McGrath v (Tendulkar, Lara)

Glenn McGrath recently claimed to have enjoyed an edge over Sachin Tendulkar, more so than he did against Brian Lara. It is hard to disagree with him, because Lara did better against McGrath, all things considered, than Tendulkar did. Lara also played more against McGrath than Tendulkar did, mainly on account of the fact that West Indies played Australia in longer Test series, and while McGrath missed two series against India – 1998 in India and 2003-04 in Australia, he never missed a series against the West Indies.

Tendulkar has played 21 Tests against Australia, made 1859 runs at 53.11. In matches where McGrath has been present, Tendulkar has made 662 runs in 18 innings (9 Test matches) at 36.77. This includes the one off Test in Delhi in 1996 (Tendulkar made 10, 0), the 1999-2000 series in Australia (Tendulkar made 278 runs at 46.33 in 3 Test matches), the 2000-01 series in India (Tendulkar made 304 runs at 50.66 in 3 Tests) and the 2004-05 series in India (Tendulkar played in only 2 Tests – the last 2, making 2, 8 at Nagpur in his comeback match and 5, 55 in Mumbai – in all 70 runs at 17.5 in the series).

On the other hand, Lara has played 30 Tests against Australia and 25 of those have been against McGrath. He made 308 runs in 1994-95 (in West Indies) at 44.00, 296 runs at 32.88 in 1996-97 (in Australia), 546 runs at 91 in 1998-99 (in West Indies), 321 runs at 32.10 in 2000-01 (in Australia), 533 runs at 66.62 in 2002-03 (in West Indies) and 345 runs at 57.50 in 2005-06. That 2005-06 series also consisted of 1 great innings – 226 at Adelaide and 5 failures (which produced 119 runs). Lara’s efforts in the 2002-03 series in the West Indies have to be viewed in the context of that series – it was a high scoring series if there ever was one – the wickets were the flattest in living memory (almost reminiscent of an India – Pakistan series) – 5 Australians averaged over 55 in that series and produced 10 centuries in 4 Test matches, the West Indies produced 7 centuries in 4 Test matches. 34 50+ scores were recorded in the series. It was also Lara’s most consistent series against McGrath – 5 50+ scores in 8 innings.

These figures ought to get you thinking. The 2000-01 and 1996-97 series in Australia saw Lara play 19 innings for the West Indies in which he produced two tremendous innings – his 182 at Adelaide in 2000-01 and his 132 at Perth in 1996-97. Those two innings apart, Lara produced 1 fifty in the other 17 innings. Tendulkar has played 18 innings in all against McGrath. Lara’s 4 centuries in Australia have been made at Sydney (277), Perth (132) and Adelaide (182, 226). Tendulkars 4 centuries in Australia have been made at Sydney (148, 241*), Melbourne (116) and Perth (114). Lara’s 4 centuries in Australia have come in 18 Test matches, while Tendulkar’s have come in 12 Test matches.

Indeed if you look at Lara and Tendulkar playing against McGrath, and measure a 50+ score as a success and anything else as a failure, then Tendulkar has had 7 50+ scores in 18 innings. In 48 innings against McGrath, Lara has passed 50 16 times.

The numbers reveal that Tendulkar and Lara emulate their overall tendencies when playing against McGrath. Lara is the less consistent of the two, but more capable of mammoth scores (213, 226, 182, 153). Tendulkar is more consistent, but is less capable of churning out huge scores (241, 126, 116). Lara v McGrath is defined by two innings played by Lara in 1998-99 – 213 at Sabina Park, followed by 153 at Kensington Oval. Tendulkar v McGrath as a contest is defined by the bold LBW decision McGrath won against Tendulkar in the second innings at Adelaide in 1999 (when Tendulkar ducked into a short ball which did climb at all). Tendulkar’s innings are always methodical, Lara’s are a work of genius. Therefore, when Tendulkar rattled of a clinical 126 on Day 3 in the decider at Chennai, it was expected that he would deliver that day and he did – without any frills.

What is apparent in Tendulkar v McGrath and Lara v McGrath contests, is that no other bowler in any Australian side that Tendulkar faced could trouble Tendulkar (with the occasional exception of Jason Gillespie). Where as Lara was prone to giving his wicket away against any Australian bowler. This is especially true in Australia, where Lara made 4 50+ scores in 25 innings in Tests where McGrath also featured. For Tendulkar, the corresponding figure is 3 out of 6. Tendulkar was more likely to play a particular bowler rather than play the ball. Tendulkar’s strategy against McGrath was often to wait out a good spell, where as Lara was less likely to let a good spell go by – and this is reflected by their respective consistency levels, especially in Australia.

Tendulkar v McGrath was also a direct clash in the One Day game, because Tendulkar opened the batting and McGrath opened the bowling. This was not the case against Lara. In the One Day game, McGrath did have the better of Tendulkar. This is possibly the one thing that influences McGrath’s comparison of Lara and Tendulkar.

Given Tendulkar and Lara’s overall records, McGrath probably did have an edge of both players. However, the numbers do not reflect that Lara did better against Australia when McGrath played than Tendulkar did. He produced bigger innings, but was less consistent. Lara also never played in a winning series against McGrath, which Tendulkar did.

It is a glimpse into how a cricketer makes his judgements about his peers. It is a mistake to write off a comment by Glenn McGrath as a lighthearted one – or one designed to play off Tendulkar against Lara. It does however show that McGrath rates the genuis of Lara higher than he rates the method of Tendulkar – he felt more helpless against Lara more often than he did against Tendulkar. He felt he controlled Tendulkar (as Tendulkar felt he controlled him) and never let him get away. Where as against Lara it was a far more trigger happy contest – Lara either went early, or killed the bowling. There were no stalemates in Lara v McGrath contests. Tendulkar v McGrath was invariably a stalemate – with neither willing to bite the bullet.

These have been two of the great contests in modern day cricket.

Glenn McGrath – Master Bowler

Glenn McGrath was not genuinely quick. Neither was he a natural swing bowler. He couldn’t bowl two different types of bouncers like Andy Roberts. He couldn’t make the ball talk like that wizard Wasim Akram. He couldn’t produce magic balls at will like Malcolm Marshall. And yet, these great masters would be proud to have his name taken in the same breath with theirs.

To attribute McGrath’s success to his metronomic accuracy alone is to do him a disservice. There was much more to him. There had to have been. That is the only way to explain his astonishing record – 563 Test wickets at 21.64, 380 ODI wickets at 22.02, all achieved with unrelenting regularity. He rarely if ever had a bad year. He was devastating against all opposition – no batting side could say that they had the better of him. His great strength was his ability to determine the perfect in-between length for each batsman that he bowled to, and then hit that length at will. He got in close to the stumps, bowled a great length, had a superb competitors temperament, was supremely fit – both physically and technically. He could bowl marathon spells when the situation demanded it, and his knowledge of the mechanics of his action meant that he rarely experienced the niggles that keep lesser bowlers out of the game from time to time. He bowled better overseas than he did in Australia, and during his career, Australia lost only 5 series – and never lost an Ashes series when he was available to play the full series. England’s fortunes in the 2005 Ashes changed the moment he inadvertently stepped on a Cricket ball and twisted his ankle before start of play in the second Test. He never played in a losing home series either.

Much has been written about his contribution to the ugly Australian image – indeed as the strike bowler and leader of the attack, he was the face of Australia in the field. In my view, a lot of the criticism was down to cultural misunderstandings and the fact that the Australians were winning all the time. Occasionally, when Australia had been bested, they showed themselves to be more gracious losers than most other sides. Against India, McGrath had a great deal of success. Tendulkar had his measure, yet could never really master him. That was the essence of McGrath – his correctness and his unrelenting execution of near-perfect bowling, meant that no opposition player could ever have his measure for any sustained period of time.

I was able to watch him bowl at Brabourne stadium – sitting behind the bowlers arm in the North Stand. It was only a tour game. But it was poetry in motion. McGrath bowled from the pavilion end in tandem with Jason Gillespie for an hour before retiring to field at fine leg and mid off. It was classic bowling. I had gone to the game to watch Gillespie and Warne – McGrath was not the sort of cricketer you went to watch. He was the sort of cricketer who enforced Australia’s will on the Cricket field. Warne was the flamboyant genius, while Gillespie was the big intimidating quick bowler with genuine pace. Gilchrist and Ponting were the star batsmen, Steve Waugh was the Ice Man. McGrath made do with being known as “Pigeon”. After the game, McGrath was not the bowler who stayed in your memory. If you looked at the scorecard, that was where he featured – quiet, efficient and devastating.

His batting improved as his career progressed and he could be relied upon to keep his end up. In that tour match in 2001, McGrath stood with his captain as they played out over a session to take Australia to safety. Many Cricketers view themselves as entertainers, but for McGrath, it seemed to begin and end with “Australia Wins”. Had McGrath been a batsman, he would have been part Gavaskar, part Miandad and part Steve Waugh. I can think of no greater measure of his greatness….

Warne and McGrath – the most successful bowling pair in Test history…….

1271 Test wickets in 14 years of Test cricket make Warne and McGrath the most successful bowling pairing in Test history. What makes them astonishing is that Warne was a leg-spinner while McGrath was a medium pacer. Warne practiced a notoriously difficult art, while McGrath had no discernible weapon – like Ambrose’s pace and lift or Trueman’s outswinger or Waqar’s reverse swing. Even though their bowling styles were poles apart, they were more similar than it seems at first. Both based they’re bowling on absolute, unwavering mastery of line and length. When one thinks of the two of them in a Test match – the one operative word which comes to mind is – Control. They were good enough to control the game most of the time. Warne could do so on first day wickets which offered him nothing, and McGrath could do so on bright sunny days, on flat, plumb wickets made for batsmen.

Between the two, i would say that McGrath was the superior bowler – he took his wickets cheaper, performed more consistently than Warne against all opposition. All great players have their bogey teams – Warne had India and to a lesser extent, the West Indies, Lara has had India, Tendulkar has had South Africa, Lillee had the West Indies, Viv Richards had Pakistan. McGrath has had none. There are very few batsmen who can claim to have absolutely mastered him, in the way that Lara and Tendulkar have mastered Warne.

In Warne’s case, the story of leg-spin bowling is integral to his story. He revived the art – his value lies in great part to his mastery of this specific art (as against say classical off-breaks, or medium pace bowling). It lies in his competitiveness, and his understanding of the cricketing contest. Warne will always been the more celebrated bowler. It will always be a case of Warne’s poetry to McGrath’s prose. It was easy for the average viewer to be drawn into Warne’s contest, embellished by high quality television coverage and detailed (for want of a better word) commentary. There was never a sense of stalemate. In McGrath’s case, there seemed to be no apparent contest. It was a stalemate until he won. Warne was the master of subterfuge – before every series, he invented a new word which could pass for a new, secret delivery which he had developed, just for that series. He did have the ability to turn the leg break exactly as much as he wanted to, and bowl it exactly as fast as he wanted to. McGrath never had a genuine outswinger, and Warne never had a genuine googly which worked against top-order batsmen. He rarely used it against top order players, reserving it for lesser tail-end prey.

It is a measure of the value of leg-spin bowling in Cricket, that Shane Warne, who began his career in 1991-92, was elected one of Wisden’s 5 Cricketers of the 20th Century. This was no partisan nomination, it was an election by a large number of Cricket’s most prominent citizens and journalists. Warne was elected ahead of Frank Worrell, Sunil Gavaskar and Imran Khan, each of whom in my estimation rank above Warne amongst 20th Century cricketers, for the simple reason that they were responsible in large part of the development of their national sides into powerful international cricket teams. Imran and Worrell especially.

The legend of Shane Warne is the legend of Leg-Spin Bowling, as much as it is of the man himself. In McGrath’s case, it is a case of unrelenting, unadulterated excellence. McGrath is one of those rare bowlers who can claim to have never had a slump, to have never failed in the face of any challenge. He was the quintessential machine. Warne on the other hand, was great theatre…

CricketingView