wasim akram vs glenn mcgrath

[adharcric]

Ofcourse he is great @ knocking off the tails and I will take him over Mcgrath any day but I will not take Mcgrath over Wasim any day to take out the top. If that means I have lost the argument, then be it.

And thank you for finally noticing that I didn't have a point. Now you can relax and rave in the glory of winning the argument which I wasn't arguing with you to start with. And yes wickets/test still is a stupid stat and so is your selective quoting.

Sanz, people here keep accusing you of not having an argument and just raving on and on pointlessly. I'm not sure what your argument is, so why don't you clearly state why you believe Akram > McGrath once and for all to answer your critics. You said that wickets/test isn't crucial, but McGrath edges out Akram in strike rate as well. Whatever your argument is, make it clear instead of going back and forth accusing people of misreading your comments, etc.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz, people here keep accusing you of not having an argument and just raving on and on pointlessly. I'm not sure what your argument is, so why don't you clearly state why you believe Akram > McGrath once and for all to answer your critics.

I already have done that multiple times (Here is One for example), but people just jump in claiming that they have read all the previous pages and continue with their ****eyed assumptions.

Anyways, the point is not that Akram is better or not, if you want to pick Mcgrath, do it but please dont denigrate Akram.

 

[adharcric]

I already have done that multiple times (Here is One for example), but people just jump in claiming that they have read all the previous pages and continue with their ****eyed assumptions.

Anyways, the point is not that Akram is better or not, if you want to pick Mcgrath, do it but please dont denigrate Akram.

I'll agree with you on that one; it definitely is a close call and a personal one at that. One thing you must understand is that when two greats are being compared, one naturally seems to be belittled at times because that's how you can prove that the other is greater. For example, in comparing Sachin and Lara, one may say that Sachin isn't the match-winner that Lara is. Now, Sachin is definitely a match-winner and a world-class one at that, but this is a comparison with another great and comparisons are made all over the place. Similarly, saying that McGrath is the man for top-order wickets and Akram is the man to clean up tails is a relative statement that needs to be made to differentiate the two. Akram is damn good at cleaning up the top-order as well, but comparisons to McGrath are being made here and people don't always state their arguments tactfully.

 

[bagapath]

I'll agree with you on that one; it definitely is a close call and a personal one at that. One thing you must understand is that when two greats are being compared, one naturally seems to be belittled at times because that's how you can prove that the other is greater. For example, in comparing Sachin and Lara, one may say that Sachin isn't the match-winner that Lara is. Now, Sachin is definitely a match-winner and a world-class one at that, but this is a comparison with another great and comparisons are made all over the place. Similarly, saying that McGrath is the man for top-order wickets and Akram is the man to clean up tails is a relative statement that needs to be made to differentiate the two. Akram is damn good at cleaning up the top-order as well, but comparisons to McGrath are being made here and people don't always state their arguments tactfully.

this is how i put it across. i am sure you will find it quite balanced and lucid.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=862048&postcount=206

and i still have not got an analytical reply from sanz. its alright. i guess we need to move on to other threads since i dont see anything new coming on this issue anymore. cheers everyone.

 

[marc71178]

How about being better than Mcgrath in picking tailenders . For more please refer to www.cricinfo.com

So in other words, no statistical areas then.

 

[adharcric]

this is how i put it across. i am sure you will find it quite balanced and lucid.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showpost.php?p=862048&postcount=206

and i still have not got an analytical reply from sanz. its alright. i guess we need to move on to other threads since i dont see anything new coming on this issue anymore. cheers everyone.

I think the confusion lies in the fact that Sanz's argument isn't really that Akram > McGrath. He just seems to be angry at someone (or multiple people) who at sometime in the past on this forum degraded Akram by calling him a tail-ender wicket-taker or something of the sort.

 

[Sanz]

So in other words, no statistical areas then.

Did you really check statsguru ?

 

[gunner]

final verdict: wasim kicks mcgrath's ***

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Mccgraths taken a lot more wickets, but having never seen akram in action, im not in a position to cast an opinion

 

[Hodgo7]

Ofcourse he is great @ knocking off the tails and I will take him over Mcgrath any day but I will not take Mcgrath over Wasim any day to take out the top. If that means I have lost the argument, then be it.

So Wasim is better at knocking off the tail so you will take him on that but even though McGrath is better at Wasim at knocking off the top order you won't take him on that ?

 

[AaronK]

Wasim for me because he had more verity in his bowling and he could bowle six different delieveries in an over.. while with Mcgrath.. he would bowle six delieveries in the same spot.. slightly outside off stump.. testing batsman's petiance..with perfect line and length..

 

[SJS]

Wasim for me because he had more verity in his bowling ..

Wonder how I missed that

 

[silentstriker]

I always find it hilarious that somehow McGrath 'tested your patience' while some of the others somehow, all venom and verve, 'took' the wickets. Of course, McGrath having a strike rate as good as most great fast bowlers means nothing, or the fact that the blockers with patience who you'd expect to outlast McGrath almost invariably end up being pretty much his bunnies (Kallis, Exhibit A).

McGrath. Better in almost every way. But Wasim is near the top echelon of bowlers, so it's not like one would be infinitely better than the other. Both awesome bowlers obviously.

 

[Top_Cat]

I always find it hilarious that somehow McGrath 'tested your patience' while some of the others somehow, all venom and verve, 'took' the wickets. Of course, McGrath having a strike rate as good as most great fast bowlers means nothing, or the fact that the blockers with patience who you'd expect to outlast McGrath almost invariably end up being pretty much his bunnies (Kallis, Exhibit A).

McGrath. Better in almost every way. But Wasim is near the top echelon of bowlers, so it's not like one would be infinitely better than the other. Both awesome bowlers obviously.

Surprising; no reference to France in this post.

Get on the plane, already.

 

[silentstriker]

Surprising; no reference to France in this post.

Get on the plane, already.

 

[Naumaan]

Don't forget Mcgrath played most of his matches in Australia & England
Wasim played on dead pitches of Pakistan

 

[subshakerz]

Wasim was my favorite bowler, but even then I must admit that I have to begrudingly give the edge to McGrath.

Wasim was obviously more talented, had more variety, was perhaps more awkward to face and was perhaps the best fast bowler to watch. But you can't help but feel that he should have taken 100 more wickets more than he ended up with.

But McGrath kept it simple and was more effective. Whereas Wasim admitted that occasionally he had no idea what ball he planned on delivering next, McGrath was a more canny operator, and was better able to target each batsmen's weaknesses. He had less tools to play with but used them to bigger effect, IMO.

If I were a batsman, I would probably dread facing Wasim more, but it would McGrath who would most likely get my wicket. That's the difference.

 

[Cruxdude]

Wasim Akram for me. He was the magician. Its more about being the champion bowler that he is, bowling predominantly in the subcontinet.

Both Akram and Mcgrath have great stats and were champions. I think it finally just comes down to personal taste.

 

[SJS]

I think Wasim was the more aggressive bowler of the two. McGrath had a spinner's canny approach to bowling while Wasim was more a fast bowler in his mental frame work. McGrath challenged the batsman's technique, patience and would strike at the first sign of fallibility. Wasim would test their reflexes and take them by surprise and the batsman would suddenly find he got a vicious swinging yorker or a sudden unexpectedly kicking ball from just slightly short of a length. McGrath did not take them so much by surprise as to make them feel that their 'demise' was inevitable.

Doesnt make one better than the other though

 

[Xuhaib]

I have constantly maintained this point out of all the major all time greats it was Akram and Lara who underachieved to an large extend.

Mcgrath for me since he has better stats in every way.