Wasim Akram vs Fred Trueman

[Pap Finn Keighl]

If they combine ODI and tests of course Akram would come out better than pretty much any other bowl except McG.

Ambrose wasn't very good in ODIs, a little better than Marshall, but nobody is counting ODIs here.

So....nah

Ambrose
98 tests, 179 innings, 405 wickets
Avg 20.99, ER 2.30, SR 54.5
22 x 5 wickets, 3 x 10

During the same period
Akram
76 tests, 135 innings, 342 wickets
Avg 22.15, ER 2.62, SR 50.7
21 x 5, 4 x 10

Ambrose - slight advantage in Avg and ER, but he played in more favorable conditions with better fielders.

Akram - better WPM, better SR, better 10 wickets ratio, better 5fers ratio

+ remained relevant for another 5 years.

 

[honestbharani]

in more favorable conditions

I mean, if Wasim's thing was reverse, wont playing in Pak qualify as playing in "more favorable conditions" ??

 

[h_hurricane]

WI pitches were placid as **** during Ambrose's career. What favorable conditions are we talking about ?

Don't just look at the last innings mayhem. That is because of his special ability to run through the side when he was in mood.

 

[smash84]

WI pitches were placid as **** during Ambrose's career. What favorable conditions are we talking about ?

Don't just look at the last innings mayhem. That is because of his special ability to run through the side when he was in mood.

Exactly, its not like Ambrose was playing at the 90s wanderers or WACA like pitches all his career.

 

[kyear2]

Ambrose
98 tests, 179 innings, 405 wickets
Avg 20.99, ER 2.30, SR 54.5
22 x 5 wickets, 3 x 10

During the same period
Akram
76 tests, 135 innings, 342 wickets
Avg 22.15, ER 2.62, SR 50.7
21 x 5, 4 x 10

Ambrose - slight advantage in Avg and ER, but he played in more favorable conditions with better fielders.

Akram - better WPM, better SR, better 10 wickets ratio, better 5fers ratio

+ remained relevant for another 5 years.

Your cherry picking is ridiculous.

Anyways, the pitches in the Caribbean weren't more favorable to fast bowling. Bourda, ARG, Queens Park and even Kensington (in that order) were flat or relatively flat during the time he played. Additionally, and I may be wrong, but don't recall Bourda or the ARG ever being a paradise for fast bowling.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Your cherry picking is ridiculous.

Anyways, the pitches in the Caribbean weren't more favorable to fast bowling. Bourda, ARG, Queens Park and even Kensington (in that order) were flat or relatively flat during the time he played. Additionally, and I may be wrong, but don't recall Bourda or the ARG ever being a paradise for fast bowling.

Cherry picking is comparing a 13 year peak to a whole career of 18 years.

Visiting bowlers performed better in West Indies than in Pakistan. And I dont think Pakistan had a vastly superior batting compared to WI.

 

[Coronis]

Cherry picking is comparing a 13 year peak to a whole career of 18 years.

Except it was a 13 year career…

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Except it was a 13 year career…

Because it was the peak.

 

[Starfighter]

Just like to pop in to say Trueman was better and those yakking about Akram's dropped catches need to apply an opposite weighting for his ball tampering and home umpires.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Yeah, ppl in the pre-televised era didn't **** around with the ball. Elite honesty.

 

[Line and Length]

Yeah, ppl in the pre-televised era didn't **** around with the ball. Elite honesty.

Simply because reverse swing hadn't been 'discovered' and bowlers simply polished the ball - albeit occasionally with Brylcreem.

 

[subshakerz]

Simply because reverse swing hadn't been 'discovered' and bowlers simply polished the ball - albeit occasionally with Brylcreem.

Or lifted the seam.

 

[trundler]

Just like to pop in to say Trueman was better and those yakking about Akram's dropped catches need to apply an opposite weighting for his ball tampering and home umpires.

That's moronic and you know it.

 

[Migara]

I mean, if Wasim's thing was reverse, wont playing in Pak qualify as playing in "more favorable conditions" ??

Nope. If he played in SL he would easily average two or three runs less. He we have both kinds in plenty, and good fast bowlers thrive in SL.

 

[Starfighter]

That's moronic and you know it.

No more moronic than the argument that has taken up most of this thread.

 

[Starfighter]

Historic averages for pace bowlers: SL 33.99, Pak 31.08. During Wasim's career: SL 32.06 (13.8 wickets/match), Pak 28.04 (18.65 wickets/match)

And considering that pace bowling in Pakistan would have been dominated by Imran, Wasim and Waqar, suffice to say @honestbharani might have a good point and @Migara is clueless as usual.

 

[OverratedSanity]

need to apply an opposite weighting for his ball tampering and home umpires.

Yeah because this is never brought up when talking about Akram and Imran is it?

@kyear2 is a bloke who spends half his time here crying about how Imran is overrated because of ball tampering. When poor catching is brought up it's all "B-b-but you can't quantify it ". Yeah because quantifying the impact of ball tampering is so easy right? Who gives a **** if his fielding support is quantifiable, it clearly was a disadvantage. It is incredible how blatantly inconsistent you guys are on players that aren't your favourites.

No more moronic than the argument that has taken up most of this thread.

If you choose to only choose to focus on the most moronic points (i.e PFK randomly cutting numbers from his average), then sure go ahead. But if you're actually calling the "Wasim was hampered by his poor fielding support" as a moronic point you are biased beyond belief quite frankly.

 

[Line and Length]

Talking of poor fielding, didn't Fred Trueman have the Rev David Sheppard 'fielding' in the slips? I seem to recall an anecdote about the Reverend missing one in slips and standing with empty hands clasped. "It's no good praying Rev," said Fred, "The #@* has long gone."

 

[Starfighter]

Talking of poor fielding, didn't Fred Trueman have the Rev David Sheppard 'fielding' in the slips? I seem to recall an anecdote about the Reverend missing one in slips and standing with empty hands clasped. "It's no good praying Rev," said Fred, "The #@* has long gone."

I've posted about this elsewhere, but even though you can usually get only a few minutes' worth of footage for any given test, the number of easy chances I see go down in black and white era footage is quite astounding. Even from guys who were considered good like Cowdrey.

 

[gftw]

Ambrose
98 tests, 179 innings, 405 wickets
Avg 20.99, ER 2.30, SR 54.5
22 x 5 wickets, 3 x 10

During the same period
Akram
76 tests, 135 innings, 342 wickets
Avg 22.15, ER 2.62, SR 50.7
21 x 5, 4 x 10

Ambrose - slight advantage in Avg and ER, but he played in more favorable conditions with better fielders.

Akram - better WPM, better SR, better 10 wickets ratio, better 5fers ratio

+ remained relevant for another 5 years.

I don't really see this method as cherry picking or unfair. Why should Akram's years before Ambrose debuted and years after Ambrose retired be used to compare him to Ambrose? That said, I still have Ambrose slightly ahead of Akram, but the difference isn't as big as people on here like to pretend there is or as big as the overall career stats might suggest. I just don't see why Akram should be punished for being good enough to debut at an earlier age and having the passion to keep playing and retire at a later age. If Tendulkar kept playing for a couple more years until his overall average dipped below 50, would it make him a worse player or change the fact that he averaged 57 over a period of 23 years?