bond=>mcgrath>akram

[Burgey]

Okay. So here are the stats. Clearly Bond didnt play enough tests but in pure skill he is better than both of the others. And in ODI's he leaves them in the dust

even garner isnt as good. Garner is pretty close though not gonna lie.

Welcome to the boards mate.

Funnily enough, an ability to play more than three matches in a row without snapping in two a la Bruc Reid is something is a prerequisite to greatness. He was a skilful bowler though.

 

[Burgey]

Statistics and skill do not neccessarily go hand in hand.

Actually, just because you don't bend the ball sideways doesn't make you a less skillful bowler. McGrath was an extremely skillful bowler, it's just his skills were subtle ones. The heretics who list the likes of Wasim and especially Waqar above him just get done over by orgasmic yorkers and seem to suggest that someone averaging about 21 in one of the most batsman-friendly eras ever only seemed to rock up and put the ball on a good length.

I'd somehow like to think we were better than that, but anyway.

 

[smash84]

Actually, just because you don't bend the ball sideways doesn't make you a less skillful bowler. McGrath was an extremely skillful bowler, it's just his skills were subtle ones. The heretics who list the likes of Wasim and especially Waqar above him just get done over by orgasmic yorkers and seem to suggest that someone averaging about 21 in one of the most batsman-friendly eras ever only seemed to rock up and put the ball on a good length.

So what's wrong with rocking up and putting up the ball on a good length? McGrath used to that better than anybody else and that is a fact. And due to his height he got that extra bounce as well. To do that consistently is over a long period of time is extremely difficult. That is quite skillful IMO. There have only been a handful of bowlers who have been able to do that over a long period of time in the 100+ years of cricket history. Richard Haldee is another name that comes to mind. I remember a phrase from Richie Benaud in EA cricket 97 (I know it is not the best source but it was one of the catchier phrases "taking a leaf out of Richard Haldee's book, bowl it straight and let the rest take care of itself."

Swinging the ball in the air and off the pitch with a lot of precision requires a different type of skill. You think that bending the ball sideways and still maintaining a reasonably good line and length doesn't require skill????

And in ODIs there is nothing heretical about ranking Wasim and Waqar over McGrath.

 

[Burgey]

So what's wrong with rocking up and putting up the ball on a good length? McGrath used to that better than anybody else and that is a fact. And due to his height he got that extra bounce as well. To do that consistently is over a long period of time is extremely difficult. That is quite skillful IMO. There have only been a handful of bowlers who have been able to do that over a long period of time in the 100+ years of cricket history. Richard Haldee is another name that comes to mind. I remember a phrase from Richie Benaud in EA cricket 97 (I know it is not the best source but it was one of the catchier phrases "taking a leaf out of Richard Haldee's book, bowl it straight and let the rest take care of itself."

Swinging the ball in the air and off the pitch with a lot of precision requires a different type of skill. You think that bending the ball sideways and still maintaining a reasonably good line and length doesn't require skill????

And in ODIs there is nothing heretical about ranking Wasim and Waqar over McGrath.

Yeah but I don't care about ODIs.

I think we are actually agreeing with one another fwiw

 

[Top_Cat]

It's a myth that McG didn't move the ball around anyway. Got subtle movement on flat pitches and didn't swing the ball as outrageously as Wasim/Waqar, of course. But put him on any pitch with the slightest hint of juice and the guy zipped the ball past the outside edge more than anyone else.

It's a temperament thing. Was always a threat (a small one) that Wasim or Waqar would waste good conditions going for big swing but if you faced up to McGrath with the new rock and there was any green on the pitch, you knew you were in deep ****.

 

[smash84]

Yeah but I don't care about ODIs.

I think we are actually agreeing with one another fwiw

I don't know. You sounded like McGrath didn't rock it up and pitch it on a good length. That is what he pretty much did most of the time. That was the main thing about your post. And McGrath didn't really swing it as much as Wasim and Waqar and that is a fact too and swinging the ball prodigously requires considerable skill. I thought you were blaming others for putting down one skill over the other and doing the same thing yourself ...........

 

[smash84]

It's a myth that McG didn't move the ball around anyway. Got subtle movement on flat pitches but didn't swing the ball as outrageously as Wasim/Waqar, of course. But put him on any pitch with the slightest hint of juice and the guy zipped the ball past the outside edge more than anyone else.

It's a temperament thing. Was always a threat (a small one) that Wasim or Waqar would waste good conditions going for big swing but if you faced up to McGrath with the new rock and there was any green on the pitch, you knew you were in deep ****.

Well I followed a lot of Glenn McGrath throughout the late 90s uptil his retirement (one of my all time favorite bowlers) and I never really saw him swing the ball too much. He just moved it enough that it would take the edge which is what you would like to do.

And it is not that Wasim and Waqar would waste conditions. They were just not that good outside the off stump and getting that bounce as McGrath was. McGrath was quite tall and made good use of his height.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, I'm saying there is a tendency to say that all McGrath did was put the ball on a good length. It wasn't. There was a lot more to him than that. Had amazing control and decked the ball both ways as and when he chose to.

In his way he was every bit as freakish as Akram or Younis. It's just that what he did wasn't as ***eh. Just more effective over his career than anyone else, really.

 

[smash84]

Yeah, I'm saying there is a tendency to say that all McGrath did was put the ball on a good length. It wasn't. There was a lot more to him than that. Had amazing control and decked the ball both ways as and when he chose to.

In his way he was every bit as freakish as Akram or Younis. It's just that what he did wasn't as ***eh. Just more effective over his career than anyone else, really.

I don't know. McGrath to me seemed to be the bowler who had a lot more than putting the ball on a good length all the time with very small amounts of movement (both in and out). That obviously came about because he had excellent control. Freakish in the sense that he had superb control.

And yeah I would agree that he was more effective in most conditions (incidentally his worst average and only above 30 average is in Pakistan). And yeah he didn't send the stumps flying out of the ground like Wasim and Waqar so didn't look as glamorous but then his main job was wicket taking which he went about doing better than others.

 

[vcs]

Sounds like we're all violently agreeing with each other when it comes to McGrath then.

 

[Somerset]

I think the opening post omits the key comparative figures, IPL contracts:
Bond $750,000
McGrath $350,000
Akram $0
So clearly Bond is 2.14 times better than McGrath, and an infinite number of times better than Akram.


On a more serious note, it goes without saying that Bond's figures are fantastic over his short sample of matches. When you consider his ODI statistics, its worth pointing out that he took 44 wickets @ 15.8 against Australia alone; and for the most part he played against the core of the Australian sides that won the 2003 and 2007 World Cups. I also made this comment in an earlier topic:
"An interesting statistical summary of Shane Bond in test cricket in terms of success - in his test career he played 18 tests and in that same period New Zealand played 65. Of his 18 tests, New Zealand won 10 (56%) and lost 2 (12%). Of the remaining 47 tests in that period, New Zealand won 10 (21%) and lost 23 (49%). I admit that Bond's figures are helped by facing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe twice apiece in his 18 tests, but in terms of success from a New Zealand point a view, a 56% test match win ratio is quite incredible."
Whether those statistics, amongst others, are enough to class him on the same level as greats like Akram and McGrath is subjective and I think durability of a quick bowler is obviously an important criteria in reaching that conclusion - and in Bond's case that most certainly counts against him.

 

[Burgey]

Sounds like we're all violently agreeing with each other when it comes to McGrath then.

So it seems... He was all right. Except for that bloke who must have been taking the Mickey in the thread about his marriage. Has to be a Multi, surely.

 

[smash84]

Sounds like we're all violently agreeing with each other when it comes to McGrath then.

I am not sure that we agree on everything about McGrath. I tend to think he was not too much more than pitching the ball on a good length. Burgey thinks he had much more to offer and that we tend to undermine McGrath if we only talk about him as a line and length bowler with very little movement.

I think that's the only difference. Otherwise I don't think there are people here (that Burgey originally mentioned) who would rate Wasim and Waqar above McGrath in test matches. Some might have argued about the peak of Waqar being better than probably any other but I don't think anyone would suggest that over the length of their careers Wasim or Waqar were better than McGrath.

 

[vcs]

Somehow I have a funny kind of feeling (not based on much) that McGrath started getting much more swing towards the back-end of his career.. not sure if that's actually true or not.

 

[Blaze 18]

Actually, just because you don't bend the ball sideways doesn't make you a less skillful bowler. McGrath was an extremely skillful bowler, it's just his skills were subtle ones. The heretics who list the likes of Wasim and especially Waqar above him just get done over by orgasmic yorkers and seem to suggest that someone averaging about 21 in one of the most batsman-friendly eras ever only seemed to rock up and put the ball on a good length.

I'd somehow like to think we were better than that, but anyway.

The post that you quoted was my reply to this post by miscer :

LOL. Yea Akram is worse than McGrath in every single statistic in both forms of the game (except wickets in ODI and 5 wicket hauls in tests ) but he is more skilled.

How do you define skill?

Miscer was suggesting that you cannot be more skilled than someone if you have inferior stats; that is not something I agree with. I am not sure how you took that as me saying Glenn McGrath was not a skillful bowler.

 

[smash84]

I think the opening post omits the key comparative figures, IPL contracts:
Bond $750,000
McGrath $350,000
Akram $0
So clearly Bond is 2.14 times better than McGrath, and an infinite number of times better than Akram.


On a more serious note, it goes without saying that Bond's figures are fantastic over his short sample of matches. When you consider his ODI statistics, its worth pointing out that he took 44 wickets @ 15.8 against Australia alone; and for the most part he played against the core of the Australian sides that won the 2003 and 2007 World Cups. I also made this comment in an earlier topic:
"An interesting statistical summary of Shane Bond in test cricket in terms of success - in his test career he played 18 tests and in that same period New Zealand played 65. Of his 18 tests, New Zealand won 10 (56%) and lost 2 (12%). Of the remaining 47 tests in that period, New Zealand won 10 (21%) and lost 23 (49%). I admit that Bond's figures are helped by facing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe twice apiece in his 18 tests, but in terms of success from a New Zealand point a view, a 56% test match win ratio is quite incredible."
Whether those statistics, amongst others, are enough to class him on the same level as greats like Akram and McGrath is subjective and I think durability of a quick bowler is obviously an important criteria in reaching that conclusion - and in Bond's case that most certainly counts against him.

There is no doubt that Shane Bond was an absolutely top class bowler. In fact I used to follow NZ-Aussie matches only if he was playing. I wanted to see him bowl.

However it has to be seen that he missed almost 80% of the tests that New Zealand played throughout the length of his career. That is quite a terrible fitness record. He might be the only one beating Shoaib Akhtar in terms of being unavailable to play for his team because of being unfit.

So to compare him with Wasim and McGrath with such few number of matches would not be a fair call IMO.

 

[r3alist]

who would say ruud van nistelrooy is a better striker than the brazillian ronaldo - on goal scoring you have a pretty strong case

now, who would say van nistlrooy was a better PLAYER than the brazillian ronaldo? - hardly no one.


the argument of mcgrath being as or anywhere near as skillful as akram is similar to the above.

it may in fact be a total red herring because at the end of the day all you care about is wickets and mcgrath was a better wicket taker, but overall not as brilliant as akram, who like ronaldo had more facets to his game, had more ability, had more skillz and was capable of the outrageously brilliant in a way mcgrath could only dream of


what differentiated mcgrath was his professionalism and longevity which i think only akram can dream of!


we are much more liekly to see a player like mcgrath in the future then we are akram, thats why akram is so unique.

 

[smash84]

who would say ruud van nistelrooy is a better striker than the brazillian ronaldo - on goal scoring you have a pretty strong case

now, who would say van nistlrooy was a better PLAYER than the brazillian ronaldo? - hardly no one.


the argument of mcgrath being as or anywhere near as skillful as akram is similar to the above.

it may in fact be a total red herring because at the end of the day all you care about is wickets and mcgrath was a better wicket taker, but overall not as brilliant as akram, who like ronaldo had more facets to his game, had more ability, had more skillz and was capable of the outrageously brilliant in a way mcgrath could only dream of


what differentiated mcgrath was his professionalism and longevity which i think only akram can dream of!


we are much more liekly to see a player like mcgrath in the future then we are akram, thats why akram is so unique.

Interesting observation.

 

[Blocky]

Two things struck me as special about Shane Bond.

1. His ability to rapidly learn and change his bowling to suit the level/condition. When he first came into the side, he was relying on straight speed, being up and down and intimidating. Within a year, he had mastered swing and seam, he found a length that constantly got results and he was working out the worlds best batsmen

2. The fact that he was the only one of the 150kmh + bowlers who got consistent swing, seam and accuracy. He very rarely struggled to find a line and length.

Dale Steyn is a replica of Shane Bond in many ways - same sort of speed, front on action, ability to swing the ball and getting more and more consistent. No wonder that he's taking wickets at 5 per game, similar to Bondy at a strike rate just one ball worse than Bondy.

So factoring in longevity - Steyn > Bond

 

[Burgey]

The post that you quoted was my reply to this post by miscer :



Miscer was suggesting that you cannot be more skilled than someone if you have inferior stats; that is not something I agree with. I am not sure how you took that as me saying Glenn McGrath was not a skillful bowler.

No I wasn't actually suggesting you were, if it came across that way I apologise.