-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Better ODI bowler::: McGrath or Wasim
- Thread starter Maximus0723
- Start date
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
AWTA. Could probably fit Imran somewhere in there between McGrath and Holding.
Maximus0723
State Regular
Im guessing this is test ranking b/c likes of Marshall, Imran can't be argued are better then Garner.
smash84
The Tiger King
I would say Marshall>Hadlee>McGrath>Imran>Lillee>Holding>Lillee
Yep. Test matches it is.
smash84
The Tiger King
Interestingly Imran when he had retired in 1987 had such a wonderful bowling career. Arguably one of the best ever....These are his bowling career figures after he had taken retirement post 87 wc
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Great post, and not much here I'd strongly disagree with - but I do have to pick you up on the bolded stat. You've ignored the one-off match in NZ (that a lot of sources do, but everyone who played WSC counts) where Lillee took 12/89. Lillee's WSC stats are generally acknowledged as 79 wickets at 23.9.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.
Not hugely important in the grand scheme of things, but I always like to see that match counted rather than ignored.
Maximus0723
State Regular
Common. The What ifs,
What if Waqar retired earlier,
What if Wasim had started his career later
What if Murali retired earlier
What if Botham retired earlier
What if Lara/Sachin played for Aus/SA
What if Lara/Viv batted #3 throughout...
A what if argument just opens news cans of worms.
Also, what ppl forget is that, Imran only gotten better in batting in later parts of his career that's when he got worst with his bowling. So when you pick Imran you aren't always getting guy with avg of 22 and 37. But you are getting someone who sits somewhere around there.
smash84
The Tiger King
True this. His batting average did increase about 5 points during this time. But this does underline my point that players should retire at their peak (which imran did) and Sachin should IMO otherwise they tend to create a bad legacy for themselves (like Kapil and Botham)
vcs
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But there is hardly any difference with or without the filter you have added. In fact, after that he only goes on to improve his figures in WI which are the best team of his generation. So I have no idea why you would want to exclude that series where he averages 18 in WI.
Maximus0723
State Regular
If you play for legacy then I think you are playing for the wrong reasons.
If you playing because you love the game and/or you want to help your team win then yea, you should keep playing.
If you don't include Imran stats from 87, his average goes down 2 more points.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Interesting. At the stage that Imran first retired, the gap between him and Hadlee was so little. Both as batsman and bowler.
kingkallis
International Coach
Whats the difference? I see no huge difference there.
kingkallis
International Coach
smash84
The Tiger King
True......although his wpm declined a bit and his average rises almost by a run over the next 4 years but his batting average goes up by 5 points which gives a somewhat misleading impression if someone looks at his career only through stats
At a comparable stage Hadlee has a higher wpm as well as a higher bowling average.......and his batting is still around 5 runs less than Imran's at that stage...........
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround
Last edited:
stephen
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well he actually rates Ambrose ahead of the 80s quicks and Garner as the best of the rest. He isn't much into stats analysis, but loves watching the game and judging players based on what he sees.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!
In ODI's it's Wasim for me, and while they're close, it's Wasim definitely for me. The best ODI bowler in history, and the second best ODI player ever, after Tendulkar.
As a death bowler Wasim was just incredible, the best I've seen. An early on if he got wickets for Pakistan they almost always won.
McGrath... he's a great. But here at CW McGrath seems to be rated a bit higher than in most other places.
I know in the Test arena I never really rated McGrath until around 1997. McGrath really announced himself in 1995, and no doubt he was an excellent bowler. But back in those days I remember finding Pollock (I'm serious), Donald, Ambrose and Walsh, and Wasim to be more damaging bowlers. McGrath was the accurate fast bowler who never went for a lot of runs, but didn't always make the impact those guys made. His neatness and economy belied the fact that he didn't always have the impact players like Wasim had.
In the Test arena there was no doubt Warne was more important, for a long time, to his team winning. So many crucial wickets at crucial times. And so many games would have been drawn without Warne on that fifth day. It's true McGrath took more top order batsmen, and had more success on the first day. But Warne, while not always as successful in the first innings, was nonetheless incredibly important in that first innings. And in the second innings Warne became crucial to Australia, especially throughout the mid 90s.
When Warne started having shoulder problems McGrath overtook him as the best Australian bowler in my eyes. And from there McGrath was better than just about every fast bowler in the world.
The best period in McGrath's career for me was when he took eight wickets in Perth against Pakistan until he did an ankle in the 2nd Ashes Test of 2005. He was so awesome in those days. And I honestly don't know if I saw a more effective fast bowler during those months. I mean he was ridiculously great. The thing is, Warne was as good as ever when he came back in 2004 and won the man of the series award in Sri Lanka, so that was an amazing time to watch Australia play.
But anyway I'm babbling... McGrath was always good, but it's only until later on in his career when I thought he was the world's best. ALSO there were times when Australia needed wickets and batsmen knew they could leave a lot of McGrath's stuff alone, whereas Akram could make things happen.
I think that's it actually! That's why Wasim is clearly better than McGrath in ODI's to me. Wasim could make something happen when McGrath couldn't. That's a harsh thing to say since McGrath won soooo many games for Australia, and got wickets when they counted. But I recall times when Australia needed something more immediate, which is what Wasim could do with one ball.
In Tests though it's McGrath. McGrath was better at bowling long spells, and he'd just wear you down in that arena. But if I'm picking an all-time XI, do I want a left-armer over McGrath?
Wasim... every time I make an all-time XI I hate excluding him. He's the best left-arm bowler in the history of cricket. He's also probably the most exciting fast bowler there's ever been.
Take McGrath as an example. I found McGrath entertaining, and what I enjoyed about him were the little variances in his game. I actually watched so much of him I could pick the ball he'd bowl that would nip back, or when he'd bowl a bouncer etc. My most vivid memory of this was in the 2003 World Cup final when Australia posted around 360 and India needed to get off to a good start. McGrath bowled a few good deliveries to Tendulkar which couldn't be scored from - line and length perfect. I thought to myself, "Tendulkar is going to want to get runs quickly. If McGrath bowls a bouncer, I bet Tendulkar will go after it." Next ball, Tendulkar was out going for a bouncer he couldn't possibly control.
Don't get me wrong, McGrath was entertaining.
But McGrath relied on line and length and accuracy and patience.
With Wasim anything could happen at any time. There was a sense with the way he could get the ball to swing both ways, or swing one way and jag the other after it bounced... anything could happen. And so you get deliveries like the one to Allan Lamb, which was simply unplayable. Wasim did so much more with the ball and it made him far more enjoyable to watch.
That's not to suggest the more entertaining player is the better player, but you know, Wasim was great to watch.
When I pick my all-time XV the main contenders for fast bowling are: Lillee (the yarkstick), Marshall, SF Barnes, Wasim Akram, Curtley Ambrose and Glenn McGrath.
I always pick Lillee. I remember when McGrath retired, Alan Border was gushing over how great and awesome McGrath was. People asked him: is he Australia's greatest fast bowler? Border kind of made an awkward look, not wanting to diminish McGrath's legacy now he's retiring, but admitted he thinks Lillee was the better bowler.
Marshall is a no brainer. In a sense he's the universal bowler who nobody can criticize. If you conducted a poll of the best bowlers ever, he'd be in everybody's top five, no doubt, even if he's not one.
So those two guys are certainties. The problem is in my all-time XV I have two all-rounders (Sobers and Kahn), and Warne is my spin bowler. So I already have five bowlers.When I get to this point every instinct in me wants Wasim to be that next bowler so I can say I have a left-arm bowler who can swing the ball better than any bowler I've seen. But he doesn't quite get in.
As a death bowler Wasim was just incredible, the best I've seen. An early on if he got wickets for Pakistan they almost always won.
McGrath... he's a great. But here at CW McGrath seems to be rated a bit higher than in most other places.
I know in the Test arena I never really rated McGrath until around 1997. McGrath really announced himself in 1995, and no doubt he was an excellent bowler. But back in those days I remember finding Pollock (I'm serious), Donald, Ambrose and Walsh, and Wasim to be more damaging bowlers. McGrath was the accurate fast bowler who never went for a lot of runs, but didn't always make the impact those guys made. His neatness and economy belied the fact that he didn't always have the impact players like Wasim had.
In the Test arena there was no doubt Warne was more important, for a long time, to his team winning. So many crucial wickets at crucial times. And so many games would have been drawn without Warne on that fifth day. It's true McGrath took more top order batsmen, and had more success on the first day. But Warne, while not always as successful in the first innings, was nonetheless incredibly important in that first innings. And in the second innings Warne became crucial to Australia, especially throughout the mid 90s.
When Warne started having shoulder problems McGrath overtook him as the best Australian bowler in my eyes. And from there McGrath was better than just about every fast bowler in the world.
The best period in McGrath's career for me was when he took eight wickets in Perth against Pakistan until he did an ankle in the 2nd Ashes Test of 2005. He was so awesome in those days. And I honestly don't know if I saw a more effective fast bowler during those months. I mean he was ridiculously great. The thing is, Warne was as good as ever when he came back in 2004 and won the man of the series award in Sri Lanka, so that was an amazing time to watch Australia play.
But anyway I'm babbling... McGrath was always good, but it's only until later on in his career when I thought he was the world's best. ALSO there were times when Australia needed wickets and batsmen knew they could leave a lot of McGrath's stuff alone, whereas Akram could make things happen.
I think that's it actually! That's why Wasim is clearly better than McGrath in ODI's to me. Wasim could make something happen when McGrath couldn't. That's a harsh thing to say since McGrath won soooo many games for Australia, and got wickets when they counted. But I recall times when Australia needed something more immediate, which is what Wasim could do with one ball.
In Tests though it's McGrath. McGrath was better at bowling long spells, and he'd just wear you down in that arena. But if I'm picking an all-time XI, do I want a left-armer over McGrath?
Wasim... every time I make an all-time XI I hate excluding him. He's the best left-arm bowler in the history of cricket. He's also probably the most exciting fast bowler there's ever been.
Take McGrath as an example. I found McGrath entertaining, and what I enjoyed about him were the little variances in his game. I actually watched so much of him I could pick the ball he'd bowl that would nip back, or when he'd bowl a bouncer etc. My most vivid memory of this was in the 2003 World Cup final when Australia posted around 360 and India needed to get off to a good start. McGrath bowled a few good deliveries to Tendulkar which couldn't be scored from - line and length perfect. I thought to myself, "Tendulkar is going to want to get runs quickly. If McGrath bowls a bouncer, I bet Tendulkar will go after it." Next ball, Tendulkar was out going for a bouncer he couldn't possibly control.
Don't get me wrong, McGrath was entertaining.
But McGrath relied on line and length and accuracy and patience.
With Wasim anything could happen at any time. There was a sense with the way he could get the ball to swing both ways, or swing one way and jag the other after it bounced... anything could happen. And so you get deliveries like the one to Allan Lamb, which was simply unplayable. Wasim did so much more with the ball and it made him far more enjoyable to watch.
That's not to suggest the more entertaining player is the better player, but you know, Wasim was great to watch.
When I pick my all-time XV the main contenders for fast bowling are: Lillee (the yarkstick), Marshall, SF Barnes, Wasim Akram, Curtley Ambrose and Glenn McGrath.
I always pick Lillee. I remember when McGrath retired, Alan Border was gushing over how great and awesome McGrath was. People asked him: is he Australia's greatest fast bowler? Border kind of made an awkward look, not wanting to diminish McGrath's legacy now he's retiring, but admitted he thinks Lillee was the better bowler.
Marshall is a no brainer. In a sense he's the universal bowler who nobody can criticize. If you conducted a poll of the best bowlers ever, he'd be in everybody's top five, no doubt, even if he's not one.
So those two guys are certainties. The problem is in my all-time XV I have two all-rounders (Sobers and Kahn), and Warne is my spin bowler. So I already have five bowlers.When I get to this point every instinct in me wants Wasim to be that next bowler so I can say I have a left-arm bowler who can swing the ball better than any bowler I've seen. But he doesn't quite get in.
smash84
The Tiger King
Wow...........you and slog sweep write wonderfully well. You hit the nail on the head when you say that Wasim could make things happen. I remember watching ODIs when Wasim was in the side and no matter how bad the situation there was always hope that Wasim can turn things around in the matter of a few deliveries. And you are right.....there was no bowler who could do so much with the ball as Wasim could......there were numerous times when the ball would swing one way in the air and move in another direction after pitching. He was, for me, the most exciting ODI (and possibly even test) bowler that I ever saw.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Mate, why do you quote every long post on this forum?
It's a pain to scroll, specially when you are browsing on mobile.