Mcgrath vs Wasim Akram

[Migara]

Errr, do you remember the 2003 world cup final? And the 2007 world cup final? Exactly the scoreboard pressure I am talking about. Also 1996 WC he wasn't that great which is understandable since he was very new to world cricket. You are trying to act as if McGrath was the sole reason they were making it to the finals and he was the most valuable player in the finals. He just wasn't.

I am not saying that McGrath had no skill. He is probably top 3 ODI bowlers. I just don't think he's the greatest ever.

Even in 1996 he was great. Just that Aravinda had a way to keep the board ticking against him.

 

[smash84]

Even in 1996 he was great. Just that Aravinda had a way to keep the board ticking against him.

IIRC in the 1996 WC Damian Fleming was the more incisive bowler.

McGrath wasn't really a major player in any of the 4 world Cup finals in the world cups from 1996 to 2007. Of course he was tremendous in the lead up to the many finals.

 

[Migara]

McGrath is greater. He won 2007 WC player of series. Wasim won 1992 World Cup final, that’s one game. McGrath also played a role in 2003 World Cup win although Lee was equally good.

1.McGrath
2. Wasim
3. Garner
4. Starc

That’s top 4. If we are to include white ball cricket, I think Bumrah with his ODI and T20 combined performance presents a strong case at 5.

Criminal lack of Pollock in top 5

 

[Migara]

You are correct it's hard to make apple to apple comparison, but simply having a long career can't be a criterion. You have to stand out across era or at least in your own era. Not in all screens but some of them.

Just looking at output, some one can't be blamed for thinkng that 90s kids over rate Wasim in ODI.

For example,

Wasim played 30-40 finals, yah many were trie series but a lot more stake in those matches than regular bilaterals. As expected all names are from older era because we don't play tri series now.

Wasim does not stand out in finals and he has played plenty so not an issue of sample size.

Pacers in finals

View attachment 44757


The same situation for his WC record, see below. He does not stand out in anything and in some in a negative way.

Pacers in WC against non-minnows - sorted by Avg

View attachment 44762



Pacers in WC against non-minnows -sorted by SR

View attachment 44763



Now he finally appears in top half in ER.

Pacers in WC against non-minnows -sorted by ER

View attachment 44764

I am wondering when did Upul Chandana started bowling pace

 

[sayon basak]

Criminal lack of Pollock in top 5

Yeah. Pollock>Starc.

 

[Randomfan]

I am wondering when did Upul Chandana started bowling pace

Yah, Forgot to check pace in filter. Thanks for catching. Fixed.

 

[Rob Wesley]

You are correct it's hard to make apple to apple comparison, but simply having a long career can't be a criterion. You have to stand out across era or at least in your own era. Not in all screens but some of them.

Just looking at output, some one can't be blamed for thinkng that 90s kids over rate Wasim in ODI.

For example,

Wasim played 30-40 finals, yah many were trie series but a lot more stake in those matches than regular bilaterals. As expected all names are from older era because we don't play tri series now.

Wasim does not stand out in finals and he has played plenty so not an issue of sample size.

Pacers in finals

View attachment 44757


The same situation for his WC record, see below. He does not stand out in anything and in some in a negative way.

Pacers in WC against non-minnows - sorted by Avg

View attachment 44762



Pacers in WC against non-minnows -sorted by SR

View attachment 44763



Now he finally appears in top half in ER.

Pacers in WC against non-minnows -sorted by ER

View attachment 44764



One of the worst avg and SR in WC. ER look good and it's not bad, but you can notice that Bumrah has less ER than Wasim so what does Wasim has going for him in WC record. Not comparing him to Bumrah, just in general. One spell in finals?

So some one looking at actual output in finals of tri-series and entire WC record, why will they think that Wasim was top 2-3 pacers in ODI history? Wasim's sample size here is 60-70 most important ODI's he may have played. Poor to decent record.

This is Wasim and you are sayng that Waqar should be rated very high comapred to Starc/Bumrah etc. He does not even appear in any of these lists and clearly inferior to his team mate Wasim. He was very expensive in ODI games for his era and it's not like you can make up by picking wickets quicker. He was pickign less than 2 wickets in each game, you can't pick many due to only bowling 10 overs. So being expensive was costly.

I mean, I get it that we can't compare volume of previous era to now, but if current players are mostly playing important games. We should be able to see what previous era bowlers did in important games, right? I am not syaing that we ignore volume of previous era, but you got to stand out some where in a meaningful sample size to cement top 2-3 in history. It can't be one spell here and there. Every bowler will have those and players play 1-2 finals in WC if they are lucky.

I am not saying that Wasim is not a legedn in ODI and ATG. I am trying to say that we are too quick to dismiss modwern era pacers due to not having volume. I am presenting a flip side here because all of us are too quick to say Wasim is top 2-3 bowler in ODI history based on picking 2 wickets in finals in one spell.

So if some one who has not watched Wasim, says why Wasim should be rated that high in ODI, we got to show the actual output and not tons of intangibles. I am a huge Wasim fan, but I was not able to provide great reasons to rate Wasim among the top 2-3 on history when asked about it.

Any help?

Wasim’s stats are taken a hit due to his struggles in 1987 World Cup at age of 20-21.He averaged 42 in that World Cup.

If you look at your criteria’s, of all the players in that list, Wasim has played the most games which means he kept on playing ODIs one after another. 1 bad World Cup and your World Cup stats take a major hit due to low sample.

Why Wasim should be rated as a top bowler? His wickets tally of 500 wickets at 23 stands him well above the rest alongwith his World Cup 1992 performance where he was leading wicket taker and match winning performance in WC Final. Remove spinners and compare the top 5 leading wicket takers and look at difference between Wasim and rest.

Ambrose, Donald and Waqar don’t really have these achievements.

In the late 90s and 2000s, McGrath is the one that stands out above Wasim and Pollock was excellent too. Alongwith that, you mostly had Warne, Murali and Lee. McGrath and Lee both were very good in 2003 WC but former was also standout in 2007 WC.

In the present era, Starc, Boult, Bumrah and Shami are standouts. Starc has most sample of wickets alongwith a dominant World Cup performance in 2015.

 

[ankitj]

Wasim’s stats are taken a hit due to his struggles in 1987 World Cup at age of 20-21.He averaged 42 in that World Cup.

Good point. Akram averages 21.xx in next 4 World cups after that with an economy under 4.0. McGrath has even better average. I still not for Akram for being excellent with both new ball and at death.

 

[Rob Wesley]

@Randomfan @ankitj,

ODI cricket has changed and evolved a lot that we must first look to figure out the standout bowlers of their respective era and then if it is possible compare them with bowlers across era and that would actually go down to personal preference.

Now who were the standouts of 90s and 00s? This was an era where a lot of ODI cricket was played.

McGrath is arguably #1. Wasim would be #2 due to longevity and 1992 World Cup performance. Then you have Lee, Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Ambrose, Bracken, Akhtar, Bond etc.

Who are the standouts of 70s and 80s?

Joel Garner is certainly the best of all the Windies pacers. Hadlee would be #2 and then Holding or Imran and so on.

Standouts of 2010s and present era?

Mitchell Starc is the one with 250 odi wickets and dominant World Cup performance, Malinga was rated very highly as best death over bowler of his era due to his yorkers but his overall numbers are not good due to bowling a lot in death overs. Boult was doing great too. Shami was good before he had a phenomenal 2023 World Cup allowing him to hit the top league. Bumrah has been excellent too.

T20s have also influenced a lot of white ball cricket in this era and ODIs have reduced too. So, Starc and Bumrah can be considered standouts based on those two formats with preference given more to ODIs.

All in all, the five standout ODI or LOIs pacers I can think of from all time are Garner, McGrath, Wasim, Starc and Bumrah. Since Starc and Bumrah’s career are not over, it can go either way.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Criminal lack of Pollock in top 5

Donald >> Pollock

 

[Randomfan]

Wasim’s stats are taken a hit due to his struggles in 1987 World Cup at age of 20-21.He averaged 42 in that World Cup.

If you look at your criteria’s, of all the players in that list, Wasim has played the most games which means he kept on playing ODIs one after another. 1 bad World Cup and your World Cup stats take a major hit due to low sample.

Why Wasim should be rated as a top bowler? His wickets tally of 500 wickets at 23 stands him well above the rest alongwith his World Cup 1992 performance where he was leading wicket taker and match winning performance in WC Final. Remove spinners and compare the top 5 leading wicket takers and look at difference between Wasim and rest.

Ambrose, Donald and Waqar don’t really have these achievements.

In the late 90s and 2000s, McGrath is the one that stands out above Wasim and Pollock was excellent too. Alongwith that, you mostly had Warne, Murali and Lee. McGrath and Lee both were very good in 2003 WC but former was also standout in 2007 WC.

In the present era, Starc, Boult, Bumrah and Shami are standouts. Starc has most sample of wickets alongwith a dominant World Cup performance in 2015.

Let's remove his worst WC and keep everyone else poor and good WC, then compare. We are giving advantage to Wasim here,

Wasim in WC - after removing his worst WC(87) - against non-minnows

Avg 26 , ER 4.18 SR 37

None of them are great to be honest. I could see if you are low ER and high avg due to batsmen playing you out, but ER of 4.18 for his career time is high. For reference, BUmrah has 4.2 in current era with higher scoring era. So nothing great about ER as well. Opening was lot less scoring those days and both bowles bowl in death overs. I am not compring hese two, trying to counter points we use for Wasim.

I mean is it even worth bringing one match in final for Wasim he has a poor WC record? I am not sure about it.


Wasim in WC - after removing his worst WC(87) - against non-minnows






WC for others without removing their worst WC - against non-minnows



So after removing the worst WC, if a pacer is not showing up anywhere close to output produced by so many others, does it tell anything? Remember we are not removing bad WC for others here and yet, tons of bowlers have outperformed Wasim in WC.

I think many of us who grew up watching Wasim over rate his WC reord due to 2 wickets spell in final. Me included.

Then I posted about Finals with a large sample size. If you take WC and Finals of tri series, it'a 60-70 ODI with high profile. Wasim does not come close to near top in that. What he comes in top is volume.


I think relative success of Wasim on test and ODI, both is quite less agaisnt porper teams. It's not a surpise that you will do better against weaker teams, but others don't fall off that much in output against better teams.

I do consider Wasim as the second best ODI bowler in 90s behind McGrath. I was trying to simply see if Wasim has a great record which is not based on volume? Conext is comparing across era. Since we can't really compare volume across eras due to changes in ODI, we should be able to see 60-70 most high profile games against non-minnows across eras for players to see how they stack up. I don't think we will get 60-70 for all players to be honest. Just making a point.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Let's remove his worst WC and keep everyone else poor and good WC, then compare. We are giving advantage to Wasim here,

Wasim in WC - after removing his worst WC(87) - against non-minnows

Avg 26 , ER 4.18 SR 37

None of them are great to be honest. I could see if you are low ER and high avg due to batsmen playing you out, but ER of 4.18 for his career time is high. For reference, BUmrah has 4.2 in current era with higher scoring era. So nothing great about ER as well. Opening was lot less scoring those days and both bowles bowl in death overs. I am not compring hese two, trying to counter points we use for Wasim.

I mean is it even worth bringing one match in final for Wasim he has a poor WC record? I am not sure about it.


Wasim in WC - after removing his worst WC(87) - against non-minnows

View attachment 44774




WC for others without removing their worst WC - against non-minnows

View attachment 44775

So after removing the worst WC, if a pacer is not showing up anywhere close to output produced by so many others, does it tell anything? Remember we are not removing bad WC for others here and yet, tons of bowlers have outperformed Wasim in WC.

I think many of us who grew up watching Wasim over rate his WC reord due to 2 wickets spell in final. Me included.

Then I posted about Finals with a large sample size. If you take WC and Finals of tri series, it'a 60-70 ODI with high profile. Wasim does not come close to near top in that. What he comes in top is volume.


I think relative success of Wasim on test and ODI, both is quite less agaisnt porper teams. It's not a surpise that you will do better against weaker teams, but others don't fall off that much in output against better teams.

I do consider Wasim as the second best ODI bowler in 90s behind McGrath. I was trying to simply say that does Wasim have great record which is not based on volume? Quesiton for that is conetxt about comparing across era. Since we can't really compare volume across eras due to changes in ODI, we shoudl be able to see 60-70 most high profile games agaisnt non-minnows across eras for players to see how they stack up. I don't think we will get 60-70 for all players to be honest. Just makign a poiont.

The Best thing I work out with: Shami > Starc

 

[Randomfan]

@Randomfan @ankitj,

ODI cricket has changed and evolved a lot that we must first look to figure out the standout bowlers of their respective era and then if it is possible compare them with bowlers across era and that would actually go down to personal preference.

Now who were the standouts of 90s and 00s? This was an era where a lot of ODI cricket was played.

McGrath is arguably #1. Wasim would be #2 due to longevity and 1992 World Cup performance. Then you have Lee, Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Ambrose, Bracken, Akhtar, Bond etc.

Who are the standouts of 70s and 80s?

Joel Garner is certainly the best of all the Windies pacers. Hadlee would be #2 and then Holding or Imran and so on.

Standouts of 2010s and present era?

Mitchell Starc is the one with 250 odi wickets and dominant World Cup performance, Malinga was rated very highly as best death over bowler of his era due to his yorkers but his overall numbers are not good due to bowling a lot in death overs. Boult was doing great too. Shami was good before he had a phenomenal 2023 World Cup allowing him to hit the top league. Bumrah has been excellent too.

T20s have also influenced a lot of white ball cricket in this era and ODIs have reduced too. So, Starc and Bumrah can be considered standouts based on those two formats with preference given more to ODIs.

All in all, the five standout ODI or LOIs pacers I can think of from all time are Garner, McGrath, Wasim, Starc and Bumrah. Since Starc and Bumrah’s career are not over, it can go either way.

I mostly agree that looking at best in eras is better way to go with so many changes in ODI games and arrival of T20. I was only questioning that should we start putting all previous era bowler high up only due to volume or we can have some large enough sample size in ODI to compare them. Off course we can't compare raw stats due to ODI being far more high scoring now than earlier eras, but we can still see something meanigful to compare? Or we simply say that so and so were best in their era and leave it at that for shorter formats?

Also, for 90s/00s - I will argue that Pollock was not really far behind Wasim. I mean despite playing later he has lower ER than Wasim and Wasim wasn't really picking wickets that more frequenly than Pollock against non-minnows.

See below,



In ODI you win by games by outbatting oppositions. I meant to say that you can win by giving less runs without picking simple wickets which you can't do in test. So ER low gets a veyr high priority in ODI and T20. Harder to score bowlers are worth a lot in limited overs.

So avg of Wasim is better slightly but Pollock is better in ER despite debuting 10 years later than Wasim. Wasim played ODI in 80s where 200 runs were seen as decent.

not makign a case for Pollock over Wasim, simply pointing out that Wasim gets rated veyr high by all of us in ODI, does he have performacne to get rated that high or we all remmber his 2 wickets in final of WC and ignore many others who were equally good inf not better becasue they don't have that spell in final due to not playing a final or simply not having that spell. Also, I think it was 50/3 kind of match by Wasim and not a case where he blew out opposition with 25/5.

I think I am mixing two different point in this post.

1 - Should we rate previous era bowles higher simply due to volume or we can get some reasonable sample size to compare them across era. I know it's hard due to changes in ODI and not as easy as test.

2 - Does Wasim's output puts him in the top 5 ODI bowler in history based on his record in WC and trie series finals? Yes, we know he has volume but can we have top 5 in history just based on that?

I have not seen many bowler better than Wasim when it comes to skill set suited for ODI to be honest. I am only playing a devils advocate to see supporting arguments to rate Wasim that high based on output and not based on intangibles. So many have outperformed Wasim in WC even after removing worst WC for Wasim. For the same reason, I brought up Pollock's record above. I have myself rated Wasim among the top 5 in ODI. But if I can't show with any proper argument that across era comparison can be made and Wasim comes near the top then I don't know how to justify putting Wasim among the top 5 pacers in ODI. Then all the talk about top 3 or top 5 in history is meaningless for shorter formats.

 

[ankitj]

Let's remove his worst WC and keep everyone else poor and good WC, then compare. We are giving advantage to Wasim here,

Wasim in WC - after removing his worst WC(87) - against non-minnows

Avg 26 , ER 4.18 SR 37

None of them are great to be honest. I could see if you are low ER and high avg due to batsmen playing you out, but ER of 4.18 for his career time is high. For reference, BUmrah has 4.2 in current era with higher scoring era. So nothing great about ER as well. Opening was lot less scoring those days and both bowles bowl in death overs. I am not compring hese two, trying to counter points we use for Wasim.

I mean is it even worth bringing one match in final for Wasim he has a poor WC record? I am not sure about it.


Wasim in WC - after removing his worst WC(87) - against non-minnows

View attachment 44774




WC for others without removing their worst WC - against non-minnows

View attachment 44775

So after removing the worst WC, if a pacer is not showing up anywhere close to output produced by so many others, does it tell anything? Remember we are not removing bad WC for others here and yet, tons of bowlers have outperformed Wasim in WC.

I think many of us who grew up watching Wasim over rate his WC reord due to 2 wickets spell in final. Me included.

Then I posted about Finals with a large sample size. If you take WC and Finals of tri series, it'a 60-70 ODI with high profile. Wasim does not come close to near top in that. What he comes in top is volume.


I think relative success of Wasim on test and ODI, both is quite less agaisnt porper teams. It's not a surpise that you will do better against weaker teams, but others don't fall off that much in output against better teams.

I do consider Wasim as the second best ODI bowler in 90s behind McGrath. I was trying to simply say that does Wasim have great record which is not based on volume? Quesiton for that is conetxt about comparing across era. Since we can't really compare volume across eras due to changes in ODI, we shoudl be able to see 60-70 most high profile games agaisnt non-minnows across eras for players to see how they stack up. I don't think we will get 60-70 for all players to be honest. Just makign a poiont.

Imran Khan

So underrated in ODIs.

 

[MasterBlaster24]

I mostly agree that looking at best in eras is better way to go with so many changes in ODI games and arrival of T20. I was only questioning that should we start putting all previous era bowler high up only due to volume or we can have some large enough sample size in ODI to compare them. Off course we can't compare raw stats due to ODI being far more high scoring now than earlier eras, but we can still see something meanigful to compare? Or we simply say that so and so were best in their era and leave it at that for shorter formats?

Also, for 90s/00s - I will argue that Pollock was not really far behind Wasim. I mean despite playing later he has lower ER than Wasim and Wasim wasn't really picking wickets that more frequenly than Pollock against non-minnows.

See below,

View attachment 44778

In ODI you win by games by outbatting oppositions. I meant to say that you can win by giving less runs without picking simple wickets which you can't do in test. So ER low gets a veyr high priority in ODI and T20. Harder to score bowlers are worth a lot in limited overs.

So avg of Wasim is better slightly but Pollock is better in ER despite debuting 10 years later than Wasim. Wasim played ODI in 80s where 200 runs were seen as decent.

not makign a case for Pollock over Wasim, simply pointing out that Wasim gets rated veyr high by all of us in ODI, does he have performacne to get rated that high or we all remmber his 2 wickets in final of WC and ignore many others who were equally good inf not better becasue they don't have that spell in final due to not playing a final or simply not having that spell. Also, I think it was 50/3 kind of match by Wasim and not a case where he blew out opposition with 25/5.

I think I am mixing two different point in this post.

1 - Should we rate previous era bowles higher simply due to volume or we can get some reasonable sample size to compare them across era. I know it's hard due to changes in ODI and not as easy as test.

2 - Does Wasim's output puts him in the top 5 ODI bowler in history based on his record in WC and trie series finals? Yes, we know he has volume but can we have top 5 in history just based on that?

I have not seen many bowler better than Wasim when it comes to skill set suited for ODI to be honest. I am only playing a devils advocate to see supporting arguments to rate Wasim that high based on output and not based on intangibles. So many have outperformed Wasim in WC even after removing worst WC for Wasim. For the same reason, I brought up Pollock's record above. I have myself rated Wasim among the top 5 in ODI. But if I can't show with any proper argument that across era comparison can be made and Wasim comes near the top then I don't know how to justify putting Wasim among the top 5 pacers in ODI. Then all the talk about top 3 or top 5 in history is meaningless for shorter formats.

Pollock's bowling economy rate is excellent. He was
harder to hit than Mcgrath and Wasim in 90s.

But,

Pollock's stats against top 7 opponents away(home of opposition)

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Pollock's stats against top 7 opponents in world cups

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...fault;template=results;trophy=12;type=bowling

Wasim is clearly better than Pollock imho.

 

[Migara]

Donald >> Pollock

In ODIs Pollock is a class above Donals.

 

[Rob Wesley]

I mostly agree that looking at best in eras is better way to go with so many changes in ODI games and arrival of T20. I was only questioning that should we start putting all previous era bowler high up only due to volume or we can have some large enough sample size in ODI to compare them. Off course we can't compare raw stats due to ODI being far more high scoring now than earlier eras, but we can still see something meanigful to compare? Or we simply say that so and so were best in their era and leave it at that for shorter formats?

Also, for 90s/00s - I will argue that Pollock was not really far behind Wasim. I mean despite playing later he has lower ER than Wasim and Wasim wasn't really picking wickets that more frequenly than Pollock against non-minnows.

See below,

View attachment 44778

In ODI you win by games by outbatting oppositions. I meant to say that you can win by giving less runs without picking simple wickets which you can't do in test. So ER low gets a veyr high priority in ODI and T20. Harder to score bowlers are worth a lot in limited overs.

So avg of Wasim is better slightly but Pollock is better in ER despite debuting 10 years later than Wasim. Wasim played ODI in 80s where 200 runs were seen as decent.

not makign a case for Pollock over Wasim, simply pointing out that Wasim gets rated veyr high by all of us in ODI, does he have performacne to get rated that high or we all remmber his 2 wickets in final of WC and ignore many others who were equally good inf not better becasue they don't have that spell in final due to not playing a final or simply not having that spell. Also, I think it was 50/3 kind of match by Wasim and not a case where he blew out opposition with 25/5.

I think I am mixing two different point in this post.

1 - Should we rate previous era bowles higher simply due to volume or we can get some reasonable sample size to compare them across era. I know it's hard due to changes in ODI and not as easy as test.

2 - Does Wasim's output puts him in the top 5 ODI bowler in history based on his record in WC and trie series finals? Yes, we know he has volume but can we have top 5 in history just based on that?

I have not seen many bowler better than Wasim when it comes to skill set suited for ODI to be honest. I am only playing a devils advocate to see supporting arguments to rate Wasim that high based on output and not based on intangibles. So many have outperformed Wasim in WC even after removing worst WC for Wasim. For the same reason, I brought up Pollock's record above. I have myself rated Wasim among the top 5 in ODI. But if I can't show with any proper argument that across era comparison can be made and Wasim comes near the top then I don't know how to justify putting Wasim among the top 5 pacers in ODI. Then all the talk about top 3 or top 5 in history is meaningless for shorter formats.

You have excluded Zimbabwe for Wasim who were a decent ODI side in 90s and counted WI for current era players. Anyways, that is still not a problem.

However, we do need to value the longevity argument. The longer a player plays, he will find his stats get a hit. Wasim was all situation bowler. He was versatile enough to take up every role( new ball, death overs) and won the World Cup for Pakistan in absence of Waqar in 1992.

When a career is long enough, making comparisons with bowlers who got 150-200 wickets in their odi career is not fair because Wasim sits at 500 wickets and his average is also 23.

In your previous post, you mentioned the World Cup performances and listed some names but how many of them even had a career of 200 ODI wickets with average under 25- McGrath, Starc and who else? None.

Of the bowlers from 90s and 00s, Donald, Ambrose, Waqar and Pollock have not been a standout wicket taker in any World Cup or won his team a World Cup knockout game. Wasim not only have longevity on his side with 500 wickets at 23 but also a successful World Cup with leading performance throughout the tournament and the World Cup final win. Only McGrath can lay the same claim among pacers of his era. He has 380 wickets and was player of series in 2007 World Cup and also did well in 2003 World Cup.

Note that I am not saying that Garner, Starc or Bumrah have to pick 350-400 ODI wickets to get compared Wasim but my only point is that it is not a fair stat filtering when you are looking at avg/sr for a fast bowler from different era with 500 wickets and comparing it with a fast bowler of current era with 150 or even 200 wickets.

I would leave the comparisons of these fast bowlers based on their achievements instead of these stats filtering in World Cups where Fleming, Tait, McDermott comes ahead of generational bowlers.

 

[MasterBlaster24]

In ODIs Pollock is a class above Donals.

I don't think there is too much of a gap between them in ODIs.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't think there is too much of a gap between them in ODIs.

Not as bowlers, but Pollock was quite a good lower order batsman.

 

[Randomfan]

You have excluded Zimbabwe for Wasim who were a decent ODI side in 90s and counted WI for current era players. Anyways, that is still not a problem.

However, we do need to value the longevity argument. The longer a player plays, he will find his stats get a hit. Wasim was all situation bowler. He was versatile enough to take up every role( new ball, death overs) and won the World Cup for Pakistan in absence of Waqar in 1992.

When a career is long enough, making comparisons with bowlers who got 150-200 wickets in their odi career is not fair because Wasim sits at 500 wickets and his average is also 23.

In your previous post, you mentioned the World Cup performances and listed some names but how many of them even had a career of 200 ODI wickets with average under 25- McGrath, Starc and who else? None.

Of the bowlers from 90s and 00s, Donald, Ambrose, Waqar and Pollock have not been a standout wicket taker in any World Cup or won his team a World Cup knockout game. Wasim not only have longevity on his side with 500 wickets at 23 but also a successful World Cup with leading performance throughout the tournament and the World Cup final win. Only McGrath can lay the same claim among pacers of his era. He has 380 wickets and was player of series in 2007 World Cup and also did well in 2003 World Cup.

Note that I am not saying that Garner, Starc or Bumrah have to pick 350-400 ODI wickets to get compared Wasim but my only point is that it is not a fair stat filtering when you are looking at avg/sr for a fast bowler from different era with 500 wickets and comparing it with a fast bowler of current era with 150 or even 200 wickets.

I would leave the comparisons of these fast bowlers based on their achievements instead of these stats filtering in World Cups where Fleming, Tait, McDermott comes ahead of generational bowlers.

Come on, Zim? Zim with W/L 0.07 in ODI with 5 , just 5, wins in entire history agaisnt non-minnows. WI has 3-4 times higher W/L in the last 10 years with lot more wins. No way anyone should have objection to keeping WI and removing Zim. I suspect it's another case of rating the past much higher despite data showing otherwise.





What are the achievements exactly?

Is it team making to final and winning the final? That can't be really reflction of any player because we are talking about 1-2 games in entire career. Also, aren't we mixing team result with individual performance then. Should we start rating players very high just based on wins by team.

I was trying to nail down how do you define those achievement. You are calling it stats filtering, but that was just an attempt to see if player really perfromed well in WCs taken together. We even took out Wasim's worst WC. Some one else coming higher in stats does not mean that they are better in career. It shows that Wasim didn't really do that great in WC taken together, but gets a pass due to one spell in final.

If WC games or finals in tri series taken togetner having 60-70 games are not indication of anything then how come only 1-2 games which happens to be final be responsible for elevating the stature. Now if you are simply saying that it's volume then I don't have any counter arguement. No one is beating Wasim in volume.