Who is better Imran Khan or Glenn Mcgrath?

[funnygirl]

Yes ,let the people come up with the explanations . Statistics ,ability ,whatever open to discussion.This comparison is purely based on them as bowlers .

Mods can we add a poll for this ?

 

[Richard]

Imran Khan. More multi-skilled, and every bit as effective.

 

[funnygirl]

Imran Khan. More multi-skilled, and every bit as effective.

Statistics shows that Mcgrath is better in all categories .

 

[Richard]

Really? Prey explain?

And please don't tell me to look at any Imran-related material other than that contained in this.

Equally, fair to say only to look at McGrath here.

 

[silentstriker]

Glenn McGrath, definitely.

 

[funnygirl]

Really? Prey explain?

come on ,in spite of playing more matches ,in an era of ''neutral umpires'' Mcgrath has better average ,better strike rate ,better wickets per match . What do u want more ?

 

[Prince EWS]

What's this comparison on? Bowling alone?

McGrath for mine.

 

[Prince EWS]

come on ,in spite of playing more matches ,in an era of ''neutral umpires'' Mcgrath has better average ,better strike rate ,better wickets per match . What do u want more ?

I think Richard was alluding to the vast difference in their respective batting abilities, given you didn't say anything about bowling in the first post.

EDIT: Actually, you did! Never mind.

 

[Ikki]

McGrath probably. Both are very consistent, but where there are places that Imran Khan is just good, McGrath is very good. Imran's overall figures are helped somewhat by Sri Lanka too. Imran, however, was extraodinary against the best opposition side of the era whereas McGrath's overall record is not as good in the same comparison (S.Africa).

This is all assuming we're talking strictly about bowling.

 

[funnygirl]

Really? Prey explain?

And please don't tell me to look at any Imran-related material other than that contained in this.

Equally, fair to say only to look at McGrath here.

So convenient.Take the career as a whole .

 

[Richard]

come on ,in spite of playing more matches ,in an era of ''neutral umpires'' Mcgrath has better average ,better strike rate ,better wickets per match . What do u want more ?

McGrath's average difference is negligable (21 to 22), wickets-per-match ratio is never something I care overtly for, and their strike-rates are near identical in significant periods (both just over 50).

What's more, Imran played many Tests in Pakistan and what's more did better there than away. Imran conquered every team, dramatically so, that came to Pakistan, and was never conquered anywhere else he toured. McGrath could not fully subdue South Africa home or away, and never bowled well in Sri Lanka. Minor details, but Imran has a more rounded record and was, as I say above, very obviously the more multi-skilled bowler, much as McGrath's capabilities in this respect are obviously underestimated.

Incidentally, I've never cared much for the "he had \ didn't have home Umpires" argument. Pure conjecture.

 

[Richard]

So convenient.Take the career as a whole .

It's not "convenient", it's the only thing that makes any sense. Who in their right mind is going to hold a few Tests at the beginning\end of the career of two of the greatest bowlers ever seen, who played countless more times the number of these Tests, against them? The games I've knocked-out are near-meaningless IMO. When assessing a player you must assess what matters, and not allow mundane irrelevancies to be dragged in.

 

[Dissector]

I would think McGrath deserves the edge for his sheer longevity in terms of tests. I don't think Imran was bowling much at the end of his career. Quite remarkably the ageing McGrath managed to maintain his performance even when pitches eased out and scoring rates increased.

 

[funnygirl]

McGrath's average difference is negligable (21 to 22), wickets-per-match ratio is never something I care overtly for, and their strike-rates are near identical in significant periods (both just over 50).

What's more, Imran played many Tests in Pakistan and what's more did better there than away. Imran conquered every team, dramatically so, that came to Pakistan, and was never conquered anywhere else he toured. McGrath could not fully subdue South Africa home or away, and never bowled well in Sri Lanka. Minor details, but Imran has a more rounded record and was, as I say above, very obviously the more multi-skilled bowler, much as McGrath's capabilities in this respect are obviously underestimated.

Incidentally, I've never cared much for the "he had \ didn't have home Umpires" argument. Pure conjecture.

Yes minor differences and u have to take consideration of ''neutral umpires '' very much considering imran has a much better home average than away .Again ,statistically Mcgrath is still better ,not by that much .But better .

 

[Richard]

I would think McGrath deserves the edge for his sheer longevity in terms of tests. I don't think Imran was bowling much at the end of his career. Quite remarkably the ageing McGrath managed to maintain his performance even when pitches eased out and scoring rates increased.

Imran ('76/77-'88/89) lasted every bit as long as a great bowler as McGrath ('95-'06/07) did.

Australia simply had more games scheduled during McGrath's career than Pakistan did in Imran's. Both played a whole stack of them, though, more than enough to demonstrate their durability and skill.

 

[Richard]

Yes minor differences and u have to take consideration of ''neutral umpires '' very much considering imran has a much better home average than away .Again ,statistically Mcgrath is still better ,not by that much .But better .

Until someone can show me significant proportions of Imran wickets that obviously came due to incorrect Umpiring decisions, I'm not going to take any note of that. As I say previously - pure conjecture. There is nothing obvious like there is with Javed Miandad's diplomatic immunity from lbws.

And I assure you - if you can, I can show you large numbers of McGrath wickets that came from poor strokes - whole matches between 2001 and 2004/05 where, on non-seaming wickets (which formed all bar about 3 or 4 Tests), he didn't take a single wicket with a wicket-taking delivery.

 

[subshakerz]

Imran's figures are obscured by his first few tests, when he was hardly test class in bowling or batting, and the tests where he clearly played only as a support bowler and mainly as a batsman. When you take the relevant bowling period of his career (76-89, as Richard has shown), Imran comes out on top, which shouldn't be surprising.

Imran was about as complete a fast bowler as any, and could reverse swing it as well as anyone bar Waqar. His singlehanded destruction of India's mighty batting lineup in 1982/83 is probably the greatest exhibition of fast bowling ever seen in the subcontinent. He was just a more complete package than McGrath, and as effective if not more.

 

[funnygirl]

Not at all comparable those eras.Mcgrath played in an era which has more ODIs and demanding cricket , whereas Imran played in an era of less ODIs .

 

[Richard]

I thought we were only talking about Test cricket?

In ODIs, they cannot be compared, as the game Imran played was not the same as the one McGrath did.

 

[funnygirl]

I voted for imran simply because he was more complete as a bowler .