Lillee, McGrath..... Cummins ?

[cricketnut14]

For me Lillee & McGrath have been our best 2 quicks since the end of WSC. For me those 2 are hard to split.

Cummins is certainly on track to be mentioned in the same breath at the rate he is going. Could he be the best ?

mcgrath 563 wkts @ 21.64 (124 tests)
lillee 355 wkts @ 23.92 (70 tests) - another 90 wkts @ 23 in 18 unofficial tests
*cummins 134 wkts @ 22.18 (28 tests)

lillee got more 10fa's although mcgrath was super consistent and played in the era where he competed with warne.

predictions on how many test wickets cummins could get, considering the above are the only 2 quicks to play 80+ matches.

 

[BGman]

Hard to argue about those numbers. The Pigeon was outstanding.. DK a legend. Depends on amount of matches Cummins plays. He now (2021) has 164 wickets from 34 Tests @ 21.5. If he plays 100 matches I say he'll finish with 450 wickets.
Josh hazlewood is on track for about that with 212 wkt @25 from 55 matches.

 

[reubski23]

Im on board with this. I used to love watching McGrath; him and Warne bowling from both ends- there was nothing better. Cummins is equally as great to watch - looking forward to many years to come from him

 

[cricketnut14]

absolute jet!

 

[The Falcon Strike]

He's not there yet - he's about 200 test wickets away at the same rate - but absolutely on the trajectory to be considered with them.

 

[HotSausage69]

Not sure he'll play as many tests as the others as he's now in an era with factors such as bowler rotation and a reduced test schedule, both due to the pandemic and the decline in popularity in favour of T20 cricket.
Not saying he isn't as good a player, but I can't see his record stacking up against Mcgrath in particular by the time his career is finished. Through no fault of his own, though.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

I hope we get to see Cummins play in another 40-45 test matches.

 

[Kappa]

I hope we get to see Cummins play in another 40-45 test matches.

How many do they normally play per year now?

Sadly I don't think he's gonna have a super long career, I think those nasty injuries early in his career are gonna come back once he gets on the wrong side of 30 no matter how well he prepares.

 

[reubski23]

I would love to see Cummins open with the new ball. He is the jaguar of the attack - it doesn’t make sense to me that he continues to come in first change - he deserves the right to the first crack. I even understand Starc taking the first over to try and get what happened today - but Cummins should be having a bowl with the new ball

 

[Mofra]

I would love to see Cummins open with the new ball. He is the jaguar of the attack - it doesn’t make sense to me that he continues to come in first change - he deserves the right to the first crack. I even understand Starc taking the first over to try and get what happened today - but Cummins should be having a bowl with the new ball

Restrict Starc to 3 overs and it's less of an issue? He's loose so gets batsmen to play early.
Hazelwood is so ridiculously accurate he demands the new ball.

 

[The Passenger]

Restrict Starc to 3 overs and it's less of an issue? He's loose so gets batsmen to play early.
Hazelwood is so ridiculously accurate he demands the new ball.

It's been pretty commonplace for Starc to only bowl a few overs in each spell right through his career.

I think the only way to check is to go through the commentary of each innings which is a bit time consuming, but I reckon if you went through every innings where Cummins, Haze and Starc have been in the team (20 tests they've played together now), you'd find Cummins has his hands on the pill by the seventh over the vast majority of the time. There's plenty of life in the pill at that point.

I suspect with Cummins having the C next to his name that will happen in pretty much every innings now. Starc bowling 2-3 over spells and being suited to moving from one to end to the other (whereas Haze is the type of bowler who just wants to get into a rhythm from one end) does enable that "three-man front", for lack of a better term. It was effectively a 19-over opening spell with three opening bowlers, although obviously only two will be officially recognised as openers. Won't work every time (cricket's like that right!) but with the quality of bowlers we have (helps when Starc is having a good day) they can put top order batsmen under a lot of pressure.

 

[pugsville]

For me Lillee & McGrath have been our best 2 quicks since the end of WSC. For me those 2 are hard to split.

Cummins is certainly on track to be mentioned in the same breath at the rate he is going. Could he be the best ?

mcgrath 563 wkts @ 21.64 (124 tests)
lillee 355 wkts @ 23.92 (70 tests) - another 90 wkts @ 23 in 20 unofficial tests
*cummins 134 wkts @ 22.18 (28 tests)

lillee got more 10fa's although mcgrath was super consistent and played in the era where he competed with warne.

predictions on how many test wickets cummins could get, considering the above are the only 2 quicks to play 80+ matches.

Mitchell Johnson. When he was good he was so damn good. When ordinary very ordinary.
If Johnson was in form I woudl pick him ahead of McGarth,

McGarth was perhaps the best organized and constant fats bowle, generlay very reilable and an 8/10 80% ofthe time. Johnson was 10/10 25% but 3/10 25% of the time and perhrpas 6 the rest,

Johnson a hard player to rate, in Career terms McGarth got him covered easily, but a in form impact Bowler Johnson easily.

If I was touring England and picking players at their peak Alderman better than McGarth.

 

[footyfan1978]

For me it Lillee by some margin on actual match winning ability, Warne the closest thing to Lillee in terms of match winning ability and presence.
McGrath very consistent at role he played but not the same level of skills. Knew his limits on skill and worked within that aspect with brilliant discipline.
I think Cummins more skilled than McGrath , less skilled than Lillee and Warne but has similar heart like a Lillee and mentored by him well so reckon he on track to be in conversation at end of his career. I just wish he swung it more with outswingers and inswingers but maybe with drop in pitches just doing it off seam is the disciplined way to become great anyway. He works on a plan and sticks to it brilliantly and will get the results.

 

[DaRick]

For me it Lillee by some margin on actual match winning ability, Warne the closest thing to Lillee in terms of match winning ability and presence.
McGrath very consistent at role he played but not the same level of skills. Knew his limits on skill and worked within that aspect with brilliant discipline.
I think Cummins more skilled than McGrath , less skilled than Lillee and Warne but has similar heart like a Lillee and mentored by him well so reckon he on track to be in conversation at end of his career. I just wish he swung it more with outswingers and inswingers but maybe with drop in pitches just doing it off seam is the disciplined way to become great anyway. He works on a plan and sticks to it brilliantly and will get the results.

In terms of pace, presence, flair, charisma and influence, Lillee has McGrath covered easily, but people tend to forget exactly why McGrath was dangerous in all conditions, and why his statistical record surpasses Lillee's.

It was because underneath his robotic accuracy lay an enormous amount of skill. People forget that McGrath could do it all when he wanted - beyond seaming the ball, he could swing and cut the ball both ways (he used the outswinger quite a bit later on), he could generate reverse swing (which he used in the subcontinent and to destroy Merv Dillion's stumps in a Test match), his yorkers were very dangerous, his bouncers were invariably on point, and he had a neat slower ball (he used one to dismiss a South African batsman in around 2005).

People tend to forget all that because he personifies robotic accuracy. But he had then, and could use them to lethal effect if necessary.

Clark/Hazlewood/Reiffel is closer to the type of bowler you describe. Very good, and dangerous when there was bounce or seam, but really just holding bowlers when conditions didn't suit them. Gillespie was more skilful than any of those three, but like Craig McDermott, played too much cricket when he was too young and so burnt out in his early 30's.

I actually don't think that Cummins relies that much on skill to get wickets. He doesn't move the ball much and he doesn't have much variation. What he relies on is accuracy approximating (but not reaching) McGrath's, combined with Lillee's persistence/courage and Johnson's awkwardness. He's not as quick as Johnson or Lillee could be - that, combined with his relative lack of movement, explains why he rarely runs through lineups despite his undeniable brilliance - but his awkwardness and persistence wear batsmen down and allows him to either nail the star batsman or break a partnership.

Cummins' injury history until the age of 23-24 is horrible, but in some ways it has helped him because it meant that his body could develop without being worn down by the demands of international cricket. Like Johnson/Lillee, other bowlers with horrible early injury histories that limited their international experience before the age of 25, he should last until about 35.

Although he's obviously not a quick, I struggle to think of anyone with Warne's array of skills - physical, psychological or in terms of bowling spin. Probably the one legspinner who could combine a massive legbreak (MacGill) with pinpoint accuracy (Kumble), a wide array of variations (Hogg) and the ability to wear down batsmen through mockery and persistence.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

In terms of pace, presence, flair, charisma and influence, Lillee has McGrath covered easily, but people tend to forget exactly why McGrath was dangerous in all conditions, and why his statistical record surpasses Lillee's.

It was because underneath his robotic accuracy lay an enormous amount of skill. People forget that McGrath could do it all when he wanted - beyond seaming the ball, he could swing and cut the ball both ways (he used the outswinger quite a bit later on), he could generate reverse swing (which he used in the subcontinent and to destroy Merv Dillion's stumps in a Test match), his yorkers were very dangerous, his bouncers were invariably on point, and he had a neat slower ball (he used one to dismiss a South African batsman in around 2005).

People tend to forget all that because he personifies robotic accuracy. But he had then, and could use them to lethal effect if necessary.

Clark/Hazlewood/Reiffel is closer to the type of bowler you describe. Very good, and dangerous when there was bounce or seam, but really just holding bowlers when conditions didn't suit them. Gillespie was more skilful than any of those three, but like Craig McDermott, played too much cricket when he was too young and so burnt out in his early 30's.

I actually don't think that Cummins relies that much on skill to get wickets. He doesn't move the ball much and he doesn't have much variation. What he relies on is accuracy approximating (but not reaching) McGrath's, combined with Lillee's persistence/courage and Johnson's awkwardness. He's not as quick as Johnson or Lillee could be - that, combined with his relative lack of movement, explains why he rarely runs through lineups despite his undeniable brilliance - but his awkwardness and persistence wear batsmen down and allows him to either nail the star batsman or break a partnership.

Cummins' injury history until the age of 23-24 is horrible, but in some ways it has helped him because it meant that his body could develop without being worn down by the demands of international cricket. Like Johnson/Lillee, other bowlers with horrible early injury histories that limited their international experience before the age of 25, he should last until about 35.

Although he's obviously not a quick, I struggle to think of anyone with Warne's array of skills - physical, psychological or in terms of bowling spin. Probably the one legspinner who could combine a massive legbreak (MacGill) with pinpoint accuracy (Kumble), a wide array of variations (Hogg) and the ability to wear down batsmen through mockery and persistence.

Good summary, though I'm not sure that I agree about Cummins not moving it much. He can stick the ball on a dime but can also get the ball to deck away when there is nothing in the pitch from what I've seen.

 

[DaRick]

Good summary, though I'm not sure that I agree about Cummins not moving it much. He can stick the ball on a dime but can also get the ball to deck away when there is nothing in the pitch from what I've seen.

I've never really seen him swing the ball, and compared to a traditional seamer like Hazlewood he gets relatively little seam movement.

I just don't it's something he relies on that much. I think his extra yard of pace compared to (say) McGrath, plus his awkwardness and indefatigability, allow him to make those defining breakthroughs.

 

[philreich]

Mitchell Johnson. When he was good he was so damn good. When ordinary very ordinary.
If Johnson was in form I woudl pick him ahead of McGarth,

McGarth was perhaps the best organized and constant fats bowle, generlay very reilable and an 8/10 80% ofthe time. Johnson was 10/10 25% but 3/10 25% of the time and perhrpas 6 the rest,

Johnson a hard player to rate, in Career terms McGarth got him covered easily, but a in form impact Bowler Johnson easily.

If I was touring England and picking players at their peak Alderman better than McGarth.

Geez that's a big call. McGrath's 8 for 38 at Lords was right up there with the best I've seen. But Alderman was definitely a sensational bowler in those conditions - at least, Graham Gooch thought so, given his legendary phone message, "I'm currently out: probably LBW to Alderman."

 

[pugsville]

In terms of pace, presence, flair, charisma and influence, Lillee has McGrath covered easily, but people tend to forget exactly why McGrath was dangerous in all conditions, and why his statistical record surpasses Lillee's.

Glen McGarth's record only surpasses Lillee's because

(a) Lillee missed 2.5 years of career at his height during the WSC super test era.
(b) McGarth played more tests because of more test were played,

McGarth isn't even close to DK Lillee, statistics across era are problematic,

 

[DaRick]

Glen McGarth's record only surpasses Lillee's because

(a) Lillee missed 2.5 years of career at his height during the WSC super test era.
(b) McGarth played more tests because of more test were played,

McGarth isn't even close to DK Lillee, statistics across era are problematic,

A few things:

1) When I say statistical record, I'm referring to average, not just the number of wickets taken or Tests played.

2) Your point about WSC is fair, and WSC was indeed played at a high standard, but not as consistently so as the likes of Ian Chappell make out. I've seen footage of the early games, and they resembled exhibition matches as much as anything. The later games, on the other hand...

3) WSC would not have added enough Tests to Lillee's record for him to equal McGrath in terms of longevity, regardless.

4) Pitches during McGrath's era were arguably flatter than in Lillee's. TBF, this does prove your point that comparing statistics across eras is problematic.

5) RE more Tests being played during McGrath's time, that's true, but in a more complex manner than you'd think. I pointed this out on another thread:

- Between 1951-1976, more Test matches would have been played, but cricket was still an amateur distraction from the demands of work, plus SA were banned after 1970. Considering that Neil Harvey's 79 Tests in 15 years was around 1.25 more than Wally Hammond's, I'll increase his number by a factor of 1.75, which would get him to 119 Test matches. Bowlers would increase by around 1.5 or so.

- From 1977-1979, one has to account for the impact of WSC - the standard of cricket was high (albeit inconsistent), so you have to consider that when evaluating players. Players could play up to 16 SuperTests.

- After 1979, the game would have been professionalised, so Test players would have played markedly more Tests. ODIs and T20s would have cut into their Test records a little - AB actually played more Tests per year than Ricky Ponting did - but not enough for me to seriously affect the weightings.

Lillee debuted in the early 1970's, and was injured for much of the early 1970's, too. He played 38 Test matches after 1979, and 70 overall (up to 86 if you include SuperTests). So while the weighting in that regard would favour Lillee, it wouldn't be by that much. Also note the bolded.

6) There's no need to diminish McGrath's record and abilities by saying that he wasn't even close to Lillee. Saying the converse would also be an injustice to Lillee. Both are legends, and both made my Top 5 in the Top 50 cricketers to play Tests since the end of WSC (after 1 Dec 1979). Lillee was #4, McGrath was #3. The guy who originally made the list placed McGrath at #5 and Lillee at #4.

 

[pugsville]

A few things:

1) When I say statistical record, I'm referring to average, not just the number of wickets taken or Tests played.

2) Your point about WSC is fair, and WSC was indeed played at a high standard, but not as consistently so as the likes of Ian Chappell make out. I've seen footage of the early games, and they resembled exhibition matches as much as anything. The later games, on the other hand...

3) WSC would not have added enough Tests to Lillee's record for him to equal McGrath in terms of longevity, regardless.

4) Pitches during McGrath's era were arguably flatter than in Lillee's. TBF, this does prove your point that comparing statistics across eras is problematic.

5) RE more Tests being played during McGrath's time, that's true, but in a more complex manner than you'd think. I pointed this out on another thread:



Lillee debuted in the early 1970's, and was injured for much of the early 1970's, too. He played 38 Test matches after 1979, and 70 overall (up to 86 if you include SuperTests). So while the weighting in that regard would favour Lillee, it wouldn't be by that much. Also note the bolded.

6) There's no need to diminish McGrath's record and abilities by saying that he wasn't even close to Lillee. Saying the converse would also be an injustice to Lillee. Both are legends, and both made my Top 5 in the Top 50 cricketers to play Tests since the end of WSC (after 1 Dec 1979). Lillee was #4, McGrath was #3. The guy who originally made the list placed McGrath at #5 and Lillee at #4.

It's not an injustice nor does it diminish anyone. I just have a different view. You claim that it does is just come cross as a claim some moral authority you do not have. An emotive argument that I reject that has no part in rataional discussion. People have different views about stuff. I;m just calling it as I see it. I don;t expcet many agree with me or that my views are populare. But they are my considered views.

Probably because I have different values. Waht definies "Top" or "Best" it's a subjective judgment almast certinaly based on different values about what one feels makes a player more important or better. These terms a really vague and people will see them differently. I think Trumper was a better batsman than Bradman. I doubt it;s populalr opinion and many would ridulce it, certainly Bradman did when people who saw them both said they preferred Trumper.


Is longevity that important. Hendrix v Clapton. I think Jimi by long margin, and I don't even like his music much

I just some guy on the internet and many will dismiss as a bad judge. Fair enough.

 

[footyfan1978]

In terms of pace, presence, flair, charisma and influence, Lillee has McGrath covered easily,

He had all those yeah, but the skill is where he has McGrath covered easily.
Never seen McGrath swing the ball like Lillee could when he wanted too. McGrath was more a seam bowler. He was not highly skilled when it came to swinging it at all.
McGrath skill was more restricted but those skills of discipline to bowl same length or line is where McGrath shined as a tall bowler.

 

[The Passenger]

Absolutely no doubt Lillee was a far more entertaining bowler to watch.

But there's a lot of skill in the insane levels of discipline and accuracy McGrath was able to achieve.

Also for the duration of their career the average runs per wicket was almost identical across all test cricket. McGrath era average 32.67 vs Lillee era average of 32.41.

I'm going Lillee if I can only choose one but there's SFA in it.

 

[John Smith92]

For those who saw both, how did Lillee compare with Malcolm Marshall? I've always heard Marshall called the best of the great WI quicks and those two seem to come up most often in discussions of greatest fast bowler of all time.

 

[DaRick]

It's not an injustice nor does it diminish anyone. I just have a different view. You claim that it does is just come cross as a claim some moral authority you do not have. An emotive argument that I reject that has no part in rataional discussion. People have different views about stuff. I;m just calling it as I see it. I don;t expcet many agree with me or that my views are populare. But they are my considered views.

Probably because I have different values. Waht definies "Top" or "Best" it's a subjective judgment almast certinaly based on different values about what one feels makes a player more important or better. These terms a really vague and people will see them differently. I think Trumper was a better batsman than Bradman. I doubt it;s populalr opinion and many would ridulce it, certainly Bradman did when people who saw them both said they preferred Trumper.


Is longevity that important. Hendrix v Clapton. I think Jimi by long margin, and I don't even like his music much

I just some guy on the internet and many will dismiss as a bad judge. Fair enough.

Saying that someone isn't even close to someone else is by definition a bit emotive, especially when considering the context - an argument about which legend is more legendary.

It's ironic that you mention Hendrix vs Clapton because it's much the same story there. I actually agree with you that Hendrix is better, but Clapton sure as hell isn't far behind. I'd personally say that Hendrix is the best rock guitarist ever, but Clapton IMO comes in at #2 or #3 (maybe ahead of Page).

RE longevity, it's not the be all and end all, but it's definitely relevant. To that end, and in yet another irony, that's part of the reason why I rate Trumper so highly myself (albeit not ahead of Bradman). On Trumper, I've said the below (emphasis in blue mine):

Not many Test matches were played from 1877-1919. I know I'm being simplistic here by not properly accounting for WWI, but for a frame of reference Victor Trumper played 48 Test matches. That would have been a lot in those days, so I'd increase that by a factor of 2.5 to get a good idea of how many he might have played in the modern era, while accounting for the fact that he was a batsman. That gets me to 120 Test matches, which might seem high, but if you consider that he played for 13 years, it's not so big a stretch.

I will also weigh in favour of a player if they've been placed in the following (in order):
1) Wisden's Cricketers of the Century (up to 2000)
2) My Top 50 post-WSC (current)
3) Six Giants of the Wisden Century (up to 1963)
4) Richie Benaud's Greatest XI (up to 2004)
5) Wisden's ATG Test XI (up to 2013)
6) ACB Team of the Century (up to 2000)
7) ICC Hall of Fame (up to 2013 ATM)
8) CA Hall of Fame (up to 2012 ATM)

I've obviously weighted the more recent ones a bit higher so current players aren't too disadvantaged in favour of older players. Additionally, the smaller the list, the higher weighting it receives. I've placed Wisden below Richie just because of their sheer stupidity - what sort of halfwit doesn't include Gilchrist in their ATG Test XI? Also, being recognised internationally obviously beats merely being recognised domestically.

One very important yet often overlooked factor is how a player fits into a side. If a player doesn't fully fit into the side, I'd be less inclined to select them.

So with the above in mind, here is my 1st XI, with my reasoning (obviously in batting order, not overall quality):
1) Victor Trumper - If you weight his record accordingly, he averaged 53 after 120 Test matches, which is a phenomenal achievement. That he's been selected in 3, 7 and 8, while given an honourable mention in 4, gives him the nod. Granted, he did best in the middle order, but one assumes that opening on sticky wickets would have been trickier than batting in the middle order.

But yes, you have a right to your views.

He had all those yeah, but the skill is where he has McGrath covered easily.
Never seen McGrath swing the ball like Lillee could when he wanted too. McGrath was more a seam bowler. He was not highly skilled when it came to swinging it at all.
McGrath skill was more restricted but those skills of discipline to bowl same length or line is where McGrath shined as a tall bowler.

Oh, I never meant to diminish Lillee's skill. I've seen footage of him swinging the ball at high pace; there's no doubt in my mind that he had truckloads of the stuff. I also agree that McGrath was primarily a seamer - just that he could swing the ball when necessary.

I was merely pointing out that there's more to skill than swing or seam. If you look at McGrath closely, he was actually considerably more skilful than the likes of Clark/Hazlewood/Reiffel, and IMO that's what separates him from them in the end - besides longevity.

In Lillee's defence though, he was a much better batsman than McGrath.

 

[pugsville]

Saying that someone isn't even close to someone else is by definition a bit emotive, especially when considering the context - an argument about which legend is more legendary.

It's not. Your reaction is.