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

[Red]

You think McGrath playing for zimbos would average under 22? I doubt it.

If he had the skill set he had, why wouldn’t he have if he was bowling at the same opposition?

 

[Migara]

If he had the skill set he had, why wouldn’t he have if he was bowling at the same opposition?

Probably tad higher, 23.5 - 24.5. But he would have had about 800 wickets.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Probably tad higher, 23.5 - 24.5. But he would have had about 800 wickets.

wrong on both counts. Zim didn't play enough cricket, he'd have to play for 30 years to get 800 wickets

 

[Migara]

wrong on both counts. Zim didn't play enough cricket, he'd have to play for 30 years to get 800 wickets

I am assuming he plays the same number of tests.

Better WPM, higher average and SR.

 

[_00_deathscar]

eg. another potential factor, Aus rarely played weaker teams during McGrath's time.

But every team he played against was weaker than the team he was playing for…

 

[TheJediBrah]

But every team he played against was weaker than the team he was playing for…

true, but still on average played against stronger teams than some players would have

regardless I'm of the opinion that McGrath wouldn't have suffered one iota having to bowl to his own team. He was the best against the best. The ones that maybe benefited not having to play their own are the likes of Hayden and Langer, but even then how much of a difference would that really make? A few Tests every 3-4 years, and that's assuming the side is full strength which it not often is . . . pretty negligible tbh

 

[Burgey]

I don't think SL were much better than Zim but Sri Lanka could doctor pitches at home against non-Asian sides to give them a pretty decent advantage. Zim didn't have that option.

Yeah, a resonable point is this.

 

[harsh.ag]

I don't think SL were much better than Zim

Yeah it's not like SL were world champions or anything

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Even going back 10 years before they were granted Test status Sri Lanka were never as bad as Zimbabwe, though they're probably worse now than they've ever been.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Weaker fielding support.
Discuss.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Murali was the greatest fielder of all time.

 

[sunilz]

Yeah it's not like SL were world champions or anything

And they didn't beat AUS in both Test and ODI series in 1999. ?

 

[Migara]

I don't think SL were much better than Zim but Sri Lanka could doctor pitches at home against non-Asian sides to give them a pretty decent advantage. Zim didn't have that option.

All hail Sangakkara! Who played and averaged 60+ on those filthy dustbowls.

 

[Migara]

Disagree

Might even average lower by getting to bowl more at the tail

Nope. Who gets you to the tail? Having another good bowler will allow sides to bowl at tailenders, unless they are capable of taking 7 WPI by themselves.

 

[Migara]

eh it's all pretty hypothetical. There'd be a lot of factors involved.

eg. another potential factor, Aus rarely played weaker teams during McGrath's time. If he instead played for someone like Sri Lanka who played a quarter of their games against minnows he could have averaged sub-20. Murali benefited significantly from this.

Even then against minnows, Murali never managed to take 5-6 WPI. You need another good bowler to take you to the tail. If you see the support cast, they were as destructive as Murali against minnows. Hence he took only 8 WPM BAN) and 6.2 WPM (ZIM), compared to 6WPM in career. Because his support cast was as deadly as him against these sides, he took wickets very cheaply. But not in clumps. Infact the support bowlers took at wicket at 25.3! Against others, the support cast were much more expensive.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

McGrath and Donald were helped by great fielding unlike Wasim and Waqar.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Even then against minnows, Murali never managed to take 5-6 WPI. You need another good bowler to take you to the tail. If you see the support cast, they were as destructive as Murali against minnows. Hence he took only 8 WPM BAN) and 6.2 WPM (ZIM), compared to 6WPM in career. Because his support cast was as deadly as him against these sides, he took wickets very cheaply. But not in clumps. Infact the support bowlers took at wicket at 25.3! Against others, the support cast were much more expensive.

Why are you talking about wpm against minnows? No one said playing more against minnows would help wpm. If anything it's the opposite.

 

[akilana]

true, but still on average played against stronger teams than some players would have

regardless I'm of the opinion that McGrath wouldn't have suffered one iota having to bowl to his own team. He was the best against the best. The ones that maybe benefited not having to play their own are the likes of Hayden and Langer, but even then how much of a difference would that really make? A few Tests every 3-4 years, and that's assuming the side is full strength which it not often is . . . pretty negligible tbh

South African team wasn’t as good as the Australian side but they were probably the best team he bowed at. An average of 27 at the SR of 71 doesn’t scream best of the best.

 

[Calm_profit]

South Africa only lost in 1990's due to Shane Warne otherwise they would be head to head against Aussies.

 

[sunilz]

South Africa only lost in 1990's due to Shane Warne otherwise they would be head to head against Aussies.

Steve Roger Waugh.