Welcome to Hawthorn - Tom Mitchell - 2018 Brownlow medalist

[Steven Tyler]

Dizzy opened the bowling predominantly - Lee was usually the first change bowler. Hence why his wickets were usually bullying tailenders while Dizzy and Pidgeon smashed the top order.

McGrath and Gillespie are the best opening tandem by a long way - purely because McGrath is the best fast bowler this country ever produced.

Fair enough
Always remember Lee opening with McGrath, and Gillespie coming on first change

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Fair enough
Always remember Lee opening with McGrath, and Gillespie coming on first change

From Cricinfo:

McGrath and Gillespie
Glenn McGrath didn't just operate in tandem with Shane Warne: for a long time he shared the new ball for Australia with Jason Gillespie, whose flowing black hair contrasted well with McGrath's sandy neat short back and sides. They shared 479 wickets in 110 innings.

 

[Steven Tyler]

From Cricinfo:

McGrath and Gillespie
Glenn McGrath didn't just operate in tandem with Shane Warne: for a long time he shared the new ball for Australia with Jason Gillespie, whose flowing black hair contrasted well with McGrath's sandy neat short back and sides. They shared 479 wickets in 110 innings.

Mate, I'm not having a crack
My cricket knowledge isn't as high as my Hawthorn knowledge

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Mate, I'm not having a crack
My cricket knowledge isn't as high as my Hawthorn knowledge

Haha, all good. Just defensive of old Dizzy, doesn't get the respect he deserves. Was twice the bowler Lee was but gets none of the accolades or fandom.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I can't believe he is only 23yo. I reckon he and O'meara can be our star midfield combo for years to come (like the Dangerfield-Selwood combo), and upon retirement, be remembered as one of Hawthorn's best ever one-two.
Sort of like my prediction that upon retirement, Mitch Starc and Hazelwood will be remembered as one of Australia's best opening bowler partnerships ever.

Mitchell was the one I was most excited about last year when players were linked to us. O'Meara was just the cherry on top - but I'm almost a little bit more excited about Tom coming on board.

 

[Dipper]

Dizzy opened the bowling predominantly - Lee was usually the first change bowler. Hence why his wickets were usually bullying tailenders while Dizzy and Pidgeon smashed the top order.

McGrath and Gillespie are the best opening tandem by a long way - purely because McGrath is the best fast bowler this country ever produced.

I nearly got punched in a pub once for voicing the opinion that I thought Lillee was better than McGrath.

It wasn't you was it?

 

[flinchfree]

..............
McGrath and Gillespie are the best opening tandem by a long way - purely because McGrath is the best fast bowler this country ever produced.

Nah. So many reasons why Lillee was greater.
First, Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii leeeeeeeeeeee creams Oooh ahhh McGrath.
Second, there's the greatest stache the world has ever known.
Third, every man wanted to be the great Dennis because every woman would have happily given themselves to him.
I could go on, but then there are the cricket reasons!

Lillee, with his great mad cap mate Thommo, faced up to one of the greatest sides you'd ever see: Clive Lloyd's group that included Viv Richards, Lloyd, Kallicharan, Richie Richardson, Roger Harper, a scintilating battering maybe-the-best-ever opening partnership - Haynes & Greenidge, bowlers like Holding, Andy Roberts, Marshall and Garner...... at a time the Calypso giants were a supremely talented and psychologically bruising side.
And those men, including the venerable Viv, knew that Lillee was THE MAN.
They had to survive his first 5 overs or they could be 3 or 4 down, and often Dennis was simply unplayable.
He'd start it at middle leg and have you miss 6 inches outside off, and often you couldn't believe the stumps hadn't been broken. Or it'd be under your chin a hair short of a length and even the greatest of technique would simply be fending off with a handle and glove.
By comparison, McGrath would bore you to sleep with a ridiculous line outside off that didn't vary, and he only found reverse swing later in his career. Early on if you left the ball to go through to the keep, you could outwait him and look to make your runs from the other end.

Further, Lillee's aussie teams had to visit the sub continent when all the pitches were ri-diculously doctored to be slow and give the quicks nothing. Eighth day dry tops for the opening days session. Not like the last 25 years where Pakistan and India and Sri Lanka discovered the value of their own quicks and prepared decks that gave everyone a chance.
McGrath made a killing of the bunnies on the subcontinent who were awful players of a good line and a well pitched up ball, as well as other minnow sides that crept in to international cricket.
Contrast again with Lillee, who played against boring as crap but stoic to tee English sides whose plan was to draw every test......McGrath feasted on years of truly poor English sides who were an embarrassment to the game and their country.

There have been two bowlers I've seen that were so brilliant with their minds that they'd be setting you up 3 balls out for the one they thought would get you.
Warne. And Lillee.
If you only saw the end of Dennis's career then you truly missed out. He'd had to re-invent himself as a medium quick outswinger who could bowl one through 10km faster when he wanted after battling serious injuries. He was still a very dangerous man, but before then, he was breathtaking.
Nothing, absolutely nothing like watching McGrath.

Look, Glenn was an absolute great, but the greatest?
Not even close. Biggest stat stuffer, sure.
Most talented, most feared, most mesmerizing, most pretty of action. Lillee by the length of his run up in the late 70's.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Nah. So many reasons why Lillee was greater.
First, Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii leeeeeeeeeeee creams Oooh ahhh McGrath.
Second, there's the greatest stache the world has ever known.
Third, every man wanted to be the great Dennis because every woman would have happily given themselves to him.
I could go on, but then there are the cricket reasons!

Lillee, with his great mad cap mate Thommo, faced up to one of the greatest sides you'd ever see: Clive Lloyd's group that included Viv Richards, Lloyd, Kallicharan, Richie Richardson, Roger Harper, a scintilating battering maybe-the-best-ever opening partnership - Haynes & Greenidge, bowlers like Holding, Andy Roberts, Marshall and Garner...... at a time the Calypso giants were a supremely talented and psychologically bruising side.
And those men, including the venerable Viv, knew that Lillee was THE MAN.
They had to survive his first 5 overs or they could be 3 or 4 down, and often Dennis was simply unplayable.
He'd start it at middle leg and have you miss 6 inches outside off, and often you couldn't believe the stumps hadn't been broken. Or it'd be under your chin a hair short of a length and even the greatest of technique would simply be fending off with a handle and glove.
By comparison, McGrath would bore you to sleep with a ridiculous line outside off that didn't vary, and he only found reverse swing later in his career. Early on if you left the ball to go through to the keep, you could outwait him and look to make your runs from the other end.

Further, Lillee's aussie teams had to visit the sub continent when all the pitches were ri-diculously doctored to be slow and give the quicks nothing. Eighth day dry tops for the opening days session. Not like the last 25 years where Pakistan and India and Sri Lanka discovered the value of their own quicks and prepared decks that gave everyone a chance.
McGrath made a killing of the bunnies on the subcontinent who were awful players of a good line and a well pitched up ball, as well as other minnow sides that crept in to international cricket.
Contrast again with Lillee, who played against boring as crap but stoic to tee English sides whose plan was to draw every test......McGrath feasted on years of truly poor English sides who were an embarrassment to the game and their country.

There have been two bowlers I've seen that were so brilliant with their minds that they'd be setting you up 3 balls out for the one they thought would get you.
Warne. And Lillee.
If you only saw the end of Dennis's career then you truly missed out. He'd had to re-invent himself as a medium quick outswinger who could bowl one through 10km faster when he wanted after battling serious injuries. He was still a very dangerous man, but before then, he was breathtaking.
Nothing, absolutely nothing like watching McGrath.

Look, Glenn was an absolute great, but the greatest?
Not even close. Biggest stat stuffer, sure.
Most talented, most feared, most mesmerizing, most pretty of action. Lillee by the length of his run up in the late 70's.

I really don't care how good he was to watch. There are plenty of midfielders of this era who are flashier than Sam Mitchell - as it stands Sam Mitchell walks all over them. I would prefer the boring goal kicker who takes simple pack overhead pack marks and kicks accurately over the flashy speccie taker with the intriguing goal kicking technique who misses as many as he kicks. When people criticise McGrath because he was consistently pin-point accurate I know they've already lost the argument because they are trying to say he wasn't as good because he was better at his craft. It's an insane argument. McGrath took plenty of wickets while not being flashy, he also has a superior average and economy rate to Lillee. And his frustratingly accurate bowling to batsmen usually allowed the faster more aggressive bowlers like Dizzy and Lee to gets batsman out because they felt freer to hit and would make rash shots.

I also don't buy into the opposition being better arguments. Yes England and the Windies started to stagnate in McGrath's prime. That didn't stop South Africa putting some absolutely formidable sides, of any generation, together. India was far more formidable in the modern era also. Just because the Australian test team was awful in the late 70s and early 80s as we languished under non-NSW captaincies - that doesn't make Lillee better. That's like saying good Hawks players in the late 90s were automatically better because they played in a team that wasn't winning.

Your revisionist history on pitch curation in the subcontinent is laughable also - there's a reason we've only won in India once since Bill Lawry did it. Indian pacemen are next to useless against us and their spinners make us cry. There's a reason O'Keefe looked like Warnie on that wicket in Pune. Go look at that recent test and compare wickets taken by spinners vs pacemen. There's also a reason why Murali took more wickets than Warne when Warne was the best bowler likely of all time. Also, Lillee never played in India so it's hard to make the comparison - however McGrath took 33 wickets there at 21.5.

I honestly couldn't care that most baby boomers loved watching Lillee with his moustache etc etc. Sure you probably got to sink a lot of cheap beer and chase girls around the pubs while he played - that's awesome. That doesn't, and won't ever, compare to the fact that McGrath was the superior bowler on every level outside of the fashion stakes.

TL;DR - McGrath is superior on stats, and shouldn't be punished because he did his job well (ie accuracy) and because Australia didn't suck while he was playing. And there is no way known a West Australian could be better than a NSWelshman at cricket.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I nearly got punched in a pub once for voicing the opinion that I thought Lillee was better than McGrath.

It wasn't you was it?

Nah, I fight my fights with facts and logic not fists . Mainly because that's the only chance I have of winning! Despite my size I have the reaction time of a stoned sloth!

 

[flinchfree]

I really don't care how good he was to watch. There are plenty of midfielders of this era who are flashier than Sam Mitchell - as it stands Sam Mitchell walks all over them. I would prefer the boring goal kicker who takes simple pack overhead pack marks and kicks accurately over the flashy speccie taker with the intriguing goal kicking technique who misses as many as he kicks. When people criticise McGrath because he was consistently pin-point accurate I know they've already lost the argument because they are trying to say he wasn't as good because he was better at his craft. It's an insane argument. McGrath took plenty of wickets while not being flashy, he also has a superior average and economy rate to Lillee. And his frustratingly accurate bowling to batsmen usually allowed the faster more aggressive bowlers like Dizzy and Lee to gets batsman out because they felt freer to hit and would make rash shots.

I also don't buy into the opposition being better arguments. Yes England and the Windies started to stagnate in McGrath's prime. That didn't stop South Africa putting some absolutely formidable sides, of any generation, together. India was far more formidable in the modern era also. Just because the Australian test team was awful in the late 70s and early 80s as we languished under non-NSW captaincies - that doesn't make Lillee better. That's like saying good Hawks players in the late 90s were automatically better because they played in a team that wasn't winning.

Your revisionist history on pitch curation in the subcontinent is laughable also - there's a reason we've only won in India once since Bill Lawry did it. Indian pacemen are next to useless against us and their spinners make us cry. There's a reason O'Keefe looked like Warnie on that wicket in Pune. Go look at that recent test and compare wickets taken by spinners vs pacemen. There's also a reason why Murali took more wickets than Warne when Warne was the best bowler likely of all time. Also, Lillee never played in India so it's hard to make the comparison - however McGrath took 33 wickets there at 21.5.

I honestly couldn't care that most baby boomers loved watching Lillee with his moustache etc etc. Sure you probably got to sink a lot of cheap beer and chase girls around the pubs while he played - that's awesome. That doesn't, and won't ever, compare to the fact that McGrath was the superior bowler on every level outside of the fashion stakes.

TL;DR - McGrath is superior on stats, and shouldn't be punished because he did his job well (ie accuracy) and because Australia didn't suck while he was playing. And there is no way known a West Australian could be better than a NSWelshman at cricket.

Fun read, but wrong.
You obviously didn't watch Lillee.
That's ok, you're welcome to your favourite.
Your arguments are all over the place....it would take too long to rebut.
McGrath was the finest purveyor of a bowling line you'd ever see.
Not the greatest fast bowler.
Lockett was the best kick for goal I've ever seen.
Not the greatest fullforward.

Your angry tone doesn't tip the argument, nor your condescending description of a generation you know little about.
I saw both play their entire careers.
Did you?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Fun read, but wrong.
You obviously didn't watch Lillee.
That's ok, you're welcome to your favourite.
You're arguments are all over the place....it would take too long to rebut.
McGrath was the finest purveyor of a bowling line you'd ever see.
Not the greatest fast bowler.
Lockett was the best kick for goal I've ever seen.
Not the greatest fullforward.

Your angry tone doesn't tip the argument, nor your condescending description of a generation you know little about.
I saw both play their entire careers.
Did you?

Watched plenty of Lille, granted I wasn't alive for it but that's beside the point - doesn't mean I haven't watched him in action. I'm sure neither of us have watched every single ball bowed by both of them.

Not angry either, I am just a pointed writer. Makes it really fun for the people I critique at work!

My arguments aren't really all over the place. It's silly to say Lillee was better because McGrath wasn't as fast but was just deadly accurate. I'm sure batsmen had a fear of Lillee's pace, much like they did with Johnson when he finally got his head right. However, I'm sure batsmen were equally filled with dread facing McGrath because he was so deadly accurate and would frustrate batsmen into playing badly.

End of the day, it's hard to say the bloke with the superior average and economy rate over a lot more tests isn't the superior bowler.

 

[grumbleguts]

Watched plenty of Lille, granted I wasn't alive for it but that's beside the point - doesn't mean I haven't watched him in action. I'm sure neither of us have watched every single ball bowed by both of them.

Not angry either, I am just a pointed writer. Makes it really fun for the people I critique at work!

My arguments aren't really all over the place. It's silly to say Lillee was better because McGrath wasn't as fast but was just deadly accurate. I'm sure batsmen had a fear of Lillee's pace, much like they did with Johnson when he finally got his head right. However, I'm sure batsmen were equally filled with dread facing McGrath because he was so deadly accurate and would frustrate batsmen into playing badly.

End of the day, it's hard to say the bloke with the superior average and economy rate over a lot more tests isn't the superior bowler.

I have.

Lillee has it all over McGrath for sideways movement, he could move the ball off the pitch as though he had it on a remote control. Taking 3/12 from 5 overs against a touring international side at 56 yo.

But the beauty of McGrath was, he didn't have to have that movement. He put it in a spot where exactly half a bat width was all you needed. If Lillee had've worked out early in his career that line and length took more wickets at a better average than tearaway pace, he'd have similar stats to McGrath, but he didn't have a bowler that had come before him to show him that, the way McGrath did. He also damaged his back and missed a huge chunk of his career due to injury and his prime? Unlike McGrath, he spent it working for Packer. You might want the complete story before comparing them. They aren't able to be split in my opinion.

Mitchell Starc and Hazlewood however the jury is still out. Hazlewood is very much like McGrath in so many ways, and his early stats bear that out. At 27 matches Hazlewood's test average is 24.74. McGrath's was 25.12 at the same point in his career. Hazlewood ahead but so slightly it is negligible. Factor in bigger bats, smaller boundaries and Hazlewood looks as though he is in for at least a half way decent career.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I have.

Lillee has it all over McGrath for sideways movement, he could move the ball off the pitch as though he had it on a remote control. Taking 3/12 from 5 overs against a touring international side at 56 yo.

But the beauty of McGrath was, he didn't have to have that movement. He put it in a spot where exactly half a bat width was all you needed. If Lillee had've worked out early in his career that line and length took more wickets at a better average than tearaway pace, he'd have similar stats to McGrath, but he didn't have a bowler that had come before him to show him that, the way McGrath did. He also damaged his back and missed a huge chunk of his career due to injury and his prime? Unlike McGrath, he spent it working for Packer. You might want the complete story before comparing them. They aren't able to be split in my opinion.

Mitchell Starc and Hazlewood however the jury is still out. Hazlewood is very much like McGrath in so many ways, and his early stats bear that out. At 27 matches Hazlewood's test average is 24.74. McGrath's was 25.12 at the same point in his career. Hazlewood ahead but so slightly it is negligible. Factor in bigger bats, smaller boundaries and Hazlewood looks as though he is in for at least a half way decent career.

Appreciate the analysis. I tend to get more pointed in my defence of McGrath when people use tags like he was boring or not skilful. To be as accurate as he was was an absolute joy to watch for me. Watching batsman struggle against him and then edge it to the slips or keeper, or wait for the next over and try and take it to Gillespie, Lee, Warne etc and get out playing a rash shot was just fantastic. As good as our batters were during our recent period of dominance of all forms of cricket, it was our bowlers who really led the way.

 

[grumbleguts]

Appreciate the analysis. I tend to get more pointed in my defence of McGrath when people use tags like he was boring or not skilful. To be as accurate as he was was an absolute joy to watch for me. Watching batsman struggle against him and then edge it to the slips or keeper, or wait for the next over and try and take it to Gillespie, Lee, Warne etc and get out playing a rash shot was just fantastic. As good as our batters were during our recent period of dominance of all forms of cricket, it was our bowlers who really led the way.

One thing I could not unsderstand about McGrath's career was his limited overs stats. Putting the ball in the exact same spot every ball should be a pair of lead boots in the river of evolution, the batsman knows where the ball is going to be so just swing at that point, yes there is risk, but with no slips and only 50 overs to last, you'd think the risk would be outweighed by the reward, but still batsmen took great care to see him off. at 3.88 economy, his figures certainly didn't reflect a bowler with metronome-like predictability.

Only 3.2% of his ODI innings went for more than 7 per over Only 8.4% at greater than 6 (including the 3.2%)
22% went for more than 5 an over, (today that figure might indeed be higher.) Only 43.6% (less than half went for more than 4 an over and 70% cost more than 3 an over. This means that 30% of his bowling inning he conceded less than 3 an over. Even though the batsman for the most part knew where the ball would be before he let it go.

 

[Coathanger]

It's not a cricket thread!

 

[Roger Rogerson]

What is going on in here???

 

[heh]

Off season?

 

[kazzooka]

Tom Mitchell is playing for us today after years of speculation a wild trade period and a long preseason wait we finally get to watch this contested beast of a ball magnet play for us.

Enjoy it and stop arguing about who the better cricketer was between 2 players that are long retired.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[eldorado]

General board is a great spot for cricket talk, folks

 

[Ned Ryerson]

General board is a great spot for cricket talk, folks

I prefer echo chambers

 

[Ned Ryerson]

So what would Tom's chances be for a PCM in his debut year? I think he'd be in with a massive chance.

 

[Mr Lizard]

please, 'Welcome to Hawthorn' threads are for weighty topics like racism.

 

[Since 2001]

really excited to see this bloke play, will be a great addition to the club.

 

[The Lemon]

really excited to see this bloke play, will be a great addition to the club.

Big kev me too

 

[Lotus]