• 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 among his peers

S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Except it's not 'way more impressive'. He is not averaging in teens or something. And it is arbitrary to cut McGrath 95 to 99 from 2000 to 2007. They are the same bowler.

Which goes to my point, we can debate at their peak who is better (I think Wasim is). But with longevity, McGrath is clearly ahead.
Click to expand...
An average of 20 in the 00’s is way more impressive than an average of 20 in the 90’s, to me.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
An average of 20 in the 00’s is way more impressive than an average of 20 in the 90’s, to me.
Click to expand...
This gets way overplayed. Aus started that decade far beyond the other teams, McGrath had massive scoreboard pressure to benefit from, etc. And give me a 2000s Aussie pitch over a 90s Pakistan pitch for a pacer anyday.
 
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
This gets way overplayed. Aus started that decade far beyond the other teams, McGrath had massive scoreboard pressure to benefit from, etc. And give me a 2000s Aussie pitch over a 90s Pakistan pitch for a pacer anyday.
Click to expand...
Mcgarth was pretty good on SC surfaces vs one of the best batting lineups then
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
This gets way overplayed. Aus started that decade far beyond the other teams, McGrath had massive scoreboard pressure to benefit from, etc. And give me a 2000s Aussie pitch over a 90s Pakistan pitch for a pacer anyday.
Click to expand...
hmmm.

90’s Pakistan for pacers
26.52 overall, 22.84 for Pakistani pacers, 30.65 for touring pacers

00’s Australia for pacers
35.56 overall, 26.80 for Aussie pacers, 48.45 for touring pacers

Which was harder? idk too close to call.

You clearly are forgetting just how flat those pitches in Australia were.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
hmmm.

90’s Pakistan for pacers
26.52 overall, 22.84 for Pakistani pacers, 30.65 for touring pacers

00’s Australia for pacers
35.56 overall, 26.80 for Aussie pacers, 48.45 for touring pacers

Which was harder? idk too close to call.

You clearly are forgetting just how flat those pitches in Australia were.
Click to expand...
Yeah of course Pakistan had two ATG pacers to one for Aus and opposition in Aus are facing an ATG batting lineup, and then you had Ambrose, Marshall, Bishop ,Walsh, McGrath, Donald and Pollock all tour Pak in the 90s too, but hey raw averages tell everything for you apparently.

This is a really, really bad way to tell pitch condition.
 
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
Yeah of course Pakistan had two ATG pacers to one for Aus and opposition in Aus are facing an ATG batting lineup, and then you had Ambrose, Marshall, Bishop ,Walsh, McGrath, Donald and Pollock all tour Pak in the 90s too, but hey raw averages tell everything for you apparently.

This is a really, really bad way to tell pitch condition.
Click to expand...
Still the gap is a lot. Anyways there are other aspects overall as well. Mcgrath has a better rounded record overall(Wasim has iffy records in India, England, SA), and he raised his game vs the best batsmen of his era and top order bats in general.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Yeah of course Pakistan had two ATG pacers to one for Aus and opposition in Aus are facing an ATG batting lineup, and then you had Ambrose, Marshall, Bishop ,Walsh, McGrath, Donald and Pollock all tour Pak in the 90s too, but hey raw averages tell everything for you apparently.

This is a really, really bad way to tell pitch condition.
Click to expand...
I’m just using them to illustrate my point. I watched them both play at home in their primes. McGrath played against better batsman, on more batting friendly pitches, and still was just as good if not better than Wasim during his peak. The stats are just something objective behind it.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Coronis said:
I’m just using them to illustrate my point. I watched them both play at home in their primes. McGrath played against better batsman, on more batting friendly pitches, and still was just as good if not better than Wasim during his peak. The stats are just something objective behind it.
Click to expand...
You haven't countered any of my objections to your 'flat pitch stats'.

Did McGrath play better bats? Debatable. Wasim played WI as a number one side and Aus as a number one side. McGrath never played his own strongest lineup.

Definitely not more batting friendly pitches. That's just a sad point that shows you don't know how flat Pak pitches were.

Now you walk back 'much more impressive' by saying McGrath may have been 'just as good' in his peak. Maybe you posted those stats too fast without thinking.

The whole debate btw is that I concede McGrath is better overall but Wasim was better in his peak. You don't seem to have any real opinions to bring to the table that aren't 100 percent stats based, and misued ones too.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
HouHsiaoHsien said:
Still the gap is a lot. Anyways there are other aspects overall as well. Mcgrath has a better rounded record overall(Wasim has iffy records in India, England, SA), and he raised his game vs the best batsmen of his era and top order bats in general.
Click to expand...
This is a bogus stat with so many factors involved that I am surprised you take it seriously.

And we are comparing peak Wasim not overall.
 
H

HouHsiaoHsien

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
This is a bogus stat with so many factors involved that I am surprised you take it seriously.

And we are comparing peak Waism not overall.
Click to expand...
No I’m not taking it at face value. Peak Wasim was basis overall slightly stats more destructive: taking 240 wickets in 48 matches@ barely 20. For Mcgrath(1999-2006): 340 wickets in 74 matches @20.4. However Mcgrath had a more balanced record here also: fantastically averaging sub 23 everywhere except SL(where he averaged 29 not very bad). Wasim in his peak still had a poor(very small tho) record in SA, WI and you expected him to dominate a weak England lineup more. So I’d take peak Mcgrath not by much tho, cause he was dominating nearly everywhere in his peak and had amazing stats in those places, not just merely good performances
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
HouHsiaoHsien said:
Still the gap is a lot. Anyways there are other aspects overall as well. Mcgrath has a better rounded record overall(Wasim has iffy records in India, England, SA), and he raised his game vs the best batsmen of his era and top order bats in general.
Click to expand...
This.

This is why it's hard to rate Wasim and McGrath for me is the easy no. 2

England was probably the fruitful of battle grounds in that era, and his numbers there were, to quote you, iffy.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
Coronis said:
hmmm.

90’s Pakistan for pacers
26.52 overall, 22.84 for Pakistani pacers, 30.65 for touring pacers

00’s Australia for pacers
35.56 overall, 26.80 for Aussie pacers, 48.45 for touring pacers

Which was harder? idk too close to call.

You clearly are forgetting just how flat those pitches in Australia were.
Click to expand...
48 for visiting quicks is brutal. This is a country that is supposed to be kinder to pace than spin as well.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
HouHsiaoHsien said:
No I’m not taking it at face value. Peak Wasim was basis overall slightly stats more destructive: taking 240 wickets in 48 matches@ barely 20. For Mcgrath(1999-2006): 340 wickets in 74 matches @20.4. However Mcgrath had a more balanced record here also: fantastically averaging sub 23 everywhere except SL(where he averaged 29 not very bad). Wasim in his peak still had a poor(very small tho) record in SA, WI and you expected him to dominate a weak England lineup more. So I’d take peak Mcgrath not by much tho, cause he was dominating nearly everywhere in his peak and had amazing stats in those places, not just merely good performances
Click to expand...
Yes and I can counter that Wasim had high quality back to back series against a top Aus team probably better than any lineup McGrath faced. Or an epic 21 wickets @14 against a top WI side.

But it's besides the point. This started because @TheJediBrah said that Wasim's swing razzle and dazzle was the reason he was rated ahead, and I merely wanted to show at his peak he could perform well enough to justify such a rating, so it's not this crazy opinion.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
Bolo. said:
48 for visiting quicks is brutal. This is a country that is supposed to be kinder to pace than spin as well.
Click to expand...
That has a lot to do with an ATG batting lineup as well.

That batting was going everywhere and batting the opposition out of the match.

Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Waugh twins, Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, Gillespie, Lee. Only McGrath was a bunny otherwise the batting lineup was such that just its sight would demoralize the opposition. Just one quality bat coming after the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top