subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
It ain't. I can name a number who put Ambrose up there or next to Wasim. Though I would agree Wasim likely gets the overall edge but similar to Tendulkar/Lara.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Wasim Akram vs Fred Trueman
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
McGrath almost always brings up Ambrose when he talks about Wasim.
Pap Finn Keighl
International Debutant
Thats Akram vs Mcgrath
Akram Vs Mcgrath Vs Ambrose is
More like
Sachin > Lara > Ponting
or
Viv > Gavaskar > Chappell
Donald was better than Ambrose though.
kyear2
International Coach
On wow,
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Not just Hayden, Steve Waugh, Blewett and Taylor too. Mark Waugh, Ponting and McGrath put Wasim and Ambrose equal.
Coronis
International Coach
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Funny becuz I think the opposite. If it wasn't for that the fact that virtually every batsman who faced both Donald and Wasim thought Wasim was better, I would put Donald ahead of him.
To me, anyone disregarding peer review is basically insulting the actual players and the skills it takes to play the game.
Having said that, peer review is behind other factors like record and longevity, etc. and is more or a tiebreaker between cricketers around the same level. And peer rating also needs to be contextualised like record too.
The reason Wasim has a lesser record has more to do with a longer start period as a teen and a longer decline due to diabetes. Yet he had around 50 games in his prime where the entire cricket fraternity felt was enough to put him at the very top level.
yes except no way Donald ahead of Akram
What absolutely pandering, self-righteous horseshit.
You can't be a serious cricket fan without appreciating the skills it takes to play.
You also can't be a serious cricket fan without questioning the judgement of players. Shot selection, team selection, bowling lengths, Etc. Etc. Etc.
We question players all the time, and is on a very clear cut question- what should you do to win. Players are rating quality on different criteria to CW, or even answering different questions. And that is before bias comes into play.
Yes, those 2 are regarded as something special even in an era of outstanding bowling stocks.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Lol I pander to nobody.
There are two things. One thing is to take single players opinions as gospel without contextualising and evaluating their criteria.
The other is your view, disregard player judgment altogether as fundamentally flawed under the guise of 'questioning' and living in a CW stat bubble.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
OK, no one said you can't question it though? But disregarding it entirely does come off as a bit silly.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
And yet you'll cite peer review for guys like Viv who doesn't have particularly outstanding numbers (relative to other greats) and hell, even say Barry Richards was as good as Gavaskar and Sutcliffe on the basis of peer opinion.
I'd call it truly bold if only I didn't think it was a joke.
Probably.
But even if you cut through bias or vested interest, poor opinions, Etc., how many of the people are actually answering the same question as me? I want to know effectiveness. When a bunch of bats say Morkel was tougher to face than Steyn, I'm willing to defer to their opinion on Morkel being tough to face, but I'm not letting that sway my opinion that Steyn was more effective.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That is a little disingenuous though because there is such a large statistical gap between those two which the contemporary opinion can't overcome.
Hypothetically, if Morkel had only marginally worse numbers than Steyn, say 350 wickets @24, would you then not give atleast some weight to what players who faced them felt about the difficulty facing the two?
It's not disingenuous to point out how they are not addressing the same question as me.
If Morkel and Steyn had been very close as bowlers, I probably would give a tiny bit of credit to player opinions. I would be wrong to do so though, at least in this specific example. The fact that the weren't close and there are number of people who went with morkel anyway shows this.
If you asked a bunch of RSA bats from the 90s and 2000s who bowled the best at them, and they gave a genuine answer, you would be seeing answers like Srinath, Shreesanth and Asif. Nobody would actually give any of these as answers to the best they faced though. Which means the more legitimate aspects of how they are rating them is on stats or the opinion of others, like everyone else.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But that's because of a difference in styles presumably. Players can find awkward bounce more difficult to face depending on their own batting techniques. Doubt anyone is actually saying Morkel is a better bowler.