Shoaib Akhtar or Brett Lee?

[akilana]

The question is who's the better bowler. Not who's the better team player or who's fitter or ***ier.

Shoaib easily.

 

[smash84]

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.

true

 

[Nate]

The question is who's the better bowler. Not who's the better team player or who's fitter or ***ier.

Shoaib easily.

It is ALWAYS about who's ***ier.

 

[Blaze 18]

It is ALWAYS about who's ***ier.

lol!

 

[stephen]

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.

It's interesting that people aren't really too concerned with Akhtar's steroid use. Does it really surprise you that people aren't too concerned about someone using a diuretic?

I don't really care what your views on Warne are, but when rating Akhtar vs Lee, given the nature of their roles I'm surprised that more isn't made about Shoaib's drug use.

 

[Maximus0723]

It's interesting that people aren't really too concerned with Akhtar's steroid use. Does it really surprise you that people aren't too concerned about someone using a diuretic?

I don't really care what your views on Warne are, but when rating Akhtar vs Lee, given the nature of their roles I'm surprised that more isn't made about Shoaib's drug use.

I just don't think the thread and the OP wanted the discussion gear towards that.

From OP, I got the sense that he/she was more concerned about performance on the field then off even if one's may be based on illegal substances.
I think I understand where you coming from, if I was rating for greatest cricketer regardless of whomever it is, I definitely take those things into account.

 

[stephen]

I just don't think the thread and the OP wanted the discussion gear towards that.

From OP, I got the sense that he/she was more concerned about performance on the field then off even if one's may be based on illegal substances.
I think I understand where you coming from, if I was rating for greatest cricketer regardless of whomever it is, I definitely take those things into account.

That's fair.

To answer the original question, I think that Akhtar was a better test match bowler and Lee a better ODI bowler.

 

[Mikey29]

Watching Akhtar run in, when bowling well, is one of the most incredible sporting spectacles i've ever witnessed

Akhtar in tests is by far the better bowler. Haven't seen a more destructive bowler.

Lee has had a remarkable ODI career though, so Lee in ODIs.

I would have loved for Akhtar to get to 300 test wickets- that would have been fitting for his talent, at the very least.
He seems to be in a decent frame of mind now- I hope he can play a year of test cricket and get to 200 + test wickets at least.

 

[slowfinger]

Akhtar by a country mile. Not because I'm biest.... Because of his ability to trample any batting line up he pleased. Even when he isn't fit (now) and not bowling 100% he looks fericious... A true legend.

It is ALWAYS about who's ***ier.

Still Akhtar.

 

[smash84]

- I hope he can play a year of test cricket and get to 200 + test wickets at least.

He has retired from test cricket IIRC so he can focus on the limited overs games.

 

[cricketersUNitE]

Brett Lee

I think Brett Lee is a much better bowler because he has much better control and finds that channel. He is a little behind Ahktar in pace but overall Lee owns him. I would much prefer to have him in my team.

 

[Debris]

I think Brett Lee is a much better bowler because he has much better control and finds that channel. He is a little behind Ahktar in pace but overall Lee owns him. I would much prefer to have him in my team.

Actually, anytime they have played in the same match Lee has been the quicker which is the only time you can really judge cnosidering the variability of speed cameras around the world. I think Akhtar's advantage lies in greater swing.at that pace.

 

[smash84]

Actually, anytime they have played in the same match Lee has been the quicker which is the only time you can really judge cnosidering the variability of speed cameras around the world. I think Akhtar's advantage lies in greater swing.at that pace.

I think most observers (and probably players too) would agree that Akhtar was the quicker of the lot. Still bowls 90+ with such terrible fitness.

 

[Tom 1972]

I have to say that I voted Lee, but haven't seen alot of Shoab live.

I know that the poll asked specifically about bowling, but Lee is a better batsman averaging a handy 10 runs more and from what I've read about Shoab's fielding, streets ahead as a fielder.

Shoab may be a better Test bowler but Lee is a better cricketer IMHO.

 

[iamdavid]

I think the fact Shoaib was unfit, had a poor attitude and was just generally a **** obscures in alot of people's minds just how good he actually was. There were always the off-field distractions and he was always prone to having an off day where he just didn't seem to give a stuff and his bowling reflected it.

But from 2002-2005 when he was fit and interested he just about had it all, the pace he's famous for was allied with mastery of both conventional and reverse swing and he had deceptively good control when he wanted to. When he was switched on he knew how to use his bag of tricks properly and set up a batsmen. In that period he often seemed to rise to the biggest occasions (See his spells against Australia in test and ODI series in 2002).

As has already been mentioned his peak coincided with the flat-track era when bowling averages all over the world were inflating rapidly, further testament to his ability. Had he been a more motivated, or dare I say it a little more intelligent Shoaib Akhtar could've been a genuine ATG, like Malcolm Marshall/Dennis Lillee standard ATG; he doesn't lose anything in comparison to those guys in terms of raw talent.

 

[smash84]

I think the fact Shoaib was unfit, had a poor attitude and was just generally a **** obscures in alot of people's minds just how good he actually was. There were always the off-field distractions and he was always prone to having an off day where he just didn't seem to give a stuff and his bowling reflected it.

But from 2002-2005 when he was fit and interested he just about had it all, the pace he's famous for was allied with mastery of both conventional and reverse swing and he had deceptively good control when he wanted to. When he was switched on he knew how to use his bag of tricks properly and set up a batsmen. In that period he often seemed to rise to the biggest occasions (See his spells against Australia in test and ODI series in 2002).

As has already been mentioned his peak coincided with the flat-track era when bowling averages all over the world were inflating rapidly, further testament to his ability. Had he been a more motivated, or dare I say it a little more intelligent Shoaib Akhtar could've been a genuine ATG, like Malcolm Marshall/Dennis Lillee standard ATG; he doesn't lose anything in comparison to those guys in terms of raw talent.

Very well written.

 

[qarishahg]

Both very good bowlers but Shoaib is amazing to watch. And when he gets wickets, he gets WICKETS.

 

[Ausage]

Had he been a more motivated, or dare I say it a little more intelligent Shoaib Akhtar could've been a genuine ATG, like Malcolm Marshall/Dennis Lillee standard ATG; he doesn't lose anything in comparison to those guys in terms of raw talent.

Doesn't that just highlight the reason so many people have picked Lee though? The OP was asking who was better, with all factors taken into account, not who had the most talent or potential. Potential and talent are only useful if they are realised.

I went for Lee because I love that he's made the most of what he was given. He was always a rung below the McGrath's and Wasim's of the world, but he was tireless in his attempts to better himself. He had a body that was not standing up to the rigors of cricket, but every time he had a crippling injury he's picked himself up again, refusing to be beaten by setback after setback. His comeback for this WC has been nothing short of an incredible achievement, and testament to his determination. That determination, combined with the fact I don't think there's as much difference between the two as is being made out (and probably shades Shoaib with the white ball), I'd pick Lee in my team every day of the week.

 

[Top_Cat]

Doesn't that just highlight the reason so many people have picked Lee though? The OP was asking who was better, with all factors taken into account, not who had the most talent or potential. Potential and talent are only useful if they are realised.

Even taking that into account, Shoaib was a significantly better Test bowler. In Tests, Shoaib had potential, talent and performance over Lee if we're to take averages and whatnot into account. Lee maintained his standard for much longer, though, and took almost double the number of wickets.

ODI's a different story, of course.

 

[Ausage]

Even taking that into account, Shoaib was a significantly better Test bowler. In Tests, Shoaib had potential, talent and performance over Lee if we're to take averages and whatnot into account. Lee maintained his standard for much longer, though, and took almost double the number of wickets.

Again that sort of highlights it. Lee maintained a high level of performance for longer, and took more wickets for his country. In other words he got more out of himself than Shoaib did, which narrows the talent gap between the two. Most would agree that they'd take Shoaib over Lee at their respective best, but I think Australia got more out of Lee than Pakistan got out of Shoaib, particularly when you take ODI's into account, which is how I interpreted the question.