wasim akram vs glenn mcgrath

[gunner]

who is better?

i think wasim just about beats mcgrath

wasim was attacking bowler,

could bowl 6 different deliveries in an over

mcgrath has more test wickets but is a line and length and swing bolwer with unerring accuracy

 

[andyc]

who is better?

i think wasim just about beats mcgrath

wasim was attacking bowler,

could bowl 6 different deliveries in an over

mcgrath has more test wickets but is a line and length and swing bolwer with unerring accuracy

Ummm... okay.
Why is that a bad thing?

 

[silentstriker]

who is better?

i think wasim just about beats mcgrath

wasim was attacking bowler,

could bowl 6 different deliveries in an over

mcgrath has more test wickets but is a line and length and swing bolwer with unerring accuracy

I would say McGrath is better than Wasim. McGrath IMO is the best pace bowler of all time. Wasim, Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose, Barnes, etc are also in that top echelon. Its hard to separate them out, and if you pick any of them as the 'best ever', I wouldn't really argue with you. However, if you ask me to pick one guy for the length of his career, it would be McGrath.

 

[silentstriker]

who is better?

i think wasim just about beats mcgrath

wasim was attacking bowler,

could bowl 6 different deliveries in an over

mcgrath has more test wickets but is a line and length and swing bolwer with unerring accuracy

You say Wasim was an attacking bowler, and that is certainly true. But if you say McGrath is not an attacking bowler, you are completely and utterly wrong. The method of attack is different, but its an attack nonetheless. The thing that puts McGrath at the top of my list is that he gets such a high percentage of top order wickets. Cleaning up the tail is important, but where you separate the best of the best is how they do against the best batsman of the opposing side (top 5, or 6).

 

[deeps]

If out of these two, someone had to bowl ONE delivery, and take a wicket, i would pick Wasim.

IMO he is capable of more 'spectacular' deliveries, and can get the batsman out.

Mcgrath relies more heavily on the batsman getting himself out. He does get them out but more often than not, he forces the batsman to make a mistake.

Both different types of bowlers really, Mcgrath being the more reliable, Wasim being the more spectacular

I'd take Waqar in his prime over both

 

[benchmark00]

McGrath > Akram.

 

[silentstriker]

I'd take Waqar in his prime over both

Thats the argument C_C and I had with Goughy. My personal preference is always consistent excellence over a long period of time, over a smaller flash of brilliance. Thats why I rated Imran Khan ahead of Botham. Botham at his absolute peak might have been more destructive than Imran at his peak, but Imran easily wins because he was able to do it so long. The same thing with McGrath. He wins out easily because he does it day after day, month after month, year after year. You can build your team around him for a decade and a half. And he will do it for you test in and test out. Thats what you need to build a champion.

I respect Goughys' opinion, and I am not sure if he'd differ in this case...but I strongly feel that consistent greatness should always win out against momentary or inconsistent brilliance.

 

[FRAZ]

Stats wise and wickets wise , stamina wise , Mcgrath better . I think Akram is not that far behind as you cannot compare Ferrari and Mclaren , both legends in their own sense .
In my all time top ten bowlers list
Mcgrath is the top bowler and Wasim is I guess numba 4 or 5 , Waqar is 2nd and Shoaib Akhtar is number 8 . I judge the bowler by his striking ability , By the variation in the bowling and by the fear in the batsman's heart .....

 

[FRAZ]

more spectacular

I'd take Waqar in his prime over both

Welcome to the hood Deeps, I appreciate your comment . I think Waqar's ability to beat the batsman and to make him dance on his feet was just too good as a treat .
First logical and wonderful and biasless comment .Waqar at his prime was like un-playable .

 

[gunner]

if wasim and waqar werent droped after world cup wasim would have retired in 2004 india series most likely and waqar would still have been playing,

hes still only 34 years old,
he would have had more wickets than mcgrath

 

[FRAZ]

I agree with the Waqar's retirement which was too early but Wasim was due because he was diabetic,And hey wickets and statstics dont really matter TBH . Jadeja may have hammered Waqar in a match for a couple of boundries but Legend is Waqar . Shahid may have almost an equal record like Kapil but Kapil is a legend. Razzaq may have a better record than Kapil but Kapil was more important for his team . IMHO from Subcontinant in the 90's Wasim ,Waqar , Srinath were greats .

 

[Swervy]

i seem to remember tis topic from around about 3 years ago on here...I seemed to remember getting a good bashing when I said that McGrath was the more successful bowler out of the two.

 

[silentstriker]

i seem to remember tis topic from around about 3 years ago on here...I seemed to remember getting a good bashing when I said that McGrath was the more successful bowler out of the two.

To be fair, around 3-4 years ago, I would have given the edge to Wasim as well. It's not like there is a massive difference. But the continued excellence of McGrath now overtakes Wasim, imo. I don't want to be misunderstood: its very close, I can easily see why people would rate other people from the same echelon as being better....but for me McGrath edges out.

 

[Swervy]

To be fair, around 3-4 years ago, I would have given the edge to Wasim as well. It's not like there is a massive difference. But the continued excellence of McGrath now overtakes Wasim, imo. I don't want to be misunderstood: its very close, I can easily see why people would rate other people from the same echelon as being better....but for me McGrath edges out.

why would those last couple of years have given the edge to McGrath all of a sudden....he was even back then the more successful bowler!!!!

 

[silentstriker]

why would those last couple of years have given the edge to McGrath all of a sudden....he was even back then the more more successful bowler!!!!

It was about even then. But his continued excellence for even a longer period means he edges out....

It's not 'all of a sudden', its a gradual increase in my rating.

 

[Dasa]

why would those last couple of years have given the edge to McGrath all of a sudden....he was even back then the more successful bowler!!!!

He wasn't conclusively the more successful bowler...it was justifiable either way (as it is now), but your post suggests there is only one choice in the matter.

 

[Swervy]

He wasn't conclusively the more successful bowler...it was justifiable either way (as it is now), but your post suggests there is only one choice in the matter.

my argument is that mcgrath is and was the more successful bowler...when that original discussion took place, McGraths bowling average was around 2 runs per wicket less, he had about 30 less wickets in about 20 less test matches. That to me is more successful, which I got criticised for saying.

Whether someone is better is a different story.

 

[marc71178]

I'll take McGrath from one end and Wasim from the other please.

 

[Goughy]

Thats the argument C_C and I had with Goughy. My personal preference is always consistent excellence over a long period of time, over a smaller flash of brilliance.

Well I would take McGrath over Wasim as he has really never failed at any point and I cannot think of any areas of his bowling to criticise. He has also been the best bowler on arguably the best team in history for over a decade.

But with Waqar vs Wasim my general thoughts apply. I rate Waqar a fair bit higher. Waqar was from another planet and whilst his prime was not as long as Wasims he was a different class

NOTE- All the above applies to Test cricket. If I respected ODIs more maybe Wasim would rank higher. But purely on how good Waqar was I rate him higher than Wasim.

Interestingly the difference between the bowling average of McGrath and Wasim/Waqar is the approx the same as the difference between Wasim/Waqar and Jason Gillespie which is again the same as the difference between Gillespie and Darenn Gough.

I would class McGrath as top level great, Gillespie very good and Gough good.

Wasim and Waqar would in my book fall in the category of between the top one or 2 (McGrath class)and the very good (Gillespie Class). It would put them in the excellent and special category.

 

[Fusion]

Wasim Akram for me, but just barely. If I am selecting a team, I prize the lefty more because they are harder to find. Also, Wasim had that ability to turn a game completely arounnd by taking 4 to 5 wickets in a matter of a few overs (Waqar even more so). Can't go wrong with either one though.