Who is better Imran Khan or Glenn Mcgrath?

[Fusion]

Currently,McGrath is leading the pol but more non-Pakisanis voted in favour of Imran than non-Australians in favour of McGrath.

Nothing to do with Nationality in my opinion. You notice that some Australians have voted for Imran while no Pakistani has voted for McGrath? I would like to think it's not because I (for example) am basing my vote purely on bias, but according to merit. I think by and large people will vote according to whom they think is better, not who belongs to their country

 

[subshakerz]

OK, streets ahead was probably a bit of an exaggeration. But not much of one.

McGrath has more wickets per match, better strike rate, better average, better economy rate and better longetivity.

Imran's overall statitistics were harmed by the fact that he played his last few years of cricket as a specialist batsman who occasionally provided bowling support. When you take the stats for the time Imran was a full-fledge bowler, as Richard did, Imran comes off with better stats.

Imran Khan had the advantage of home umpires and/or favourable conditions for his type of bowling. His average in Pakistan is considerably better than his overall average (unlike McGrath).

This is just silly. Pretty much all bowlers from that era had the advantage of home umpires, so you might as well disregard them all then.

And didn't McGrath have the advantage of bouncy home wickets to better suit his bowling? And unlike reverse swing, which takes around 50 overs to appear, McGrath can exploit the bounce from ball 1.

And also remember that McGrath had the support of the finest fielding side ever to take difficult catches and block runs, while Pakistan during the 80s used to fluff so many chances it wasn't funny.

 

[Beleg]

Nothing to do with Nationality in my opinion. You notice that some Australians have voted for Imran while no Pakistani has voted for McGrath? I would like to think it's not because I (for example) am basing my vote purely on bias, but according to merit. I think by and large people will vote according to whom they think is better, not who belongs to their country

By and large, people vote for their favourite players. By and large, the favourite players belong to teams they support/identify with.

 

[Fusion]

By and large, people vote for their favourite players. By and large, the favourite players belong to teams they support/identify with.

The key word being "favorite". By and large, most people's favorite players are from their own countries that they grew up watching, myself included. However, most people can still determine who the BETTER player is, even if choosing between a favorite player of theirs. For example, Imran is my favorite player of all time. However, I still consider Marshall, Hadlee, and Ambrose to be better bowlers. I loved watching Javed and Inzi play. That doesn't mean I rate them above all great batsmen, past and present. I may be naïve, but I think for the most part people can put aside their biases and determine who the best player really is

 

[Beleg]

That doesn't mean I rate them above all great batsmen, past and present. I may be naïve, but I think for the most part people can put aside their biases and determine who the best player really is

My personal experience indicate that you are being naive. Of course, your own personal experience seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, I did see Imran bowl and not just the crippled end of his career. He was a very good bowler.

I just consider McGrath one of the all-time greats

Would be interested in knowing if you consider Imran as one of the all time great. Somehow your posts gives an impression that you don't.

 

[Sanz]

OK, streets ahead was probably a bit of an exaggeration. But not much of one.

McGrath has more wickets per match, better strike rate, better average, better economy rate and better longetivity.

Imran Khan had the advantage of home umpires and/or favourable conditions for his type of bowling. His average in Pakistan is considerably better than his overall average (unlike McGrath).

And I have seen both of them bowl so I am not basing this totally on statistics.

So how is McGrath not a better bowler?

It is just so annoying to know when people pull up bull**** like Imran's avg. @ home is better because of umpiring. Some of the worst umpiring I have seen in my life is not in Pakistan (not going to name the country because it will start a brawl).

Besides what about all the outs that were not given on his away tours ?

 

[JBH001]

Of course, only a tiny number of wickets come from what I tend to call RUDs (realistically unplayable deliveries - as strictly speaking there's no such thing as an absolutely unplayable delivery as an awful shot could mean you played a delivery which you'd never play with a good shot; and strictly speaking a Jaffa is a ball you can't lay bat on). However, a few of things:
1, there's plenty of wickets that come from good bowling and less-than-100%-perfect batting. For instance, the succession of away-swingers followed by the straight ball. The straight ball wasn't realistically unplayable, and had it not been preceded by loads of outswingers would've been an easy one which most batsmen would always keep out without difficulty. But it's still damn superb bowling. For another instance, there's the 2.5 overs of just back-of-length balls that don't move unduly and keep the batsman tied to the crease and keep his score stationary, then the big outswinger outside off just short of Half-Volley length that persuades the batsman to drive and draws the nick to the wicketkeeper. Again, superb bowling - but if the batsman had left the ball, it'd have been harmless. And a really good batsman might possibly do so.
2, I don't mind at all if a bowler takes 4-50 by taking 1 wicket with a RUD, 1 wicket with something akin to one of the scenarios mentioned above, then 2 with nothing outside-off balls that don't move at all and that batsman for some reason edges to slip or hits to extra-cover. Even though the latter 2 wickets involve no credit for the bowler whatsoever, he's still, in my view, bowled well. However, if a bowler takes 4-50 when all the wickets come from poor shots to deliveries that made zero contribution to those shots, that's not remotely good bowling in my view, and simply being flattered by figures.
3, the McGrath 2001-2004/05 case. McGrath, all career, was absolutely brilliant on seaming pitches, one of if not the best going around. And in the Adelaide Test of 2004/05 against New Zealand, he demonstrated something I'd never seen him do before - he got the ball to move off a non-seaming pitch. And he did it again several times in the next 3 years. However, on non-seaming pitches 2001-2004 (which were all bar 3 or 4 games in the time) McGrath never took any wickets through particularly good deliveries. Of course, some of this time he ended-up with poor figures. But often he'd get 3-40 or 4-60 without, in my view, bowling well at all. Hence, I've always said that in that time he wasn't quite as good as he was oft made-out to be. Until Adelaide 2004/05, I also presumed that it'd always been that way before 2001 too, though conversations with someone (Corey) not long after that Test persuaded me that it actually hadn't been, and that he had indeed bowled as well as he bowled in that game pre-2001 too. So I decided I did actually think he was one of the best seamers in history after all. But my opinion of 2001-2004/05 remained.

Richard. Completely disagree with you, mate. In the same way that I dont see the point of the whole 'first chance average' thing, I see this also as being completely incoherent. It really makes no sense. However, I am not going to get into it here and the threads moved on, but I am sure other opportunities will avail themselves.

Anyway, returning to the thread. After some thought, and its been very close, I am opting for Imran Khan.

 

[Debris]

It is just so annoying to know when people pull up bull**** like Imran's avg. @ home is better because of umpiring. Some of the worst umpiring I have seen in my life is not in Pakistan (not going to name the country because it will start a brawl).

Besides what about all the outs that were not given on his away tours ?

I always find it suspicious when someone's record at home is much better than their average away. And the gap is pretty significant.

It may not have been umpiring as I said in my post. Maybe the conditions at home were just very favourable for him. How would you explain the gap?

 

[Debris]

As an all-rounder Imran is an all-time great, purely as a bowler no.

My standards are fairly high though. I only consider 2 bowlers from the last 2 decades all-time greats, McGrath and Ambrose.

 

[Engle]

Moving ' beyond the boundary ' , Imran made fast bowling a fad in Pakistan and left behind in his wake, a legacy of Wasim, Waqar and Shoaib.

 

[Debris]

Imran's overall statitistics were harmed by the fact that he played his last few years of cricket as a specialist batsman who occasionally provided bowling support. When you take the stats for the time Imran was a full-fledge bowler, as Richard did, Imran comes off with better stats.

I don't think you can cherry-pick a career like that. One of the reasons that McGrath was so good was his amazing consistency under all conditions. Even a year after his retirement, he still looks the best bowler in the IPL. Once you start make excuses to leave out a part of someone's career, it is a long slippery slope.

 

[JBH001]

Fair point about the slippery slope, although that does not mean it cannot be qualified in some instances. As I believe it can in the case of Imran (although that may admittedly mark a turn into subjectivity). SJS made a good point in a thread about all this too, as judgements including longevity also have to factor in the type of fast bowler who is under consideration. Given the conditions Imran played in: the burden he was under as captain; often sole strike bowler; all-rounder; and the fact that he was genuinely fast for a good number of years, a determining criterion of longevity would always (and unfairly) favour McGrath.

My own judgement was based on both bowlers at their very best. And even then it was a close call.

My standards are fairly high though. I only consider 2 bowlers from the last 2 decades all-time greats, McGrath and Ambrose.

Interesting. I take it Hadlee would count outside that decade period? How about Murali and Warne?

 

[Debris]

Fair point about the slippery slope, although that does not mean it cannot be qualified in some instances. As I believe it can in the case of Imran (although that may admittedly mark a turn into subjectivity). SJS made a good point in a thread about all this too, as judgements including longevity also have to factor in the type of fast bowler who is under consideration. Given the conditions Imran played in: the burden he was under as captain; often sole strike bowler; all-rounder; and the fact that he was genuinely fast for a good number of years, a determining criterion of longevity would always (and unfairly) favour McGrath.

My own judgement was based on both bowlers at their very best. And even then it was a close call.



Interesting. I take it Hadlee would count outside that decade period? How about Murali and Warne?

Sorry, I should have said fast bowlers. And once you go back past the 2 decades it becomes more murky for me but yes I would include Hadlee going further back.

I still think longetivity should be considered. All other thing being equal, you would take the bowler who is available for 120 tests rather than 80. If a bowler needs to bowl at 150km/h to be effective and it shortens his career, surely this should be taken into account. Being the sole strike bowler can actually help you personally. Batsmen tend to just try and play you out while waiting for lesser bowlers to come on and this can give the bowler a bit of an edge.

It is an interesting thought about whether Imran would have been a better bowler if he gave up his other roles. But I can only go on what I have actually seen. I would pick Imran over McGrath because of these other factors, by the way.

 

[Migara]

McGrath is better for me. because he bowled on flatter pitches. Imran's revere swing was novel during the day, but when batsman got used to reverse swing (great distinction comes to Aravinda de Silva, first non-Pakistani batsman to master facing reverse swing), Imran's career was over. In Waqar's late career he was taken apart by de Silva despite getting banana reverse swing. Now every ass knows how to play reverse swing, and I excpect Imran to be less effective with his revese swing now.

 

[bagapath]

as a cricketer imran ranks with a handful of extremely gifted individuals whose exalted position in cricket history is permanent - he can sit comfortably with bradman, sobers, richards, gilchrist. even as a fast bowler alone he is among the top fifteen of all time. the other fourteen being - marshall, hadlee, lillee, barnes, loahmann, spofforth, ambrose, akram, truman, lindwall, holding, donald, garner, mcgrath. but mcgrath is a marginally better bowler than him. he did better in a tougher era for bowlers. he was consistently successful throughout his long career. his home and away records are equally great. imran is an inch behind him as a bowler alone. his extra yard of pace and ability to swing even on dead wickets cannot be forgotten. but for sheer effectiveness as a bowler if imran gets 9/10, then mcgrath gets 9.01/10.

 

[subshakerz]

I always find it suspicious when someone's record at home is much better than their average away. And the gap is pretty significant.

It may not have been umpiring as I said in my post. Maybe the conditions at home were just very favourable for him. How would you explain the gap?

Just because his home record was so good, you can't just chalk it all up to umpiring (which seems so silly since Imran was the first captain to institute neutral umpires in home tests). Every bowler from that era had the advantage of biased home umpiring, so it's not fair to just penalize Imran.

Perhaps the conditions were conducive for him to generate reverse swing? Isn't that a better reason? In which case, McGrath also had the advantage of bouncy wickets at home, so there shouldn't be an issue. Reverse swing or no, every fast bowler would choose bowling in Australia or England over Pakistan.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think you can cherry-pick a career like that. One of the reasons that McGrath was so good was his amazing consistency under all conditions. Even a year after his retirement, he still looks the best bowler in the IPL. Once you start make excuses to leave out a part of someone's career, it is a long slippery slope.

It's not cherry-picking. Imran was only a full-fledge bowler from 76-89, after which he barely bowled as support and was a specialist batsman. He didn't even bowl in seven test matches during that time. There's no point in judging his bowling on the last few years of his career because they are not reflective of him as a proper bowler.

And Imran was as successful in a variety of conditions as McGrath was, without the quality bowling and fielding support.

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath is better for me. because he bowled on flatter pitches. Imran's revere swing was novel during the day, but when batsman got used to reverse swing (great distinction comes to Aravinda de Silva, first non-Pakistani batsman to master facing reverse swing), Imran's career was over. In Waqar's late career he was taken apart by de Silva despite getting banana reverse swing. Now every ass knows how to play reverse swing, and I excpect Imran to be less effective with his revese swing now.

Imran bowled successfully on some of the flattest pitches anywhere. Reverse swing was just one of Imran's weapons, he was equally potent with the new ball and was as complete a bowler as Marshall was, if only less effective by a hair.

Waqar in his late career was a shadow of himself as a bowler, his pace and swerve was gone and it's no surprive de Silva took him apart. And if everyone knows how to play reverse swing, why did the world's best batting lineup have so much trouble with it in the Ashes 2005? Dale Steyn uses it effectively and he's a raging success.

 

[Richard]

I don't think you can cherry-pick a career like that. One of the reasons that McGrath was so good was his amazing consistency under all conditions. Even a year after his retirement, he still looks the best bowler in the IPL. Once you start make excuses to leave out a part of someone's career, it is a long slippery slope.

Cherry-picking is an essential part of understanding how good a bowler is. If you start insisting that every part of a career is exactly equal in importance, you cannot possibly understand cricket.

McGrath too was very poor early in his Test career. You notice how I've left-out this tiny portion, along with a tiny portion of Imran's. I don't really care about such minute details. I care about the big picture. I care about comparing the two bowlers as the brilliant bowlers we knew them, not comparing them at a time they were both novices and\or over-the-hill.