Dale Steyn vs Wasim Akram vs Curtly Ambrose

[Black_Warrior]

I think Waqars run in that time period suggests Wasim wasn't even the best bowler in his own team in the given period, leave alone it being a unique run.

But Waqar did between 1990-94. Imran was rated #1 too in the early 80s.

I'm not saying the ranking argument is definitive. I'm just saying that suggesting that Akram 88-95 was better than any other bowler's peak is unrealistic.

That's because Waqar 1990-94 was better than even Wasim. Not by much but ahead.That's not in question. And that doesn't make Wasim not so good. It just makes Waqar on a higher level of excellence for those 4 years. Wasim reached a level of excellence, slightly lower but for a longer period. 88-96 is 8 years. That's as long as peaks go. You can't possibly go longer than that. McGrath was 99-2006. That's pretty much Dale Steyn's Test career. In fact Steyn's peak 2007-2014 is around the same length too. The reason Steyn is considered higher now is because he hasn't had that 96-2003 period where Wasim was in decline post his injuries.

 

[trundler]

Speaking of phenomenal purple patches:
The bowlers who hit the zone and stayed there - ESPNcricinfo
Plenty ahead of Akram.

 

[trundler]

That's because Waqar 1990-94 was better than even Wasim. Not by much but ahead.That's not in question. And that doesn't make Wasim not so good. It just makes Waqar on a higher level of excellence for those 4 years. Wasim reached a level of excellence, slightly lower but for a longer period. 88-96 is 8 years. That's as long as peaks go. You can't possibly go longer than that. McGrath was 99-2006. That's pretty much Dale Steyn's Test career. In fact Steyn's peak 2007-2014 is around the same length too. The reason Steyn is considered higher now is because he hasn't had that 96-2003 period where Wasim was in decline post his injuries.

Not saying Wasim was not so good, just questioning the unmatched aspect of your claim. Imran from 76' to 89' was phenomenal as well.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Because his style was different. He was fast medium, relying on swing whereas Waqar was an all-out pace tearaway quick so it makes sense to have him bowling downhill against the wind. Doesn't make him the supporting bowler like Walsh. Imran too relied more on pace than Wasim (was actually 3rd in the Packer fast bowling challenge, after Thommo and Holding). You need different types of bowlers to make a great attack. Are you going to say McGrath played 2nd fiddle to Warne, or Holding to Roberts?

I am saying Garner played third if not fourth fiddle to Roberts. And I am saying that Holding for much (I don't know how much) was second fiddle to Roberts too - by his own admission. He says Roberts was the pack leader.

Walsh was definitely second fiddle to Ambrose also.

Someone has to bowl from the junk end. Akram was a master of it. When he was tearaway fast in Imran's era (yes Wasim was fast), and later when he slowed down.

 

[Black_Warrior]

He may have been number 1, but Imran and Waqar got choice of ends ahead of him. Wasim bowled upwind and uphill.

Imran was still taking the new ball from his end in Australia in 1989/90 despite bowling less.

1st Test, Pakistan tour of Australia at Melbourne, Jan 12-16 1990 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

Garner may have outperformed Roberts and Holding, but he was still their support.

In NZ we all know Wagner is doing better than Southee, but Southee still gets the new ball ahead of Wagner, even if Boult has finally usurped the choice of ends from Timmy.

Wasim plays second fiddle to Imran and Waqar for most his career. So he really should be compared to Walsh and not Ambrose. Someone has to bowl from the junk end.

You haven't watched a lot of cricket from the 90s have you?

 

[Mr Miyagi]

You haven't watched a lot of cricket from the 90s have you?

With regards to what? Waqar getting his choice of ends? He did. End of. Or you can call Wasim a liar. I don't mind which.

But not many shuffled into the wind with the effectiveness of Wasim bar Mr Hip Swing himself of Courtney Walsh.

 

[trundler]

I am saying Garner played third fiddle to Roberts. And I am saying that Holding for much (I don't know how much) was second fiddle to Roberts too - by his own admission. He says Roberts was the pack leader.

Walsh was definitely second fiddle to Ambrose also.

Someone has to bowl from the junk end. Akram was a master of it. When he was tearaway fast in Imran's era (yes Wasim was fast), and later when he slowed down.

Second fiddle would be a stock bowler backing up the strike bowler. Holding and Roberts and Wasim and Waqar were just 2 strike bowlers giving batsmen hell and taking wickets from both ends.

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Second fiddle would be a stock bowler backing up the strike bowler. Holding and Roberts and Wasim and Waqar were just 2 strike bowlers giving batsmen hell and taking wickets from both ends.

There's often a junk end, either uphill or into the wind. Walsh and Akram are legends at making this end a threat regardless.

You want to talk about third or fourth fiddle as being second fiddle, that's your argument.

 

[Bolo]

That's because Waqar 1990-94 was better than even Wasim. Not by much but ahead.That's not in question. And that doesn't make Wasim not so good. It just makes Waqar on a higher level of excellence for those 4 years. Wasim reached a level of excellence, slightly lower but for a longer period. 88-96 is 8 years. That's as long as peaks go. You can't possibly go longer than that. McGrath was 99-2006. That's pretty much Dale Steyn's Test career. In fact Steyn's peak 2007-2014 is around the same length too. The reason Steyn is considered higher now is because he hasn't had that 96-2003 period where Wasim was in decline post his injuries.

Even using 8 years, the length you are specifically picking to suit Akram, doesn't really work. From 90 to 98 Waqar took over 5 per game at 21.36 at a much faster strike rate than Wasim

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Even using 8 years, the length you are specifically picking to suit Akram, doesn't really work. From 90 to 98 Waqar took over 5 per game at 21.36 at a much faster strike rate than Wasim

But Akram (Younis) and Walsh (Ambrose) were outperforming all uphill and into the wind bowlers in this time :P

 

[marc71178]

You do realize that rankings are based on a host of different factors right? Pakistan don't play Tests as consistently and regularly as England or Australia and hence their players never make it to the top of the rankings.

It's clear from this that you don't know how the rankings work...

 

[Burgey]

Bit of both maybe? I feel like he was a bit weak at manufacturing wickets in conditions that didn't suit (considering how magnificent he was as a bowler, not in relation to weak or even excellent bowlers).

It’s height.

 

[trundler]

Height also made Garner so hard to play. In fact Botham rates him as the hardest to him.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea but Botham's a hack. What does Shakib think?

 

[Burgey]

Solely of himself

 

[cnerd123]

As he should.

Losers think about winners. Winners think about winning.

Keep that in mind next time Burgey, might serve you well in life.

 

[Burgey]

What this possibly has to do with Al Hacksan nobody knows. Has a winning ratio of about 4%.

 

[stephen]

It's not just magic balls that get wickets in unhelpful conditions. Movement, pace, surprise...

Batsmen aren't perfect. Sometimes you only need to do a bit to get them.

McGrath's MO.

McGrath was a bone fide genious. He never looked magical like Wasim. He was never a tearaway like Holding. He just ran in, bowled the ball, landed it on the same spot and asked different questions with every ball. In the easiest era in history for test match batting, there was no batsman who bettered him. The greatest batsman of his era, the greatest batsman against him averaged under 37 in matches where McGrath played.

He worked over batsmen, out thinking them. Out bowling them.

Just enough. Never too much. Never missing that outside edge, or skating past the stumps by a coat of varnish. He just got the batsmen out.

 

[TheJediBrah]

McGrath's MO.

McGrath was a bone fide genious. He never looked magical like Wasim. He was never a tearaway like Holding. He just ran in, bowled the ball, landed it on the same spot and asked different questions with every ball. In the easiest era in history for test match batting, there was no batsman who bettered him. The greatest batsman of his era, the greatest batsman against him averaged under 37 in matches where McGrath played.

He worked over batsmen, out thinking them. Out bowling them.

Just enough. Never too much. Never missing that outside edge, or skating past the stumps by a coat of varnish. He just got the batsmen out.

I don't know about that. He missed the edge just as much as anybody, probably more.

 

[Jack1]

I don't know about that. He missed the edge just as much as anybody, probably more.

England used to play and miss against McGrath constantly