Who is better Imran Khan or Glenn Mcgrath?

[Fusion]

Biggest myth. Pakistan may have gone a little closer to keeping West Indies in check than some others (in a series, let's remember, where West Indies were missing Greenidge, Roberts and Holding) but they lost, like everyone else (except New Zealand who were helped by appalling Umpiring).

At the time (late-1980s) Pakistan did indeed compete on a level footing with West Indies, so too did others (New Zealand, India and England).

Being a little harsh there Richard. Like subshakerz pointed out, Pakistan didn't lose the three series to the West Indies, they drew them (when most others were getting destroyed). Some argue that they should've won the '87-'88 series if not for spotty umpiring. Read up on this, I think it's a very good article:

The Coup That Wasn't.

 

[Richard]

Except that none of those teams could draw three consequtive series against the best in the world like Pakistan could

That's because Pakistan played 3 in a very short space of time. Others (New Zealand, India in India, England when they were something other than utterly pathetic) played just 1 in this time.

and none of them drew a series in the West Indies' backyard like Pakistan did under Imran.

England would have done had a simple run-chase not been denied them by rain.

 

[Richard]

Being a little harsh there Richard. Like subshakerz pointed out, Pakistan didn't lose the three series to the West Indies, they drew them (when most others were getting destroyed).

But most others weren't getting destroyed, that's just the point. Between 1986/87 and 1990/91, when Pakistan drew said 3 series, West Indies also faced:
New Zealand in New Zealand: 1-1 draw
India in India: 1-1 draw
England in England: 4-0 victory (this was almost certainly the worst English side in history)
Australia in Australia: 3-1 victory (this was beyond question the worst Australian side in history)
India in West Indies: 4-0 victory (everyone beats India away from home, and that was true even more than ever at that time)
England in West Indies: 2-1 victory (this would have been a 2-2 draw but for rain)

West Indies' prowess between 1986/87 and 1995 is ridiculously overrated. They were still a very good side, capable of not being beaten by anyone (even Australia's eventual 1995 victory was a little fortuitous, as their defeat in 1992/93 had been most unfortunate - the first time they were truly outplayed and beaten was 1996/97), but no longer capable of thrashing anyone but the very worst. West Indies managed just two truly impressive series victories in this time: over Australia at home in 1991 and Pakistan at home in 1993.

Some argue that they should've won the '87-'88 series if not for spotty umpiring. Read up on this, I think it's a very good article:

The Coup That Wasn't.

Thanks. Knew about the Dujon-Benjamin partnership, but not about the bad Umpiring decisions.

 

[JerseyGuy]

Just on bowling skills only ...I would pick McGrath. As a cricketer... very few will disagree that Imran was more skillful.

 

[subshakerz]

That's because Pakistan played 3 in a very short space of time. Others (New Zealand, India in India, England when they were something other than utterly pathetic) played just 1 in this time.

England would have done had a simple run-chase not been denied them by rain.

Incorrect. India and England played West Indies more than once in this time, with India losing away from home and England losing both home and away.

So what if England were denied a series draw by rain? That's cricket. If we are going to play this game of "would have" and "should have", then Pakistan "should have" won the 1987/88 series in the West Indies backyard if not for atrocious umpiring, becoming the only country to beat the West Indies in the 80s, a terrific achievement.

 

[Richard]

Of course that's cricket - but it'd be downright foolish to take a series scoreline as gospel. I agree fully, now I've found-out that it was almost certainly purely poor Umpiring that denied Pakistan in 1988, that they should've won that series. But anyone contending that England did not deserve to draw that 1990 series is, well, not offering a fair assessment.

The point that Pakistan were NOT the only team to put up a challenge to West Indies between '86/87 and '90/91, however, remains. And always will.

And I know England and India played another series - but do you really expect India away from home to do anything of note? Of course not. And I said as much - India only played one home series in the time in question. Nor would anyone expect England to do anything of note between 1986 and 1989, that was the time when cricket in this country was at its lowest ebb (we won 3 Test matches in 4 years FFS - those 3 all against teams who were as bad if not worse). Once England got their act together, they were able to match West Indies blow for blow. India were able to do the same provided they were playing at home.

Pakistan were obviously better than both England and India (and New Zealand too). But they were not the only team to challenge West Indies.

 

[subshakerz]

England and India matched the West Indies for one series before and were blown away comprehensively in the other. Perhaps it's better to say then that Pakistan were the only team to consistently challenge the West Indies during this period, laregly due to Imran.

 

[funnygirl]

Pakistan would have won that 1988 series if not for those umpiring decisions which they themselves confessed as intentional . Great series that was . But unfortunately ,no live telecast was there .I listened to the radio commentary ,that 3rd match was as tensed as an India -pak decider .Great memories.

 

[subshakerz]

Just on bowling skills only ...I would pick McGrath. As a cricketer... very few will disagree that Imran was more skillful.

The trouble with compraing them is that they are both effective. McGrath achieved most of his success by immaculate control over seam and line/length, while Imran mastered traditional fast bowler weapons in inswing, outswing, yorkers, bouncers, and off and leg cutters, and of course he pioneered reverse swing. I find it hard to accept then that McGrath is more skillful, what skill did Imran not master? Like Marshall, Imran was the complete bowler.

And in the time when he was a full-fledge bowler (76-89), Imran achieved greater success in most countries and against most teams than McGrath did. In the end, I would give McGrath a tiny advantage in consistency, and Imran an advantage in terms of destuctive capacity. Hard to separate them.

 

[Richard]

England and India matched the West Indies for one series before and were blown away comprehensively in the other. Perhaps it's better to say then that Pakistan were the only team to consistently challenge the West Indies during this period, laregly due to Imran.

Yes, that's more like it. Nonetheless, had England circa 1990 played more and England circa 1988 less, I'm fairly confident they too would've done a decent job of consistent competetiveness. Equally, had India had another home series in, say, 1991/92 rather than waiting until 1994/95, I reckon they too would have. Equally, had New Zealand had another series I think they could have done too.

 

[archie mac]

That's not really true though, is it? His S/R is the same as the other all time greats (same as Lillee, for example)...so he wasn't taking longer to get a wicket. And against players who would block him out, such as Kallis and Dravid, he has an absolutely fantastic record.

You seem to have missed the point (more likely my fault), I think the batsman of the modern era take more risks, which is why is S/R is so good.

But I thought Kallis in Aust and one series against NZ when they left him alone, he did not look very effective.

I just wonder against the English of the 70s who would leave almost anything off the stumps, and against Sunny, how would he go?

I personally think he would still be at the top of the tree (although it would be crowded

 

[silentstriker]

You seem to have missed the point (more likely my fault), I think the batsman of the modern era take more risks, which is why is S/R is so good.

But I thought Kallis in Aust and one series against NZ when they left him alone, he did not look very effective.

I just wonder against the English of the 70s who would leave almost anything off the stumps, and against Sunny, how would he go?

I personally think he would still be at the top of the tree (although it would be crowded

But a large percentage of McGrath's wickets are bowled and LBW, the same total percentage that, for example, Lillee has. It's a mistake to say McGrath just keeps bowling outside the stumps.

 

[Engle]

McGrath did not have the means to retaliate if an opposing bowler decided to get nasty.

 

[silentstriker]

McGrath did not have the means to retaliate if an opposing bowler decided to get nasty.

McGrath has an excellent short ball.

 

[Son Of Coco]

McGrath did not have the means to retaliate if an opposing bowler decided to get nasty.

Can you explain this a bit more. I'm not sure I know what you mean.

 

[Sanz]

McGrath had his battles with Lara and Tendulkar and has had reasonable success against them

out of interest, serious question, what were the battles that Imran had

Most notably against Gavaskar and had his moments too. There was one particular series where Imran took 40 wickets @<14.00 on one of the flattest wickets ever. Every other bowler in the series averaged > 30.

 

[social]

Reading some of the comments in this thread, it's fairly obvious that some members are either too young to have seen Imran or have had their impressions of McGrath magnified because he played more recently.

Imran was a 90 mph + bowler that swung the ball both ways no matter what its' condition

For a period of about 8 years, he was as dominant a bowler as has ever played the game

To fully appreciate his achievements, you people need to appreciate how far he developed in his career.

He was no Holding, Lillee etc that burst into the game with express speed - for a few years, he bowled innocuous medium fast inswingers off a relatively short run-up

Then, on the tour to Australia in 76/77, he was encouraged to lengthen his runup and bowl as quickly as possible with almost immediate results.

However, contrary to some of the opinions expressed here, he was nowhere near a complete bowler until 1980 at least.

For quite a few years, he was simply incredibly quick and raw with an open-chested action that allowed him to do little more than angle the ball into the batsman and bowl bouncers.

It is testimony to his intelligence and talent that he was able to completely remodel his action (incorporated a leap at delivery and got himself side-on at delivery with the aid of a long angled runup).

Once he perfected this new technique, he was devastating

Personally, I have no problem voting for either player (both were absolutely brilliant bowlers who should be rated in the top 5 or so ever).

However, for people to totally disregard one's claims (as some have done) is absurd

 

[archie mac]

But a large percentage of McGrath's wickets are bowled and LBW, the same total percentage that, for example, Lillee has. It's a mistake to say McGrath just keeps bowling outside the stumps.

I don't think I said he bowled every ball outside the off stump???

He certainly bowled a lot of balls out there, Lillee also bowled a fair bit outside the off stump with great slippers in the Chappells

My impression is that McGrath bowled a lot more often outside the off stump then Lillee for example, and I just wonder how he would have responded to someone like Boycott leaving the ball alone for long periods

 

[SJS]

I don't think I said he bowled every ball outside the off stump???

He certainly bowled a lot of balls out there, Lillee also bowled a fair bit outside the off stump with great slippers in the Chappells

My impression is that McGrath bowled a lot more often outside the off stump then Lillee for example, and I just wonder how he would have responded to someone like Boycott leaving the ball alone for long periods

I remember writing somewhere that someone like Gavaskar would have really frustrated MacGrath who relied a lot on the batsman 'going after him'. Gavaskar would only go after the bad ball and would only 'defend a ball 'with the bat' if he felt he couldn't defend better by leaving it well alone.

Lilee and Imran never gave the batsman that option.

 

[social]

I don't think I said he bowled every ball outside the off stump???

He certainly bowled a lot of balls out there, Lillee also bowled a fair bit outside the off stump with great slippers in the Chappells

My impression is that McGrath bowled a lot more often outside the off stump then Lillee for example, and I just wonder how he would have responded to someone like Boycott leaving the ball alone for long periods

McGrath would've lapped it up (as would his opening partner who'd have had extended periods to work over his partner) as he did with Dravid and Atherton for example

Guys like Sehwag and Lara had their successes because their attacking shots forced a change in mindset/length/line

Being ultra defensive against great bowlers generally ends up in favour of the bowling team

BTW, my memory of Lillee was that he bowled as much, if not more, outside the stumps as McGrath. As a result, from time to time, he wasnt as effective at bowling at the lower order as they couldnt get bat on ball