McGrath > Anderson
Gillespie > Broad
Lee > Bresnan
Warne > Swann
Saker is talking shiiite.
McGrath > Broad
Gillespie < Anderson
Lee < Tremlett
Warne > Swann
2-2
Waqar > Gillespie + Anderson + McGrath+ Broad
Wasim > > Gillespie + Anderson + McGrath+ Broad
Warne > Everyone else
Waqar/Wasim better than McGrath
Waqar was not better than McGrath, but Wasim defo was!
Mcgrath < Andersen
Gillespie < Broad
Lee < Bresnan (Wins everytime he plays and often it's because of him too.
Warne > Swann
1:3 Saker knows his stuff
I think Finn will be better than all of them in time ....except McGrath of cause
It's comparing apple and oranges.
The Oz bowlers had played for longer, the England guys are just at the start of the journey. Judge them when they retire, not yet.
The best pace bowler was Ambrose, then McGrath, then Steyn. Unfortunately Wasim was not in fact better than McGrath. Allan Donald was better than Wasim too.
As for this:
"Mcgrath < Andersen
Gillespie < Broad
Lee < Bresnan (Wins everytime he plays and often it's because of him too.
Warne > Swann"
Finally put it beyond doubt Maksi, it now can be no longer denied, you have literally no idea what you are talking about.
Anderson 267 wickets at 30.05 econ of 3.14 and SR of 57.2
McGrath 563 wickets at 21.64 econ of 2.49 and SR of 51.9
Be patient gentlemen. Incase you ain't noticing Andersen is just getting better and better. He has years to go. What is Mcgrath up to these days?
Probably bowling on Wii, bless him
Good luck to him, he's only going to have to take another 300 wickets at about 10 runs a piece, nae bother.
You forget we are playing Australia again soon. He will be half way to that requirement by the end of the summer me thinks
5 tests, 20 wickets per test, 100 wickets total.
Maths isn't your strong suit either.
Or 5 tests, England win by an innings 3 times, so that would be......... hmm less wickets yes
He will get there in the end though
Dunc, I have just read my last post again and it's ridiculous. If we win by an innings 3 times then that actually doesn't have anything to do with how many wickets we take
Please just ignore that comment. You know I am usually better than that? lol
Ive just been having a look at the careers stats from the leading test wicket takers.
A couple of strike rates stand out from the rest. Waqar Younis had a strike rate 43.4 and Dayle Steyn has a strike rate of 40.9.
The next best are Marshall (46.7), Donald (47), Hadlee (50.8) and Lillee (52).
That's of all the bowlers to have taken 250 test wickets.
In fact Steyn's figures are remarkable. In his 54 tests he has taken 272 wickets at 23. Pro rata, that's more wickets per test match than Warne, and significantly more than any fast bowler.
I missed Mcgrath out (51.9). So :
Steyn (40.9)
Younis (43.4)
Marshall (46.7)
Donald (47)
Hadlee (50.8)
Mcgrath (51.9)
Lillee (52)
So what you are saying is that Mcgrath is infact not quite as good as our friends on the other side of the world think?
I don't think he is as good as jimmy, and I ain't wumming now. Time will tell.
Just, that list is good but doesn't tell the entire story. Malcolm Marshall is the greatest bowler that ever played cricket. He frightened batsmen physically in a way no others did. I was around to witness that, both live, and on the box. Terrifying proposition to face him. The windies had dozens more too
The point I was really making was how incredible Steyn's figures are and how amazing younis's strike rate it.
In terms of strike rate though Mcgrath has the 7th best strike rate of any test match bowler (i missed garner out who's just ahead of him), and the best strike rate of any bowler who was not out and out fast.
I think Anderson's a very good bowler, but I dont think he's anywhere near Mcgrath tbh. Walsh's figures are misleading imo as I probably wouldnt put him in the 20 best bowlers ive seen, but I wouldnt say that Mcgrath's status as the leading fast or fast/medium bolwer of all time is all that far out. Certainly i'd say he's top 10, whereas Anderson probably wouldnt be top 50, IMO.
Yes, i'd agree with that chest. I'd also probably have marshall at nr 1, and i think that this point about being able to physically scare a top batsman is an important point. i'd say it's not the only important thing though, and personally i would have hadlee not far behind marshall in the bowlers ive seen and he was a totally different type of bowler. i'm actually surprised to see how good younis's strike rate is compared to some of those others.
whereas Anderson probably wouldnt be top 50, IMO.
=================
that might not be accurate - i havent counted tbh
^^
All the guys mentioned Just have been, or still are great bowlers. I don't usually get into debates about GOATS to be honest because everybody generally likes the heroes from their own era.
Mcgrath is an all time great, no question, and jimmy is doing ok these days. There are so many legends that we could sit here all day and writes lists a mile long.
Stats don't always tell the whole story. A guy scoring 300 not out in a test match and ensuring that both sides have no chance of winning is not great in my eyes
Sign in if you want to comment
Really??
Page 3 of 4
posted on 30/5/12
McGrath > Anderson
Gillespie > Broad
Lee > Bresnan
Warne > Swann
Saker is talking shiiite.
posted on 30/5/12
McGrath > Broad
Gillespie < Anderson
Lee < Tremlett
Warne > Swann
2-2
posted on 30/5/12
Waqar > Gillespie + Anderson + McGrath+ Broad
Wasim > > Gillespie + Anderson + McGrath+ Broad
Warne > Everyone else
posted on 30/5/12
Waqar/Wasim better than McGrath
posted on 30/5/12
Waqar was not better than McGrath, but Wasim defo was!
posted on 31/5/12
Mcgrath < Andersen
Gillespie < Broad
Lee < Bresnan (Wins everytime he plays and often it's because of him too.
Warne > Swann
1:3 Saker knows his stuff
posted on 31/5/12
I think Finn will be better than all of them in time ....except McGrath of cause
posted on 31/5/12
It's comparing apple and oranges.
The Oz bowlers had played for longer, the England guys are just at the start of the journey. Judge them when they retire, not yet.
posted on 31/5/12
The best pace bowler was Ambrose, then McGrath, then Steyn. Unfortunately Wasim was not in fact better than McGrath. Allan Donald was better than Wasim too.
As for this:
"Mcgrath < Andersen
Gillespie < Broad
Lee < Bresnan (Wins everytime he plays and often it's because of him too.
Warne > Swann"
Finally put it beyond doubt Maksi, it now can be no longer denied, you have literally no idea what you are talking about.
Anderson 267 wickets at 30.05 econ of 3.14 and SR of 57.2
McGrath 563 wickets at 21.64 econ of 2.49 and SR of 51.9
posted on 31/5/12
Agree with Duncan.
posted on 31/5/12
Be patient gentlemen. Incase you ain't noticing Andersen is just getting better and better. He has years to go. What is Mcgrath up to these days?
Probably bowling on Wii, bless him
posted on 31/5/12
Good luck to him, he's only going to have to take another 300 wickets at about 10 runs a piece, nae bother.
posted on 31/5/12
You forget we are playing Australia again soon. He will be half way to that requirement by the end of the summer me thinks
posted on 31/5/12
5 tests, 20 wickets per test, 100 wickets total.
Maths isn't your strong suit either.
posted on 31/5/12
Or 5 tests, England win by an innings 3 times, so that would be......... hmm less wickets yes
He will get there in the end though
posted on 31/5/12
He really won't.
posted on 31/5/12
Dunc, I have just read my last post again and it's ridiculous. If we win by an innings 3 times then that actually doesn't have anything to do with how many wickets we take
Please just ignore that comment. You know I am usually better than that? lol
posted on 31/5/12
Ive just been having a look at the careers stats from the leading test wicket takers.
A couple of strike rates stand out from the rest. Waqar Younis had a strike rate 43.4 and Dayle Steyn has a strike rate of 40.9.
The next best are Marshall (46.7), Donald (47), Hadlee (50.8) and Lillee (52).
That's of all the bowlers to have taken 250 test wickets.
In fact Steyn's figures are remarkable. In his 54 tests he has taken 272 wickets at 23. Pro rata, that's more wickets per test match than Warne, and significantly more than any fast bowler.
posted on 31/5/12
I missed Mcgrath out (51.9). So :
Steyn (40.9)
Younis (43.4)
Marshall (46.7)
Donald (47)
Hadlee (50.8)
Mcgrath (51.9)
Lillee (52)
posted on 31/5/12
So what you are saying is that Mcgrath is infact not quite as good as our friends on the other side of the world think?
I don't think he is as good as jimmy, and I ain't wumming now. Time will tell.
posted on 31/5/12
Just, that list is good but doesn't tell the entire story. Malcolm Marshall is the greatest bowler that ever played cricket. He frightened batsmen physically in a way no others did. I was around to witness that, both live, and on the box. Terrifying proposition to face him. The windies had dozens more too
posted on 31/5/12
The point I was really making was how incredible Steyn's figures are and how amazing younis's strike rate it.
In terms of strike rate though Mcgrath has the 7th best strike rate of any test match bowler (i missed garner out who's just ahead of him), and the best strike rate of any bowler who was not out and out fast.
I think Anderson's a very good bowler, but I dont think he's anywhere near Mcgrath tbh. Walsh's figures are misleading imo as I probably wouldnt put him in the 20 best bowlers ive seen, but I wouldnt say that Mcgrath's status as the leading fast or fast/medium bolwer of all time is all that far out. Certainly i'd say he's top 10, whereas Anderson probably wouldnt be top 50, IMO.
posted on 31/5/12
Yes, i'd agree with that chest. I'd also probably have marshall at nr 1, and i think that this point about being able to physically scare a top batsman is an important point. i'd say it's not the only important thing though, and personally i would have hadlee not far behind marshall in the bowlers ive seen and he was a totally different type of bowler. i'm actually surprised to see how good younis's strike rate is compared to some of those others.
posted on 31/5/12
whereas Anderson probably wouldnt be top 50, IMO.
=================
that might not be accurate - i havent counted tbh
posted on 31/5/12
^^
All the guys mentioned Just have been, or still are great bowlers. I don't usually get into debates about GOATS to be honest because everybody generally likes the heroes from their own era.
Mcgrath is an all time great, no question, and jimmy is doing ok these days. There are so many legends that we could sit here all day and writes lists a mile long.
Stats don't always tell the whole story. A guy scoring 300 not out in a test match and ensuring that both sides have no chance of winning is not great in my eyes
Page 3 of 4