Better ODI bowler::: McGrath or Wasim

[Furball]

I believe he has 2 ODI hat-tricks, a record he holds jointly with fellow Pakistani pace legend Mohammad Sami.

 

[Howe_zat]

They were both so ridiculously ****ing good that trying to pick between them seems kind of a fruitless excercise. For me, there was such a level of artistry in Wasim's bowling that I basically fell in love with it, which is never something I got from McGrath.

May be a suckage reason to the more analytic of you but that's my thinking here.

 

[Lostman]

Which causes people to massively under-rate McGrath. Wasim had a whole box of tricks up his sleeve, whereas McGrath doesn't really appear to do anything. Except get batsmen out. Again and again.

Well said!
McGrath made getting good/great batsmen out look effortless.

 

[vic_orthdox]

TC on the money with McGrath, so many times Australia would be putting the other team behind the 8-ball because of his opening spell, and it would help get them wickets during those middle overs. Reckon someone like Brad Hogg, for example, benefitted hugely from it - teams were behind where they needed to be, and Hogg could bowl with five guys on the fence and blokes would have to try and hit him for boundaries, rather than be content with 4.5-5 runs an over.

The one thing about Akram was when he would be brought back in the middle overs, and you'd instantly worry. Saw him take a couple of quick ones in the 30-40 over period so many times and just turn a game. Would have been a captain's nightmare in a way, because you'd want to keep him going but you'd also like to keep him up your sleeve for later.

 

[M0rphin3]

McGrath


z

 

[M0rphin3]

akram.

people really really really underestimate the effect of ****e **** fielding and the infighting.

and playing in sharjah.

Pakistani fielding wasn't half as bad back then IIRC.

 

[abmk]

in tests, I'd have mcgrath over wasim , but in ODIs , its hard to split . Its pretty close IMO

 

[salman85]

I think Wasim was certainly more exciting to watch than McGrath.I'm not downplaying McGrath's ability or record,he is one of the greatest ever,but watching a left arm fast bowler with a whippy action swinging the ball in both directions was more exciting.Plus you also need to take into consideration the fact that Wasim was probably the one who changed the face of fast bowling,after it was dominated by the West Indies strategy of short,repetitive and brutal lines.With McGrath,you knew what he was going to do - Offstump,short of a length,over and over again.One of the most difficult lengths to play as a batsman and he did it over and over again.With Wasim,you knew he could bowl 6 different balls in an over.Who was harder to play?That's debatable.But Wasim was certainly more exciting to watch as a spectator.

 

[smash84]

TC on the money with McGrath, so many times Australia would be putting the other team behind the 8-ball because of his opening spell, and it would help get them wickets during those middle overs. Reckon someone like Brad Hogg, for example, benefitted hugely from it - teams were behind where they needed to be, and Hogg could bowl with five guys on the fence and blokes would have to try and hit him for boundaries, rather than be content with 4.5-5 runs an over.

The one thing about Akram was when he would be brought back in the middle overs, and you'd instantly worry. Saw him take a couple of quick ones in the 30-40 over period so many times and just turn a game. Would have been a captain's nightmare in a way, because you'd want to keep him going but you'd also like to keep him up your sleeve for later.

A very good analysis. Indeed the captain would have liked to keep wasim for the start, middle, and final overs.

I think Wasim was certainly more exciting to watch than McGrath.I'm not downplaying McGrath's ability or record,he is one of the greatest ever,but watching a left arm fast bowler with a whippy action swinging the ball in both directions was more exciting.Plus you also need to take into consideration the fact that Wasim was probably the one who changed the face of fast bowling,after it was dominated by the West Indies strategy of short,repetitive and brutal lines.With McGrath,you knew what he was going to do - Offstump,short of a length,over and over again.One of the most difficult lengths to play as a batsman and he did it over and over again.With Wasim,you knew he could bowl 6 different balls in an over.Who was harder to play?That's debatable.But Wasim was certainly more exciting to watch as a spectator.

Yeah Wasim definitely the more exciting. McGrath definitely better with the new ball. He would just stop the runs and get top order wickets from one end. Incidentally in ODIs there is not too much difference in the top order wickets for Wasim and McGrath. The stats from Maximus show that and I was surprised to see that. I thought that there would be a massive difference in the proportion of top order wickets in ODIs like there is in test matches.

 

[stephen]

I think it is clear to all that when taking both formats into account there was no better bowler than Glenn McGrath. Yet Akram was more exciting to watch and may even have been fractionally ahead of McGrath in ODIs while Marshall was more exciting to watch and may even have been fractionally ahead of McGrath in tests.

 

[smash84]

I think it is clear to all that when taking both formats into account there was no better bowler than Glenn McGrath. Yet Akram was more exciting to watch and may even have been fractionally ahead of McGrath in ODIs while Marshall was more exciting to watch and may even have been fractionally ahead of McGrath in tests.

that is a good analysis i believe

 

[Teja.]

I think it is clear to all that when taking both formats into account there was no better bowler than Glenn McGrath. Yet Akram was more exciting to watch and may even have been fractionally ahead of McGrath in ODIs while Marshall was more exciting to watch and may even have been fractionally ahead of McGrath in tests.

Not that I believe in mixing both formats but if we do, It's clear for me that Garner is a better ODI bowler than McG yet it is impossible to choose clearly who the better test bowler is tbh.

 

[Debris]

Not that I believe in mixing both formats but if we do, It's clear for me that Garner is a better ODI bowler than McG yet it is impossible to choose clearly who the better test bowler is tbh.

I hate to be a pedant but this reply is off topic.

 

[The Sean]

Not that I believe in mixing both formats but if we do, It's clear for me that Garner is a better ODI bowler than McG yet it is impossible to choose clearly who the better test bowler is tbh.

I'd argue that McGrath's supremacy in Tests is at least as great as Garner's in ODIs - and I say that with all the respect in the world for Garner as a Test bowler.

 

[stephen]

I'd argue that McGrath's supremacy in Tests is at least as great as Garner's in ODIs - and I say that with all the respect in the world for Garner as a Test bowler.

My father still believes that Garner was the best of the West Indian greats of the 80s (though he still put Ambrose as the "best of the lot"). He just loved the way Garner ran in and delivered the ball. And his gully catching as well was fantastic - never seemed to ever drop a catch.

 

[The Sean]

My father still believes that Garner was the best of the West Indian greats of the 80s (though he still put Ambrose as the "best of the lot"). He just loved the way Garner ran in and delivered the ball. And his gully catching as well was fantastic - never seemed to ever drop a catch.

That's interesting to hear - he was a fantastic bowler, and a truly awe-inspiring sight, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone considering him the greatest of all the WI quicks. Fair play to your dad though if he thinks that.

And yep - what a gully fieldsman!

 

[Maximus0723]

What a mofo

 

[Teja.]

I'd argue that McGrath's supremacy in Tests is at least as great as Garner's in ODIs - and I say that with all the respect in the world for Garner as a Test bowler.

I'd counter argue that Garner in his generation was what McG was in the late 90s - as valuable a bowler as the other ATGs, but not as 'flashy' a bowler and hence criminally underrated.

For me, Garner is one of the 10-15 test bowlers between whom unless I take a great amount of time nitpicking, I cannot rank them in order. People say he benefited from having 2-3 other ATG bowlers bowling beside him, However this also meant that due to him being less pacier, He often did not have the new ball. Despite this he has an extremely high wickets-per-game ratio for such a competitive environment, The same as McG infact.

People talk of the achievements of his more 'stylish'(lack of a better word) contemporaries, Viv Richards and Dennis Lillie in World Series Cricket. It is often not remembered what Garner did in the WSC though. His record in WSC is 35 wickets in 7 matches @ 24.7, Lillee's is 67 in 14 @ 26.8. Not to start a debate here or anything but it's sad that the latter and Viv's and even Barry's record in the WSC, for that matter is mentioned to show just how good they were but Garner's is rarely brought up. He clearly was an extremely good bowler when bowling against the best as well.

His worst record in any country is 45 wickets in 11 matches @ 25.3 in Oz. It would take a greater effort than Lillee-Pak gate to claim that him averaging 43 against India in 3 matches(Not even in India, mind) makes his record incomplete. It's as complete as it gets.

Anyway, Sorry for going on the Garner fapathon. My original point is that from a practical POV, Replacing McG with Garner in a bowling line-up wouldn't make more than a negligible difference(for better or worse) in a test bowling line-up. However, Replacing Garner with McG in an ODI bowling line-up will certainly decrease the quality of the bowling-line up by a tiny margin.

 

[vcs]

Who was the better bowler - Garner or Holding?

 

[abmk]

Not that I believe in mixing both formats but if we do, It's clear for me that Garner is a better ODI bowler than McG yet it is impossible to choose clearly who the better test bowler is tbh.

OTOH, I think mcgrath was clearly the better test bowler and in ODIs, its fairly debatable and I'd have mcgrath slightly ahead