Shoaib Akhtar or Brett Lee?

[zaremba]

Two under-rated bowlers, but Shoaib for me. One of the best quick bowlers I've ever seen.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Difficult to pick between the two. As a NZer, most of my memories of both of them involve our batting lineup getting completely ****ed.

 

[Sanz]

For me Akhtar's legacy will always be tainted b/c of drugs and how he supposedly forced his team mates in it.

IMO, even if one is Pakistani fan, we should be happy he isn't in the top tier of fast bowlers. Look at baseball, lot of their top tier players took roids. Baseball is big in it's history and tradition, being a big fan of it, it forever is tainted. I am glad Cricket isn't like that at least not yet.

I don't understand why this always becomes an issue in case of Shoaib but never for someone like Warne.

 

[Ikki]

Warne didn't take steroids.

 

[Jono]

Shoaib tests.
Lee ODIs.

Lee in good blokeness.
Shoaib in hilariousness.

 

[Sanz]

Warne didn't take steroids.

Nowhere I mentioned Steroids, Did I ?

 

[Ikki]

Nowhere I mentioned Steroids, Did I ?

But you asked why the two are treated differently. Akhtar took steroids; Warne didn't.

 

[smash84]

Waqar's pace declined with time.He became more intelligent.If we're talking about pure raw pace swinging intimidation,then very few bowlers can hold a candle to shoaib,let alone surpass him.

Waqar was a better bowler than Shoaib,ranks amongst the greatest in history.The same can't be said about Shoaib.But an on-song Shoaib vs an on-song Waqar?Shoaib probably takes this one,and i feel weird saying this since Waqar is one of my favorite cricketers ever.

I'll take an on-song Waqar over an on-song shoaib. Waqar on song was absolutely unplayable because of the amount of swing he could generate at the 90+ mph. Shoaib was quicker but he didn't have Waqar's ability to swing the ball.

 

[vcs]

A 15-year long career and 700+ wickets makes it a lot easier to forgive and forget these things as well. Warne was a naughty boy, but he's a saint compared to Akhtar.

 

[Sanz]

A 15-year long career and 700+ wickets makes it a lot easier to forgive and forget these things as well. Warne was a naughty boy, but he's a saint compared to Akhtar.

One of the few saints that were involved in match fixing, drug cheating and something else that can't be said on a family forum.

 

[Sanz]

But you asked why the two are treated differently. Akhtar took steroids; Warne didn't.

It does not matter what he took, he was banned for a year for Doping and according to WADA he got away with only one year.

 

[vcs]

Compared to Akhtar, still a saint.

 

[Migara]

Where would Azhar stand?

 

[vcs]

Personally, I have very little respect left for him, even though he was a fine player.

 

[Xuhaib]

Compared to Akhtar, still a saint.

Compaerd to Asif, Akhtar is a saint.

 

[sudhindra9]

On any day Lee is the better of the two. He has got a cleaner action. Better temperment. Better control and accuracy. And more importantly he is fitter.

 

[Xuhaib]

On any day Lee is the better of the two. He has got a cleaner action. Better temperment. Better control and accuracy. And more importantly he is fitter.

yet Akhtar averages good 6 runs less.

 

[sudhindra9]

Statistics arent everything. And while rating fast bowlers you have take longevity into consideration too. You cant just play one match a series bowl your heart out and pick up five and then sit out for the rest.

 

[andyc]

Sanz and Ikki, this isn't the place for discussing Warne or his drug-taking.

Shoaib the better bowler, but not the better team member. You'd definitely take Shoiab on his day, but over a career you'd want Lee just because he'd actually be available.

 

[sudhindra9]

Sanz and Ikki, this isn't the place for discussing Warne or his drug-taking.

Shoaib the better bowler, but not the better team member. You'd definitely take Shoiab on his day, but over a career you'd want Lee just because he'd actually be available.

Totally agree with you.