Better ODI bowler::: McGrath or Wasim

[stephen]

I agree with this. But I must say, the difference b/w them is very marginal. Not like Bradman and the rest. lol

Certainly true.

 

[Ikki]

Just to remind people.

In WC matches.

McGrath, in 39 matches took 71 wickets at 18.19 striking at 27.5 with an econ of 3.96.
Wasim, in 38 matches took 55 wickets at 23.83 striking at 35.4 with an econ of 4.04

McGrath has the most WC wickets (by 16 or 29%!), best WC average, best figures in an innings, best strike rate, is one of only four bowlers to take two five wicket hauls and is the 10th most economical WC bowler. He has also won three out of the four world cups he took part in and picked up player of the tournament in his final WC.

This makes him the best big game ODI bowler (in my books) by a very handsome margin.

Disagree.

 

[Fusion]

Just to remind people.

In WC matches.

McGrath, in 39 matches took 71 wickets at 18.19 striking at 27.5 with an econ of 3.96.
Wasim, in 38 matches took 55 wickets at 23.83 striking at 35.4 with an econ of 4.04

McGrath has the most WC wickets (by 16 or 29%!), best WC average, best figures in an innings, best strike rate, is one of only four bowlers to take two five wicket hauls and is the 10th most economical WC bowler. He has also won three out of the four world cups he took part in and picked up player of the tournament in his final WC.

This makes him the best big game ODI bowler (in my books) by a very handsome margin.

All that is valid and I can't begrudge anyone if they think McGrath is the best based on that analysis. Here's the thing though: McGrath also has the advantage of playing for arguably the greatest ODI side of all time. I have always maintained that when it comes to the Wasim/McGrath comparison, the stats don't tell the whole story. McGrath nearly always played from a position of strength. If Australia batted first, he knew he would have a good total to defend. If bowling first, he could be confident that they would chase down any total. McGrath knew he had world-class fielders that would not drop routine catches and would often take blinders. That type of peace of mind can do wonders for your confidence and allows you to play your natural game, instead of being constantly under pressure.

Wasim was on the opposite end of that spectrum. When not dealing with the constant infighting, player rebellions, and match fixing scandals off the field, he had to worry about batting collapses and terrible fielding on field. He knew no matter how great the bowlers performed, the batting was so hit and miss that no total was safe. Take the 1999 WC Final for example. How demoralizing to defend 132! Even defending that, he bowled the most overs and still had the best economy of anyone bar Saqlain in his team. If Pakistan were one of the best ODI sides in the 1990's, it was due to the sensational and game-changing performances that Wasim or Waqar would individually put up on a given day, not due to some collective excellence that Australia enjoyed.

Let me emphasize that I recognize that Australia's domination and always being in a position of strength had a lot to do with the way McGrath performed. I'm just saying that an all-time great bowler in a team full of all-time great players will put up better stats than another all-time great in a team full of all-time unpredictable players.

 

[smash84]

All that is valid and I can't begrudge anyone if they think McGrath is the best based on that analysis. Here's the thing though: McGrath also has the advantage of playing for arguably the greatest ODI side of all time. I have always maintained that when it comes to the Wasim/McGrath comparison, the stats don't tell the whole story. McGrath nearly always played from a position of strength. If Australia batted first, he knew he would have a good total to defend. If bowling first, he could be confident that they would chase down any total. McGrath knew he had world-class fielders that would not drop routine catches and would often take blinders. That type of peace of mind can do wonders for your confidence and allows you to play your natural game, instead of being constantly under pressure.

Wasim was on the opposite end of that spectrum. When not dealing with the constant infighting, player rebellions, and match fixing scandals off the field, he had to worry about batting collapses and terrible fielding on field. He knew no matter how great the bowlers performed, the batting was so hit and miss that no total was safe. Take the 1999 WC Final for example. How demoralizing to defend 132! Even defending that, he bowled the most overs and still had the best economy of anyone bar Saqlain in his team. If Pakistan were one of the best ODI sides in the 1990's, it was due to the sensational and game-changing performances that Wasim or Waqar would individually put up on a given day, not due to some collective excellence that Australia enjoyed.

Let me emphasize that I recognize that Australia's domination and always being in a position of strength had a lot to do with the way McGrath performed. I'm just saying that an all-time great bowler in a team full of all-time great players will put up better stats than another all-time great in a team full of all-time unpredictable players.

You have raised some very valid points. Pak fielding was so pathetic. On the other hand the kind of slip fielding (and generally all aspects of fielding) that the Australians had was close to perfect. Numerous times we saw chances go down off Wasim and Waqar. Even in the 2003 WC Pak Ind match Sachin was dropped at mid on by Abdur Razzaq off Wasim. I am sure that had that been the Aussie fielding unit the catch would have been taken.

 

[tooextracool]

Disagree.

If you are actually going to make the effort of filtering out stats then why not actually do it properly? Unless you want to argue that games against Scotland, Bangladesh and Kenya are big match situations.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...e=results;trophy=12;type=bowling;view=innings

 

[stephen]

All that is valid and I can't begrudge anyone if they think McGrath is the best based on that analysis. Here's the thing though: McGrath also has the advantage of playing for arguably the greatest ODI side of all time. I have always maintained that when it comes to the Wasim/McGrath comparison, the stats don't tell the whole story. McGrath nearly always played from a position of strength. If Australia batted first, he knew he would have a good total to defend. If bowling first, he could be confident that they would chase down any total. McGrath knew he had world-class fielders that would not drop routine catches and would often take blinders. That type of peace of mind can do wonders for your confidence and allows you to play your natural game, instead of being constantly under pressure.

Wasim was on the opposite end of that spectrum. When not dealing with the constant infighting, player rebellions, and match fixing scandals off the field, he had to worry about batting collapses and terrible fielding on field. He knew no matter how great the bowlers performed, the batting was so hit and miss that no total was safe. Take the 1999 WC Final for example. How demoralizing to defend 132! Even defending that, he bowled the most overs and still had the best economy of anyone bar Saqlain in his team. If Pakistan were one of the best ODI sides in the 1990's, it was due to the sensational and game-changing performances that Wasim or Waqar would individually put up on a given day, not due to some collective excellence that Australia enjoyed.

Let me emphasize that I recognize that Australia's domination and always being in a position of strength had a lot to do with the way McGrath performed. I'm just saying that an all-time great bowler in a team full of all-time great players will put up better stats than another all-time great in a team full of all-time unpredictable players.

I was not disputing Wasim's greatness by posting his stats. He just happens to be the second highest WC wicket taker of all time and played almost the same number of matches as McGrath and hence made a good comparison.

You do have a point about the fielding, but I disagree about the point you make about the quality of the rest of the team. One of the reasons Australia was so dominant was McGrath. He stood out, even in all time great sides. That is much harder to do than standing out in crap sides.

It's not like Pakistan were even bad while Wasim was in the side. They won in 91/92, got knocked out in the quarter finals in 95/96, made the final in 99 and got knocked out in the preliminaries in 03. You don't make two finals and win one if you're in a bad side. Yeah Pakistan were inconsistent, but they were still a very good ODI side. You make it sound as though Wasim was playing for Scotland or Canada. Certainly in 96 and 99 McGrath was not in clearly the strongest side in the tournament.

So the only real advantage that McGrath had was that he had a better fielding side, which meant that he had to generate less opportunities than Wasim did for a catch. It's quite possible that Wasim had sixteen dropped catches off his bowling, but it's also equally likely that he took those batsman's wickets soon after anyway.

 

[Maximus0723]

I think even if you hypothetically account for the fielding, you probably won't see much difference b/c of the number of matches played by both Wasim and McG.
I mean statwise they are already so close.

To me, Wasim is greater ODI cricketer, al beit not by a lot.
and, McG is greater ODI bowler, al beit not by a lot.

 

[Fusion]

I was not disputing Wasim's greatness by posting his stats. He just happens to be the second highest WC wicket taker of all time and played almost the same number of matches as McGrath and hence made a good comparison.

You do have a point about the fielding, but I disagree about the point you make about the quality of the rest of the team. One of the reasons Australia was so dominant was McGrath. He stood out, even in all time great sides. That is much harder to do than standing out in crap sides.

It's not like Pakistan were even bad while Wasim was in the side. They won in 91/92, got knocked out in the quarter finals in 95/96, made the final in 99 and got knocked out in the preliminaries in 03. You don't make two finals and win one if you're in a bad side. Yeah Pakistan were inconsistent, but they were still a very good ODI side. You make it sound as though Wasim was playing for Scotland or Canada. Certainly in 96 and 99 McGrath was not in clearly the strongest side in the tournament.

So the only real advantage that McGrath had was that he had a better fielding side, which meant that he had to generate less opportunities than Wasim did for a catch. It's quite possible that Wasim had sixteen dropped catches off his bowling, but it's also equally likely that he took those batsman's wickets soon after anyway.

Likewise, I'm not disputing McGrath's greatness by countering with my arguments. As I stated in my post, I recognize that a great part of Australia's dominance was due to Pigeon's perfomances. However, my point is that McGrath played in a team that was known for its collective brilliance and sustained good performances. And while Wasim didn't exactly play for Scotland (and that was certainly not what I intended to convey), his team was more known for incredibly talented players who would display individual acts of brilliance that won matches rather than a collective effort from everyone in the team. Obviously, this wasn't always the case, but IMO was true far more in the case of Pakistan than Australia. I simply believe that when you have confidence that your team mates will perform to a high level in every game (proper fielding, competitive batting totals to defend, consistent support from the other bowlers), you have less pressure and can play your natural game. That luxury was not always afforded to Wasim.

Anyway, I hope again that this does not come across as me trying to lessen McGrath's achievements. He was a champion and if anyone thinks he's the better bowler, they obviously have good reasons to think so.

 

[miscer]

if you're about to rate garner the best ever after only 146 wicket then surely Bond is right up there with his 147 wickets?

Bond: 147 wicket 20.88 average 29.2 Strike Rate in 80 innings
Garner: 146 wickets 18.84 average 36.5 Strike Rate in 98 innings

Imo the best Odi fast bowlers would be these two then the rest are a little below that.

 

[smash84]

if you're about to rate garner the best ever after only 146 wicket then surely Bond is right up there with his 147 wickets?

Bond: 147 wicket 20.88 average 29.2 Strike Rate in 80 innings
Garner: 146 wickets 18.84 average 36.5 Strike Rate in 98 innings

Imo the best Odi fast bowlers would be these two then the rest are a little below that.

That's true. If you want to include Garner then Bond has a very strong case.

 

[Cevno]

If you are actually going to make the effort of filtering out stats then why not actually do it properly? Unless you want to argue that games against Scotland, Bangladesh and Kenya are big match situations.

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So are you telling me that Bangladesh vs India the last World Cup was not a big game situation ? A game which knocked India out?

Or Kenya vs Srilanka in the 2003 WC where Kenya reached the WC semi?

If we start filtering out such teams just who who we filter out for the west indies in the early 15 years of ODI cricket?
Almost every country barring 3/4 were minnows for one period or the other.

 

[Cevno]

Just to remind people.

In WC matches.

McGrath, in 39 matches took 71 wickets at 18.19 striking at 27.5 with an econ of 3.96.
Wasim, in 38 matches took 55 wickets at 23.83 striking at 35.4 with an econ of 4.04

McGrath has the most WC wickets (by 16 or 29%!), best WC average, best figures in an innings, best strike rate, is one of only four bowlers to take two five wicket hauls and is the 10th most economical WC bowler. He has also won three out of the four world cups he took part in and picked up player of the tournament in his final WC.

This makes him the best big game ODI bowler (in my books) by a very handsome margin.

But here you factor in the fact that Mcgrath was playing for a stronger team,with a stronger batting line up.

Also the fact that Wasim almost always bowled in the death and the start in fielding restrictions.

 

[G.I.Joe]

So are you telling me that Bangladesh vs India the last World Cup was not a big game situation ? A game which knocked India out?

Technically it was Sri Lanka that knocked India out, though. India were still in after the loss to Bangladesh.

 

[smash84]

But here you factor in the fact that Mcgrath was playing for a stronger team,with a stronger batting line up.

Also the fact that Wasim almost always bowled in the death and the start in fielding restrictions.

McGrath was probably a better new ball bowler but nobody bowled as consistently well as Wasim in the last 5-7 overs. It was always a given that Wasim would bowl in the last 7 overs and those are the ones that are usually taken for the most runs. Bowling in the last few overs was something that Wasim did throughout his career from start till the end. Something that few bowlers (and IIRC McGrath is in that camp too) have done consistently.

 

[Cevno]

Technically it was Sri Lanka that knocked India out, though. India were still in after the loss to Bangladesh.

Yeah ,but if they had won that match , Srilanka could not have knocked India out.

 

[Debris]

But here you factor in the fact that Mcgrath was playing for a stronger team,with a stronger batting line up.

Also the fact that Wasim almost always bowled in the death and the start in fielding restrictions.

Not sure how a stronger batting line-up helps McGrath. Opposition looked at Australia's batting line-up and panicked?

 

[Cevno]

Not sure how a stronger batting line-up helps McGrath. Opposition looked at Australia's batting line-up and panicked?

Australia had a really strong ODI lineup ,throughout.

The best in ODI cricket most of the time.

Certainly way stronger than Pakistan's inconsistent one.

 

[Debris]

Australia had a really strong ODI lineup ,throughout.

The best in ODI cricket most of the time.

Certainly way stronger than Pakistan's inconsistent one.

Not arguing that but just trying to understand how you think it helped McGrath's bowling. In particular, how a strong batting line-up helps his bowling

 

[smash84]

Not arguing that but just trying to understand how you think it helped McGrath's bowling. In particular, how a strong batting line-up helps his bowling

Scoreboard pressure. I very very important factor in pressurizing the opposition.

 

[TumTum]

Scoreboard pressure. I very very important factor in pressurizing the opposition.

You could argue that being forced to play at a faster rate helps to reduce the dismissals from tentative prods and the like, helps to get your eye in quicker, and puts the opposition bowlers back under pressure (it doesn't matter how many runs u got in the bank, if you are getting hit at a reasonable rate you will try something different). Also opposition bowlers are likelier to bowl more "attacking" (bad) deliveries knowing they have more runs to play with.