Lee vs Akhtar

[Beleg]

Bond, Flintoff (when fit), Warne, Steyn, Lee (ver. 2) have all been very capable of being destructive in a variety of conditions. While he was perhaps more destructive, they are all worth a mention.

Reckon he got a bit too big for his own boots TBH.

No, definitely not, the only other bowler with a legitimate claim, hahaha, when has lee played in Pakistan on some of the worst pitches ever produced for bowling?

Some of them (Lee, Steyn) might be capable, but they haven't done it. When they start producing wicket-taking spells with Akhtar's frequency then we can talk...

Waqar Younis is the only person who has a better strike-rate than Shoaib having played an equal number of, or more, matches. And considering that Shoaib played a lot of his cricket on some of the biggest roads in the history of the game, that's phenomenal.

He used to walk to the pavilion when the team needs him most on many occasions as well .

Give concrete examples.

However Mcgrath is in a different league .

Irrelevant opinion.

He did that many times which acquired him
500+ wickets .

Well, doh.

We are discussing abt a certain Akhtar who hasn't reached 200 wickets yet .

Which is perhaps a function of the number of games he has played? I haven't seen this particular issue stop people from judging Alan Davidson or Miller or Spofforth or Barnes or any number of other distinguished bowlers...and considering that he achieved his feats under more varying conditions than most of the names on the aforementioned list - it only works out in his advantage.

Let him play more and prove more on a consistent basis before he put him in the same bracket of Pakistani legends

Hah. He IS a Pakistani legend. Full stop. His records proves that - the esteem in which he was, and is, held by those who actually judge him based on his on-field performance proves that.

.I am not saying he is crap ,he is still pakistan's best bowler ,but not yet reached in the league of his predecessors.

He's a cut or three above every SINGLE bowler Pakistan has ever fielded in a game apart from the trio of Wasim, Waqar and Imran - all three dead set legends and automatically world top-20 enteries....which ties in with my original premise - he's among the top 20 bowlers of all-time.

 

[funnygirl]

If the theory of dead pitches are talking against other bowlers ,let me tell u Akhtar's average in Australian conditions aren't that great . B Lee is lucky to play in such conditions ,then why can't Akhtar's average look better than 47 .

I am not so sure whether Alan Davidson has missed 45 matches in their career .Akhtar is belonging to an era where fast bowlers took 400+ wickets or 500+ wickets . Davidson belonging to an era when there are minimum matches .Plus i am not sure whether Davidson used to play '' one innings in one test '',then injured rest of the year and the comes back next year .

Akhtar always wants to play fresh in each and every series . How many series he have completed in the last 10 years ?.He will make it into Pakistani top 5,that i agree.World top 20 ,i don't know .For Akhtar fans he is the greatest ever ,so probably put him in number one spot as well.

He may be a pakistani legend ,but so is shahid Afridi .

 

[shortpitched713]

If the theory of dead pitches are talking against other bowlers ,let me tell u Akhtar's average in Australian conditions aren't that great . B Lee is lucky to play in such conditions ,then why can't Akhtar's average look better than 47 .

Might have to do with the fact that hes facing Australian batsmen, whereas Lee has never had that pleasure in international cricket.

 

[Richard]

I am not so sure whether Alan Davidson has missed 45 matches in their career .Akhtar is belonging to an era where fast bowlers took 400+ wickets or 500+ wickets . Davidson belonging to an era when there are minimum matches .Plus i am not sure whether Davidson used to play '' one innings in one test '',then injured rest of the year and the comes back next year .

Davidson did play far less cricket than he should have, and partly this was his own choice.

 

[aussie]

We don't know how fast Fazal and Bedser were. It's highly unlikely they were as slow as 70mph.

Arthur Mailey was a wristspinner BTW, and he wasn't THAT good.

my mistake, meant Tate don't know where i got Mailey from..

 

[funnygirl]

Davidson did play far less cricket than he should have, and partly this was his own choice.

No wonder his stats look so wonderful .Anyway Dennis Lillee ,Mcgrath are above him ,atleast in my view .

 

[funnygirl]

Might have to do with the fact that hes facing Australian batsmen, whereas Lee has never had that pleasure in international cricket.

Lee did well against India equally good if not better batting side.

 

[Engle]

funnygirl is right....a modern quick must attain the 200+ wkt mark to gain any semblance of consideration. Spofforth, Barnes, Davidson, Miller were from ages past. Even a slowie like Vaas can scale the 300+ mark.

Shoaib is the biggest crybaby Pak has ever produced.

 

[Richard]

No wonder his stats look so wonderful .Anyway Dennis Lillee ,Mcgrath are above him ,atleast in my view .

TBH, even though he only played 30-odd games during the time he was bowling well, that's still equivalent to 70-odd in today's money. I'd have Davidson right up with Lindwall, Lillee and McGrath as Australia's best personally.

The best modern-day comparison I can make for Davidson is Marcus Trescothick. Had a good career, but one that was much shorter than one would expect.

 

[funnygirl]

TBH, even though he only played 30-odd games during the time he was bowling well, that's still equivalent to 70-odd in today's money. I'd have Davidson right up with Lindwall, Lillee and McGrath as Australia's best personally.

The best modern-day comparison I can make for Davidson is Marcus Trescothick. Had a good career, but one that was much shorter than one would expect.

My apologies ,i didn't mean that he isn't great ,i was partcularly choosing ''he played matches of his choice ''.Got carried away by that .Yes i know ,in that era bowlers used to bowl 50 overs in one innings and long long spells .i reckon some of the longest spells are by bowlers like Trueman and Davidson .So can't blame them for that .

Back to Akhtar i don't even want to talk about the ''length '' of his spell .

 

[DaRick]

Bond, Flintoff (when fit), Warne, Steyn, Lee (ver. 2) have all been very capable of being destructive in a variety of conditions. While he was perhaps more destructive, they are all worth a mention.

Reckon he got a bit too big for his own boots TBH.

Agree with all of this, but this Brett Lee is Version 4. Version 1 was the wicket-taking 'white new hope' (1999-2000), Version 2 was the erratic underachiever who often bowled without much thought or incisiveness (Jul 2001- Oct 2005), Version 3 was a significant improvement over Version 2, but who occasionally relapsed into his bad old self (Nov 2005 - Jan 2007), Version 4 is the current version: incisive, thoughful and often not particularly expensive (Nov 2007 -). This is Brett Lee in Test matches mind, not Brett Lee in ODI's.

As for Brett Lee.vs.Shoaib Akhtar debate, Lee is currently the better bowler, obviously, for at least he can get on the field and bowl on a consistent basis. That and he's also been incisive, thoughful and relatively inexpensive. However, Shoaib has, historically, been miles ahead of Lee in terms of bowling performance and talent for the most part - when he gets on the field, that is. 46 Tests in 10+ years is pathetic. In attitude, batting ability, fielding and match fitness, Lee is by far his superior - and always has been.

Shoaib is, IMO, the best Pakistani quick after Wasim, Waqar, Imran and Fazal Mahmood. I don't believe though, that he'd make the all-time Top 20 pace/swing/seam bowler list - never mind the all-time Top 20 bowler list. He would if he bowled at his best more consistently, but for every brilliant performance, there have been too many disapponting ones, for mine. Too often, his ego got in the way. It did for Lee too, for a while, but at least Lee overcame his.

I don't think anyone would disagree with me when I say that Shoaib would have to be one of this generation's (1995-) wasted talents.

 

[funnygirl]

wonderful post that by DaRick . Fully agree with every point excepet,that wasted talent ,how can it be . Fitness is a minimum criteria for an athlete . Had he fit ...he would have ...assumptions are beautiful .But we have to see that ,how one do as the series progresses .

For example a bowler will be fresh in the beginning of the series and batsmen didn't have use to his style .As the series progress bowler gets tired ,batsmen more comfortable facing him ,such things, how we will know if a bowler doesn't participate .

 

[Nutter]

Lee has been mighty impressive especially since taking over from McGrath, but Shaoib for me is the better bowler.

 

[Son Of Coco]

He's a cut or three above every SINGLE bowler Pakistan has ever fielded in a game apart from the trio of Wasim, Waqar and Imran - all three dead set legends and automatically world top-20 enteries....which ties in with my original premise - he's among the top 20 bowlers of all-time.

I'd disagree with the top 20 of all-time idea.

 

[Jono]

Beleg, Akhtar cannot be one of the top 20 bowlers of all time because of how many tests he missed. There are other arguments against him also, but that simply stops him at step one.

Simple as that. And this is coming from a HUGE Akhtar fan.

 

[DaRick]

Beleg, Akhtar cannot be one of the top 20 bowlers of all time because of how many tests he missed. There are other arguments against him also, but that simply stops him at step one.

Simple as that. And this is coming from a HUGE Akhtar fan.

He missed more tests than he actually played, I think.

 

[Richard]

Since his debut Pakistan have played 46 Tests with him involved, and 48 without.

Now we've had injury-prone bowlers before - and Shane Bond, for example, is even worse. But the sad truth is, if you're THIS injury-prone (and not all of the cricket he's missed has been due to injury) you'll find it pretty tricky IMO to go down as one of the best in the business.

 

[Jono]

Exactly. Its one thing to argue that Akhtar was one of the 20 best bowlers of all time when he was at his peak and on the park, but just in general, you can't.

Just like a low strike rate, great average, ability to destroy teams is a criteria for being an all-time great bowler, so is the ability to represent your country/team when they need you.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

He's a cut or three above every SINGLE bowler Pakistan has ever fielded in a game apart from the trio of Wasim, Waqar and Imran - all three dead set legends and automatically world top-20 enteries....which ties in with my original premise - he's among the top 20 bowlers of all-time.

Let's compile a brief top 20, shall we?

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Shane Warne (strictly IMO)
3. Muttiah Muralitharan
4. Richard Hadlee
5. Glenn McGrath
6. Imran Khan
7. Curtly Ambrose
8. Michael Holding
9. Dennis Lillee
10. Allan Donald
11. Wasim Akram
12. Fred Trueman
13. Anil Kumble
14. Andy Roberts
15. Bill O'Reilly
16. Shaun Pollock
17. Ray Lindwall
18. Joel Garner
19. Bishen Bedi
20. Keith Miller

Niceties like order and inclusion are largely irrelevant, I'd hope. Question is, does Shoaib belong in this peerage?

 

[Richard]

Umm... well he's certainly better than Bishen Bedi and Anil Kumble. By quite a bit, too, IMO.

SF Barnes > the lot of 'em too TBH.