Akthar or Thomson?

[fredfertang]

The difference I suspect, says a man who found the pace bowling of West Indies reserve keeper David Williams frightening, is in the actions - Thommo, having his hand behind his back in his delivery stride, denied the comparatively unprotected batsman that extra split second that Shoaib's action gave the well protected 21st century batsman

Injury and being a one trick pony meant Thommo's peak was very short but at his best he was better than Shoaib and probably the most frightening bowler the game has seen

 

[NasserFan207]

I'd take the seventies version of Thommo, mostly because I can't stand Akhtar.

 

[Fusion]

I can't stand Akhtar either, but if we're talking who's the better bowler, not the better person, then it has to be Akhtar.

 

[morgieb]

Although Thomson's record is worse than what it should be, it's still probably Akthar.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't say Thomson is necessarily a better bowler but I'd take him from 1974/75 and 1975/76 over anyone.

Including Waqar Younis of 1990/91-1994/95?

Either way, think it's safe to say Thomson of the aforementioned season or two was about as good as one is likely to be. He then had one big injury, returned decent, and packed off to WSC and was never remotely the same again after that schism was repaired.

Shoaib has been stop-start all career with injuries, and more often than not when he's got on the park he's been a serious force to be reckoned with.

All-in-all, Shoaib was probably the better bowler as things turned-out but the question of who'd have been better had the two been blessed with stronger bodies \ less ill-luck is frankly an impossible one to answer.

 

[Richard]

The Thommo of the 1970s had a similar record to Shoaib. He damaged his record a bit by playing on into the 80s and ultimately bowling a lot slower than his awesome peak.

Thommo's record is actually very good 1974/75-1982/83. The biggest damage was done by his idiotically playing on with a broken foot on debut and his possibly even more stupid decision to come out of retirement for the 1985 Ashes tour.

It's true, as I mentioned above, that he wasn't much of a force for most of the time after WSC but he actually had a very decent last-hurrah in the 1982/83 Ashes after Lillee got injured. Or, at least, it should've been his last-hurrah.

 

[Richard]

Tyson played considerably fewer tests and has a better record in those tests than both players, I don't think healthy comparison is possible.

Tyson was also someone who by his own admission was always going to be a very short-term success. He once said "I'll bowl fast or not at all" or words to that effect, UIMM, and he unlike Thomson and Shoaib had absolutely no interest whatsoever in a long career.

Nonetheless, the Tyson of 1954/55 could easily have been both faster and better than the Thomson of 1974/75. We'll never be able to be absolutely sure.

 

[Burgey]

I can't stand Akhtar either, but if we're talking who's the better bowler, not the better person, then it has to be Akhtar.

Probably something close to a tie on the personality front too, tbh.

My memories of Thommo are necessarily coloured by the fact I was so young when I saw him play. I still remember the hullabaloo over the collision with Alan Turner in Adelaide though. Can only say I'd probably, as a pure bowler, take Shoaib. Thommo's peak was so short that it is difficult to really regard him as highly as I'd like to.

Jesus Christ he was quick though. Mind you, so was/ is Shoaib.

 

[Jono]

Yeah exactly. Both clearly assholes.

 

[Burgey]

Including Waqar Younis of 1990/91-1994/95?

Either way, think it's safe to say Thomson of the aforementioned season or two was about as good as one is likely to be. He then had one big injury, returned decent, and packed off to WSC and was never remotely the same again after that schism was repaired.

Shoaib has been stop-start all career with injuries, and more often than not when he's got on the park he's been a serious force to be reckoned with.

All-in-all, Shoaib was probably the better bowler as things turned-out but the question of who'd have been better had the two been blessed with stronger bodies \ less ill-luck is frankly an impossible one to answer.

Thommo didn't play WSC, or at least all of it, did he? Unless he got a special dispensation when I watched him bowl v India for Australia at the SCG in 1977.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Thomson's stats in both tests and first class cricket indicate that he was nowhere near as good as he himself thought he was. He does look incredibly fast in his pomp though.

You do have to take into account the fact he got injured though. As someone else said, from '74 to '76 he was lethal.

 

[Migara]

Injury and being a one trick pony meant Thommo's peak was very short but at his best he was better than Shoaib and probably the most frightening bowler the game has seen

No one comes close to Roy Gilchrist in that aspect.

 

[Top_Cat]

No one comes close to Roy Gilchrist in that aspect.

There's a bit of a difference between 'scary' and 'psychopathic'.

 

[bagapath]

Nobody wants genital warts. Despite that Akhthar would be my choice simply because he was a more potent lead bowler. Thommo's greatest contribution to the game of cricket was adding shock value to the aussie bowling attack lead by the great dennis lillee. On the other hand Akhthar was capable of leading - and did for a brief while - the entire bowling attack on his own. Thommo didnt bowl out the opposition enough to carve his own mark in test cricket history. Terrific bowlers, both, but one is clearly better than the other.

 

[The Sean]

Thommo didn't play WSC, or at least all of it, did he? Unless he got a special dispensation when I watched him bowl v India for Australia at the SCG in 1977.

I think he only joined Packer for the second season of WSC and was still part of the establishment in '77.

 

[DaRick]

Well, both were very similar in some ways: they were both arguably the quickest bowlers of their generations at their peak and both had freakish actions which made them all the more disconcerting. At their peak, each was utterly magnificent and could rip through any team, on any surface, at any time.

However, for all of his faults (general irresponsibility + serious injury problems), it is hard not to conclude that Shoaib was the superior bowler. For one thing, he had to bowl in Pakistan - a quick bowler's graveyard. Bowling was also more difficult during most of Shoaib's career than in Thomson's. Shoaib himself had more variety - he had some clever slower balls, outswing and reverse swing and most likely cutters (given where he had to bowl). I'm not sure how much swing Thomson got, but he seemed to rely far more on his pace and action than Shoaib. After that collar injury, he could still bowl quickly and generate some alarming lift at times, but without the shock factor derived from his action, he was less effective.

Of course, Thomson's record is affected by his decision to tour England in 1985, but even without it, his record is slightly poorer than Shoaib's, so it means little in this comparison.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Thommo didn't play WSC, or at least all of it, did he? Unless he got a special dispensation when I watched him bowl v India for Australia at the SCG in 1977.

I think he only joined Packer for the second season of WSC and was still part of the establishment in '77.

Thomson was one of the original recruits for the first season of World Series Cricket. But part way through the 1977 Ashes Tour he withdrew due to other contractual obligations making it impossible for him to participate. The day after he pulled out he came out to bat in the Test Match and got a very generous round of applause from the crowd who mistakenly believed he'd pulled out for the good of cricket. He played in the official series against India and also went on the official tour of the West Indies. On that tour he bowled what is generally considered to be the fastest spell of his career against the full strength West Indies team who still had their Packer players in their side for the first part of the series.
He joined WSC at the earliest opportunity that his other obligations would allow.

 

[The Sean]

Great stuff, thanks LT.

 

[iamdavid]

Never saw Thommo so it's a difficult comparison.

But when Akthar was really on then he had alot more going for him than just pace, he had deceptively good control and an ability to move the ball around seemingly at will, the pace was just the icing on the cake. Only problem was the stamina, he could never maintain it for too long due to that huge run up and that fact he always seemed to be injured/returning from injury.

A couple of series stand out in my mind (vs New Zealand and Australia in 2002) where he had a couple of hot streaks and made some very good batsman look stupid on pretty slow/bland wickets.

 

[Ikki]

Recommend:

YouTube - Shoaib Akhtar v Ricky Ponting (" Fastest Over Ever Bowled " - Langer)