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

[marc71178]

But it's still the same skillset, that's really all he is doing again and again, applying the same plan of attack, which is unlike akram who would bowl and employ radically different styles.

Yes, which all well and good, but who was by far the more successful of the 2?

I'd say it was McGrath by a country mile, who never needed to resort to radically changing his style.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I agree about the variations and planning and exposing a batsmen.

But it's still the same skillset, that's really all he is doing again and again, applying the same plan of attack, which is unlike akram who would bowl and employ radically different styles.

No

No

No

I think the main problem in this thread is actually understanding what bowling is about in the first place. Once we get past that then the original question can be fully discussed.

 

[r3alist]

Yes, which all well and good, but who was by far the more successful of the 2?

I'd say it was McGrath by a country mile, who never needed to resort to radically changing his style.

I have agreed twice, McGrath was the better bowler, so no
problem from me, but I think akram deserves to be acknowledged as one of the most complete bowlers, more complete than McGrath, I don't think it's splitting at hairs.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think the point r3alist is trying to make is that Wasim was a more skillful bowler than McGrath, and I think the point everyone else is trying to make is that it's not really relevant in deciding who was 'better' if what McGrath did - less skillful in a majestic sense or not - was more effective in taking wickets.

I don't think anyone is really disagreeing here, which makes it extremely frustrating to read.

 

[Furball]

I think the point r3alist is trying to make is that Wasim was a more skillful bowler than McGrath, and I think the point everyone else is trying to make is that it's not really relevant in deciding who was 'better' if what McGrath did - less skillful in a majestic sense or not - was more effective in taking wickets.

I don't think anyone is really disagreeing here, which makes it extremely frustrating to read.

A bowler's job is to get batsmen out; what tools they use isn't particularly relevant as long as they get the job done.

I disagree that Wasim was more skilful anyway; constantly landing the ball on a sixpence is a massive skill in itself and it's the most important skill a bowler has at his disposal. There's absolutely no point in being able to hoop the ball miles with conventional or reverse swing or being able to jag the ball both ways off the seam if you can't land the ball in the right spot for the delivery to be effective. McGrath had a complete mastery of the most important skill to a fast bowler.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

I have agreed twice, McGrath was the better bowler, so no
problem from me, but I think akram deserves to be acknowledged as one of the most complete bowlers, more complete than McGrath, I don't think it's splitting at hairs.

No issues with that statement. Of course, Akram was one of the most versatile bowlers this game has ever seen.

My only objection was to the point you made calling McGrath a 'one trick pony'. And I made the point in one post.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think the point r3alist is trying to make is that Wasim was a more skillful bowler than McGrath, and I think the point everyone else is trying to make is that it's not really relevant in deciding who was 'better' if what McGrath did - less skillful in a majestic sense or not - was more effective in taking wickets.

I don't think anyone is really disagreeing here, which makes it extremely frustrating to read.

Who's more 'skillful', someone with a greater variety of skills or someone who concentrates their energies in perfecting a few? It's personal and causes debate in every field you care to name. Both sides definitely disagree, the problem occurs when both sides reckon theirs is objectively right.

 

[kyear2]

I scoff at the idea mainly because to rate Wasim ahead of McGrath you've been seduced by all Wasim's tricks and ignored McGrath's trick, which is the most important one of all.

I agree, being a bowler is about taking wickets, for the lowest number of runs and at the fastest s/r.
Where I would say that Mcgrath, the Great W.I fast bowlers of the 80's & 90's and Lillee, Steyn ect. had an advantage is the quality of slip fielding, but that in itself cant cover the statistical gap or explain the relative high number of lower order wickets taken.
Both though are ATG bolwers, no doubt.
The fact that Akram was chosen for cricinfo's and quite a few other all time 11's though not only validates this, but also makes us wonder if numbers do lie. I personally dont think that they do, but it definately opens up the debate some.

 

[smash84]

I agree, being a bowler is about taking wickets, for the lowest number of runs and at the fastest s/r.
Where I would say that Mcgrath, the Great W.I fast bowlers of the 80's & 90's and Lillee, Steyn ect. had an advantage is the quality of slip fielding, but that in itself cant cover the statistical gap or explain the relative high number of lower order wickets taken.
Both though are ATG bolwers, no doubt.
The fact that Akram was chosen for cricinfo's and quite a few other all time 11's though not only validates this, but also makes us wonder if numbers do lie. I personally dont think that they do, but it definately opens up the debate some.

Interesting that you mention Steyn here. How many lower order wickets does he have as a percentage of his wickets?

 

[smash84]

I think the point r3alist is trying to make is that Wasim was a more skillful bowler than McGrath, and I think the point everyone else is trying to make is that it's not really relevant in deciding who was 'better' if what McGrath did - less skillful in a majestic sense or not - was more effective in taking wickets.

I don't think anyone is really disagreeing here, which makes it extremely frustrating to read.

haha.........I think you are right. I think everybody agrees that McGrath was a better bowler.

 

[kyear2]

Interesting that you mention Steyn here. How many lower order wickets does he have as a percentage of his wickets?

Steyn was used purely as an example of a bowler with good fielding/slip catching support, Not remotely comparing him to Akram.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I agree, being a bowler is about taking wickets, for the lowest number of runs and at the fastest s/r.
Where I would say that Mcgrath, the Great W.I fast bowlers of the 80's & 90's and Lillee, Steyn ect. had an advantage is the quality of slip fielding, but that in itself cant cover the statistical gap or explain the relative high number of lower order wickets taken.
Both though are ATG bolwers, no doubt.
The fact that Akram was chosen for cricinfo's and quite a few other all time 11's though not only validates this, but also makes us wonder if numbers do lie. I personally dont think that they do, but it definately opens up the debate some.

Those lists really shouldn't be taken that seriously.

To me it felt like a more inspirational XI tbh. As great as the likes of Richards, Wasim, Lillee are there are better players in both department than them.

 

[akilana]

Interesting that you mention Steyn here. How many lower order wickets does he have as a percentage of his wickets?

percentage maybe higher but I think he maybe taking same number of top order wickets as other great bowlers mentioned, given he takes 5.2 wickets a match..

I believe he would have had higher percentage in early part of his career when Pollock and Ntini were around.

 

[akilana]

Those lists really shouldn't be taken that seriously.

To me it felt like a more inspirational XI tbh. As great as the likes of Richards, Wasim, Lillee are there are better players in both department than them.

so whose list should we take seriously?

 

[BlazeDragon]

so whose list should we take seriously?

People whom you consider intelligent and can back their argument up.

If that list had been called the most inspirational side I could have understood.

 

[centurymaker]

Those lists really shouldn't be taken that seriously.

To me it felt like a more inspirational XI tbh. As great as the likes of Richards, Wasim, Lillee are there are better players in both department than them.

Viv Richards?

 

[smash84]

percentage maybe higher but I think he maybe taking same number of top order wickets as other great bowlers mentioned, given he takes 5.2 wickets a match..

I believe he would have had higher percentage in early part of his career when Pollock and Ntini were around.

IIRC Steyn has a little less tailender wickets compared to Akram but still a pretty high proportion of them and not that different from Wasim.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Steyn was used purely as an example of a bowler with good fielding/slip catching support, Not remotely comparing him to Akram.

The time for that comparison draws nigh

My point was that you can have 6-7 fielders close in on the off side, something that Waugh/Ponting did so frequently for McGrath, only when either (a) your batsmen have racked up huge totals, or (b) you're sufficiently confident of their ability to chase down the opposition total. Akram could never afford that faith in his side. I'm not doubting McGrath's ability to bowl to his fields either, but you can't keep track of the number of relatively innocuous, outside off balls of his that picked up edges and were gobbled up at nth slip.

McGrath's stats across conditions speak for themselves, and comprehensively beat out Wasim. But it wouldn't do Wasim justice to outrightly disregard the above either.

 

[Debris]

The time for that comparison draws nigh

My point was that you can have 6-7 fielders close in on the off side, something that Waugh/Ponting did so frequently for McGrath, only when either (a) your batsmen have racked up huge totals, or (b) you're sufficiently confident of their ability to chase down the opposition total. Akram could never afford that faith in his side. I'm not doubting McGrath's ability to bowl to his fields either, but you can't keep track of the number of relatively innocuous, outside off balls of his that picked up edges and were gobbled up at nth slip.

McGrath's stats across conditions speak for themselves, and comprehensively beat out Wasim. But it wouldn't do Wasim justice to outrightly disregard the above either.

Soi what you are saying is that it is actually a pretty silly idea to try and compare two cricketers who played under completely different circumstances and say one is better than the other? I am prepared to go with that but you have just killed off half the threads on this site.

 

[r3alist]

No issues with that statement. Of course, Akram was one of the most versatile bowlers this game has ever seen.

My only objection was to the point you made calling McGrath a 'one trick pony'. And I made the point in one post.

Reading back I can see why that sounded harsh and a big over simplification of what McGrath bowled, he had superlative craft.

However the point I was trying to make is akram had more in his armoury, and from a certain perspective that's something to cherish, and from another perspective its something to lament perhaps, only akram will really know.

And if you don't take my word for it, read and listen to former players, a common theme is akram "he had it all".

And remember that doesn't neccessarily make you more effective, nonetheless it's accurate to say that he did.

The other pandoras box I wanted to open is the effect that fielding/dropped catches had on their figures, but I don't think you guys are ready for that .