Did Glenn McGrath have a peak (Test cricket).

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
Was thinking about this the other day. Of course most people know that McGrath's breakthrough as an international bowler came during AUS famous series in the Caribbean 1995. After that he was undisputed AUS spearhead until retirement in 2006/07.

But as an AUS fan who saw basically ever test McGrath played from 1997 onwards (saw him bowl live @ Old Trafford in 97, 2005). Although he clearly was top quality operator from 1995-2006/07, IMO i think during those years his career had 4 distinct phases (ignoring his debut years before 1995)

PHASE 1: Windies 1995 (Barbados test) - S Africa 1997 (Port Elizabeth test)

This was when his breakthrough as international quality bowler occured. Him finding an ability to keep Lara quiet was the highlight of this period. But for all those who remember McGrath from this period no-one was calling Pigeon world-class during this phase - but rather a quality upcoming bowler. Donald, Ambrose, Akram, Pollock, Walsh, F De Villiers (maybe Bishop & Waqar to a degree still ATS) where the fellows considered the real big guns of fast-bowling in world cricket at that time.

PHASE 2: S Africa 1997 (Centurion test)/Lords 97 - Ashes 2002/03 (MCG test)

This was when he morphed into world-class mode. I personally noticed it during that Centurion test in SA 3rd Test: South Africa v Australia at Centurion, Mar 21-24, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo, when he took that 6 for & during his famous 8 for @ Lords 97. During this period he bowled with tremendous accuracy & his pace in this period was consistently between 85-89 mph (although at times he would drop between his trademark 80-82 mph), while he occasionally even touched 90 mph.

He also played every test AUS in this 5 1/2 year period until he suffered an injury during the back end of the 2002/03 Ashes.

PHASE 3: Windies 2003 - Bangladesh 2003.

Those dark couple of test post his 2002/03 Ashes injury wheren the great pigeon just looked lethargic due to that injury. This was the only phase of his career when he looked crap. Until he came back in 2004, has he recovered from injury, many people where even wondering if this was the end of McGrath.

PHASE 4: Sri Lanka 2004 (Darwin) - Ashes 2006/07.

The revival. He silenced doubters & was back bowling just as well as the 97-2002/03 period. Only difference now is that his pace was pretty much sub 85 mph (even dropping into the 75-79 mph bracket fairly regularly).

So based on this IMO id say McGrath of 97 -2002/03 was the 100% complete McGrath, bowling at his quickest - but still maintaining his trademark legendary metronomical accuracy. Thus i consider that his peak.

Thoughts??
 

Robelinda

International Coach
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Location
Melbourne, Victoria
Online Cricket Games Owned
Spot on i'd say. Had a few lean series but never 2 in a row. Always threatened even when out of form, just didnt bowl bad balls when it wasnt happening for him. CHAMPION.
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
I wouldn't say he ever "morphed" into world class mode. the thing about mcgrath was that he was so unspectacular he only really became the legend he is when people looked at his numbers and were just like "wow".

he's the Kallis of bowling. It's only in the last 3-4 years when you look back at the runs, the average, the centuries of kallis that he stands out as a truely great batsman because he rarely looks as good as his numbers suggest.

Of course, Kallis is a little different because his contribution with the ball means he was more respected earlier in his career for his all-round abilities. I mean judged only on his batting.
 

angryangy

ICC Chairman
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Define spectacular: he didn't hoop the ball around, he didn't roar in at great pace, but he was a master of suspense.
 

Will Browne

Club Cricketer
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Location
Devon
Online Cricket Games Owned
Define spectacular: he didn't hoop the ball around, he didn't roar in at great pace, but he was a master of suspense.

The fact that didn't extract vast amounts of movement played to McGrath's advantage. The reason that he picked up so many wickets was that he moved the ball just enough- the optimum amount to take the edge, unlike bowlers such as Anderson who move the ball a long way, but are often classed as unlucky because they swing the ball so far that batsmen are often not able to even edge the ball.
 

Robelinda

International Coach
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Location
Melbourne, Victoria
Online Cricket Games Owned
The fact that didn't extract vast amounts of movement played to McGrath's advantage. The reason that he picked up so many wickets was that he moved the ball just enough- the optimum amount to take the edge, unlike bowlers such as Anderson who move the ball a long way, but are often classed as unlucky because they swing the ball so far that batsmen are often not able to even edge the ball.

:thumbs :clap :thumbs :clap :yes :yes :yes :cheers

Exactly.
 

sifter132

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Location
NSW
Yeah McGrath was always at you, must have been disheartening to face him because you were always under strain.

I think McGrath's absolute peak was the 2001 Ashes - was just relentlessly brilliant.

But I remember that series because in one of the greater farces I've come across - in a series Australia dominated - Mark Butcher was named joint man of the series alongside McGrath :noway Yes he topped the run scoring lists with 450, but he also got to play many more innings than the Aussies. Gilchrist for example I don't think had a 2nd innings in the whole series compared to Butcher who always got both. Besides, Butcher only played one good knock in the series anyway when Gilchrist gave a sporting declaration in the 4th Test and Butcher made 170 odd. It was one of the only times McGrath looked mortal in the whole series. Take out that innings and Butcher averaged about 30 in the other 9 knocks. Man of the series indeed...:facepalm
 

Owzat

International Coach
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Online Cricket Games Owned
he only really became the legend he is when people looked at his numbers and were just like "wow".

Same people who knock stats and base opinion on what they see.........................? ;)
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
not sure what you mean by that. Will browne is right though, his subtley was why he was so effective.

mind you, I do get tired of aussie jizz fests over mcgrath. he took a lot of wickets - we know.
 

sifter132

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Location
NSW
Well conversely Aussies don't like jizzfests over Sachin Tendulkar or Wasim Akram :D

But yeah I hear you and it's definitely annoying even for Aussie fans. I'd love a dollar for every time McGrath and Warne have been mentioned in the commentary box, usually something like 'Ponting would love a McGrath or Warne to throw the ball to here'. And I usually reply to myself, 'yeah there's nothing like a couple of 40 year olds to bowl a team out'. Get over it guys - they've retired! It's just banal crap. Ponting would also like Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Martyn, the Waugh brothers, Gillespie and Lee too but they don't get mentioned...:p

And a little more back on topic. McGrath was also very good in India 2001. His name never gets mentioned from that legendary series, but he was just mean - even in the massive Dravid/Laxman stand they never really ripped into him...and looking up the figures...yeah in 4 of the 6 innings he conceded 25 or less and took at least 2 wickets in every innings. 17 wickets @ 15.35 for the series, economy 1.91. Then next series after that was the Ashes of 2001.
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
Well conversely Aussies don't like jizzfests over Sachin Tendulkar or Wasim Akram :D

But yeah I hear you and it's definitely annoying even for Aussie fans. I'd love a dollar for every time McGrath and Warne have been mentioned in the commentary box, usually something like 'Ponting would love a McGrath or Warne to throw the ball to here'. And I usually reply to myself, 'yeah there's nothing like a couple of 40 year olds to bowl a team out'. Get over it guys - they've retired! It's just banal crap. Ponting would also like Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist, Martyn, the Waugh brothers, Gillespie and Lee too but they don't get mentioned...:p

And a little more back on topic. McGrath was also very good in India 2001. His name never gets mentioned from that legendary series, but he was just mean - even in the massive Dravid/Laxman stand they never really ripped into him...and looking up the figures...yeah in 4 of the 6 innings he conceded 25 or less and took at least 2 wickets in every innings. 17 wickets @ 15.35 for the series, economy 1.91. Then next series after that was the Ashes of 2001.

I just read my post back, I was a bit "hmm, that sounded a bit harder than I intended." but yeah, I can sort of take people going gaga over warne, it's just mcgrath ones always descend into wicket taking stat-a-thons.

but yeah, that is one area where you cannot fault him. his record in asia as a non-sub continental fast bowler is pretty much flawless.
 

Papa_Smurf

International Cricketer
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Location
Smurf Village
Online Cricket Games Owned
McGrath's always been a curious case to me. Statstically, he is a legend. He was an efficient, accurate, wicket-taking machine.

But my word, he was a snooze-fest. With Akram and Donald, you had balls wizzing around, 90 mph yorkers and bouncers of just pure entertainment. Mcgrath, on the other hand, was like watching someone vaccum. Got the job done efficently, but given the choice, you would rather watch a sexy maid with a dust-cleaner.

Funny thing is, Asif was of a simliar mould. But I genuinely could watch Asif bowl all day and love every moment of it.
 

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
Yeah McGrath was always at you, must have been disheartening to face him because you were always under strain.

I think McGrath's absolute peak was the 2001 Ashes - was just relentlessly brilliant.

But I remember that series because in one of the greater farces I've come across - in a series Australia dominated - Mark Butcher was named joint man of the series alongside McGrath :noway Yes he topped the run scoring lists with 450, but he also got to play many more innings than the Aussies. Gilchrist for example I don't think had a 2nd innings in the whole series compared to Butcher who always got both. Besides, Butcher only played one good knock in the series anyway when Gilchrist gave a sporting declaration in the 4th Test and Butcher made 170 odd. It was one of the only times McGrath looked mortal in the whole series. Take out that innings and Butcher averaged about 30 in the other 9 knocks. Man of the series indeed...:facepalm

Personally rate his 99 tour to Windies to be just as good as his Ashes 01 bowling. But yea this & the 99 series as i mentioned in the opening all occured during the 1997 (P.E Test) to 2002 (MCG Test) period where in almost 6 years he was bowling at his quickest, while still maintaining his metronomical accuracy.
 

sifter132

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Location
NSW
McGrath's always been a curious case to me. Statstically, he is a legend. He was an efficient, accurate, wicket-taking machine.

But my word, he was a snooze-fest. With Akram and Donald, you had balls wizzing around, 90 mph yorkers and bouncers of just pure entertainment. Mcgrath, on the other hand, was like watching someone vaccum. Got the job done efficently, but given the choice, you would rather watch a sexy maid with a dust-cleaner.

Funny thing is, Asif was of a simliar mould. But I genuinely could watch Asif bowl all day and love every moment of it.

Hmm yeah it is interesting. Shaun Pollock was the guy for me that I didn't like to watch. Never liked his action for some reason and he would just come in like a robot and pound 6 balls in the same spot. I guess McGrath was much easier to cheer for being an Aussie :p And I agree about Asif, could watch him bowl all day and it made me angry when Aamir was talked about glowingly when he was really just a kid with potential, while at the other end Asif, the truly classy bowler was almost ignored sometimes.
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
I loved watching asif bowl too, I know he was in the same pace category as mcgrath and pollock (agree with pollock, never much a fan watching him) but I always felt what was great about him was he didn't hit the same spot like those two. he was always more into setting up the batsmen, getting balls to nip in and then just sending in straight ones, or drawing the batsman back, and he did it all in a really easy, lazy way. he bowled like a spin bowler more than a quick, playing mind games rather than just making a batsman uncomfortable.

you learned about bowling watching asif, he just did whatever a batsman didn't want him to do.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top