Most successful batsman against Mcgrath

[pash4life1973]

Mcgrath has long been seen as the best fast bowler in the world...im
just curious which top order batsman who has played him more than just
once would be considered the most successful or least troubled. Why
dont england just study what that/those batsmen do and follow it!!!

[John Hall]

Post by pash4life1973
Mcgrath has long been seen as the best fast bowler in the world...im
just curious which top order batsman who has played him more than just
once would be considered the most successful or least troubled.

Arguably Vaughan on England's last tour of Australia would be one of
them.

Post by pash4life1973
Why
dont england just study what that/those batsmen do and follow it!!!

They ought to be well placed to know what Vaughan did, though since he
became captain the man himself has been unable to repeat it
consistently.

[Luke Curtis]

On 22 Jul 2005 01:37:42 -0700, "pash4life1973"

Post by pash4life1973
Mcgrath has long been seen as the best fast bowler in the world...im
just curious which top order batsman who has played him more than just
once would be considered the most successful or least troubled. Why
dont england just study what that/those batsmen do and follow it!!!

Certainly not Atherton!
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)

[Mad Hamish]

On 22 Jul 2005 01:37:42 -0700, "pash4life1973"

Post by pash4life1973
Mcgrath has long been seen as the best fast bowler in the world...im
just curious which top order batsman who has played him more than just
once would be considered the most successful or least troubled.

Tendulkar would have a claim, so would Dravid.
Lara has had some great series and some poor ones.

Post by pash4life1973
Why
dont england just study what that/those batsmen do and follow it!!!

Because it isn't that easy.

[Tintin]

Quoting from 'z-score's' blog :
http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html

Giant Giant-Killer

When slicing and dicing the cricket stats every which way, sometimes a
result emerges which, if not entirely surprising, is startling in its
clarity. This has happened with a dataset I have collected, covering
the head-to-head stats for every bowler vs batsman combination in Tests
since 1999. The name that emerges is Glenn McGrath, the ultimate
giant-killer.

The stats are collected from CricInfo's Player v Player and
Ball-by-Ball records for each Test. While neither record, in its
on-line form, is complete, in combination they become nearly so,
allowing results of about 97% of Test cricket since March 1999 to be
analysed. About 300 Tests are covered, sometimes with small gaps here
and there. The resulting stats are therefore not exact, but should be
reliable.

It is interesting to be reminded that, although Tests are more frequent
than ever, sometimes players do not meet face-to-face for long periods.
Over the last six years, the number of balls bowled by Shane Warne to
Brian Lara is exactly the same as the number bowled by Mutiah
Muralitharan to Sachin Tendulkar, that is, zero. In that time,
Tendulkar has hit 170 off Warne and only been out twice to him, Lara
has hit 272 runs of Muralitharan for only three times out. In Warne's
absence, Lara has hit 393 runs off Stuart MacGill, the most by any
batsman off a single bowler in those six years.

But the "startling" stat I described emerges when you look at
different bowlers' records against the elite batsmen as a group. If
you look at balls bowled to batsmen with career averages over 45, some
bowlers do better than others. All bowlers concede over 40 runs per
wicket against such opposition, with one major exception. The averages
of major bowlers against elite batsmen are:

McGrath 25

Shoaib Akhtar 41

Kumble 43

Pollock 43

Caddick 44

Gough 46

Harbhajan 46

Gillespie 47

Cairns 48

Dillon 50

M Muralitharan 50

SK Warne 50

Vaas 51

Vettori 53

Giles 55

Ntini 58

Saqlain 68

MacGill 73

Streak 82



The gap between McGrath and the next best is very large. Few batsmen
have been able to handle Glenn well: the only batsman with a
head-to-head record against McGrath that is better than his overall
batting average is Hershelle Gibbs, who averages 69 against him. No
other major batsman has an average better than 40. Looking at an
Australian bowler's toughest opponents, the Indian lineup, Dravid
averages 21, Sehwag 23, Tendulkar 18, Laxman 28, and Ganguly 14 when
pitted against McGrath.

The value of Glenn McGrath to the Australian team has never been more
clearly demonstrated.


------------
Tinnin'

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by Tintin
http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html
Giant Giant-Killer
When slicing and dicing the cricket stats every which way, sometimes a
result emerges which, if not entirely surprising, is startling in its
clarity. This has happened with a dataset I have collected, covering
the head-to-head stats for every bowler vs batsman combination in Tests
since 1999. The name that emerges is Glenn McGrath, the ultimate
giant-killer.
The stats are collected from CricInfo's Player v Player and
Ball-by-Ball records for each Test. While neither record, in its
on-line form, is complete, in combination they become nearly so,
allowing results of about 97% of Test cricket since March 1999 to be
analysed. About 300 Tests are covered, sometimes with small gaps here
and there. The resulting stats are therefore not exact, but should be
reliable.
It is interesting to be reminded that, although Tests are more frequent
than ever, sometimes players do not meet face-to-face for long periods.
Over the last six years, the number of balls bowled by Shane Warne to
Brian Lara is exactly the same as the number bowled by Mutiah
Muralitharan to Sachin Tendulkar, that is, zero. In that time,
Tendulkar has hit 170 off Warne and only been out twice to him, Lara
has hit 272 runs of Muralitharan for only three times out. In Warne's
absence, Lara has hit 393 runs off Stuart MacGill, the most by any
batsman off a single bowler in those six years.
But the "startling" stat I described emerges when you look at
different bowlers' records against the elite batsmen as a group. If
you look at balls bowled to batsmen with career averages over 45, some
bowlers do better than others. All bowlers concede over 40 runs per
wicket against such opposition, with one major exception. The averages
McGrath 25
Shoaib Akhtar 41
Kumble 43
Pollock 43
Caddick 44
Gough 46
Harbhajan 46
Gillespie 47
Cairns 48
Dillon 50
M Muralitharan 50
SK Warne 50
Vaas 51
Vettori 53
Giles 55
Ntini 58
Saqlain 68
MacGill 73
Streak 82
The gap between McGrath and the next best is very large. Few batsmen
have been able to handle Glenn well: the only batsman with a
head-to-head record against McGrath that is better than his overall
batting average is Hershelle Gibbs, who averages 69 against him. No
other major batsman has an average better than 40. Looking at an
Australian bowler's toughest opponents, the Indian lineup, Dravid
averages 21, Sehwag 23, Tendulkar 18, Laxman 28, and Ganguly 14 when
pitted against McGrath.
The value of Glenn McGrath to the Australian team has never been more
clearly demonstrated.
------------
Tinnin'

These statistics about Indian batsmen are a freaking joke. The guy
probably doesnt know simple mathematics.

Sehwag averages well over 42 when playing against Mcgrath. He played
the previous series and was the only Indian batsmen to offer some
resistance.

Laxman with 281, 167, ample 60's etc etc cannot average 28.. Tendulkar
averaging 18 ? lol....whoever has written this probasbly has seen only
the matches HE WANTS to get some crap statistics.

[Phil.]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by Tintin
http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html
Giant Giant-Killer
When slicing and dicing the cricket stats every which way, sometimes a
result emerges which, if not entirely surprising, is startling in its
clarity. This has happened with a dataset I have collected, covering
the head-to-head stats for every bowler vs batsman combination in Tests
since 1999. The name that emerges is Glenn McGrath, the ultimate
giant-killer.
The stats are collected from CricInfo's Player v Player and
Ball-by-Ball records for each Test. While neither record, in its
on-line form, is complete, in combination they become nearly so,
allowing results of about 97% of Test cricket since March 1999 to be
analysed. About 300 Tests are covered, sometimes with small gaps here
and there. The resulting stats are therefore not exact, but should be
reliable.
It is interesting to be reminded that, although Tests are more frequent
than ever, sometimes players do not meet face-to-face for long periods.
Over the last six years, the number of balls bowled by Shane Warne to
Brian Lara is exactly the same as the number bowled by Mutiah
Muralitharan to Sachin Tendulkar, that is, zero. In that time,
Tendulkar has hit 170 off Warne and only been out twice to him, Lara
has hit 272 runs of Muralitharan for only three times out. In Warne's
absence, Lara has hit 393 runs off Stuart MacGill, the most by any
batsman off a single bowler in those six years.
But the "startling" stat I described emerges when you look at
different bowlers' records against the elite batsmen as a group. If
you look at balls bowled to batsmen with career averages over 45, some
bowlers do better than others. All bowlers concede over 40 runs per
wicket against such opposition, with one major exception. The averages
McGrath 25
Shoaib Akhtar 41
Kumble 43
Pollock 43
Caddick 44
Gough 46
Harbhajan 46
Gillespie 47
Cairns 48
Dillon 50
M Muralitharan 50
SK Warne 50
Vaas 51
Vettori 53
Giles 55
Ntini 58
Saqlain 68
MacGill 73
Streak 82
The gap between McGrath and the next best is very large. Few batsmen
have been able to handle Glenn well: the only batsman with a
head-to-head record against McGrath that is better than his overall
batting average is Hershelle Gibbs, who averages 69 against him. No
other major batsman has an average better than 40. Looking at an
Australian bowler's toughest opponents, the Indian lineup, Dravid
averages 21, Sehwag 23, Tendulkar 18, Laxman 28, and Ganguly 14 when
pitted against McGrath.
The value of Glenn McGrath to the Australian team has never been more
clearly demonstrated.
------------
Tinnin'

These statistics about Indian batsmen are a freaking joke. The guy
probably doesnt know simple mathematics.
Sehwag averages well over 42 when playing against Mcgrath. He played
the previous series and was the only Indian batsmen to offer some
resistance.
Laxman with 281, 167, ample 60's etc etc cannot average 28.. Tendulkar
averaging 18 ? lol....whoever has written this probasbly has seen only
the matches HE WANTS to get some crap statistics.

The poster appears to be talking about the runs scored by the batsmen
off the bowler not the average when playing against him.

Phil.

[a***@gmail.com]

even then 23 for sehwag and 28 for Laxman and 18 for Tendulkar seems
abysmally low.

[Phil.]

Post by a***@gmail.com
even then 23 for sehwag and 28 for Laxman and 18 for Tendulkar seems
abysmally low.

But nevertheless it's true!

Sehwag has batted against McGrath 8 times in 4 Tests, all in India.
According to me he has scored 97 runs off McGrath (18,0,25,12,1,34,7,0)
while being dismissed by him 4 times which gives an 'average' of 24.25.
Per completed innings, regardless of who dismissed him, Sehwag scores
13.86 off McGrath (out of an average of 42.7).

I guess you owe the earlier poster an apology!

Phil.

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
even then 23 for sehwag and 28 for Laxman and 18 for Tendulkar seems
abysmally low.

But nevertheless it's true!
Sehwag has batted against McGrath 8 times in 4 Tests, all in India.
According to me he has scored 97 runs off McGrath (18,0,25,12,1,34,7,0)
while being dismissed by him 4 times which gives an 'average' of 24.25.
Per completed innings, regardless of who dismissed him, Sehwag scores
13.86 off McGrath (out of an average of 42.7).
I guess you owe the earlier poster an apology!
Phil.

so thats not 23, I guess ?

[Phil.]

Post by a***@gmail.com

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
even then 23 for sehwag and 28 for Laxman and 18 for Tendulkar seems
abysmally low.

But nevertheless it's true!
Sehwag has batted against McGrath 8 times in 4 Tests, all in India.
According to me he has scored 97 runs off McGrath (18,0,25,12,1,34,7,0)
while being dismissed by him 4 times which gives an 'average' of 24.25.
Per completed innings, regardless of who dismissed him, Sehwag scores
13.86 off McGrath (out of an average of 42.7).
I guess you owe the earlier poster an apology!
Phil.

so thats not 23, I guess ?

No, but since you consider 23 and 28 'abysmally low' I assume you
consider 24 similarly?
Of course I may have made a mistake in the calculation, all it would
take would be an extra 4 when I was adding up his scores from the
commentary. You said about Tintin "These statistics about Indian
batsmen are a freaking joke. The guy probably doesnt know simple
mathematics."
You were wrong and misunderstood his calculations, as he shows Sehwag
is approximately average vs McGrath while Laxman is rather better than
average among 'major batsmen'.

Phil.

[a***@gmail.com]

That's MY point. It was easy to evaluate for sehwag with 4 tests and my
point being 23 was incorrrect.
similarly can you throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers ?

as for 24 being abysmally low, Yes it is low but not that low
considering the THAT particular series, espeically Mumbai test match.
Having said that, Sehwag literally took Mcgrath apart in Chennai and as
you pointed out he got majority of his runs against Mcgrath at the
third test match(34 out of 58)
so even though 24 is a small number, in that circumstances it was a
pretty decent number and 4 test matches isnt a good criterion for
comparison.
Lets throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers.

One more thing, just as you guys sit here and evaluate Mcgrath;s
greatness as why he is best, I just noticed that Mcgrath has woefully
missed one too many important series against India, espeically when
Indian batsmen were doing great. for instance 1998 when Tendulkar was
at his best.(and 2003 when almost all of them were doing great.) and I
earlier thought that Mcgrath might have played the 1998 series when
Tendulkar was literally plundering the Aussie bowling then and based on
that having an average so low wouldnt have made sense. On the contrary,
Mcgrath has played almost every Ashes series(I presume) and therefore
evaluating him against England probably gives a better pcture. Still, I
would like to see Tendulkar's average to Mcgrath because even in 1999's
washout, Tendulkar scored a lot of runs.

[Phil.]

Post by a***@gmail.com
That's MY point. It was easy to evaluate for sehwag with 4 tests and my
point being 23 was incorrrect.

Your point was that Tintin was an idiot who didn't understand stats!
I've no reason to believe that Tintin's number isn't right as I said I
could have made an error and I don't feel the difference between 23 and
24 significant enough to redo the calculation.

Post by a***@gmail.com
similarly can you throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers ?

Why don't you, all you need is Statsguru and the Cricinfo ball-by-ball?

Post by a***@gmail.com
as for 24 being abysmally low, Yes it is low but not that low
considering the THAT particular series, espeically Mumbai test match.
Having said that, Sehwag literally took Mcgrath apart in Chennai and as
you pointed out he got majority of his runs against Mcgrath at the
third test match(34 out of 58)

At Chennai he scored 25 and 12 off McGrath!

Post by a***@gmail.com
so even though 24 is a small number, in that circumstances it was a
pretty decent number and 4 test matches isnt a good criterion for
comparison.
Lets throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers.

Feel free.

Post by a***@gmail.com
One more thing, just as you guys sit here and evaluate Mcgrath;s
greatness as why he is best, I just noticed that Mcgrath has woefully
missed one too many important series against India, espeically when
Indian batsmen were doing great. for instance 1998 when Tendulkar was
at his best.(and 2003 when almost all of them were doing great.)

Perhaps that's a reason they were doing so well?


and I

Post by a***@gmail.com
earlier thought that Mcgrath might have played the 1998 series when
Tendulkar was literally plundering the Aussie bowling then and based on
that having an average so low wouldnt have made sense. On the contrary,
Mcgrath has played almost every Ashes series(I presume) and therefore
evaluating him against England probably gives a better pcture. Still, I
would like to see Tendulkar's average to Mcgrath because even in 1999's
washout, Tendulkar scored a lot of runs.

Tintin's already told you what it is.

Phil.

[a***@gmail.com]

statguru shows some different numbers even compared to the numbers you
posted. Go check them out.

[R. Bharat Rao]

Post by a***@gmail.com
statguru shows some different numbers even compared to the numbers you
posted. Go check them out.

Amp, read the post -- carefully. The stat Tintin is quoting CANNOT be
got from Statsguru.

So what Statsguru says is totally irrelevant.

A number of guys have very patiently explained your misunderstanding
of the stat that Tintin showed. You can argue that the stat is valueless
because it is based on an small sample size, or that performance against
one bowler is inherently biased, but not that it is computed wrongly...

Bharat

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by a***@gmail.com
That's MY point. It was easy to evaluate for sehwag with 4 tests and my
point being 23 was incorrrect.

Your point was that Tintin was an idiot who didn't understand stats!
I've no reason to believe that Tintin's number isn't right as I said I
could have made an error and I don't feel the difference between 23 and

24 significant enough to redo the calculation.

No, you just took the eASY ROUTE of evaluating something for a batsmen
who has played ionly 4 test matches.
prove it for others.
check it out here...it says

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=2101;class=testplayer;filter=basic;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;season=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=1993-11-12;start=1993-11-12;enddefault=2005-07-24;end=2005-07-24;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduledovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;followon=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;viewtype=bow_dismissals;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype

it has 8.75 agsinst sehwag's name...it has 8.4 against Jayasuriya. I
dont think thats the case either..

Post by a***@gmail.com
similarly can you throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers ?

Why don't you, all you need is Statsguru and the Cricinfo ball-by-ball?


i just posted it and proved statsguru is wrong.

Post by a***@gmail.com
as for 24 being abysmally low, Yes it is low but not that low
considering the THAT particular series, espeically Mumbai test match.
Having said that, Sehwag literally took Mcgrath apart in Chennai and as
you pointed out he got majority of his runs against Mcgrath at the
third test match(34 out of 58)

At Chennai he scored 25 and 12 off McGrath!
yes you already posted that and I take your word and we concluded that
24.5 is the average.

Post by a***@gmail.com
so even though 24 is a small number, in that circumstances it was a
pretty decent number and 4 test matches isnt a good criterion for
comparison.
Lets throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers.

Feel free.

Post by a***@gmail.com
One more thing, just as you guys sit here and evaluate Mcgrath;s
greatness as why he is best, I just noticed that Mcgrath has woefully
missed one too many important series against India, espeically when
Indian batsmen were doing great. for instance 1998 when Tendulkar was
at his best.(and 2003 when almost all of them were doing great.)

Perhaps that's a reason they were doing so well?

and I

thats olne way of looking at it. Other way is maybe he chickened out
playing against Tendulkar in India during Tendulkar's prime just as
Dennis Lillee chickened
out playing against Gavskar in India during his prime.
He came in 2001, but still coudlnt win it for Australia.
in 1999, they won in Australia but still couldnt get the better of
Tendulkar.

and finally when Tendulkar was struggling after 15 years of crcket in
2004, Mcgrath comes back and knocks him out...
and still, Tendulkar won a match for India(Mumbai test match) to make
it 1-1....as he played only 2 test matches.

so think before you say something...

Post by a***@gmail.com
earlier thought that Mcgrath might have played the 1998 series when
Tendulkar was literally plundering the Aussie bowling then and based on
that having an average so low wouldnt have made sense. On the contrary,
Mcgrath has played almost every Ashes series(I presume) and therefore
evaluating him against England probably gives a better pcture. Still, I
would like to see Tendulkar's average to Mcgrath because even in 1999's
washout, Tendulkar scored a lot of runs.

Tintin's already told you what it is.

For instance he said Gibbs averages 69...I check over statguru and it
says 10 for Gibbs.
check out the link I posted.

Phil.

[Phil.]

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
That's MY point. It was easy to evaluate for sehwag with 4 tests and my
point being 23 was incorrrect.

Your point was that Tintin was an idiot who didn't understand stats!
I've no reason to believe that Tintin's number isn't right as I said I
could have made an error and I don't feel the difference between 23 and
24 significant enough to redo the calculation.
No, you just took the eASY ROUTE of evaluating something for a batsmen
who has played ionly 4 test matches.

Exactly I'm not about to work through 20+ commentary logs when I don't
have to! The calculation for Sehwag proved to my satisfaction that I
had understood what the stat Tintin's post referred to was and also
that it was correct to within my margin of error.

Post by Phil.
prove it for others.
check it out here...it says
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=2101;class=testplayer;filter=basic;team=0;opposition=0;notopposition=0;season=0;homeaway=0;continent=0;country=0;notcountry=0;groundid=0;startdefault=1993-11-12;start=1993-11-12;enddefault=2005-07-24;end=2005-07-24;tourneyid=0;finals=0;daynight=0;toss=0;scheduledovers=0;scheduleddays=0;innings=0;result=0;followon=0;seriesresult=0;captain=0;keeper=0;dnp=0;recent=;runslow=;runshigh=;batposition=0;dismissal=0;viewtype=bow_dismissals;bowposition=0;ballslow=;ballshigh=;bpof=0;overslow=;overshigh=;conclow=;conchigh=;wicketslow=;wicketshigh=;dismissalslow=;dismissalshigh=;caughtlow=;caughthigh=;caughttype=0;stumpedlow=;stumpedhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
it has 8.75 agsinst sehwag's name...it has 8.4 against Jayasuriya. I
dont think thats the case either..

That number from Statsguru is not the same statistic as I and others
have already told you. The number that was in Tintin's post and which
I recalculated for Sehwag is the number of runs scored by batsman A off
bowler B per dismissal by B.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
similarly can you throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers ?

Why don't you, all you need is Statsguru and the Cricinfo ball-by-ball?
i just posted it and proved statsguru is wrong.

No you proved that you don't understand what we are talking about.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
as for 24 being abysmally low, Yes it is low but not that low
considering the THAT particular series, espeically Mumbai test match.
Having said that, Sehwag literally took Mcgrath apart in Chennai and as
you pointed out he got majority of his runs against Mcgrath at the
third test match(34 out of 58)

At Chennai he scored 25 and 12 off McGrath!
yes you already posted that and I take your word and we concluded that
24.5 is the average.

Post by a***@gmail.com
so even though 24 is a small number, in that circumstances it was a
pretty decent number and 4 test matches isnt a good criterion for
comparison.
Lets throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers.

Feel free.

Post by a***@gmail.com
One more thing, just as you guys sit here and evaluate Mcgrath;s
greatness as why he is best, I just noticed that Mcgrath has woefully
missed one too many important series against India, espeically when
Indian batsmen were doing great. for instance 1998 when Tendulkar was
at his best.(and 2003 when almost all of them were doing great.)

Perhaps that's a reason they were doing so well?
and I
thats olne way of looking at it. Other way is maybe he chickened out
playing against Tendulkar in India during Tendulkar's prime just as
Dennis Lillee chickened
out playing against Gavskar in India during his prime.

He didn't chicken out he was injured in '98

"Australian selectors have chosen their squad of fifteen players for
the Test leg of the tour of India in February and March 1998. Matthew
Elliott and Andy Bichel have been dropped from the team that played in
the Third Test against South Africa, while Glenn McGrath, Jason
Gillespie and Simon Cook are unavailable due to injury. Four players in
the squad (Lehmann, Dale, Wilson and Robertson) have yet to appear in a
Test match."

He had surgery in 2003 and expected to be ready in time for India but
it didn't heal properly and had to have surgery again (came close to
retiring) and therefore missed India, I'm sure he would much rather
have played!

Post by Phil.
He came in 2001, but still coudlnt win it for Australia.
in 1999, they won in Australia but still couldnt get the better of
Tendulkar.
and finally when Tendulkar was struggling after 15 years of crcket in
2004, Mcgrath comes back and knocks him out...
and still, Tendulkar won a match for India(Mumbai test match) to make
it 1-1....as he played only 2 test matches.
so think before you say something...

I did, you however ......

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
earlier thought that Mcgrath might have played the 1998 series when
Tendulkar was literally plundering the Aussie bowling then and based on
that having an average so low wouldnt have made sense. On the contrary,
Mcgrath has played almost every Ashes series(I presume) and therefore
evaluating him against England probably gives a better pcture. Still, I
would like to see Tendulkar's average to Mcgrath because even in 1999's
washout, Tendulkar scored a lot of runs.

Tintin's already told you what it is.

It's 18. If you want to work through 20+ commentary logs to verify it
feel free but I'm not going to do it for you.

Post by Phil.
For instance he said Gibbs averages 69...I check over statguru and it
says 10 for Gibbs.

See above.

Phil.

[Andrew Dunford]

Post by Phil.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
That's MY point. It was easy to evaluate for sehwag with 4 tests and my
point being 23 was incorrrect.

Your point was that Tintin was an idiot who didn't understand stats!
I've no reason to believe that Tintin's number isn't right as I said I
could have made an error and I don't feel the difference between 23 and
24 significant enough to redo the calculation.
No, you just took the eASY ROUTE of evaluating something for a batsmen
who has played ionly 4 test matches.

Exactly I'm not about to work through 20+ commentary logs when I don't
have to! The calculation for Sehwag proved to my satisfaction that I
had understood what the stat Tintin's post referred to was and also
that it was correct to within my margin of error.

The previous poster fails to understand that the bowler versus batsman
'average' presented by StatsGuru is in fact so such thing. Instead of
attempting to understand, he instead concentrates on deriding your
calculations, and with each attempt ends up with yet more egg on his face.

amparikh: if StatsGuru shows that Herschelle Gibbs has been dismissed 3
times by Glenn McGrath and 'averages' 10.00, all it means is that Gibbs
scored a total of 30 runs in those three innings in which McGrath dismissed
him. It does not mean Gibbs has scored 30 runs off the bowling of McGrath
in those three innings and it does not mean that Gibbs has never scored a
run off McGrath in an innings in which McGrath did not dismiss him.

Tendulkar, Sehwag et al have lower averages against McGrath than you'd
prefer. Learn to live with it and stop embarrassing yourself.

<snip>

Andrew

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by Andrew Dunford

Post by Phil.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
That's MY point. It was easy to evaluate for sehwag with 4 tests and

my

Post by Phil.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
point being 23 was incorrrect.

Your point was that Tintin was an idiot who didn't understand stats!
I've no reason to believe that Tintin's number isn't right as I said I
could have made an error and I don't feel the difference between 23 and
24 significant enough to redo the calculation.
No, you just took the eASY ROUTE of evaluating something for a batsmen
who has played ionly 4 test matches.

Exactly I'm not about to work through 20+ commentary logs when I don't
have to! The calculation for Sehwag proved to my satisfaction that I
had understood what the stat Tintin's post referred to was and also
that it was correct to within my margin of error.

The previous poster fails to understand that the bowler versus batsman
'average' presented by StatsGuru is in fact so such thing. Instead of
attempting to understand, he instead concentrates on deriding your
calculations, and with each attempt ends up with yet more egg on his face.
amparikh: if StatsGuru shows that Herschelle Gibbs has been dismissed 3
times by Glenn McGrath and 'averages' 10.00, all it means is that Gibbs
scored a total of 30 runs in those three innings in which McGrath dismissed
him. It does not mean Gibbs has scored 30 runs off the bowling of McGrath
in those three innings and it does not mean that Gibbs has never scored a
run off McGrath in an innings in which McGrath did not dismiss him.
Tendulkar, Sehwag et al have lower averages against McGrath than you'd
prefer. Learn to live with it and stop embarrassing yourself.
<snip>
Andrew

There is a saying "never jump into a conversation until you completely
understand the issue".

Now, I have NEVER claimed that statsguru results are correct.
What I am saying is, whatever numbers statsguru" is giving me, are the
ones I listed and I couldnt find any other way of getting resuluts Phil
is talking about.

That is EXACTLY why I have been asking him to SHOW the results and
throw light on the numbers which he is taking about. So first
understand the issue compltely rather than just jumping in.

Secondly, it was never an arguement about Sehwag because

1>When I read the original numbers(as first posted on this thread), I
had interpreted them as "averages" against Australia and not just
mCgrath. Therefore, that was the mistake on my part and that was
corrected.
Now, in case of Sehwag the numbers were shown and we agreed that 24.5
is the average against Mcgrath from 4 matches.

The issue of contention is Tendulkar's numbers. I am not able to get
those numbers from statsguru or elsewhere to prove he averages 22
against Mcgrath.

if they can show the numbers, I will gladly eat my words and accpt my
mistake because right now I am not convinced about those averages for
Tendulkar.

Now, if you have an answer to this, reply to this thread or else leave
it to Phil to give the details(incase he has...this is not a
requirement)..and If you dont have numbers and still keep replying, I
dont think we need to agree on who is getting embarassed.

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
That's MY point. It was easy to evaluate for sehwag with 4 tests and my
point being 23 was incorrrect.

Your point was that Tintin was an idiot who didn't understand stats!
I've no reason to believe that Tintin's number isn't right as I said I
could have made an error and I don't feel the difference between 23 and
24 significant enough to redo the calculation.
No, you just took the eASY ROUTE of evaluating something for a batsmen
who has played ionly 4 test matches.

Exactly I'm not about to work through 20+ commentary logs when I don't
have to! The calculation for Sehwag proved to my satisfaction that I
had understood what the stat Tintin's post referred to was and also
that it was correct to within my margin of error.

Exactly as what I said. I cant get those numbers either. But Sehwag's
case it was easier as there were only 4 matches and cricinfo and other
sites have player v/s player statistics
But I am not able to get it for previous matches.
Soi there lies the contention. So if I understand it correctly, you
dont have data right now ?

Post by Phil.
prove it for others.
check it out here...it says
http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?sdb=player;playerid=2101;class=tes...
it has 8.75 agsinst sehwag's name...it has 8.4 against Jayasuriya. I
dont think thats the case either..

That number from Statsguru is not the same statistic as I and others
have already told you. The number that was in Tintin's post and which
I recalculated for Sehwag is the number of runs scored by batsman A off

bowler B per dismissal by B.

Exactly. and thats what I thought. You kept saying look at statsguru
and thats all I could get from statsguru. I never SAID statsguru
results are correct. I just posted the best I couldt get as
you kept repeating that we could get number from statsguru. If you have
better search optioins, please provide.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
similarly can you throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers ?

Why don't you, all you need is Statsguru and the Cricinfo ball-by-ball?
i just posted it and proved statsguru is wrong.

No you proved that you don't understand what we are talking about.
Alright. thats your interpretation. Go and read tyour messages.
1>First you say go and search statsguru and thats why I searched.
2>Now you keep saying, we have to go through commentary logs.
Now, where is the problem ?


- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
as for 24 being abysmally low, Yes it is low but not that low
considering the THAT particular series, espeically Mumbai test match.
Having said that, Sehwag literally took Mcgrath apart in Chennai and as
you pointed out he got majority of his runs against Mcgrath at the
third test match(34 out of 58)

At Chennai he scored 25 and 12 off McGrath!
yes you already posted that and I take your word and we concluded that
24.5 is the average.

Post by a***@gmail.com
so even though 24 is a small number, in that circumstances it was a
pretty decent number and 4 test matches isnt a good criterion for
comparison.
Lets throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers.

Feel free.

I am asking you.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
One more thing, just as you guys sit here and evaluate Mcgrath;s
greatness as why he is best, I just noticed that Mcgrath has woefully
missed one too many important series against India, espeically when
Indian batsmen were doing great. for instance 1998 when Tendulkar was
at his best.(and 2003 when almost all of them were doing great.)

Perhaps that's a reason they were doing so well?
and I
thats olne way of looking at it. Other way is maybe he chickened out
playing against Tendulkar in India during Tendulkar's prime just as
Dennis Lillee chickened
out playing against Gavskar in India during his prime.

He didn't chicken out he was injured in '98

Yeah right so he was injured, Just as Tendulkar was injured in the
series last year and YET came down and played for his country inspite
of the tennis elbow and one match for India out of 2.
so lets not get into that.
This is just a "reply" to you as you came up with an answer "maybe they
were doing better because Mcgrath wasnt playing"

"Australian selectors have chosen their squad of fifteen players for
the Test leg of the tour of India in February and March 1998. Matthew
Elliott and Andy Bichel have been dropped from the team that played in
the Third Test against South Africa, while Glenn McGrath, Jason
Gillespie and Simon Cook are unavailable due to injury. Four players in

the squad (Lehmann, Dale, Wilson and Robertson) have yet to appear in a

Test match."

whats the point..?

He had surgery in 2003 and expected to be ready in time for India but
it didn't heal properly and had to have surgery again (came close to
retiring) and therefore missed India, I'm sure he would much rather
have played!

I didnt even talk about 2003. I am talking about 1998.

Post by Phil.
He came in 2001, but still coudlnt win it for Australia.
in 1999, they won in Australia but still couldnt get the better of
Tendulkar.
and finally when Tendulkar was struggling after 15 years of crcket in
2004, Mcgrath comes back and knocks him out...
and still, Tendulkar won a match for India(Mumbai test match) to make
it 1-1....as he played only 2 test matches.
so think before you say something...

I did, you however ......

You did ?? How ? you said Indians dont play well when Mcgrath is
around, Yet, in 1998 he didnt come...in 2001, he came and they couldnt
win.
only in 2004, when Tendulkar is well past his prime, he manged to win
it for Australia...and even then Tendulkar won a match out of the 2 he
played.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
earlier thought that Mcgrath might have played the 1998 series when
Tendulkar was literally plundering the Aussie bowling then and based on
that having an average so low wouldnt have made sense. On the contrary,
Mcgrath has played almost every Ashes series(I presume) and therefore
evaluating him against England probably gives a better pcture. Still, I
would like to see Tendulkar's average to Mcgrath because even in 1999's
washout, Tendulkar scored a lot of runs.

Tintin's already told you what it is.

He may have told me, but the issue of contention is numbers. If you
have numbers please talk or else this is
my last reply. I am not interested in this arguement and wasting my
time on this.
Good bye.

[Phil.]

Deleted for brevity

Post by Phil.
That number from Statsguru is not the same statistic as I and others
have already told you. The number that was in Tintin's post and which
I recalculated for Sehwag is the number of runs scored by batsman A off
bowler B per dismissal by B.
Exactly. and thats what I thought. You kept saying look at statsguru
and thats all I could get from statsguru. I never SAID statsguru
results are correct. I just posted the best I couldt get as
you kept repeating that we could get number from statsguru. If you have
better search optioins, please provide.

I didn't tell you that you could get the number from Statsguru what I
said was:

"Why don't you, all you need is Statsguru and the Cricinfo
ball-by-ball?"

Note the word 'AND' it means 'as well as'.

Go to Statsguru choose your batsman and search for Tests involving
Australia in this case.
Access the scorecard to see if the bowler of interest played, if he did
open the commentary file and work through the ball-by-ball and note all
the runs scored by your batsman off your bowler and whether your bowler
dismissed your batsman, compute the average in the usual way. I don't
know why you were unable to work this out for yourself but now you can
calculate the stats to your heart's content (although SRT's have been
calculated by another poster and confirm the original value given in
Tintin's post, 18).

Post by Phil.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
similarly can you throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers ?

Why don't you, all you need is Statsguru and the Cricinfo ball-by-ball?
i just posted it and proved statsguru is wrong.

No you proved that you don't understand what we are talking about.
Alright. thats your interpretation. Go and read tyour messages.
1>First you say go and search statsguru and thats why I searched.
2>Now you keep saying, we have to go through commentary logs.
Now, where is the problem ?

Your comprehension, see above.

Post by Phil.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
as for 24 being abysmally low, Yes it is low but not that low
considering the THAT particular series, espeically Mumbai test match.
Having said that, Sehwag literally took Mcgrath apart in Chennai and as
you pointed out he got majority of his runs against Mcgrath at the
third test match(34 out of 58)

At Chennai he scored 25 and 12 off McGrath!
yes you already posted that and I take your word and we concluded that
24.5 is the average.

Post by a***@gmail.com
so even though 24 is a small number, in that circumstances it was a
pretty decent number and 4 test matches isnt a good criterion for
comparison.
Lets throw some light on Tendulkar's numbers.

Feel free.

I am asking you.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
One more thing, just as you guys sit here and evaluate Mcgrath;s
greatness as why he is best, I just noticed that Mcgrath has woefully
missed one too many important series against India, espeically when
Indian batsmen were doing great. for instance 1998 when Tendulkar was
at his best.(and 2003 when almost all of them were doing great.)

Perhaps that's a reason they were doing so well?
and I
thats olne way of looking at it. Other way is maybe he chickened out
playing against Tendulkar in India during Tendulkar's prime just as
Dennis Lillee chickened
out playing against Gavskar in India during his prime.

He didn't chicken out he was injured in '98
Yeah right so he was injured, Just as Tendulkar was injured in the
series last year and YET came down and played for his country inspite
of the tennis elbow and one match for India out of 2.
so lets not get into that.
This is just a "reply" to you as you came up with an answer "maybe they
were doing better because Mcgrath wasnt playing"
"Australian selectors have chosen their squad of fifteen players for
the Test leg of the tour of India in February and March 1998. Matthew
Elliott and Andy Bichel have been dropped from the team that played in
the Third Test against South Africa, while Glenn McGrath, Jason
Gillespie and Simon Cook are unavailable due to injury. Four players in
the squad (Lehmann, Dale, Wilson and Robertson) have yet to appear in a
Test match."
whats the point..?

To show that McG was not selected due to injury!

Post by Phil.
He had surgery in 2003 and expected to be ready in time for India but
it didn't heal properly and had to have surgery again (came close to
retiring) and therefore missed India, I'm sure he would much rather
have played!
I didnt even talk about 2003. I am talking about 1998.

Yes you did refer to 2003, see below:

"I just noticed that Mcgrath has woefully
missed one too many important series against India, espeically when
Indian batsmen were doing great. for instance 1998 when Tendulkar was
at his best.(and 2003 when almost all of them were doing great.)"

Post by Phil.

Post by Phil.
He came in 2001, but still coudlnt win it for Australia.
in 1999, they won in Australia but still couldnt get the better of
Tendulkar.
and finally when Tendulkar was struggling after 15 years of crcket in
2004, Mcgrath comes back and knocks him out...
and still, Tendulkar won a match for India(Mumbai test match) to make
it 1-1....as he played only 2 test matches.
so think before you say something...

I did, you however ......
You did ?? How ? you said Indians dont play well when Mcgrath is
around,

No I didn't, I said his absence was perhaps the reason they did well,
however the stats do show that they don't do well against McGrath (with
the exception of Laxman).



Yet, in 1998 he didnt come...in 2001, he came and they couldnt

Post by Phil.
win.
only in 2004, when Tendulkar is well past his prime, he manged to win
it for Australia...and even then Tendulkar won a match out of the 2 he
played.

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
earlier thought that Mcgrath might have played the 1998 series when
Tendulkar was literally plundering the Aussie bowling then and based on
that having an average so low wouldnt have made sense. On the contrary,
Mcgrath has played almost every Ashes series(I presume) and therefore
evaluating him against England probably gives a better pcture. Still, I
would like to see Tendulkar's average to Mcgrath because even in 1999's
washout, Tendulkar scored a lot of runs.

Tintin's already told you what it is.

He may have told me, but the issue of contention is numbers. If you
have numbers please talk or else this is
my last reply. I am not interested in this arguement and wasting my
time on this.

I gave you the number, it's 18, some kind soul has shown the detailed
calculations elsewhere in the thread. By way of comparison
Trescothick's average against McGrath is 25.


Phil.

[Tintin]

Post by Phil.
(although SRT's have been

calculated by another poster and confirm the original value given in
Tintin's post, 18).

This 'another poster' is the guy who actually compiled it and wrote the
blog.

Tinnin'

[Aravind Hande]

Post by Phil.

Post by a***@gmail.com
These statistics about Indian batsmen are a freaking joke. The guy
probably doesnt know simple mathematics.
Sehwag averages well over 42 when playing against Mcgrath. He played
the previous series and was the only Indian batsmen to offer some
resistance.
Laxman with 281, 167, ample 60's etc etc cannot average 28.. Tendulkar
averaging 18 ? lol....whoever has written this probasbly has seen only
the matches HE WANTS to get some crap statistics.

The poster appears to be talking about the runs scored by the batsmen
off the bowler not the average when playing against him.
Phil.

Maybe amparikh is right. I just checked Cricinfo StatsGuru and it appears
that the above stats for Laxman and Tendulkar against McGrath may appear
to be incorrect. Of course, another possibility is that StatsGuru may be
incorrect.

Here's the StatsGuru URL for Tendulkar's dismissals against all Australian
bowlers. As per StatsGuru, Tendulkar averages 22.16 against McGrath
having being dismissed 6 times by him. So, that would make it 133 runs
against McGrath. Interestingly, Tendulkar seems to have scored 604 runs
against Australian bowlers who have never been able to dismiss him --
1859 - 35.55 * 35 = 604
http://tinyurl.com/8bzym

In Laxman's case he is averaging 82.4 against McGrath having scored
82.4 * 5 = 412 runs against him. Laxman has scored only 24 runs against
Australian bowlers who have not dismissed him -- 1457 - 51.17 * 28 = 24
http://tinyurl.com/ab6hg

Dravid is probably one of the worst performers against McGrath. He only
averages 12.5 against him.
http://tinyurl.com/7jfjx

Aravind Hande

[Mad Hamish]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:55:45 -0400, "Aravind Hande"

Post by Aravind Hande
Maybe amparikh is right. I just checked Cricinfo StatsGuru and it appears
that the above stats for Laxman and Tendulkar against McGrath may appear
to be incorrect. Of course, another possibility is that StatsGuru may be
incorrect.

No, what it is is that the Statsguru page is useless. What it lists is
not runs scored against a bowler/times dismissed by him it's
average score when dismissed by a particular bowler

so a batsman who makes 0 b McGrath, 300* (all off McGrath), 400
(caught off Warne) would have an average of 0 against McGrath on the
player vs Player page.

Post by Aravind Hande
Here's the StatsGuru URL for Tendulkar's dismissals against all Australian
bowlers. As per StatsGuru, Tendulkar averages 22.16 against McGrath
having being dismissed 6 times by him. So, that would make it 133 runs
against McGrath. Interestingly, Tendulkar seems to have scored 604 runs
against Australian bowlers who have never been able to dismiss him --
1859 - 35.55 * 35 = 604
http://tinyurl.com/8bzym
In Laxman's case he is averaging 82.4 against McGrath having scored
82.4 * 5 = 412 runs against him. Laxman has scored only 24 runs against
Australian bowlers who have not dismissed him -- 1457 - 51.17 * 28 = 24
http://tinyurl.com/ab6hg
Dravid is probably one of the worst performers against McGrath. He only
averages 12.5 against him.
http://tinyurl.com/7jfjx

[Arjun Pandit]

Post by Aravind Hande
Dravid is probably one of the worst performers against McGrath. He only
averages 12.5 against him.
http://tinyurl.com/7jfjx

You don't need Statsguru to conclude this. Many of us Dravid fans have
been saying for ages that he still needs to prove himself against
quality bowling.

[Phil.]

Post by Arjun Pandit

Post by Aravind Hande
Dravid is probably one of the worst performers against McGrath. He only
averages 12.5 against him.
http://tinyurl.com/7jfjx

You don't need Statsguru to conclude this. Many of us Dravid fans have
been saying for ages that he still needs to prove himself against
quality bowling.

Actually he averages 21.5 against McGrath slightly worse than average
but better than SRT.

Phil.

[R. Bharat Rao]

Sensational work -- fabulous effort.

Clap clap clap...

Post by Tintin
But the "startling" stat I described emerges when you look at
different bowlers' records against the elite batsmen as a group. If
you look at balls bowled to batsmen with career averages over 45, some
bowlers do better than others. All bowlers concede over 40 runs per
wicket against such opposition, with one major exception. The averages
McGrath 25
Shoaib Akhtar 41
Kumble 43
Pollock 43
Caddick 44
Gough 46

Of course, you realize that this statistic will be universally condemned as
crap as it is well known that Kumble is a bloodsucking crap bowler who
only takes useless tailender wickets after the top-order batsmen have
scored tons of runs.. So obviously this stat is bogus.

Seriously, great work..

Bharat

[Gafoor]

Post by R. Bharat Rao
Sensational work -- fabulous effort.
Clap clap clap...

Post by Tintin
But the "startling" stat I described emerges when you look at
different bowlers' records against the elite batsmen as a group. If
you look at balls bowled to batsmen with career averages over 45,
some bowlers do better than others. All bowlers concede over 40 runs
per wicket against such opposition, with one major exception. The
McGrath 25
Shoaib Akhtar 41
Kumble 43
Pollock 43
Caddick 44
Gough 46

Of course, you realize that this statistic will be universally
condemned as crap as it is well known that Kumble is a bloodsucking
crap bowler who only takes useless tailender wickets after the
top-order batsmen have scored tons of runs..

Destroying strawmen as usual?

Maybe Tintin can give a breakup of how many runs Kumble
concedes against top batsman at home, as compared to away.
I bet it's not 43 away from home.

Post by R. Bharat Rao
So obviously this stat is bogus.
Seriously, great work..
Bharat

[R. Bharat Rao]

Post by Tintin
But the "startling" stat I described emerges when you look at
different bowlers' records against the elite batsmen as a group. If
you look at balls bowled to batsmen with career averages over 45, some
bowlers do better than others. All bowlers concede over 40 runs per
wicket against such opposition, with one major exception. The averages
McGrath 25
Shoaib Akhtar 41

Tintin, I assume you considered all runs scored by 40+avg bats, not
just the batsmen/innings who had their wickets taken by McGrath.

Phenomenal performer!

Bharat

[Phil.]

Post by R. Bharat Rao

Post by Tintin
But the "startling" stat I described emerges when you look at
different bowlers' records against the elite batsmen as a group. If
you look at balls bowled to batsmen with career averages over 45, some
bowlers do better than others. All bowlers concede over 40 runs per
wicket against such opposition, with one major exception. The averages
McGrath 25
Shoaib Akhtar 41

Tintin, I assume you considered all runs scored by 40+avg bats, not
just the batsmen/innings who had their wickets taken by McGrath.
Phenomenal performer!

That's what I interpreted him to mean. For the purposes of the
discussion above I worked through Sehwag's stats against McGrath which
is only 4 Tests so I have great respect for Tintin's compilation!
Are you still playing cricket in Pa?

Phil.

[R. Bharat Rao]

Post by Phil.
That's what I interpreted him to mean. For the purposes of the
discussion above I worked through Sehwag's stats against McGrath which
is only 4 Tests so I have great respect for Tintin's compilation!

Super work... Give it the supreme compliment from on stats-man to
another. Wish I had thought of doing it myself (not just the idea, but
actually figuring out that you can use the b-b-b and scorecards to
figure this out)...

Post by Phil.
Are you still playing cricket in Pa?

Not for the last 3 years. But I still cherish the dreams of shedding the
unwanted pounds and swatting the bowling around...

Bharat

[Tintin]

A disclaimer, as there are some references to 'Tintin's compilation'.As
mentioned my previous post, it is a copy-paste from
http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html

Tinnin'.

[R. Bharat Rao]

Post by Tintin
A disclaimer, as there are some references to 'Tintin's compilation'.As
mentioned my previous post, it is a copy-paste from
http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html

Errmmm,, thanks for the attribution.

Bharat [re-directing praise, but still very thankful to Tintin for posting
it]

[Phil.]

Post by Tintin
A disclaimer, as there are some references to 'Tintin's compilation'.As
mentioned my previous post, it is a copy-paste from
http://www.sportstats.com.au/bloghome.html
Tinnin'.

Sorry I'd missed that when I first read it, thanks for posting it.

Phil.

[Simon Pleasants]

Post by Tintin
The gap between McGrath and the next best is very large. Few batsmen
have been able to handle Glenn well: the only batsman with a
head-to-head record against McGrath that is better than his overall
batting average is Hershelle Gibbs, who averages 69 against him. No
other major batsman has an average better than 40. Looking at an
Australian bowler's toughest opponents, the Indian lineup, Dravid
averages 21, Sehwag 23, Tendulkar 18, Laxman 28, and Ganguly 14 when
pitted against McGrath.

Interesting. Stats posted for, say, Marcus Trescothick (prior to the
Lords test just completed) showed him as averaging 28.5 vs McGrath
(114 runs off McGrath vs 4 dismissals). That makes interesting
reading when comparing to the stats of the Indian batsmen.

[s***@iprimus.com.au]

As a matter of interest, here is a breakdown of Tendulkar, specifically
facing McGrath, since 1999.

1999-00 Adelaide 60 balls, 12 runs, 1 dismissal
1999-00 Melbourne 53 balls, 20 runs, 0 dismissal
1999-00 Sydney 21 balls, 25 runs, 1 dismissal
2000-01 Mumbai 51 balls, 12 runs, 1 dismissal
2000-01 Kolkata 10 balls, 2 runs, 1 dismissal
2000-01 Chennai 42 balls, 12 runs, 0 dismissal
2004-05 Nagpur 19 balls, 2 runs, 1 dismissal
2004-05 Mumbai 26 balls, 3 runs, 0 dismissal

Total 282 balls, 88 runs, 5 dismissals. Batting average 17.6

As some have pointed out, but others have completely misunderstood,
these runs are those specifically hit off McGrath, and does not include
runs hit off other bowlers in the same matches.

Wouldn't it be nice if people would take the time to understand what
was said before hurling abuse at someone they don't know.

[Simon Pleasants]

Post by s***@iprimus.com.au
As a matter of interest, here is a breakdown of Tendulkar, specifically
facing McGrath, since 1999.
1999-00 Adelaide 60 balls, 12 runs, 1 dismissal
1999-00 Melbourne 53 balls, 20 runs, 0 dismissal
1999-00 Sydney 21 balls, 25 runs, 1 dismissal
2000-01 Mumbai 51 balls, 12 runs, 1 dismissal
2000-01 Kolkata 10 balls, 2 runs, 1 dismissal
2000-01 Chennai 42 balls, 12 runs, 0 dismissal
2004-05 Nagpur 19 balls, 2 runs, 1 dismissal
2004-05 Mumbai 26 balls, 3 runs, 0 dismissal
Total 282 balls, 88 runs, 5 dismissals. Batting average 17.6
As some have pointed out, but others have completely misunderstood,
these runs are those specifically hit off McGrath, and does not include
runs hit off other bowlers in the same matches.
Wouldn't it be nice if people would take the time to understand what
was said before hurling abuse at someone they don't know.

TBH, I thought it was obvious from the outset. I am surprised so many
others appeared to have problems understanding it.

[R. Bharat Rao]

Post by s***@iprimus.com.au
Wouldn't it be nice if people would take the time to understand what
was said before hurling abuse at someone they don't know.

Welcome to rsc!

Seriously, hope you stick around to discuss some of the other analysis
posted on your site...

Bharat

[v***@hotmail.com]

Does anyone here think McGrath has a great range of balls in his
armoury? I thought keeping the pressure on with accurate line and
length, and subtle variation in his balls got all those wickets for
him.

As McGrath is capable of keeping the batsman a the striker's end, he
can set up the batsman with two outswingers followed by a one coming
in.

Vicky:
[Will have a good time following three matches ]

[Mad Hamish]

Post by v***@hotmail.com
Does anyone here think McGrath has a great range of balls in his
armoury?

No, he doesn't have a huge range of deliveries. In addition the ones
he does have don't do a hell of a lot.
What he has is the ability to move the ball enough to beat the bat or
take the edge combined with awkward bounce and extreme accuracy.

Post by v***@hotmail.com
I thought keeping the pressure on with accurate line and
length, and subtle variation in his balls got all those wickets for
him.
As McGrath is capable of keeping the batsman a the striker's end, he
can set up the batsman with two outswingers followed by a one coming
in.

[Shishir S. Pathak]

Post by Luke Curtis
On 22 Jul 2005 01:37:42 -0700, "pash4life1973"

Post by pash4life1973
Mcgrath has long been seen as the best fast bowler in the world...im
just curious which top order batsman who has played him more than just
once would be considered the most successful or least troubled.

Tendulkar would have a claim, so would Dravid.
Lara has had some great series and some poor ones.

Laxman would have a bigger claim than Dravid.

Cheers, Shishir

[Maxx]

Post by Shishir S. Pathak

Post by Luke Curtis
On 22 Jul 2005 01:37:42 -0700, "pash4life1973"

Post by pash4life1973
Mcgrath has long been seen as the best fast bowler in the world...im
just curious which top order batsman who has played him more than just
once would be considered the most successful or least troubled.

Tendulkar would have a claim, so would Dravid.
Lara has had some great series and some poor ones.

Laxman would have a bigger claim than Dravid.
Cheers, Shishir

You all seem to have missed the answer to the original question.
Herschelle Gibbs. And what he's got is bucket loads of natural talent
- probably the most talented batsman of his generation. I'm sure a few
of the Aussie batsmen would handle McGrath better than most other
countries as well.

[Gafoor]

Post by Luke Curtis
On 22 Jul 2005 01:37:42 -0700, "pash4life1973"

Post by pash4life1973
Mcgrath has long been seen as the best fast bowler in the world...im
just curious which top order batsman who has played him more than
just once would be considered the most successful or least troubled.

Tendulkar would have a claim, so would Dravid.

Dravid has played 20 innings against McGrath. In these 20 innings,
he has 1 100 & 2 50's all at home.

Post by Luke Curtis
Lara has had some great series and some poor ones.

Post by pash4life1973
Why
dont england just study what that/those batsmen do and follow it!!!

Because it isn't that easy.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by pash4life1973
Mcgrath has long been seen as the best fast bowler in the world...im
just curious which top order batsman who has played him more than just
once would be considered the most successful or least troubled. Why
dont england just study what that/those batsmen do and follow it!!!

McGrath's modus operandi has always been to bowl a large dosage of
short of a length and a shade outside the off-stump deliveries. This
cuts out the scoring strokes for batsmen and puts pressure on them if
they are unable to rotate the strike. Sooner or later this will result
in the batsmen making a mistake that results in rewards for McGrath or
the other Australian bowlers.

Sachin Tendulkar has handled McGrath with aplomb throughout their
respective careers. Laxman and Dravid have done it on a couple of
occasions but not as consistenly

I think the secret was how they would restrain themselves from
following deliveries that would not be directed at the stumps. However,
if the ball was on the wickets they would make contact with the ball
with a stroke of timing or play it with soft hands and effectively
rotate strike. This resulted in a lot of dot balls but it effectively
blunted Pigeon's threat.

However, being the master that he is McGrath concentrated on a fuller
length, a closer to the stumps line all coupled with attempting to
swing the ball in this prior tour to India. His returns were
spectacular

As great as Mcgrath is I still think he would not have had the
remarkable sucess had he been bowling prior to the 90s when defensive
batting quality had not taken the headlong dive that it did

Shariq

[Colin Lord]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
However, being the master that he is McGrath concentrated on a fuller
length, a closer to the stumps line all coupled with attempting to
swing the ball in this prior tour to India. His returns were
spectacular

I actually think McGrath is as good or better today than he was "in his
prime years" for the simple fact he's an old dog with new tricks. He's
definitely slower and his bouncer is weaker. But he's had to develop after
the Kiwis decided to just ignore everything he bowled at them because it was
outside off stump. He had to rethink his game. He's swinging the ball a bit
now. He's changing his line to be closer to off stump without giving away
runs if batsman are not falling for his old tricks.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
As great as Mcgrath is I still think he would not have had the
remarkable sucess had he been bowling prior to the 90s when defensive
batting quality had not taken the headlong dive that it did.

If the 2005 McGrath still had the pace/bounce of the mid-1990s McGrath I'd
rate him way up there, even against those openers. The early McGrath might
have struggled to achieve as good a result against dour defensive openers
like Boycott. Boycott would have consider playing McGrath's opening 10 overs
for 0 runs a batting victory just because he blunted the new ball and didn't
get out. And if he didn't have to play a single shot in those 60 balls all
the better.

[Phil.]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Sachin Tendulkar has handled McGrath with aplomb throughout their
respective careers.

I wouldn't consider the following 'with aplomb'.

Total 282 balls, 88 runs, 5 dismissals. Batting average 17.6

Phil.

[Southpaw]

Post by Phil.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Sachin Tendulkar has handled McGrath with aplomb throughout their
respective careers.

I wouldn't consider the following 'with aplomb'.
Total 282 balls, 88 runs, 5 dismissals. Batting average 17.6

Tendulkar's strategy against McGrath has always been to play him out
safely. This is because he had hardly any trouble whatsoever against
any other Aussie bowler, including Warne. Hence he saw absolutely no
point in taking on McGrath while the runs were flowing freely at the
other end.

This shows up in McGrath's strike-rate. His overall S/R is 50.x, but
against Tendulkar it is 56.x. He also had at least one rather dodgy
decision against Tendulkar at Sydney, otherwise it is more like 70+
balls per wicket! That's a lot of time that Tendulkar got to play
against bowlers not named McGrath, who he took a liking to. Other
batsmen in the world, who had trouble with Warne for example, didn't
have the option of seeing McGrath off and scoring freely against the
rest of the Aussies.

The result is that Tendulkar actually has a respectable average of 37
against Australia with McGrath present (even though it's only 18
against McGrath in particular), and a terrific average of nearly 50 vs.
Australia with both McGrath *and* Warne present. Warne playing for
Australia does wonders for Tendulkar's average! This is actually not
unlike Lara's average of 50ish vs. McWarne.

I don't suppose there are BBB transcripts available for the matches
from the 1930s, but if they were, I suspect we might find something
similar for Hammond vs. O'Reilly. O'Reilly probably had a terrific
average vs. Hammond, but overall Hammond probably stretched O'Reilly's
strike-rate enough to enable him to smack the other Aussie bowlers
around. And that dominance over the other bowlers allowed him to simply
play O'Reilly out without taking any risks, which some writers have
claimed was the case.

-Samarth.

Post by Phil.
Phil.

[R. Bharat Rao]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Sachin Tendulkar has handled McGrath with aplomb throughout their
respective careers. Laxman and Dravid have done it on a couple of
occasions but not as consistenly
I think the secret was how they would restrain themselves from
following deliveries that would not be directed at the stumps. However,
if the ball was on the wickets they would make contact with the ball
with a stroke of timing or play it with soft hands and effectively
rotate strike. This resulted in a lot of dot balls but it effectively
blunted Pigeon's threat.

Dravid rates McGrath the best bowler he has faced. His comment was
that McGrath asks a question literally every ball and you can't afford to
relax against him -- and that is what makes him so hard to play.

Bharat