Wasim Akram vs Fred Trueman

[Calm_profit]

Decent in the field though. Lara, RR, ppl like Williams, Campbell, Arthurton, Adams, etc all athletic and reliable enough. Stats simply can't put a definitive number on runs leaked through slack fielding, let alone batsmen piling on the misery after a dropped catch.

add hooper on it,he was atg in the slips

 

[honestbharani]

Decent in the field though. Lara, RR, ppl like Williams, Campbell, Arthurton, Adams, etc all athletic and reliable enough. Stats simply can't put a definitive number on runs leaked through slack fielding, let alone batsmen piling on the misery after a dropped catch.

Well, the issue is Adams hardly ever stood in the slips in his second run. Campbell and Lara put down their share of catches, Arthurton and Williams hardly played enough and were still bad catchers in the slips if that is what you are going for. I agree Lara + Hooper is a genuinely good cordon but then you can make the same argument saying Latif/Moin were far better keepers than the guys Windies picked till Jacobs. And the keeper is FAR more important than the slips for any bowler.

 

[honestbharani]

Like I actually watched them be so bad in the field for so many years... The fielding is a weird argument to say Wasim > Ambrose. Coz at best, they both had sucky support on the field. I love Wasim and I will pick him as my #8 in my ATG side coz he adds left arm variety, reverse swing and lower order hitting and I feel a 2 point difference in bowling average is not so bad anyways when speaking of such high quality bowlers. But Ambrose/Steyn will always be my #1 bowler amongst the ones I have watched.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

So I may be wrong, but this is my take on the situation.

PFK bemoans the fact that Akram didn't have great fielding support, but in other discussions, downplays the importance of it. It's stated that other countries had much better catching overall, and slip fielding specifically. But this doesn't occur in a vacuum and can be that other countries made catching, and again specifically slip catching a greater priority.
In the W.I, S.A and Australia etc it's a priority, or in the case of the W.I used to be, where an emphasis is placed on it. The cordon shouldn't me made up of the senior players or best batters, it's a specialist position, just as much as batting or bowling and should be paid as much as much attention and time to as the former disciplines.
You can't not place a priority in the area and then wonder why it was poor.
This may again be a over generalisation, but even among a fair amount of our SC posters, it's not a consideration when we are picking our "fantasy" teams, and that can be it isn't factored into the selection of your actual teams either. Mark Waugh and Hooper stuck around as much for their catching as much as for their batting potential. Make absolutely no sense creating all of those chances if they will hit the ground.

With regard to Akram's average, why should we adjust his average? Do we adjust Lillee's or Hadlee's average because they had helpful home pitches, should we adjust Sobers average up because he had a far greater bowling load than any other batsman in history? Tendulkar's for playing at home in India or Steyn for bowling In SA? This is all part of the hand dealt and every great player had their own challenges. Lillee and his back, Holding and multiple injuries, Donald's late start and could go on. Why should be adjust for it, especially since his team apparently never did?

Just my thoughts on the matter.

How convenient.. If thats the case, why we do this?
Murali vs Warne - Remove minnows
Sachin vs Viv - consider era difference
Botham vs Kapil - check performance against stronger teams..
Etc.

I am not talking about Injury or Diabetes.
Helpful wickets, weaker opponents, better fielding support, longevity.. Etc should be factored when analysing a player.. Thats commonsense. And we do that all the time except for fielding support.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

More than his average, it's the fact that he picked 35% tailender wickets is what counts against him for mine. No one among the ATG pace bowlers have a bigger share of tail wickets and yet he averages nothing special among the elite pace bowlers.

He took top order wickets quicker than most other ATGs

Bowled more from the junk end, compared to most ATGs

Played mostly in unhelpful conditions than most ATGs

Played far longer than most ATGs

Bad fielding support than most ATGs

Bigger competition for wickets than most ATGs. ( Imran, Waquar, Mushtaq, Saqlain, Akthar..)

 

[ankitj]

Yeah once you adjust for all this, Akram has 550 wickets @ 17. I agree

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Yeah once you adjust for all this, Akram has 550 wickets @ 17. I agree

17.1 in the 90s, 19.3 overall.

 

[Kirkut]

The thing about Clarke was that not only was he quick (although probably not the quickest) but he could be quite nasty especially with some of his deliveries rising off from short of a good length. Had a really high arm action and seemed to be out to hit the batsmen more than the stumps.

From the footage of West Indies tour of Pakistan in 1986 on YouTube, I was watching a thundering session of fast bowling where Marshall and another bowler resembling Colin Croft were bowling fast in dippers with lbws getting denied everytime. That second bowler was actually Sylvester Clarke and he looked quicker than Marshall in air, although Marshall was bowling a pacy spell too!

 

[Kirkut]

Lol. You massively overrate this bowler.

The kind of bowlers who achieve averages of 18 for several years in a row (Imran early 80s, Marshall mid 80s, Waqar early 90s etc) are consistently devasting and frequently run through batting lineups. Wasim hardly ever ran through a top order in over 100 Tests (yes there are a couple of exceptions, but barely a handful). He also played for Lancashire for many years and didn't average 18 even in county cricket.

Sure, Wasim was a very talented bowler who had an extensive range of deliveries and could exploit them at will. But ultimately the main objective of bowling is not about showing off a wide variety of skills, it is about getting your opposition out as quickly and cheaply as possible. The fact is, probably at least a dozen fast bowlers in history and several from his own generation did this more effectively than Wasim. A bowler capable of averaging 18 doesn't take under 4 wickets per match.

We can also consider that Wasim had to share the exploits with Waqar and Saqlain/Mushtaq since he was not the only quality bowler in the side.

Wasim could have had more of those record breaking games if hypothetically Waqar wasn't playing, especially when NZ and English batsmen looked totally clueless against Wasim in the early 90s.

 

[kyear2]

How convenient.. If thats the case, why we do this?
Murali vs Warne - Remove minnows
Sachin vs Viv - consider era difference
Botham vs Kapil - check performance against stronger teams..
Etc.

I am not talking about Injury or Diabetes.
Helpful wickets, weaker opponents, better fielding support, longevity.. Etc should be factored when analysing a player.. Thats commonsense. And we do that all the time except for fielding support.

The comparisons you list above are actually quantifiable. And also let's be honest.

Warne vs Murali, most who pick Warne (especially some Aussies) is because they believe Murali chucked, others because they believe Warne was a more complete cricketer, some still because of bias.

Sachin vs Viv is about consistency vs peak and destructive ability. Never heard the era argument.

With regards to Botham, it was obvious looking at his actual numbers, who he performed better against. Easily quantifiable.

What you want to do for Wasim, is to arbitrarily lower his numbers based on dropped catches. How do you even go about doing that? Every player had challenges, and while I'm sure dropped catches cost Pakistan matches, it impossible to quantify how much it impacted Wasim's average. And quite frankly if the team didn't see it as being being important enough to address over his career, why should I?

Sobers bowled as much as a front line bowler throughout his career, should we adjust his average up?

Atherton faced much better bowlers than any other opener in history, and consistently. Ambrose & Walsh, Wasim & Waqar, Donald & Pollock etc. Do we raise his average or do we look at his as mediocre? Dev had the absolute worst home pitches to bowl on, even though it's factored in to a small degree, he averaged, what he averaged and he's not seen as a great bowler.

You want to list every excuse for Wasim and use that to say he was the absolute best, it doesn't work that way. He's arguable top 10 and definite top 15 bowler of all time, even among those who accepted his fielding woes. If you want to say he was talented, all agree, but there wasn't a doubt that McGrath was more effective, Marshall was just as talented, quicker and also more effective. And that's not even looking at the higher amount of lower order wickets, the wpm or the bottle tops.

 

[kyear2]

We can also consider that Wasim had to share the exploits with Waqar and Saqlain/Mushtaq since he was not the only quality bowler in the side.

Wasim could have had more of those record breaking games if hypothetically Waqar wasn't playing, especially when NZ and English batsmen looked totally clueless against Wasim in the early 90s.

Garner had to fight for wickets with Holding, Croft, Roberts etc

While Hadlee and Murali had to basically go it alone. The greats find a way to succeed regardless of circumstance.

 

[trundler]

And quite frankly if the team didn't see it as being being important enough to address over his career, why should I?

Lmao wut. You're literally the biggest advocate of slip fielding on this site. Make it make sense.

 

[subshakerz]

The comparisons you list above are actually quantifiable. And also let's be honest.

Warne vs Murali, most who pick Warne (especially some Aussies) is because they believe Murali chucked, others because they believe Warne was a more complete cricketer, some still because of bias.

Sachin vs Viv is about consistency vs peak and destructive ability. Never heard the era argument.

With regards to Botham, it was obvious looking at his actual numbers, who he performed better against. Easily quantifiable.

What you want to do for Wasim, is to arbitrarily lower his numbers based on dropped catches. How do you even go about doing that? Every player had challenges, and while I'm sure dropped catches cost Pakistan matches, it impossible to quantify how much it impacted Wasim's average. And quite frankly if the team didn't see it as being being important enough to address over his career, why should I?

Sobers bowled as much as a front line bowler throughout his career, should we adjust his average up?

Atherton faced much better bowlers than any other opener in history, and consistently. Ambrose & Walsh, Wasim & Waqar, Donald & Pollock etc. Do we raise his average or do we look at his as mediocre? Dev had the absolute worst home pitches to bowl on, even though it's factored in to a small degree, he averaged, what he averaged and he's not seen as a great bowler.

You want to list every excuse for Wasim and use that to say he was the absolute best, it doesn't work that way. He's arguable top 10 and definite top 15 bowler of all time, even among those who accepted his fielding woes. If you want to say he was talented, all agree, but there wasn't a doubt that McGrath was more effective, Marshall was just as talented, quicker and also more effective. And that's not even looking at the higher amount of lower order wickets, the wpm or the bottle tops.

Good post. I think every argument you can give for Wasim's favor, you can give for Imran, except with Imran we don't need to resort to these arguments.

 

[subshakerz]

In my time watching cricket, Wasim was one of three cricketers (the others being Warne and Lara) who I considered to be pure magic in terms of what they could do with the ball and bat with their mix of talent and skill.

As a fan, I am happy enough with him being in the top ten pacers ever and don't think we need to use fielding as an excuse to pad him up.

 

[OverratedSanity]

In my time watching cricket, Wasim was one of three cricketers (the others being Warne and Lara) who I considered to be pure magic in terms of what they could do with the ball and bat with their mix of talent and skill.

As a fan, I am happy enough with him being in the top ten pacers ever and don't think we need to use fielding as an excuse to pad him up.

Do you think it's crazy to say that the fielding might be one of the reasons his wicket output was marginally lower than the likes of McGrath and Marshall?

 

[kyear2]

Lmao wut. You're literally the biggest advocate of slip fielding on this site. Make it make sense.

Never said it wasn't important. I'm saying if they didn't make it a priority to improve the catching, why should I factor it into his career how bad it was.

Please also remember that Ambrose had to deal with Junior Murray and I believe Courtney Brown during his career also.

Again, it is very important and I mentioned in another line in that post, and no doubt may have cost them matches. But feel free to misinterpret one line from that entire post.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Never said it wasn't important. I'm saying if they didn't make it a priority to improve the catching, why should I factor it into his career how bad it was.

I'm at a loss how you've said this with no irony. Ridiculous statement.

 

[kyear2]

Do you think it's crazy to say that the fielding might be one of the reasons his wicket output was marginally lower than the likes of McGrath and Marshall?

Sure, can you say by how much though?

The fact is that all we have to go by for everyone is what they actually produced.

Catching support is very important, so is batting support. Hammond, Bradman, Richards had openers to give them decent platforms, take some of the new ball. Headley practically had to open the innings and didn't have much below him either. And while this is factored in, just as the catching is for Wasim, no one says let's add 5 runs to his average.

But also, why over all of those years wasn't it improved? And again, you've argued with me for years that I overvalue catching.

 

[subshakerz]

Do you think it's crazy to say that the fielding might be one of the reasons his wicket output was marginally lower than the likes of McGrath and Marshall?

No, I said myself that fielding did affect his numbers. But we don't know how much and may never know. I still dont think even with the catches that he would go past McGrath and Marshall.

 

[trundler]

Good post. I think every argument you can give for Wasim's favor, you can give for Imran, except with Imran we don't need to resort to these arguments.

Imran had the benefit of Shakoor Rana though.