Wasim Akram vs Fred Trueman

[PlayerComparisons]

.

 

[ankitj]

Trueman

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I think Fred was a better bowler, but it’s not as cast iron as it should be due to being done out of 100 wickets by toffee-nosed selectors and he played in an era where top players opted out of tours of the sub continent.

 

[subshakerz]

Akram. Played and succeeded in more countries, and was generally considered the best of the 90s bowlers by his peers, along with Ambrose, among quite a few ATG bowlers.

 

[cricketsavant]

Fred Trueman was the better bowler...says anyone trying to be smart

 

[a massive zebra]

Trueman. More destructive and more of a matchwinner.

 

[Himannv]

Clearly Akram in ODIs - Trueman has done nothing of note in that format.

Fiery Fred in Tests.

 

[trundler]

It's not really Trueman's fault that he didn't tour more. Well, it is to the extent that he was a prick but him playing only 2/3rds or so of the number of matched in his career was disgraceful on the part of selectors. In terms of years his longevity is on par with Akram and Walsh I believe and he maintained a high standard throughout. Tours to the subcontinent were largely inconsequential back then so it would be unfair to mark him down for that. Him getting 300 wickets at almost 5 WPM in perhaps the slowest scoring era, ever is remarkable and puts his strike power on the highest level.

Comparisons across eras are always tricky, especially with Akram who had much more going against him that others and I won't bring all of that up again.

Think Trueman is somewhat underrated and not recognised for laying down the full, fast outswing template for pace bowlers though.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The thing about opting out of the winter tours was that in those days it meant 3 to 6 months away from home and there were no family visits or easy communication. A lot of players weren't prepared to do that every year. These days they send for a psychiatrist if they can't see the Mrs for a fortnight.

 

[fredfertang]

It pains me to say so, but on this occasion the Yorkie was better than the Lancastrian

 

[Line and Length]

Trueman

He was sorely treated by a generation of selectors brought up in the Gentlemen (amateurs) vs Players (professionals) era when the latter were looked down on as mercenaries. The Gentlemen v Players matches were played right up until 1962. I recall a programme for one of these games. The Players were simply listed by their surnames (Hutton, Trueman etc) while the Gentlemen were afforded their initials (M.C.C. Cowdrey, P.B.H. May etc). If I remember correctly, the scoreboard also treated them thus.

 

[Burgey]

Played and succeeded in more countries

Trying to work out how this is Trueman's fault given the era he played in tbh

 

[Migara]

Trying to work out how this is Trueman's fault given the era he played in tbh

Shouldn't be Trueman's fault unless he skipped tours. However the performance over much varied conditions have some merit. A batter averaging 45 in three countries vs batter averaging 40 in nine countries, I's take the latter, because he is proven in wider variety of consitions and is likely to tackle alien conditions better.

 

[Burgey]

Sure, but you can't tell me if Trueman toured the SC in the 50s/ 60s he wouldn't have gone through those sides like a dose of salts

I would vote for Wasim in this one anyway, he's one of my all time faves.

 

[Migara]

Sure, but you can't tell me if Trueman toured the SC in the 50s/ 60s he wouldn't have gone through those sides like a dose of salts

I would vote for Wasim in this one anyway, he's one of my all time faves.

Doubt vs no doubt. Might performed vs already performed. There is only one winner.

 

[subshakerz]

Shouldn't be Trueman's fault unless he skipped tours. However the performance over much varied conditions have some merit. A batter averaging 45 in three countries vs batter averaging 40 in nine countries, I's take the latter, because he is proven in wider variety of consitions and is likely to tackle alien conditions better.

Yeah I agree. Posters may say this favors modern players but to me it is important I will go with players who have some success in varied conditions.

I don't think posters here realize how much Trueman was pretty much a success at home. He played 47 of of his 67 matches at home, taking 229 of his 307 wickets there.

In Australia he took 29 wickets @27 in 8 games, in WI 30 wickets @ 32 in 8 games. Aside from that, he did well in NZ who were a minnow.

I don't see how he can be put ahead of Wasim as an all-round bowler.

 

[Line and Length]

Yeah I agree. Posters may say this favors modern players but to me it is important I will go with players who have some success in varied conditions.

I don't think posters here realize how much Trueman was pretty much a success at home. He played 47 of of his 67 matches at home, taking 229 of his 307 wickets there.

In Australia he took 29 wickets @27 in 8 games, in WI 30 wickets @ 32 in 8 games. Aside from that, he did well in NZ who were a minnow.

I don't see how he can be put ahead of Wasim as an all-round bowler.

Statistics indicating Wasim's success "in varied" conditions seems reliant on performances on the Sub-Continent, though his average v India (27.7) is nothing too flash, and in New Zealand. His Test average in England (28.7), West Indies (26.9), South Africa (39.0) and even Zimbabwe (26.5) would rank him below ATG standard. In Australia, he was borderline (24.1).
37.2% of his wickets came in Pakistan.
Having watched both, I rank Trueman above him.

 

[fredfertang]

These comparisons always end up amounting to nothing more than a gut feeling, and I suspect Trueman probably got as many wickets with his personality as he did with his famed away swinger - although he was only a teenager when he batted against Fred, and a veteran when he duelled with Wasim, Peter Willey's take on this one would be worth hearing

 

[smash84]

Statistics indicating Wasim's success "in varied" conditions seems reliant on performances on the Sub-Continent, though his average v India (27.7) is nothing too flash, and in New Zealand. His Test average in England (28.7), West Indies (26.9), South Africa (39.0) and even Zimbabwe (26.5) would rank him below ATG standard. In Australia, he was borderline (24.1).
37.2% of his wickets came in Pakistan.
Having watched both, I rank Trueman above him.

There is plenty to diss wasim on but this is such a bad post. The subcontinent has 4 countries and he was incredible in NZ.

The only country where he's done badly is in South Africa where he played 2 tests.

 

[subshakerz]

Statistics indicating Wasim's success "in varied" conditions seems reliant on performances on the Sub-Continent, though his average v India (27.7) is nothing too flash, and in New Zealand. His Test average in England (28.7), West Indies (26.9), South Africa (39.0) and even Zimbabwe (26.5) would rank him below ATG standard. In Australia, he was borderline (24.1).
37.2% of his wickets came in Pakistan.
Having watched both, I rank Trueman above him.

Interested to know having watched him, what you found better in him as a bowler.

Trueman's record is basically 80% England. And we have no idea how well he would do in the subcontinent. I would feel more comfortable given the fact that both were considered among the best of their times to argue Wasim was a better all-round bowler.