Vernon Philander vs Shoaib Akhtar

[PlayerComparisons]

Two very different bowlers

 

[Johan]

at peak, Akhtar, his 2002-2003 was special.

overall career? Philander, not too close, outside of peak Akhtar was just far too inconsistent, would bowl a brilliant spell one and then get taken to the cleaners next.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Surely Shoaib is much better

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Philander played more tests , took more wickets, had the better average and helped win big series for South Africa.

Shoaib Akhtar had more talent and with his pace he should have done more in SENA bar NZ of course.

 

[govinda indian fan]

Philander played more tests , took more wickets, had the better average and helped win big series for South Africa.

Shoaib Akhtar had more talent and with his pace he should have done more in SENA bar NZ of course.

Shoaib had attitude issues also got into petty fights with team management wasted talent

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

Shoaib had attitude issues also got into petty fights with team management wasted talent

Yep also had an addiction to drugs , got banned a couple of times.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Surely Shoaib is much better

Nope. Had the higher ceiling but Philander performed better.

 

[Johan]

Surely Shoaib is much better

why is the guy averaging 26 nearly surely much better than the guy averaging 22?

 

[Migara]

why is the guy averaging 26 nearly surely much better than the guy averaging 22?

Probably because guy averaging 26 bowled on roads while other averaged 40+?

 

[Migara]

If you put Shoaib in place of Philander, Shoaib would have averaged around 20. He was at his best when he had faster bowlers who could keep the runs down from other end. Pakistan missed a trick by not playing Mahmood and Razzaq together for an extended period. That would have kept Asif in check as well.

 

[shortpitched713]

The bigger problem with Shoaib Akhtar is that he wasn't often even fit enough to be a factor in all games of a series let alone career, however much impact we think he had on a given match.

Also character. He was a player with highly questionable merits as a team player. The rot was always there throughout Pakistan team sans Imran and Miandad, but I do think Shoaib Akhtar was always adjacent to negative team drama.

 

[Migara]

The bigger problem with Shoaib Akhtar is that he wasn't often even fit enough to be a factor in all games of a series let alone career, however much impact we think he had on a given match.

Also character. He was a player with highly questionable merits as a team player. The rot was always there throughout Pakistan team sans Imran and Miandad, but I do think Shoaib Akhtar was always adjacent to negative team drama.

Shoaib was always unfit. That is why he should be part of a 5 man attack. It started with Wasim,Waqar, Shoain and Saqlain, where Saqlain bowled most of the overs. An attack of Shoaib, Razzaq, Mahmood, Saqlain and then Asif would have kept him injury free for a long time. But Pakistani cricket admins managed to lose three of them in no time.

He was one of very few Pakistanis who kept bookies out of his reach. Saqlain, Razzaq and Mahmood were the same. Losing all these players would have changed the culture which led to fixing scandals with Asif and Amir later.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sure, that makes sense in theory and I'm all for that. And certainly I never heard a whiff of fixing about Shoiab Akhtar, whatever his other vices.

However, I think the timeline is all off. Saqlain and Mahmood were well washed by the time Asif entered onto the scene. I also don't doubt there was a clique formed against them, as two very Britain affiliated players.

 

[Coronis]

Shoaib was always unfit. That is why he should be part of a 5 man attack. It started with Wasim,Waqar, Shoain and Saqlain, where Saqlain bowled most of the overs. An attack of Shoaib, Razzaq, Mahmood, Saqlain and then Asif would have kept him injury free for a long time. But Pakistani cricket admins managed to lose three of them in no time.

He was one of very few Pakistanis who kept bookies out of his reach. Saqlain, Razzaq and Mahmood were the same. Losing all these players would have changed the culture which led to fixing scandals with Asif and Amir later.

That’s why he shouldn’t be part of your attack, you should pick bowlers who will actually be fit.

 

[Kenneth Viljoen]

If you put Shoaib in place of Philander, Shoaib would have averaged around 20. He was at his best when he had faster bowlers who could keep the runs down from other end. Pakistan missed a trick by not playing Mahmood and Razzaq together for an extended period. That would have kept Asif in check as well.

But you can't use what if scenarios for the context of the question ..

What did Shoaib do in his career that is better than a 10for at Lords which sealed a series win in England ?

Or winning player of the series in a test series win in Australia ?

If the question was who was more talented than Akhtar wins but that is not the question, even you as an Akhtar fan have highlighted the shortfalls of Shoaib's career. If a pot bellied seamer who started his career in his mid 20's and bowls 20kph slower did better than you in Test cricket you have to say you underachived , which is what Akhtar did in Tests.

 

[reyrey]

Sure, that makes sense in theory and I'm all for that. And certainly I never heard a whiff of fixing about Shoiab Akhtar, whatever his other vices.

However, I think the timeline is all off. Saqlain and Mahmood were well washed by the time Asif entered onto the scene. I also don't doubt there was a clique formed against them, as two very Britain affiliated players.

Saqlain still had a few good years left in him after he was last picked for tests (2004) Asif came in 2005.

I remember there where even a few people calling for Saqlain to be picked for England at one point post 2004 after he qualified through residency or something and was still performing really well for Surrey.

 

[Johan]

Probably because guy averaging 26 bowled on roads while other averaged 40+?

Shoaib averages 30 in South Africa and 43 in Australia, so it's not like he would average any better if he played for those countries, I'll take a guy whose basically a cheatcode in three countries over a guy that is about *good* everywhere and would break down in the middle of the series.

Selective brilliance > universal mediocrity

 

[Migara]

Sure, that makes sense in theory and I'm all for that. And certainly I never heard a whiff of fixing about Shoiab Akhtar, whatever his other vices.

However, I think the timeline is all off. Saqlain and Mahmood were well washed by the time Asif entered onto the scene. I also don't doubt there was a clique formed against them, as two very Britain affiliated players.

Not really. Mahmood's last test was in 2001 when he was 26. Then he played country and even played IPL. Razzaq had an extended career, and although youngest on paper, his age was under stated and faded the quickest. He was 27 when he played the last test match. By 2004, Saqlain was only 28. Saqlain for any other country would have played in to mid 2010s. So it is evident all three of them had nearly a decade of cricket left when they were shown the door by Pakistani administration. Shoaib debuted in 1998. Now Asif debuts in 2005, Amir in 2009. There is absolutely no doubt, about a five year window when all of these bowlers could have played together for Pakistan. Biggest loss was Saqlain, as he was one of the guys who had an exemplary conduct on and off the field, who could have set an example.

 

[Migara]

That’s why he shouldn’t be part of your attack, you should pick bowlers who will actually be fit.

Rangana Herath managed a 400 wicket career alright. It's about how you manage them.

 

[Coronis]

Rangana Herath managed a 400 wicket career alright. It's about how you manage them.

Now we’re comparing Herath and Akhtar…