Mcgrath vs Wasim Akram

[Jumno]

Mcgrath out smarted Tendulkar in very very important games in the 1999 must win super six match and 2003 WC final bowling it much quicker.

 

[Randomfan]

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.

Good points. Anyway, I rate Wasim over Pollock.

 

[Rob Wesley]

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.

View attachment 44806



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.

Being the best bowler of the tournament alongwith World Cup Final performance in winning cause is not an achievement? Yes team did well but the standout performer deserves the credit most for winning the tournament. Stokes deserved for 2019 WC, Starc for 2015 WC, McGrath for 2007 and Wasim for 1992.

Comparing World Cup record is not a bad parameter but that alone can’t be the single parameter. Wasim played 5 World Cups, some of those names listed have played 2-3. That’s not a fair comparison.

As I said, Wasim is the standout bowler of his era alongwith McGrath for two reasons:-

1. Winning the World Cup as a standout performer and best bowler of the tournament. Wasim was standout in WC Final also. That’s the pinnacle of the format that he has already achieved. It already seals the argument of quality for him.

2. Longevity with great record and Wasim’s longevity is better than everyone. It is like Sachin’s longevity in ODIs.

So, he has sealed longevity + quality both.

 

[Randomfan]

Comparing World Cup record is not a bad parameter but that alone can’t be the single parameter. Wasim played 5 World Cups, some of those names listed have played 2-3. That’s not a fair comparison.

As I said, Wasim is the standout bowler of his era alongwith McGrath for two reasons:-

One bowler can have 1 great WC , but some other can have 3 great WCs despite playing only 3. Why will it matter if they played only 3 instead of 5-6 WCs? If Wasim was great in 5 WCs then saynig that it's not fair to compare with anyone with 2-3 makes sense to me. But Wasim had 2 terrible WCs, one great and one decent.

I am with you here that After McGrath, Wasim was the best ODI bowler in that generation. I am trying to simply see if anyone elese can be better from modern era despite not having volume.

Let me ask it this way, What would modern era pacers have to do to be rated better than Wasim?

Is it,

200-250 ODI wickets at good avg + 2-3 great WCs with wining one WC + better over all record than Wasim in WC? Or something else?

Starc already has around 250 ODI wickets at Avg 23. He has 2 brilliant WCs(both better than Wasim). He was part of 2 WC winning team, that's more than Wasim did. What more should we expect for modern era bowler to do to be rated ahead of Wasim? Yes, Stac has played 3 WCs but he has outperformed Wasim.

Are we looking for Starc to get to 350-400 ODI wickets? Or have another great WC with his team to win 3rd one. Aren't we then putting cut off which Wasim never crossed to begin? My point is, if it's just volume then no one is crossing it. If it's good enough volume with quality then Starc has it.

 

[Rob Wesley]

One bowler can have 1 great WC , but some other can have 3 great WCs despite playing only 3. Why will it matter if they played only 3 instead of 5-6 WCs? If Wasim was great in 5 WCs then saynig that it's not fair to compare with anyone with 2-3 makes sense to me. But Wasim had 2 terrible WCs, one great and one decent.

I am with you here that After McGrath, Wasim was the best ODI bowler in that generation. I am trying to simply see if anyone elese can be better from modern era despite not having volume.

Let me ask it this way, What would modern era pacers have to do to be rated better than Wasim?

Is it,

200-250 ODI wickets at good avg + 2-3 great WCs with wining one WC + better over all record than Wasim in WC? Or something else?

Starc already has around 250 ODI wickets at Avg 23. He has 2 brilliant WCs(both better than Wasim). He was part of 2 WC winning team, that's more than Wasim did. What more should we expect for modern era bowler to do to be rated ahead of Wasim? Yes, Stac has played 3 WCs but he has outperformed Wasim.

Are we looking for Starc to get to 350-400 ODI wickets? Or have another great WC with his team to win 3rd one. Aren't we then putting cut off which Wasim never crossed to begin? My point is, if it's just volume then no one is crossing it. If it's good enough volume with quality then Starc has it.

It’s a valid discussion- Starc vs Akram in ODIs.

Starc has a strong case.

I am not sure about Shami. How many matches he has played? 100 ODIs + 20 T20s = 120 games and about 225 LOI wickets. Sometimes lower sample helps a lot.

 

[Randomfan]

It’s a valid discussion- Starc vs Akram in ODIs.

Starc has a strong case.

I am not sure about Shami. How many matches he has played? 100 ODIs + 20 T20s = 120 games and about 225 LOI wickets. Sometimes lower sample helps a lot.

i think Shami has a far less sample size in limted overs. You don't know how it will look with higher sample. I like the idea of combining ODI and T20 because both are elimited overs and ODI's has been taken over by T20. If you feel Starc has a strong claim then it means we can actually take T20+ODI for modern era and compare it to ODI of older era. Sure, stats are hard to coampre due to different formats , but this way older era does not become default win based on volume. I see that Starc has around 80 wickets in T20. I think anyone having 300-350 ODI + T20 wickets with good achiements and good stats then becomes a decent candidate for comparison with older era greats of ODI cricket. That's a good way to go.

I suspect though, many fans will just refuse to do that and say so many wickets in ODi in older era and then at the same time they may ignore T20 wickets/achievements. But I think that's a sensible way to see limited overs standing. After that fans can rate whoever they want higher or lower across era, but it gives one sensible way to make comparisons.

 

[Rob Wesley]

i think Shami has a far less sample size in limted overs. You don't know how it will look with higher sample. I like the idea of combining ODI and T20 because both are elimited overs and ODI's has been taken over by T20. If you feel Starc has a strong claim then it means we can actually take T20+ODI for modern era and compare it to ODI of older era. Sure, stats are hard to coampre due to different formats , but this way older era does not become default win based on volume. I see that Starc has around 80 wickets in T20. I think anyone having 300-350 ODI + T20 wickets with good achiements and good stats then becomes a decent candidate for comparison with older era greats of ODI cricket. That's a good way to go.

I suspect though, many fans will just refuse to do that and say so many wickets in ODi in older era and then at the same time they may ignore T20 wickets/achievements. But I think that's a sensible way to see limited overs standing. After that fans can rate whoever they want higher or lower across era, but it gives one sensible way to make comparisons.

Ultimately it will come down to picking top 3-4 standout fast bowlers from each era and then look who among them delivered on big stages more often than not and win his team the World Cup.

Nowadays, ODI bilaterals have lost its importance but simply looking at World Cup performance and rating say, a Starc, Shami, Boult or Bumrah above McGrath and Wasim might seem unfair or unacceptable for those who grew up watching those two.

It would be like they have picked 380 and 500 wickets and simply based on 50 World Cup wickets, we are concluding that modern era pacers are better. Hence, first filter should be to identify top performers of each era and then ultimately look at big games to make any conclusion.

 

[Rob Wesley]

@Randomfan ,

Also the prime era of ODI cricket will also remain the period between 1990-2015. That phase was when ODI cricket was at its peak. T20 cricket has taken away the limelight from ODIs actually because the casuals have managed to find a way to preserve Test cricket.

In past, a tour in general would comprise of 3 Tests and 5 ODIs. Nowadays, a full fledged tour would usually comprise of 3 Tests, 3 ODIs and 3 T20Is. The impact of T20I cricket has been significant mostly on ODIs. We still get to see a 5 test match series between top teams.

World T20Is happening every two years has impacted ODI World Cups too. Indian fans who were heartbroken after 2023 WC final forgot it in next 6 months time and got a T20 World Cup win to celebrate.

When someone asks you to create an all time ODI XI, most would mention Wasim and McGrath in their all time ODI XI including Australian greats. No one will pick Starc above Wasim. That’s probably due to bilateral ODIs losing it’s importance.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@Randomfan ,

Also the prime era of ODI cricket will also remain the period between 1990-2015. That phase was when ODI cricket was at its peak. T20 cricket has taken away the limelight from ODIs actually because the casuals have managed to find a way to preserve Test cricket

In past, a tour in general would comprise of 3 Tests and 5 ODIs. Nowadays, a full fledged tour would usually comprise of 3 Tests, 3 ODIs and 3 T20Is. The impact of T20I cricket has been significant mostly on ODIs. We still get to see a 5 test match series between top teams.

World T20Is happening every two years has impacted ODI World Cups too. Indian fans who were heartbroken after 2023 WC final forgot it in next 6 months time and got a T20 World Cup win to celebrate.

When someone asks you to create an all time ODI XI, most would mention Wasim and McGrath in their all time ODI XI including Australian greats. No one will pick Starc above Wasim. That’s probably due to bilateral ODIs losing it’s importance.

Forgot is a strong word and I won't use it...... It felt more like a consolation price tbh

 

[DrWolverine]

@Randomfan ,
When someone asks you to create an all time ODI XI, most would mention Wasim and McGrath in their all time ODI XI including Australian greats. No one will pick Starc above Wasim. That’s probably due to bilateral ODIs losing its importance.

T20s has replaced one day cricket as the second most important format for a very long time except ODI WC