The better CRICKETER Wasim or McGrath

[salman85]

Fantastic point in your last post.

 

[hang on]

Fantastic point in your last post.

points, actually!

 

[salman85]

 

[mono]

i think even mcgrath would admit that wasim was probably more talented as a bowler in terms of raw skill. The prodigious late swing he get's both ways was simply far more destructive than anything mcgrath had to offer. however, Mcgrath performed better. he extracted 110% of his talent and psychologically dominated batsmen.

 

[hang on]

i think even mcgrath would admit that wasim was probably more talented as a bowler in terms of raw skill. The prodigious late swing he get's both ways was simply far more destructive than anything mcgrath had to offer. however, Mcgrath performed better. he extracted 110% of his talent and psychologically dominated batsmen.

how was it more destructive if it ended up getting fewer batsmen out?

 

[smash84]

i think even mcgrath would admit that wasim was probably more talented as a bowler in terms of raw skill. The prodigious late swing he get's both ways was simply far more destructive than anything mcgrath had to offer. however, Mcgrath performed better. he extracted 110% of his talent and psychologically dominated batsmen.

This

 

[Champ]

Should be quite straightforward. Have to consider all disciplines. Both were in the same league in bowling. Wasim was far better with bat & he was a decent captain as well. So I pick Wasim.

 

[mono]

how was it more destructive if it ended up getting fewer batsmen out?

Probably because the swing wasn't always controlled properly or wasim didn't get right as consistently.

 

[marc71178]

Therefore wasn't as talented.

 

[mono]

Therefore wasn't as talented.

as far as general definitions go, i think, talent, and application of talent are two different things.

 

[Howe_zat]

How is accuracy less of a talent than swing technique? The latter can be taught and practised. The former can be practised, certainly, but it's far more to do with things like reflexes and hand-eye co-ordination - and these are things that can't be taught. Being able to land ball after ball in exactly the same spot after running in might as well be magic to the layman, and McGrath made it his forte.

 

[benchmark00]

at how not only has everything I wanted to say been said already, but how the people who said it actually credited it to me before I'd even opened the thread.

Looks like I don't actually need to post here anymore; people just post my thoughts for me. So awesome considering how lazy I am.

Yeah I think it's great how your robotic cricketing opinions can be proven rubbish even when you don't post too.

 

[mono]

How is accuracy less of a talent than swing technique? The latter can be taught and practised. The former can be practised, certainly, but it's far more to do with things like reflexes and hand-eye co-ordination - and these are things that can't be taught. Being able to land ball after ball in exactly the same spot after running in might as well be magic to the layman, and McGrath made it his forte.

To be honest even pollock had the same accuracy and consistency as McGrath. He just lacked the psychological edge. in anycase some of the akram deliveries are balls you simply don't see anymore. They look like magic just like some of murali's or warne's balls. I haven't seen McGrath do that.this is why i thought akram had more raw talent. And swing is near impossible to teach, and i haven't heard anyone actually teaching late swing.

 

[vcs]

What about their home record? SA choking has existed since their first test from readmission against the Windies.

Every team has bottled it in that sense, most of all Pakistan. SA's home Test record is only really poor against Australia.

 

[Burgey]

To be honest even pollock had the same accuracy and consistency as McGrath. He just lacked the psychological edge. in anycase some of the akram deliveries are balls you simply don't see anymore. They look like magic just like some of murali's or warne's balls. I haven't seen McGrath do that.this is why i thought akram had more raw talent. And swing is near impossible to teach, and i haven't heard anyone actually teaching late swing.

But Waqar swung it like Akram.

 

[robelinda]

Every team has bottled it in that sense, most of all Pakistan. SA's home Test record is only really poor against Australia.

Been 12 years since they have beaten England in SA though.

 

[Athlai]

Depends a bit on team balance but I reckon it'd be easier to build a team around Wasim than McGrath.

 

[PhoenixFire]

There are primarily two things here...

1. Talent - I think more or less both of them are on equal footing. Both possessed amazing skills. Wasim perhaps projected them in a more diverse fashion than McGrath which brings me to...

2. Discipline - McGrath channeled his skills into untiring pursuit of art of discipline. By the end of his career, he was more or less a bowling machine equipped with a brilliant human brain. Wasim was brilliant, a master, but end of the day he was a human too. Perhaps it added to his "oomph factor". I've seen people saying McGrath was boring and all that. But McGrath even at 37 could run in, bowl and be the best on the planet.

Gotta say bun, great post this. Agree fully.

 

[Hurricane]

Depends a bit on team balance but I reckon it'd be easier to build a team around Wasim than McGrath.

Interesting point.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

The way I look at it is this. There are four factors to be considered.

1. Winning games with Wasim's bowling.
2. Winning games with McGrath's bowling.
3. Winning games with Wasim's batting.
4. Winning games with McGrath's batting.

Factors 1 and 2 are massive, and about even. Factor 3 is greater than factor 4 by a considerable margin.

This suggests that Wasim is the better cricketer.

Another way of phrasing it is: is the gap between McGrath and Akram's bowling greater than the difference between McGrath and Wasim's batting?