Shoaib Akhtar or Brett Lee?

[Blaze 18]

I, and their statistics, respectfully disagree.

That's fine Debris, we all have our opinions. As for their statistics, don't their ODI records pretty much mirror each other ? (I'm not able to access cricinfo at the moment, for some weird reason - not a massive fan of statistics either, so apologies if I am wrong).

 

[blahblahblah]

lee any day anytime

 

[Debris]

That's fine Debris, we all have our opinions. As for their statistics, don't their ODI records pretty much mirror each other ? (I'm not able to access cricinfo at the moment, for some weird reason - not a massive fan of statistics either, so apologies if I am wrong).

Lee's are just that little bit better from what I can see but the difference is not huge.

I hesitate to bring this up but does the fact that Akhtar took steroids lessen his achievements at all?

 

[TumTum]

Akhtar for Tests, Lee for ODIs.

 

[abmk]

akhtar in tests and lee in ODIs

 

[salman85]

Lee's are just that little bit better from what I can see but the difference is not huge.

I hesitate to bring this up but does the fact that Akhtar took steroids lessen his achievements at all?

i

I don't think they lessen his achievements.The time he took steroids was the weakest part of his career and personally i don't recall any great performances by him during that period.

 

[vcs]

While that might be true, when a non-athletics sportsman takes drugs, it's mainly his credibility that takes a hit, so it's kind of irrelevant. It's always debatable how much (if any) advantage there is to taking PEDs in skill-based sports like cricket, though in Akhtar's case the physical boost might be significant.

 

[salman85]

The boost would have been significant for Shoaib i'm sure,because of the effort that went into his bowling.But like i said,how good was he bowling before and after the drug scandal?That is the only way we can judge how much of an effect the steroids on him,and even then we would only be guessing.

TBH,i had completely forgotten about the drug scandal before it was mentioned in this thread.Kind of shows you the magnitude of things going around him off the field.

 

[Ikki]

Shoaib was definitely the better bowler but ended up having a ****ty career.

 

[salman85]

****ty is going to far,no?

His figures obviously don't reveal his true potential,but they aren't exactly bad either.Infact they're pretty good.Kind of makes you wonder the kind of bowler he would have been had he concentrated on playing cricket alone.

 

[Ikki]

I am not referring to his figures, but that his career only lasted 46 tests. For someone of his ability he should have had at least double that many tests and he could have had all kinds of records.

 

[salman85]

That part is true.

A bit off topic though,but the point you make about him playing twice as many test matches as he did,kind of rings a bell :

Tearaway fast bowlers are playing less and less tests,and having fitness issues.Lee,Shoaib,Tait,Bond,all had their test careers cut short due to injuries amongst other things.Steyn is an exception even though i wouldn't call him tearaway.

Sad to see really.Tearaway fast bowlers have become blue whales,and test matches the Pacific

 

[blahblahblah]

I am not referring to his figures, but that his career only lasted 46 tests. For someone of his ability he should have had at least double that many tests and he could have had all kinds of records.

well sometimes figures dont really suggest the greatness or the ability of a player and i need not be telling that to people

shane bond which some people have request to be int he polln ever had quite a career with the national team as his time was spent getting out of the kiwis squad nto the icl and then to the ipl and then back to the team by which his injuries became more stingy

i wish the number would have been something more than 100 and not just 46 , but sometimes, just got to be content with what u have got

 

[chicane]

****ty is going to far,no?

His figures obviously don't reveal his true potential,but they aren't exactly bad either.Infact they're pretty good.Kind of makes you wonder the kind of bowler he would have been had he concentrated on playing cricket alone.

Would have been a contender for the best fast bowler of this era.

 

[smash84]

what could have been.......Shoaib Akhtar.....a sorry career in that respect

 

[Blaze 18]

Lee's are just that little bit better from what I can see but the difference is not huge.

I hesitate to bring this up but does the fact that Akhtar took steroids lessen his achievements at all?

The one big question you have got to ask yourself is this : how much do you think it helped him ? Given the way a thirty-six year old Akhtar still steams in and bowls 145 km/h, you'd have to say it probably didn't make a big difference to his bowling. I can certainly understand someone being a tad skeptical about his achievements - steroids would have helped him stay fitter and sustain his speeds for longer. It really depends on how you choose to look at it. I know for a fact that some of Andre Agassi's fans are adamant that his recent revelations do nothing to tarnish his legacy.

Personally speaking, whilst this drug/steroids business does lower Shoaib Akhtar in my esteem in that I'd never like or respect him as much I do say, a Wasim Akram, I don't think steroids themselves helped him a great deal. As aforesaid, it really depends on how you wish to look at it. I can see merit in both sides of the argument.

 

[Teja.]

Akthar by a fair margin as a test bowler, like everyone else in the thread.

Akthar vs Gillespie a better comparison I reckon, both similar quality and injury-prone but Gillespie more likely to get himself on the field and much more reliable while Akthar was more destructive and was likelier to run through a batting line-up on his own.

 

[Maximus0723]

For me Akhtar's legacy will always be tainted b/c of drugs and how he supposedly forced his team mates in it.

IMO, even if one is Pakistani fan, we should be happy he isn't in the top tier of fast bowlers. Look at baseball, lot of their top tier players took roids. Baseball is big in it's history and tradition, being a big fan of it, it forever is tainted. I am glad Cricket isn't like that at least not yet.

Edit:: Saying that, I thought Shoaib is one of the deadliest bowler in history of cricket. I think the deadliest. I pick him over Lee in both formats.

 

[smash84]

Edit:: Saying that, I thought Shoaib is one of the deadliest bowler in history of cricket. I think the deadliest. I pick him over Lee in both formats.

Nope........having watched both at their peak I think Waqar was deadlier than Shoaib.....Waqar's inswinging yorker was peerless

 

[salman85]

Waqar's pace declined with time.He became more intelligent.If we're talking about pure raw pace swinging intimidation,then very few bowlers can hold a candle to shoaib,let alone surpass him.

Waqar was a better bowler than Shoaib,ranks amongst the greatest in history.The same can't be said about Shoaib.But an on-song Shoaib vs an on-song Waqar?Shoaib probably takes this one,and i feel weird saying this since Waqar is one of my favorite cricketers ever.