that when McGrath was missing, such as in India in 1997 and in England in 2005, Australia struggled to contain the opposition even with Warne, and lost both series. Whereas when Warne was missing, MacGill would cover his place fairly adequately.

People remember Warne's wickets in the semifinal and final of the 1999 WC, but forget McGrath taking five against WI earlier in the tournament (including a peach to Lara) when Australia were at the brink of being disqualified. That set the pace for the rest of the tournament. In 2003 and 2007, McGrath was consistently excellent and Warne's absence was hardly noticed.

Yes, Warne often dug Australia ought of a hole, but McGrath ensured Australia were rarely if ever in a hole. His role as consistent wicket-taking machine in all conditions was the biggest contribution of any player in the great Aussie side of 1995-2007.
 
No he wasn't

Aus in 03 and 07 had exceptional batting line ups, who used to set up big scores which put enormous pressure on opposing batsmen. When the Aus batting failed on rare occasions, McGrath never came to their rescue, he bowled economically and took the occasional wicket but never ripped through them.

McGrath was never the biggest reason why they won world cups. It was Warne and S Waugh in 1999, Symonds and Ponting in 03 etc etc
 
Bit silly comparing pacer with spinner, isn't it? Pacer's role is to utilize the new ball to hopefully get few cheap wickets.

Spinners on the other hand, bowl a lot more overs and hence give away more runs but also take more number of wickets. They are crucial in meeting 90 overs a day quota and come handy on 4th-5th days when wicket is deteriorating. Also, some batsmen are poor players of spin. For example, Warne was more effective against Saffers than Mcg who are better players of pace.

Comparing head to head bowling average, pacers will always come out ahead but that would only be one-dimensional viewpoint.
 
hk031992 said:
No he wasn't

Aus in 03 and 07 had exceptional batting line ups, who used to set up big scores which put enormous pressure on opposing batsmen. When the Aus batting failed on rare occasions, McGrath never came to their rescue, he bowled economically and took the occasional wicket but never ripped through them.

McGrath was never the biggest reason why they won world cups. It was Warne and S Waugh in 1999, Symonds and Ponting in 03 etc etc
Click to expand...

My comments about his being the biggest contribution were not specific to World Cups, but to Australia cricket in general.

Regarding 2003 and 2007, I said that he bowled consistently excellent (was man of the series in 2007) and Warne's absence was not really felt.
 
Chrish said:
Bit silly comparing pacer with spinner, isn't it? Pacer's role is to utilize the new ball to hopefully get few cheap wickets.

Spinners on the other hand, bowl a lot more overs and hence give away more runs but also take more number of wickets. They are crucial in meeting 90 overs a day quota and come handy on 4th-5th days when wicket is deteriorating. Also, some batsmen are poor players of spin. For example, Warne was more effective against Saffers than Mcg who are better players of pace.

Comparing head to head bowling average, pacers will always come out ahead but that would only be one-dimensional viewpoint.
Click to expand...

We can ask which bowler was more important to Australia though. As in, if you had to leave out Warne or McGrath from the side, who would you keep? The heart says Warne but head says McGrath.
 
Warne... hands down.. warne was the best captain Australia never had.. had a brilliant cricketing mind. He could bat. He was not a bad fielder. He had the flair. McGrath was like watching a machine bowl. Warne would just set the stage in fire. He was brilliant to watch.
 
Warne is slightly ahead though Mcgrath has superior record. Most would watch Warne bowl than Mcgrath if given a choice.
 
If the question is who had more of an impact on the game, then the answer is indubitably Warne. His personality and infectious approach to the game transcended across the boundary and helped make the game bigger by luring in people who had perhaps never taken more than a passing interest in cricket. It didn't hurt that he had a penchant for getting his name splattered across the tabloids. Personally, the fact that a chubby leg-spinner from Melbourne could be the game's biggest name is among the things that help make cricket the most compelling sport in the world.

McGrath might have been more effective statistically, a true metronome, but he had none of the box office appeal of Warne unless it came to making fanciful yet irritatingly banal pre-series predictions. If the question was who was the bigger match winner, then McGrath would have been in with a reasonable shout. I still wouldn't have voted for him, nor paid to watch him bowl.
 
Warne. The main reason he is rated so highly is because of his impact in all formats
 
Stewie said:
Warne... hands down.. warne was the best captain Australia never had.. had a brilliant cricketing mind. He could bat. He was not a bad fielder. He had the flair. McGrath was like watching a machine bowl. Warne would just set the stage in fire. He was brilliant to watch.
Click to expand...

It's a shame because he was supposed to lead the team after Steve Waugh, which was the reason he was the vice captain during Steve Waugh's time. CA revealed after Warne's retirement that the reason he wasn't made the captain was because of the text message scandal.
 
Robert said:
I think it was fair to say that Warne would have not had such impact without McG continually knocking over the top order.
Click to expand...

Why you think so? Did Warne struggled when pacers failed to make initial breakthroughs?

Ofcourse, a spinner will come to bowl only after the pace bowlers had their first burst. This is a general consensus, isn't it?
 
Warne can run through the opposition and can be effective on any surface. His only issue was India.

McGrath is deadly on pitches that offer a lot of bounce. His accuracy and bounce are extremely difficult to handle. I have seen McGrath not being effective when playing in Asia. Someone can post his stats in Subcontinent vs other Countries.

Its Warne for me.
 
troodon said:
Warne can run through the opposition and can be effective on any surface. His only issue was India.

McGrath is deadly on pitches that offer a lot of bounce. His accuracy and bounce are extremely difficult to handle. I have seen McGrath not being effective when playing in Asia. Someone can post his stats in Subcontinent vs other Countries.

Its Warne for me.
Click to expand...

He averaged 23 in asia and thats pretty impressive for any bowler,yes as compared to his stats in others countries thats a bit high then again its all because of the standard he sets

I don't know how many bowlers had such a sumptuous record their even if we include asian bowlers
 
Warne, not even remotely close. What Warne did can't be seen in score card or statsguru, unless someone watches AUS Test matches minutely. AUS played with dominating batsmen and batting depth - and 3 out and out wicket taking fast bowlers backed by Warne. That strategy worked for 15+ years only because that naughty guy would bowl at an average 29 overs/day - and he'll keep runs tight, suffocating batsmen and constantly asking awkward questions - it's like a Chinese water torture. Obviously, spinners come better if new ball bowlers have done the early damage, which Mac did, but over all impact in a Test - not even close. Warne kept AUS captains attacking all the time.

That Warne impact can't be measured - but I can give 3 Series as examples - first one was AUS tour of PAK '94, when despite talking lots of wickets (18 in 3 I believe), PAK batsmen led by Malik got the better of Warne (Mac & CJ were there as well); 2nd one was AUS tour of IND 2001, when Mac, Gillespe & Lee were at their prime, but Indian batsmen got better of Warne - AUS lost both series ...and the 3rd one they drew in WI 1999, when a certain BC got better of Warne, despite Mac being at his marvelous best. Besides, it was Warne in SAF, at least twice brought Aussies in the Game from behind.

That was a golden generation, last of it's kind - they would have won many such even without those 2 as well, but it's the last few block which were broken by Warne. I won't argue with anyone here - but GD McGrath doesn't make my best ever AUS Test XI - ahead of Warne, DK Lillee & RR Lindwall (4th one is Miller, but as all-rounder) - they were the leaders of bowling for their generation.
 
Tendulkar and Lara knows the answer better than any of us.

It was a tough battle vs McGrath but one-sided vs Warne.
 
MMHS said:
That Warne impact can't be measured - but I can give 3 Series as examples - first one was AUS tour of PAK '94, when despite talking lots of wickets (18 in 3 I believe), PAK batsmen led by Malik got the better of Warne (Mac & CJ were there as well); 2nd one was AUS tour of IND 2001, when Mac, Gillespe & Lee were at their prime, but Indian batsmen got better of Warne - AUS lost both series ...and the 3rd one they drew in WI 1999, when a certain BC got better of Warne, despite Mac being at his marvelous best. Besides, it was Warne in SAF, at least twice brought Aussies in the Game from behind.
Click to expand...

First Only McGrath was unplayable in that series. He took 2nd most wicket in that series behind harbhajan singh but mcgrath still had better avg (just 15!) than harbhajan. Lee didn't even tour to india during 2001 series & Gillespie was pretty avg. Warne was smashed all around park with avg of 50+ and only one bowler can't win you series. Again remember 2004 tour when McGrath & Gillespie both performed better and then they won series not matches. Warne again was pretty avg.

Other Instance i remember is 2005 ashes. McGrath won aus match almost single handedly at lords and then got injured. Even though warne picked wickets but it didn't help them to win matches & they lost only matches in which McGrath didn't play and won/draw other matches when he played.

2003 World Cup, 2007 World Cup and McGrath leaded attack and got many key wickets for aus even without Warne.
 
Day 1: Pidge
Day 2: Warnie
Day 3: Pidge
Day 4: Pidge
Day. 5: Warnie
With Mark Taylor, AUS always wanted to bat first and the scenario presented above would be the result over the course of five days of torture.
 
As an Indian fan, Warne never posed any threat against us in any format. Mcgrath was always our nemesis. So i am a bit biased towards Mcgrath. Even some of the tests England won was due to the absence of pigeon.
 
Sam99 said:
First Only McGrath was unplayable in that series. He took 2nd most wicket in that series behind harbhajan singh but mcgrath still had better avg (just 15!) than harbhajan. Lee didn't even tour to india during 2001 series & Gillespie was pretty avg. Warne was smashed all around park with avg of 50+ and only one bowler can't win you series. Again remember 2004 tour when McGrath & Gillespie both performed better and then they won series not matches. Warne again was pretty avg.

Other Instance i remember is 2005 ashes. McGrath won aus match almost single handedly at lords and then got injured. Even though warne picked wickets but it didn't help them to win matches & they lost only matches in which McGrath didn't play and won/draw other matches when he played.

2003 World Cup, 2007 World Cup and McGrath leaded attack and got many key wickets for aus even without Warne.
Click to expand...

Think about it as a role - Warne was spinner. Warne also bowled well at Lord's, on a damp wicket, and he won the 1999 WC, in UK, being a leggi, took AUS to Final in 1996 from an impossible position.
 
It's McGrath and it's not even a contest tbh. He specialized in the wickets of the opponents gun batsmen, never gave anything away and has a flawless record everywhere. Warne has a major blot against India.
 
McGrath in tests

Warne in ODI's- he turned many games around, including the crucial one in 1999. McGrath was not the type who could do this. So even though Warne wasn't there in 03 and 07, his impact in 1999 was remarkable.
 
Legspinner vs seamer? Was Jonty Rhodes better than Jack Russell? Strange comparison.
 
Mcg is the greatest bowler ever to play the game IMO although as a person he was probably even worse than Warne which is quite an achievement.
 
People don’t rate McGrath because he wasn’t flamboyant, however effectiveness wise he is the best bowler to have ever played the game.. Just because he didn’t do flashy things like Wasim or Waqar or warnie doesn’t mean he didn’t have impact..

Dismissing Sachin or lara > higher impact than dismissing three other useless batsmen..
[MENTION=53377]jeetu[/MENTION]

Can you post a stat of top order wickets taken by McGrath and average vs top order wickets taken by warnie?
 
What are their stats wihout each other?

For me McGrath, in the year Warne was suspended, Australia did not miss a beat, however without McGrath they lost the 2005 Ashes.
 
There have been many, many good players, a lot of great players and quite a few legends as well, and McGrath is someone who belongs in that list.

However, Warne was something more. Along with Viv, Tendulkar, Lara, Wasim, Sobers, Bradman and Kohli, I would categorize him as a genius.
 
Mamoon said:
There have been many, many good players, a lot of great players and quite a few legends as well, and McGrath is someone who belongs in that list.

However, Warne was something more. Along with Viv, Tendulkar, Lara, Wasim, Sobers, Bradman and Kohli, I would categorize him as a genius.
Click to expand...

I thought McGrath with very low skillset he had but still dominated world's top batsman has to be Genius. (But well it's just my personal opinion)

For others-> Just to look at his stats against great batsman of his time.
main-qimg-bde7eea76349acfabcf3b5cf7336c3ba.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sam99 said:
I thought McGrath with very low skillset he had but still dominated world's top batsman has to be Genius. (But well it's just my personal opinion)

For others-> Just to look at his stats against great batsman of his time.
View attachment 78787
Click to expand...

There are few things that are not captured by stats. There is no doubt that statistically McGrath is the greatest bowler of all time, but there was an art to Warne’s bowling - a madness that cannot be put into words.

Watching him bowl was a privilege and an experience. I would say he was the Wasim of spin bowling, but only better.
 
Mamoon said:
There have been many, many good players, a lot of great players and quite a few legends as well, and McGrath is someone who belongs in that list.

However, Warne was something more. Along with Viv, Tendulkar, Lara, Wasim, Sobers, Bradman and Kohli, I would categorize him as a genius.
Click to expand...

McGrath doesn't belong to that? Why?
 
Mamoon said:
There are few things that are not captured by stats. There is no doubt that statistically McGrath is the greatest bowler of all time, but there was an art to Warne’s bowling - a madness that cannot be put into words.

Watching him bowl was a privilege and an experience. I would say he was the Wasim of spin bowling, but only better.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you don't have to care how he bowls or bats. If player is getting you result with his limited abilities then it has to be great player and mcgrath the way he dominated many (if not all) great batsman with such limited abilities makes him genius for sure. (Well ofcourse he might have not swinged it like wasim or made it watchable to viewers but he got result and that's what matter in the end of day?).

That comparison is like saying Rohit Sharma is great player because he plays good shots and makes it look elegant but does that give you consistent results?
 
Sam99 said:
Sometimes you don't have to care how he bowls or bats. If player is getting you result with his limited abilities then it has to be great player and mcgrath the way he dominated many (if not all) great batsman with such limited abilities makes him genius for sure. (Well ofcourse he might have not swinged it like wasim or made it watchable to viewers but he got result and that's what matter in the end of day?).

That comparison is like saying Rohit Sharma is great player because he plays good shots and makes it look elegant but does that give you consistent results?
Click to expand...

Compare Rohit to whom? It is a false analogy.

Warne is one of the most consistent and successful bowlers in history. A reviver of a lost art. I respect your reasoning, but you asked a question and I answered. For me, Warne was a more impactful bowler than McGrath. He was Australia’s go to man.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mamoon said:
Compare Rohit to whom? It is a false analogy.

Warner is one of the most consistent and successful bowlers in history. A reviver of a lost art. I respect your reasoning, but you asked a question and I answered. For me, Warne was a more impactful bowler than McGrath. He was Australia’s go to man.
Click to expand...

Well I respect your opinion.
 
Ab Fan said:
McGrath doesn't belong to that? Why?
Click to expand...

There are some great players who are only great because of their stats, and I think McGrath falls in that list. If I put my bias aside, I would add de Villiers to my list of genius cricketers as well.
 
Sam99 said:
Well I respect your opinion.
Click to expand...

You have my thanks for creating this thread and facilitating this discussion. There is no doubt that both rank amongst the very, very best bowlers in history.
 
Mamoon said:
There are some great players who are only great because of their stats, and I think McGrath falls in that list. If I put my bias aside, I would add de Villiers to my list of genius cricketers as well.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest I dont think AB is anywhere close to that(he is a genius but won't make it in the list you mentioned because that required something extra which AB doesn't have) but Mcgrath is widely rated as one of the greatest bowlers of all-time.

The greatest batsmen of his era, SRT and Lara both had troubles against McGrath while at a same time they destroyed Warne giving him nightmares. Ofcourse, you can have your opinions and I will respect that but I just wanted to know the reason behind it.
 
Ab Fan said:
Let's be honest I dont think AB is anywhere close to that(he is a genius but won't make it in the list you mentioned because that required something extra which AB doesn't have) but Mcgrath is widely rated as one of the greatest bowlers of all-time.

The greatest batsmen of his era, SRT and Lara both had troubles against McGrath while at a same time they destroyed Warne giving him nightmares. Ofcourse, you can have your opinions and I will respect that but I just wanted to know the reason behind it.
Click to expand...

What de Villiers lacks is that mental edge, but a genius he is without any doubt. Nobody has ever done the things that he has with the bat.

Tendulkar and Lara certainly prevailed in the battle of the geniuses.
 
Mamoon said:
What de Villiers lacks is that mental edge, but a genius he is without any doubt. Nobody has ever done the things that he has with the bat.

Tendulkar and Lara certainly prevailed in the battle of the geniuses.
Click to expand...

You didn't gave the reason why you won't consider McGrath a genius?
 
Ab Fan said:
You didn't gave the reason why you won't consider McGrath a genius?
Click to expand...

It is difficult to explain. As I said earlier, he was too mechanical, too robotic. He found a way to get batsman and he stuck to it, backed by catchers that never dropped a thing.

I think he took beauty and craft out of the game. I might be wrong, but I believe that Australian fans rever Lillee more than him.
 
Ab Fan said:
Let's be honest I dont think AB is anywhere close to that(he is a genius but won't make it in the list you mentioned because that required something extra which AB doesn't have) but Mcgrath is widely rated as one of the greatest bowlers of all-time.

The greatest batsmen of his era, SRT and Lara both had troubles against McGrath while at a same time they destroyed Warne giving him nightmares. Ofcourse, you can have your opinions and I will respect that but I just wanted to know the reason behind it.
Click to expand...

Maybe he is 'little' biased and i can agree with that but the point is he not only stats wise looked great but dominated most great batsman including sachin, lara, inzy, dravid, kallis & many more. He did that without swing or pace but with line & length and bit of nipping in and off.
 
Mamoon said:
It is difficult to explain. As I said earlier, he was too mechanical, too robotic. He found a way to get batsman and he stuck to it, backed by catchers that never dropped a thing.

I think he took beauty and craft out of the game. I might be wrong, but <B>I believe that Australian fans rever Lillee more than him.</B>
Click to expand...

This is true. Some Australians pick Lillee over McGrath like anyday. Lillee was a revolutionary of fast bowling afterall. Anways, I got your points regarding McGrath and respect that!
 
Mamoon said:
It is difficult to explain. As I said earlier, he was too mechanical, too robotic. He found a way to get batsman and he stuck to it, backed by catchers that never dropped a thing.

I think he took beauty and craft out of the game. I might be wrong, but I believe that Australian fans rever Lillee more than him.
Click to expand...

If I am technically sound like sachin or lara was then i would hate to face mcgrath more than warne specially cause mcgrath would find my weakness in matter of few seconds & then start bowling that line & length nipping in & off. I can get great ball from warne spinning from outside from leg stumps and hitting wickets but that's not gonna happen every day. Warne made batsman look totally clueless with his spin but i am not sure if he could trouble better player of spin that much. (But again it's just my personal opinion)
 
Last edited:
Sam99 said:
Maybe he is 'little' biased and i can agree with that but the point is he not only stats wise looked great but dominated most great batsman including sachin, lara, inzy, dravid, kallis & many more. <B>He did that without swing or pace but with line & length and bit of nipping in and off.</B>
Click to expand...

which is what makes him a genius in my book. But yes, there are ifs and buts like what had happened if he played for some other weaker team or even the current Australian side?
 
Ab Fan said:
which is what makes him a genius in my book. But yes, there are ifs and buts like what had happened if he played for some other weaker team or even the current Australian side?
Click to expand...

In test cricket mcgrath would have still done alot better cause many test teams are weaker than it used to be during his days + many non technical t20 batsman in test side will be easy even on flat tracks.
 
Sam99 said:
In test cricket mcgrath would have still done alot better cause many test teams are weaker than it used to be during his days + many non technical t20 batsman in test side will be easy even on flat tracks.
Click to expand...

Young AB actually smashed him for three consecutive boundaries in that chase in WC 2007 in ODIs. He struggled in test series though

KP smashed him in Ashes too.

And these guys have openly said that the toughest bowler they faced from their era was Mohammad Asif who was actually a genius with the ball.
 
Ab Fan said:
Young AB actually smashed him for three consecutive boundaries in that chase in WC 2007 in ODIs. He struggled in test series though

KP smashed him in Ashes too.

And these guys have openly said that the toughest bowler they faced from their era was Mohammad Asif who was actually a genius with the ball.
Click to expand...

does your linking of mcgrath and asif even makes any sense? 3 boundaries doesn't even mean anything but yeah kp got better of him in 2005 lords and it can happen to anyone & mcgrath got him twice in his last test and won ashes for his team that too when he was probably at his lowest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Curtly Ambrose vs Glenn McGrath
Replies
59
Views
1K
TheSultan
T
Cricket Warrior
Are we overvaluing batting strike rate in T20s at the cost of actual match-winning impact?
Replies
75
Views
1K
Shaka81
S
Rana
Revisiting Mohammad Yousuf’s ton v Australia 2004: One of the GOAT Test innings for Pakistan?
Replies
2
Views
224
TheSultan
T
T
Is Imran Khan the greatest Test cricketer since 1970?
Replies
52
Views
2K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
Your top Test pacer to debut since 2000 is?
Replies
56
Views
2K
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
Back
Top