Wasim Akram vs Dennis Lillee

[subshakerz]

In Akram's defense
Longer career, lack of fielding support, proven in more difficult and varied conditions.

Long career is irrelevant, whatever you play as a proper bowler you will be judged on. Fielding support is like the umpire issue, a factor that is hard to quantify. You wouldnt downgrade a bowler for playing in an exceptional fielding unit, then you shouldnt boost one for playing in a poorer one. I do think Wasim would have benefited from a better fielding unit, but at some point you accept that is the luck of the draw.

The varied conditions point I accept as a weakness in Lillee's record. But its not as if Wasim's record in different countries is up there with Marshall, Hadlee or McGrath.

 

[trundler]

Long career is irrelevant

It isn't though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wpm is irrelevant

 

[subshakerz]

It isn't though.

A short career is relevant for obvious reasons. But why should a bowler get a bonus for having a longer career?

 

[subshakerz]

Wpm is irrelevant

Wpm or wpi is relevant as one of several indicators of a bowlers wicket taking ability. Not in isolation. Same with average, strikerate and fifers/tenders. I expect world class bowlers will reach certain statistical standards for all these measures unless there is a really good reason not to, given that virtually every world class bowler of the modern era has done so.

Averaging less than 25, strikerate less than around 55, taking a fifer every five or so tests with a few tenfers in the kitty, and taking 4 wicket a test on average. Also for me personally I think crossing around 300 wickets is a decent threshold too for longevity for modern ATGs as mentioned.

Of course, there can be exceptions who fall short for various reasons in one area, such as Garner and Wasim. But once they achieve certain stats other factors like peer rating, etc., can be weighed too to distinguish who is better.

 

[subshakerz]

The biggest problem with Wasim is that he was a world class wicket taker for only less than half of his career. From 85 to 89 he took a long time to find his footing and often changed his action and runup. Post 97 when his pace left him, batsmen would play him with respect because of reputation and he was so awkward anyways, yet he lacked penetration and the ability to run through sides. In tests, anyways.

 

[trundler]

in what world is an 8 year peak not elite? Imran and Hadlee famously took ages to get going too. If he had retired in '97 he'd have had a career as long as McGrath and Marshall, with comparable stats. And no, that's not cherry-picking because that's a period longer than the entire career of the blokes we're comparing him to. And it doesn't even consider the fact that he started as a teen plucked straight from street cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wpm or wpi is relevant as one of several indicators of a bowlers wicket taking ability. Not in isolation. Same with average, strikerate and fifers/tenders. I expect world class bowlers will reach certain statistical standards for all these measures unless there is a really good reason not to, given that virtually every world class bowler of the modern era has done so.

Averaging less than 25, strikerate less than around 55, taking a fifer every five or so tests with a few tenfers in the kitty, and taking 4 wicket a test on average. Also for me personally I think crossing around 300 wickets is a decent threshold too for longevity for modern ATGs as mentioned.

Of course, there can be exceptions who fall short for various reasons in one area, such as Garner and Wasim. But once they achieve certain stats other factors like peer rating, etc., can be weighed too to distinguish who is better.

Wpm, 5fors, 10fors are all shitty indicators because they rely just as much, if not more, on external factors outside the bowler's control than how good the bowler is.
You get a more accurate judgement ignoring them completely.

If Murali or Hadlee switched teams and played for 80s WI instead they'd have way less wpm and half as many (if that) 5fors and 10fors. Doesn't mean they were any worse bowlers.

Oh and "it makes up for the advantage of playing in a strong team" is not a quantifiably relevant factor

 

[Slifer]

I'd take Wasim because he's an AT fave of mine. As opposed to Lillee, who was my childhood favourite. In the true comparison stakes there's probably little between them. Both amazing attacking bowlers who used different methods but were incredible to watch.

Lillee vs Viv probably my ultimate cricketing match up tbh. There were WWE levels of swag and testosterone everywhere.

Too bad Viv never got the chance to face Lillee in the Caribbean. (In official tests )

 

[Burgey]

Lillee taking 3 wickets at 35 and Wasim taking none

Wait, Wasim didn't take any wickets in SL?

OMG HE'S A FRAUD! MASSIVE HOLE IN HIS RECORD! MASSIVE! CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH OTHER GREATS! PUT A LINE THROUGH HIM!

 

[subshakerz]

in what world is an 8 year peak not elite? Imran and Hadlee famously took ages to get going too. If he had retired in '97 he'd have had a career as long as McGrath and Marshall, with comparable stats. And no, that's not cherry-picking because that's a period longer than the entire career of the blokes we're comparing him to. And it doesn't even consider the fact that he started as a teen plucked straight from street cricket.

I kinda agree with you, but how do you factor Wasim's years from 98 to 2002 in assessing his career? It goes back to the old debate of peak vs full career.

Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Steyn, Ambrose, Imran...all of them had late career dips, but none quite as long or bad as Wasim.

 

[ankitj]

Long career is irrelevant

Wpm is irrelevant

Cricket is irrelevant

 

[GoodAreasShane]

Relevance is irrelevant

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

A short career is relevant for obvious reasons. But why should a bowler get a bonus for having a longer career?

Imagine Lara played untill he was 50 and ended up with avg of 42. Would you still call him an ATG?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Relevance is irrelevant

Your face is irrelevant

 

[mr_mister]

What's more important? Proving yourself in different conditions or against different teams?

 

[Burgey]

What's more important? Proving yourself in different conditions or against different teams?

Depends which one confirms your bias.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

The biggest problem with Wasim is that he was a world class wicket taker for only less than half of his career. From 85 to 89 he took a long time to find his footing and often changed his action and runup. Post 97 when his pace left him, batsmen would play him with respect because of reputation and he was so awkward anyways, yet he lacked penetration and the ability to run through sides. In tests, anyways.

In terms of calendar years,

Less than 25 avg
Marshall - 8
Akram - 10

4 wpm
Marshall - 7
Akram - 10

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

I kinda agree with you, but how do you factor Wasim's years from 98 to 2002 in assessing his career? It goes back to the old debate of peak vs full career.

Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Steyn, Ambrose, Imran...all of them had late career dips, but none quite as long or bad as Wasim.

If you check number of years when Akram averaged less than 25 or took 4WPM its easily better than Marshall, Steyn and Imran.
Ambrose 1 year more in avg, 1 year less in 4WPM
Mcgrath marginally better than Akram.
Hadlee clearly better.

 

[subshakerz]

In terms of calendar years,

Less than 25 avg
Marshall - 8
Akram - 10

4 wpm
Marshall - 7
Akram - 10

Im not sure how accurate a picture this gives us given that Marshall had a shorter career in terms of years and matches.

Nobody is disputing Akram is an ATG by the way. Just that statistically he had leaner periods than others.