Wasim Akram vs Allan Donald

[PlayerComparisons]

The thing is should a player be rewarded and rated higher if he was able to sustain his peak for a longer amount of time? Because if we're saying that we shouldn't be allowed to take Akram's 13 years to compare to lets say Mcgrath's 13 years, we're basically saying length of peak doesn't matter.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Just to clarify, I don't really have a stance on this and am just looking at it from both sides lol.

 

[Slifer]

Just to clarify, I don't really have a stance on this and am just looking at it from both sides lol.

Really?

"Thats like saying Andy Ganteaume averaged better than Bradman.
Realistically Akram's WPM >> Ambrose's

Donald > Ambrose, after considering everything."

You don't think that's trolling when Akram factually took less wpm than Ambrose? I don't even know where he was going with the Ganteaume bit. Andy played One test, Bradman 52...like seriously!!

 

[kyear2]

With regards to

To be fair to PFK, literally every international cricketer does think Wasim is a top 3 fast bowler of all time. Are they all wrong? Surely they know better than us lol.

Couple of points to consider here.

1. Wasim is considered possibly the best ODI bowler ever, and no doubt he is in the absolute top tier in that format. For us to believe that that fact isn't conflated into his overall rating that bleeds into tests isn't recognized apparently.

2. It's some players of his era that says he's the best , the same way the players of Lillee's era says he's the best, and Marshall's era etc. We watched him and McGrath bowl, and while Akram would have been more spectacular to watch, McGrath was just more efficient and effective. He simply took more wickets, as "boring" as it may have seemed.

2. Can we please stop with this incessant and at this point ridiculous argument that Akram is undisputably the greatest bowler ever. There isn't a single objective argument that doesn't include ridiculous arguments about using his peak years against other players entire careers or extrapolating how he would have done if he played equal amount of tests, which isn't in any way proveable or mathematically or logically sound.

 

[srbhkshk]

what does a Mathematically sound argument even look like for comparing bowlers across eras?

Akram bowled on dead Pakistani pitches, so Imma reduce his average by 25% and thus he is easily the greatest bowler ever. Any other adjustment is fraud and not quantifiable.

PFK's arguments are as valid as the rest of you, he is just not as eloquent.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

With regards to


Couple of points to consider here.

1. Wasim is considered possibly the best ODI bowler ever, and no doubt he is in the absolute top tier in that format. For us to believe that that fact isn't conflated into his overall rating that bleeds into tests isn't recognized apparently.

2. It's some players of his era that says he's the best , the same way the players of Lillee's era says he's the best, and Marshall's era etc. We watched him and McGrath bowl, and while Akram would have been more spectacular to watch, McGrath was just more efficient and effective. He simply took more wickets, as "boring" as it may have seemed.

2. Can we please stop with this incessant and at this point ridiculous argument that Akram is undisputably the greatest bowler ever. There isn't a single objective argument that doesn't include ridiculous arguments about using his peak years against other players entire careers or extrapolating how he would have done if he played equal amount of tests, which isn't in any way proveable or mathematically or logically sound.

Oh yeah I'm not arguing hes the greatest bowler or anything. I have him below Marshall, Mcgrath, Hadlee, Ambrose, and Steyn myself. I just find it interesting that pretty much every international player that watched Akrams career or had to face Akram pretty much claim he's the best or top 3 at worst and hardest to face. Guess they're all dumb and have no idea what they're talking about

 

[Coronis]

Oh yeah I'm not arguing hes the greatest bowler or anything. I have him below Marshall, Mcgrath, Hadlee, Ambrose, and Steyn myself. I just find it interesting that pretty much every international player that watched Akrams career or had to face Akram pretty much claim he's the best or top 3 at worst and hardest to face. Guess they're all dumb and have no idea what they're talking about

All of these same blokes would tell you that Mark Waugh was a better batsman than Steve Waugh too so no, I don’t just go by players opinions blindly.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

All of these same blokes would tell you that Mark Waugh was a better batsman than Steve Waugh too so no, I don’t just go by players opinions blindly.

Literally no international player(other than Warne obviously) would or has said Mark was a better test batsmen than Steve. If it was a few players sure, but pretty much everyone puts Wasim at the very top and top 3 at worst.

 

[kyear2]

Literally no international player(other than Warne obviously) would or has said Mark was a better test batsmen than Steve. If it was a few players sure, but pretty much everyone puts Wasim at the very top and top 3 at worst.

Please stop saying everyone, that's not true

 

[GoodAreasShane]

To be fair Mark was far more aesthetically pleasing to watch bat, but clearly that doesn't make him a better player than Steve

 

[Coronis]

To be fair Mark was far more aesthetically pleasing to watch bat, but clearly that doesn't make him a better player than Steve

The same holds true for Wasim and Lillee imo.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

With regards to


Couple of points to consider here.

1. It's some players of his era that says he's the best , the same way the players of Lillee's era says he's the best, and Marshall's era etc. We watched him and McGrath bowl, and while Akram would have been more spectacular to watch, McGrath was just more efficient and effective. He simply took more wickets, as "boring" as it may have seemed.

2. Can we please stop with this incessant and at this point ridiculous argument that Akram is undisputably the greatest bowler ever. There isn't a single objective argument that doesn't include ridiculous arguments about using his peak years against other players entire careers or extrapolating how he would have done if he played equal amount of tests, which isn't in any way proveable or mathematically or logically sound.

1. Not True. McGrath took more wickets, because he played 124 tests ( 243 innings) in 13 years,
Had Akram played 243 innings in his first 13 years, Akram's wicket tally would have been 610 wickets. ( + additional wickets from next 4 years )

2.Akram is not undisputable GOAT even in my List. Most days i rate Sydney Barnes as the GOAT.
If a player's peak years is the entire length of another player's career, why cant we compare?
You must understand one thing, Mcgrath played international cricket in his peak 13 years and stopped. Akram continued for another 4 years.. That is the difference. If anything.. Akram should get additional points for that extra 4 years after the fair comparison 13 years vs 13 years.

Imagine Mcgrath still playing and the overall avg is 35, would you rate him below Zaheer? By your logic.. You should.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

The same holds true for Wasim and Lillee imo.

And for Viv and Hobbs too?

 

[ankitj]

You don't think that's trolling when Akram factually took less wpm than Ambrose?

But he said "realistically". Factual is different from real.

 

[Slifer]

But he said "realistically". Factual is different from real.

Akram took 414 wkts in 104 tests = 3.98
Ambrose took 405 in 98 tests = 4.14

Real, factual or whatever adjective one wants to use, these are their stats. And if Ambrose's wpm is low, so too is Akram's.

 

[honestbharani]

To be fair to PFK, literally every international cricketer does think Wasim is a top 3 fast bowler of all time. Are they all wrong? Surely they know better than us lol.

There is a difference between rating skills and rating career performance.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Akram took 414 wkts in 104 tests = 3.98
Ambrose took 405 in 98 tests = 4.14

Real, factual or whatever adjective one wants to use, these are their stats. And if Ambrose's wpm is low, so too is Akram's.

Bradman avg is 2nd highest among completed careers.?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

But he said "realistically". Factual is different from real.

Barry Richards batting avg is 72.6
Try now.

 

[h_hurricane]

I was talking about Akram only.

( Even if it was a comparison with Mcgrath, you can not be sure.. With slight difference (0.7) in avg Akram will get lot of supporters, factoring the conditions, Aura, Skills.. Etc.
Its the " less than 4 wpm " thing.. That affected opinions heavily.)

I give up. You win.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Akram took 414 wkts in 104 tests = 3.98
Ambrose took 405 in 98 tests = 4.14

Real, factual or whatever adjective one wants to use, these are their stats. And if Ambrose's wpm is low, so too is Akram's.

Wicket per innings
Ambrose 2.26
Akram 2.29
Thats Ambrose peak Vs Akram career.

Now, during Ambrose's career
Wicket per innings
Ambrose 2.26
Akram 2.53

ie, Akram could have taken 50 more wickets than Ambrose from similar number of matches.