Who was the better bowler: Glenn Mcgrath or Wasim Akram?

[PhoenixFire]

Always grinds my gears when people overlook McGrath's talent. Just because he couldn't swing the ball round corners (he probably could if he wanted to) like an Akram or Waqar doesn't mean he isn't talented. Like T_C said, bowling the ball on the same spot is talent, an incredible skill and talent that virtually no other bowler in history has managed to replicate.

 

[ankitj]

Time to throw in link to my first thread on CW

McGrath not only picked more valuable wickets, he picked them at lesser cost of runs per wicket.

Agree with those saying that it's not even close (speaking of tests alone). Wasim Akram is a tad overrated. Putting him in an all time world XI (as they did in Cricinfo's exercise) is quite frankly a joke. Also, it might be due to my bad knowledge, but I cannot remember many McGrath/Ambrose like demolition jobs by Wasim Akram in tests, one where he would run through the top order of a strong batting line up. For all his undeniable natural ability, Wasim's numbers don't stack up against some other ATG bowlers.

 

[Noble One]

I can only imagine the reputation of Akram will only improve over time due to the availability of footage through YouTube and other video hosting sites. It is easy to be excited by 10 minutes of Akram footage and consider him the greatest of this era. The unfashionable types like McGrath will have to rely on a staggering record and it will be interesting to hear the debates in 20-30 years time.

 

[hang on]

Time to throw in link to my first thread on CW

McGrath not only picked more valuable wickets, he picked them at lesser cost of runs per wicket.

Agree with those saying that it's not even close (speaking of tests alone). Wasim Akram is a tad overrated. Putting him in an all time world XI (as they did in Cricinfo's exercise) is quite frankly a joke. Also, it might be due to my bad knowledge, but I cannot remember many McGrath/Ambrose like demolition jobs by Wasim Akram in tests, one where he would run through the top order of a strong batting line up. For all his undeniable natural ability, Wasim's numbers don't stack up against some other ATG bowlers.

I agree. Especially about the world 11 bit. Perhaps it was the variety factor that did it. Or was it the "have to satisfy the Pakistani fans, especially after not having taken Imran" factor?!

 

[Top_Cat]

Time to throw in link to my first thread on CW

McGrath not only picked more valuable wickets, he picked them at lesser cost of runs per wicket.

Agree with those saying that it's not even close (speaking of tests alone). Wasim Akram is a tad overrated. Putting him in an all time world XI (as they did in Cricinfo's exercise) is quite frankly a joke. Also, it might be due to my bad knowledge, but I cannot remember many McGrath/Ambrose like demolition jobs by Wasim Akram in tests, one where he would run through the top order of a strong batting line up. For all his undeniable natural ability, Wasim's numbers don't stack up against some other ATG bowlers.

Bit harsh, did exactly that against Australia a couple of times.

1st Test: Australia v Pakistan at Melbourne, Jan 12-16, 1990 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
1st Test: Pakistan v Australia at Karachi, Sep 28-Oct 2, 1994 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Granted the former weren't an awesome line-up, though.

But yeah, tailed off a bit for the second half of his Test career and certainly more of an old-ball bowler rather than one to take early wickets with the new nurry. Pretty much agree with Goughy.

 

[ankitj]

Yeah, I may have been harsh there. For a great career, there would have to be some fantastic spells. But Wasim's test exploits are less "famous" as those of McGrath and Ambrose. The best of Wasim you hear is invariably either the 92 world cup or some performances against England along side Waqar.

 

[Lostman]

I can only imagine the reputation of Akram will only improve over time due to the availability of footage through YouTube and other video hosting sites. It is easy to be excited by 10 minutes of Akram footage and consider him the greatest of this era. The unfashionable types like McGrath will have to rely on a staggering record and it will be interesting to hear the debates in 20-30 years time.

My thoughts on this exactly.
I mentioned this in the cricinfo XI thread as well, but even in his own "generation" of fast bowlers Akram was behind McGrath, Ambrose, Donald and Waqar.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I can only imagine the reputation of Akram will only improve over time due to the availability of footage through YouTube and other video hosting sites. It is easy to be excited by 10 minutes of Akram footage and consider him the greatest of this era. The unfashionable types like McGrath will have to rely on a staggering record and it will be interesting to hear the debates in 20-30 years time.

Well if you are going by just the number of Youtube videos modern day Indian players should be more popular than any other cricketers ever in existence. But the true fans of cricket always remember the greats. I am pretty sure every true cricket fans above above the age of 15 knows who Don Bradman is and about his greatness.

 

[salman85]

Yeah, I may have been harsh there. For a great career, there would have to be some fantastic spells. But Wasim's test exploits are less "famous" as those of McGrath and Ambrose. The best of Wasim you hear is invariably either the 92 world cup or some performances against England along side Waqar.

You're not being serious are you?For a man who took 400 plus wickets in both forms of the game,ad 2 hattricks in both forms of the game,enjoyed divine status in Sharjah,and made the ball talk sweeter than anyone in the last 20 odd years,and these two are the only spells you hear about?

The 1992 WC final would be talked about a lot since it is the greatest moment of any player's career.Also,Wasim was a god at Lancashire,so that is where the England thing comes from.But to say that the best of Wasim you hear is from these two things only is very VERY harsh,not to mention disrespectful towards one of the greatest fast bowlers in history.

My thoughts on this exactly.
I mentioned this in the cricinfo XI thread as well, but even in his own "generation" of fast bowlers Akram was behind McGrath, Ambrose, Donald and Waqar.

Wasim was better than Waqar,marginally ahead of Donald,and as good as,if not better than Ambrose and McGrath.The impression this thread seems to be giving out is that Wasim was only good enough to polish McGrath's shoes,whch TBH is pretty ridiculous.Also,we aren't really talking about Test Matches alone here.The thread is about who was the better bowler,and keeping both forms of the game in mind,Wasim has a pretty good case to be as good as if not better than McGrath,since Wasim's superiority over Mcgrath in ODIs is virtually the same as McGrath's superiority over Wasim in Test Matches.

 

[Furball]

Well, that was Silentstriker so I took him being McGrath's biggest fan into account.

If Manan's commenting on cricket, chances are what he's saying is stupid.

 

[BlazeDragon]

Wasim was better than Waqar,marginally ahead of Donald,and as good as,if not better than Ambrose and McGrath.The impression this thread seems to be giving out is that Wasim was only good enough to polish McGrath's shoes,whch TBH is pretty ridiculous.Also,we aren't really talking about Test Matches alone here.The thread is about who was the better bowler,and keeping both forms of the game in mind,Wasim has a pretty good case to be as good as if not better than McGrath,since Wasim's superiority over Mcgrath in ODIs is virtually the same as McGrath's superiority over Wasim in Test Matches.

Mcgrath played 20 more matches than Wasim and took 149 more wickets in Tests. While Wasim on the other hand played 106 more matches than Mcgrath and took only 121 more wickets in ODIs.

Now clearly if you look at history its easily suggests than Mcgrath would have easily surpassed that Wasim if he had played that many ODIs. I am not trying to insult Wasim he could undoubtedly be argued as one of the Top 10 best bowlers of all time (spinners included), but Mcgrath is just ahead of him and there is no getting around that.

 

[vcs]

..

Wasim was better than Waqar,marginally ahead of Donald,and as good as,if not better than Ambrose and McGrath.The impression this thread seems to be giving out is that Wasim was only good enough to polish McGrath's shoes,whch TBH is pretty ridiculous.Also,we aren't really talking about Test Matches alone here.The thread is about who was the better bowler,and keeping both forms of the game in mind,Wasim has a pretty good case to be as good as if not better than McGrath,since Wasim's superiority over Mcgrath in ODIs is virtually the same as McGrath's superiority over Wasim in Test Matches.

Hmm.. McGrath has a fantastic ODI record dude (and a God-like World Cup record, Wasim has a great WC record as well, but not as good as McGrath's).

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeh, don't get where this idea that McGrath isn't anything but an all-time-great one-day bowler has come from. Was rarely smashed and sometimes was an absolute wrecking-ball against the top-order players. Has a very similar econ/ave/strikerate to Akram, in fact.

 

[Lostman]

Wasim was better than Waqar,marginally ahead of Donald,and as good as,if not better than Ambrose and McGrath.The impression this thread seems to be giving out is that Wasim was only good enough to polish McGrath's shoes,whch TBH is pretty ridiculous.Also,we aren't really talking about Test Matches alone here.The thread is about who was the better bowler,and keeping both forms of the game in mind,Wasim has a pretty good case to be as good as if not better than McGrath,since Wasim's superiority over Mcgrath in ODIs is virtually the same as McGrath's superiority over Wasim in Test Matches.

Even if the differences between McG and Wasim are equal in tests and ODI's (which I dont agree with, the gap in tests>than the gap in ODI's.) Tests always get more weight than ODI's. At any point in his career Wasim was never considered the best bowler in the world. Waqar over shadowed him till the mid 90's, then Ambrose, McGrath and Donald took over.

Yeh, don't get where this idea that McGrath isn't anything but an all-time-great one-day bowler has come from. Was rarely smashed and sometimes was an absolute wrecking-ball against the top-order players. Has a very similar econ/ave/strikerate to Akram, in fact.

Suppose Akram's wicket tally is what pushes him over Mcgrath, but tbh this difference is extremely small.

 

[Uppercut]

McGrath. Wicket machine.

 

[hang on]

Wasim's highest ever bowling rating was surprisingly low. 830. Most great bowlers and batsmen end up with peak ratings in the plus 850 range (generally close to or above 900).

Reliance ICC Player Rankings

 

[ankitj]

Wasim's highest ever bowling rating was surprisingly low. 830. Most great bowlers and batsmen end up with peak ratings in the plus 850 range (generally close to or above 900).

Reliance ICC Player Rankings

Yes, that tells you something crucial about his career. One could ignore a 10-20 point difference given these are only peak ratings, but the fact McGrath is some 80-90 points higher implies that for at least 2 years on trot (and in reality much longer) he has been better than the highest peak that Wasim achieved. Also Wasim never achieved #1 ranking in ICC bowlers ratings, while all of McGrath, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock, Waqar did reach #1 at some stage.

 

[weldone]

Yes, that tells you something crucial about his career. One could ignore a 10-20 point difference given these are only peak ratings, but the fact McGrath is some 80-90 points higher implies that for at least 2 years on trot (and in reality much longer) he has been better than the highest peak that Wasim achieved. Also Wasim never achieved #1 ranking in ICC bowlers ratings, while all of McGrath, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock, Waqar did reach #1 at some stage.

My point is not regarding McGrath-Wasim comparison, but there are many ways to look at this.

Wasim was in the top 10 for a continuous period of 12 years (1987-99), while someone like Donald managed to achieve that for a period of 7 years (1995-2002). It shows that while Wasim's peak might have been lower than some of the others, it's consistency and longevity where he scores heavily.

Ponting's best-ever rating as a batsman is also 44 points higher than Tendulkar's. It doesn't mean that he's the better batsman (or that it's even close ).

As I have always said, ICC's ratings are not bad when it comes to measuring forms of current players today (or players at any specific point in time in the past), but it becomes a pathetic attempt if the same is used to measure players' overall performance.

In accounts terms (though I'm not an accounts person), it's like the Balance Sheet - good indication for a specific point in time.

 

[LJMJ]

When exactly was Wasim's peak as a bowler?

 

[salman85]

1993/94 most probably.