• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Who was the better bowler ?

Who was the better bowler ?

  • Total voters
    42
Fusion

Fusion

Global Moderator
Sanz said:
And better home record doesn't mean much when Pakistan had one of the most biased umpiring in the world. It is ridiculous to suggest that Imran had more successful career as a bowler than Akram when the later has taken 400 more International wickets and if you are talking only test match than 50more wickets.

If not more, Akram had equally succeesful career than Imran as a bowler.
Click to expand...
Sanz you are making it sound like Imran wouldn't have gotten a single wicket unless for the umpiring! You are taking your argument to the extreme. How is that Imran has such a great record in India on similar pitches and with rubbish umpiring there as well? Obviously the Indian umpires weren't going to bail him out were they?
 
Sanz

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Fusion said:
Sanz you are making it sound like Imran wouldn't have gotten a single wicket unless for the umpiring! You are taking your argument to the extreme. How is that Imran has such a great record in India on similar pitches and with rubbish umpiring there as well? Obviously the Indian umpires weren't going to bail him out were they?
Click to expand...
I am not. If people are going to look at stats and make a decision solely on home stats then all facts must be considered. People are claiming that Imran's avg. home is superior to Akram and citing is as one of the reasons why he is a better bowler. Imran's away avg. is more reflective of how good he was. Imran's avg. in India isn't better than Wasim's despite Wasim not touring India at his peak.

In the only series they played together in India, Wasim Averaged 32, Imran averaged 49.

.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Sanz said:
I am not. If people are going to look at stats and make a decision solely on home stats then all facts must be considered. People are claiming that Imran's avg. home is superior to Akram and citing is as one of the reasons why he is a better bowler. Imran's away avg. is more reflective of how good he was. Imran's avg. in India isn't better than Wasim's despite Wasim not touring India at his peak.

In the only series they played together in India, Wasim Averaged 32, Imran averaged 49.

.
Click to expand...
So? This is one single series. To judge anything much on this is ridiculous.

Fusion is right that you are grossly exaggerating the effect home Umpiring had on Imran's figures.
 
F

funnygirl

State Regular
Richard said:
That's what all the duplicate-accounts say.

Not saying yours is one, however, only an IP-check will confirm or deny this.
Click to expand...
Ofcourse .Check it . And please do inform me whether i have been here for 5 years.

PS : i am using the lap top of my cousin ,i don't know whether he has an account here .Could be possible .However me myself wasn't here .
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Sanz said:
And better home record doesn't mean much when Pakistan had one of the most biased umpiring in the world. It is ridiculous to suggest that Imran had more successful career as a bowler than Akram when the later has taken 400 more International wickets and if you are talking only test match than 50more wickets.

If not more, Akram had equally succeesful career than Imran as a bowler.
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less about how many wickets someone's taken - it's perfectly possible for someone to take 200 less wickets than someone else and the less-wickets bowler to be the better ones.

To say that Wasim was better because he took 50-odd wickets more than Imran is... well, I really do tend to run-out of dismissive descriptives.
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Goughy said:
Just to point something out something I found interesting.

The ICC player rankings are a decent indicator if not foolproof.

These are the players with the top 10 bowling ratings

Date and value of Highest Career rating listed



Hard to argue with any of those quality players and their achievements.

Some lower down are flash in the pan performers, but the list is a good indiction of historical cricketing achievement.

Wasims highest rating ranks 57th in the history of the game. That may shock some but that puts him in the same bracket as the Snows, Peter Pollocks and Bishops of the world. Thats certainly heady company but not close to the best ever.

In fact Wasim was never ranked # 1 in the world amongst amongst his peers at any point of his career.

Obviously, Wasim has longevity on his side and that gives him an advantage over a number on the list and he maintained good form for a long period, but at no point did he dominate like the top, top players do.

I watched a lot of Wasim and he was a very good bowler but always thought that his action an left-armedness added to a mythology that wasn't completely deserved. Never once did it cross my mind people could consider him one of the best alltime.

http://www.lgiccrankings.com/test/bowling/all-time-ranking.php
Click to expand...
Imran may well be a greater bowler than Wasim, though I don't think the ICC ratings are necessarily the argument to show it. I've always found it interesting that Wasim's peak ratings are relatively so low compared to the bowlers he's generally ranked with, but we have to remember that the ICC ratings are a form guide based on certain statistical criteria - and the peak ratings you're referring to snapshot a moment in time of the players' careers, and as with any statistical ratings, there can be inconsistencies.

You consider the ICC bowling ratings as "a good indication of historical cricketing achievement" which is fair enough. Are you equally comfortable attaching the same significance to the batting ratings, which tell us that Matthew Hayden and Mohammed Yousuf rank among the top 10 highest rated players in the history of the game, 30-40 rankings points ahead of "second tier" players like Lara, Tendulkar and Hammond, none of whom even make the top 20? I think you could could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of cricket fans worldwide who'd agree with that.

The ICC ratings are an interesting discussion point and provide a good statistical form guide for players at a moment in time, but I think it's treading dangerous ground to necessarily consider them a marker for the historical greatness of a player without looking at plenty of other factors as well.
 
F

funnygirl

State Regular
BhupinderSingh said:
Wasim Akram was himself a disciple of Imran Khan,if there was no Imran then there would've been no Wasim as well
Click to expand...
.

Really . How Wasim came to Pakistan team ? who spotted him? .When Wasim met Imran the mentor ?

Why didn't Imran try his luck on people like Zakir khan ,Rashid Khan or Naved Anjum ?
Why didn't Imran make those as his students ?
Click to expand...
 
The Sean

The Sean

Cricketer Of The Year
Matt79 said:
I went for Wasim - best Pakistani bowler ever IMO. I saw Imran, but only in his autumn years, so maybe that's hurt him slightly in my eyes. I don't care to look too much at their stats beyond what's necessary to confirm - they both have OUTSTANDING statistical records. After that, I go by expert testimony and what I saw. I have Wasim in the very top bracket of pace bowlers - he could do everything with the ball, could be blisteringly quick, and had that left arm angle. Imran was also a truly great quick, but I just have Wasim shading him.
Click to expand...
Very close to my thoughts on this TBH. I saw both men though it's fair to say I saw more of Wasim, particularly in his prime as a bowler - Imran's last couple of tours of Australia in my lifetime didn't see him do as much bowling as he might have due to injury or coming late in his career.

I have them both in my Top 10 fast men in the history of the game.
 
F

funnygirl

State Regular
Richard said:
I couldn't care less about how many wickets someone's taken - it's perfectly possible for someone to take 200 less wickets than someone else and the less-wickets bowler to be the better ones.

To say that Wasim was better because he took 50-odd wickets more than Imran is... well, I really do tend to run-out of dismissive descriptives.
Click to expand...
A head to head comparison between Imran and Wasim is difficult . Because Wasim was too young and raw to start with and Imran stayed a little more years as a pure batsmen .

Also Wasim became severly ill since 1997 ,Not a justification .The guy was one of the shrewd bowlers around even at that time ,but slowed down by a huge margin .He lost his pace started wearing down quickly...
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
funnygirl said:
U mean kids are voting for Wasim .
Click to expand...
We're saying that in this poll on CW most of the Wasim votes have come from "kids" or lads roughly my age.

Of course, there are also plenty of them who have voted for Imran (as the vast majority of CW's population is 23 or younger) but more of the older crowd than not have tended to vote for Imran.

I can also tell you for certain that several of the Wasim voters aren't really saying "I think with real good reason that Wasim was better", because I know most CW posters pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top