The better CRICKETER Wasim or McGrath

[smash84]

Yes, if you ignore all McGrath's big match performances then you're undoubtedly correct, but since you say there's nothing to choose between them bowling-wise, I'd question your objectivity.

For me the difference between their bowling is pretty significant and more than counters the batting difference.

Yes, if you ignore all Wasim's big match performances then you're undoubtedly correct, but since you say McGrath is significantly better than Wasim, I'd question your objectivity.

For me the difference between their bowling is negligible and doesn't counter the batting and influence on the pitch.

Salman countering Marc with a Marc-ish reply

 

[smash84]

No, not really.
My first point can not be denied that overall attitude wise, McGrath was a better team player and the history of Wasim Akram as a team player after Imran Khan left is not clean,1996 Quarter Final is one example.

If you see it skill wise, individually, then probably Wasim and McGrath stand the same but based on consistent performance McGrath wins the race. (I may be a bit Biased as I do not really 'like' Wasim Akram)

Again, Wasim Akram could turn the course of a match but not consistently however McGraths consistent performance keeps him a bit ahead (imo) in the race.

Its like having Afridi as a Batsmen in a team or Having Afridi the bowler in the team although this is a pretty bad example as Afridi the batsmen fails most of the time but just to give you an idea.

So my point is, Having Wasim in team is like having Afridi the batsmen in team, you always have a hope of winning the match in the 5th day.

On the other hand, Match fixing separates both of them and that, for me, is a huge difference.

I'll hand it to you that there were problems in Wasim's attitude but his overall contribution to Pak cricket far exceeds the problems that he carried.

Disagree on the skill part. Wasim was definitely more skilled although McG was the more consistent one. In an avg team or even in an ATXI bowling line-up it is easier to find metronomic bowlers than those who could reverse swing the ball.

Disagree with the consistently putting up match winning performances for McG and Wasim.. Wasim's Man of the match ratio of awards per number of matches is second to none.

Agree with the part that Afridi example is a pretty bad example

 

[smash84]

why? All you need to know is that the alien xi is 'better' that the human at xi. If i was picking a team to play a team where the top 6 averaged 70 and the 4 bowlers averaged 20 i'd rather have wasim than mcgrath.
Obviously if you're playing a team that is worse than you then you can afford the relative luxury of having an absolute bunny in your team to have a marginally better bowler.

+2

of course it's not as simple as that but it's not like akram is like pollock or any of the south africans and had a history of bottling is it? Think you're doing him a disservice by suggesting that mcgrath was far more likely to raise his game, akram won/saved plenty of games for pakistan. Including games against australia.
I mean his first test hundred came when pakistan were effectively 0/5 in the second innings against australia, he managed to put on 200 with imran and save the game basically. Meaning pakistan still had a chance at levelling the series.

+2

 

[Z-Man]

I'll hand it to you that there were problems in Wasim's attitude but his overall contribution to Pak cricket far exceeds the problems that he carried.

Disagree on the skill part. Wasim was definitely more skilled although McG was the more consistent one. In an avg team or even in an ATXI bowling line-up it is easier to find metronomic bowlers than those who could reverse swing the ball.

Disagree with the consistently putting up match winning performances for McG and Wasim.. Wasim's Man of the match ratio of awards per number of matches is second to none.

Agree with the part that Afridi example is a pretty bad example

Oh yes, in an AT XI I would prefer a Wasim Akram but in a regular team McGrath would be my preference.

 

[hang on]

of course it's not as simple as that but it's not like akram is like pollock or any of the south africans and had a history of bottling is it?

don't mean to be confrontational, but how do u reckon that? what has he done to show that he could consistently raise his game against best (my definition of not bottling it)? his record against australia is good but nothing amazing.

 

[ankitj]

Possible to make this poll public? Interested in seeing who voted for whom

 

[BlazeDragon]

Well basically you can argue any top class player with a some all round skills (Kallis, Akram, Jayasuriya) as being the better cricketer but you have to look at the big picture.

Is Kallis's bowling really that useful and is Akram's batting really that useful?

 

[smash84]

Well basically you can argue any top class player with a some all round skills (Kallis, Akram, Jayasuriya) as being the better cricketer but you have to look at the big picture.

Is Kallis's bowling really that useful and is Akram's batting really that useful?

what do you mean by the big picture?

 

[BlazeDragon]

what do you mean by the big picture?

Well basically you can argue any top class player with a some all round skills (Kallis, Akram, Jayasuriya) as being the better cricketer but you have to look at the big picture.

Is Kallis's bowling really that useful and is Akram's batting really that useful?

That.

 

[smash84]

It is difficult to argue that Jayasuriya was a better cricketer than McG tbh

 

[BlazeDragon]

It is difficult to argue that Jayasuriya was a better cricketer than McG tbh

Yeah that's my point. No all rounder provides equally with both the bat and ball. They are either known primarily for their batting or bowling. So its quite difficult to argue if they are better than top class bowler and batsman who only do one thing but very effectively.

Kallis and Jayasuriya can be useful with the bowl from time to time but would choose them to bowl in dire situations? I don't think so. Same thing with Akram in batting. He may be useful with the bat you never know but he might not either so I don't think I would ever send him out to bat If my team needed 100 runs from 10 overs if I had regular batsman at hand.

 

[hang on]

Yeah that's my point. No all rounder provides equally with both the bat and ball. They are either known primarily for their batting or bowling. So its quite difficult to argue if they are better than top class bowler and batsman who only do one thing but very effectively.

Kallis and Jayasuriya can be useful with the bowl from time to time but would choose them to bowl in dire situations? I don't think so. Same thing with Akram in batting. He may be useful with the bat you never know but he might not either so I don't think I would ever send him out to bat If my team needed 100 runs from 10 overs if I had regular batsman at hand.

Yes, Kallis's bowling was that useful. He has had the best bowling stats (or thereabouts) in a series on than one occasion, if memory serves. And his bowling is certainly better than Akram's batting. Kallis is a bonafide all rounder.

 

[G.I.Joe]

All this discussion is moot, because The All Time Earthling XI will be judged on their performances on Mars against the All Time Martian XI, and you're all kidding yourselves if you think we're playing anything other than 4 spinners on those Martian dustbowls. Besides, the lower gravity would afford the spinners more bounce, making them even more lethal.

 

[smash84]

Yes, Kallis's bowling was that useful. He has had the best bowling stats (or thereabouts) in a series on than one occasion, if memory serves. And his bowling is certainly better than Akram's batting. Kallis is a bonafide all rounder.

Kallis's bowling has been quite terrible over the course of his career tbh..........difficult to categorize him as a good allrounder with less than 2 wpm

 

[BlazeDragon]

Kallis's bowling has been quite terrible over the course of his career tbh..........difficult to categorize him as a good allrounder with less than 2 wpm

Overall, Kallis is most definitely better all rounder than Akram.

Kallis's case is kind of like Vettori. Yes he has outperformed his batsmen from time to time. But calling him a top class batsman is pushing it. Just like calling Kallis a top class bowler is pushing it.

 

[smash84]

awta that Kallis defintitely a better all rounder than Akram

 

[Burgey]

I find it a little hard to believe there can be an argument over this tbh.

 

[silentstriker]

McGrath

 

[Burgey]

McGrath

Nah. Not as a whole cricketing package.

 

[silentstriker]

Nah. Not as a whole cricketing package.

McGrath's bowling > Everyone else's everything.