• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Wasim Akram vs Fred Trueman

Who was the greater fast bowler?(Tests)

  • Wasim Akram

    Votes: 35 50.0%
  • Fred Trueman

    Votes: 35 50.0%

  • Total voters
    70

kyear2

International Coach
Yeah because this is never brought up when talking about Akram and Imran is it? 8-)

@kyear2 is a bloke who spends half his time here crying about how Imran is overrated because of ball tampering. When poor catching is brought up it's all "B-b-but you can't quantify it :(". Yeah because quantifying the impact of ball tampering is so easy right? Who gives a **** if his fielding support is quantifiable, it clearly was a disadvantage. It is incredible how blatantly inconsistent you guys are on players that aren't your favourites.



If you choose to only choose to focus on the most moronic points (i.e PFK randomly cutting numbers from his average), then sure go ahead. But if you're actually calling the "Wasim was hampered by his poor fielding support" as a moronic point you are biased beyond belief quite frankly.
I had decided to exit this discussion, but apparently not. My issue with Imran, which I had also stopped talking about is the difference on his home and away average. When i do bring up the tampering or umpires, it's only because some people persons like to pretend neither happened. In the latest exercise I even voted for Imran in the first team. I've never said Imran wasn't a great player, I just don't have him in my absolute top tier (Marshall - McGrath, Hadlee - Steyn, Ambrose) for fast bowlers and even in previous votes here, most don't either.

To get back on topic, all I said the fielding impact isn't quantifiable and most people already include that as well as the other factors in their ratings.

I don't get how any of those points are unreasonable.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
To get back on topic, all I said the fielding impact isn't quantifiable and most people already include that as well as the other factors in their ratings.
Nah it's the only one which actually receives strong pushback when brought up as a factor, for some reason.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
I had decided to exit this discussion, but apparently not. My issue with Imran, which I had also stopped talking about is the difference on his home and away average. When i do bring up the tampering or umpires, it's only because some people persons like to pretend neither happened. In the latest exercise I even voted for Imran in the first team. I've never said Imran wasn't a great player, I just don't have him in my absolute top tier (Marshall - McGrath, Hadlee - Steyn, Ambrose) for fast bowlers and even in previous votes here, most don't either.

To get back on topic, all I said the fielding impact isn't quantifiable and most people already include that as well as the other factors in their ratings.

I don't get how any of those points are unreasonable.
Still don't understand this point as if its some statistical anomaly and not mention that other subcontinent pacers like Vaas, Srinath and Kapil have similar differences between their home and away records.

I think you will agree that ball tampering./umpires is as non-quantifiable as fielding drops and shouldnt be used as a point to downgrade/upgrade a particular player.

As for ball tampering, I would be willing to say that while the Pakistani pacers of the time were likely more involved in scratching/scuffing the ball, I think ball tampering as a whole (including applying a foreign substance and lifting the seam) was pretty much universal in cricket at that point.
 

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
I don't really see this method as cherry picking or unfair. Why should Akram's years before Ambrose debuted and years after Ambrose retired be used to compare him to Ambrose? That said, I still have Ambrose slightly ahead of Akram, but the difference isn't as big as people on here like to pretend there is or as big as the overall career stats might suggest. I just don't see why Akram should be punished for being good enough to debut at an earlier age and having the passion to keep playing and retire at a later age. If Tendulkar kept playing for a couple more years until his overall average dipped below 50, would it make him a worse player or change the fact that he averaged 57 over a period of 23 years?
Just another CW weirdness.

During A's career B was better.
Ok
5 years After A's retirement, A became better than B.
?
 

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
Just another CW weirdness.

During A's career B was better.
Ok
5 years After A's retirement, A became better than B.
?
But even during the period their career coincided(1988-2000), Ambrose was better. And that includes the developmental stage of his bowling where he had to come and bowl at the highest level without much FC experience (well, Akram had one as well but you are eliminating that period, while also ignoring the head start one gets by being in international cricket for 3+ years).

All said and done, truth is somewhere in between I reckon. Arguably there isn't as much gap between them as a 2.6 run difference in average suggests. Somewhere between 1.5-2 runs I would say which is still distinguishable at that level.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
But even during the period their career coincided(1988-2000), Ambrose was better. And that includes the developmental stage of his bowling where he had to come and bowl at the highest level without much FC experience (well, Akram had one as well but you are eliminating that period, while also ignoring the head start one gets by being in international cricket for 3+ years).

All said and done, truth is somewhere in between I reckon. Arguably there isn't as much gap between them as a 2.6 run difference in average suggests. Somewhere between 1.5-2 runs I would say which is still distinguishable at that level.
I agree. I also dont think his figures represent how good he was but even then I dont think he would have better figures than Ambrose/McGrath.
 

Migara

International Coach
Historic averages for pace bowlers: SL 33.99, Pak 31.08. During Wasim's career: SL 32.06 (13.8 wickets/match), Pak 28.04 (18.65 wickets/match)

And considering that pace bowling in Pakistan would have been dominated by Imran, Wasim and Waqar, suffice to say @honestbharani might have a good point and @Migara is clueless as usual.
That happens when you clump crap pacers with good ones. When you cannot swing in conventionally or in reverse and had been used to brutalize batsmen by bowling short, those pacers go for leatherhunts in SL. Seam bowlers too.

Asif 10.8
Hadlee 12.9
Southee 15.5
Starc 15.6
Schultz 16.3
Wasim 20.5
Waqar 21.6

You guys don't know what you are talking about.
 

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
But even during the period their career coincided(1988-2000), Ambrose was better. And that includes the developmental stage of his bowling where he had to come and bowl at the highest level without much FC experience (well, Akram had one as well but you are eliminating that period, while also ignoring the head start one gets by being in international cricket for 3+ years).

All said and done, truth is somewhere in between I reckon. Arguably there isn't as much gap between them as a 2.6 run difference in average suggests. Somewhere between 1.5-2 runs I would say which is still distinguishable at that level.
1988-2000 Akram better

Now
1985-2000
Ambrose 98 tests, 179 innings, 405 wickets
20.99 avg, 2.3 ER, 54.5 SR
22 x 5, 3 x 10

Akram 98 tests, 171 innings, 407 wickets
22.98 avg, 2.59 ER, 53.1 SR

Still Akram more impressive.
2 wickets more in 8 innings less, despite bigger competition
More 10 wickets and five wicket hauls
Better SR
Longevity

Ambrose better in avg and ER, due to various reasons discussed already.

And if there is any ATG bowler to be blamed for low WPM its Ambrose.
 

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That happens when you clump crap pacers with good ones. When you cannot swing in conventionally or in reverse and had been used to brutalize batsmen by bowling short, those pacers go for leatherhunts in SL. Seam bowlers too.

Asif 10.8
Hadlee 12.9
Southee 15.5
Starc 15.6
Schultz 16.3
Wasim 20.5
Waqar 21.6

You guys don't know what you are talking about.
Lemme see. Starc and Schultz took their wickets through pace. SL's batting against pace was piss when Hadlee visited. From 1980 to 1994 SL's batting was the lowest averaging in the world - even Zimbabwe did better. It wasn't their inability to play spin that was the issue. The two W's records in SL are not noticeably better than at home when you remember this. Asif took his wickets through movement off the pitch, something he could get in conditions that defeated most seam bowlers. Yes Southee had two good matches. So what? Hardly a representative sample.

And no, you have to clump in the crap pacers, or else the very small number of very good bowlers skews the result through playing/not playing series by happenstance. If SL is more pace friendly the Pakistan, you would expect the worse bowlers who can't take conditions out of the equation as well to do better. Hadlee, for example, is renowned because he could perform in conditions that disfavoured his bowling. Yet despite these performances by a few individuals in SL we still find pace does worse there. Your own example can't prove your point.
 
Last edited:

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
That happens when you clump crap pacers with good ones. When you cannot swing in conventionally or in reverse and had been used to brutalize batsmen by bowling short, those pacers go for leatherhunts in SL. Seam bowlers too.

Asif 10.8
Hadlee 12.9
Southee 15.5
Starc 15.6
Schultz 16.3
Wasim 20.5
Waqar 21.6

You guys don't know what you are talking about.
Comparing overall bowlers averages in those countries to show which of them are better for bowling is not the best metric. It is not because of better bowling conditions that produced Wasim, Waqar, Imran, and Shoaib in Pakistan and not in Sri Lanka. Rather, its the opposite, Pakistan had better bowlers who excelled in otherwise poor pace bowling conditions.
 

kyear2

International Coach
I've always found it weird kyear doesn't consider it much of a factor given how much time and effort he (reasonably, IMO) puts into making sure the all-time lineups he selects have good catchers.
I didn't say it's not a factor.

I actually made a post stating how important I see slip fielding to be to both team and individual success.

What I have said is how much do we deduct from the average or add to his wickets. Again how is that saying it should be down played.
Also some would point out that Botham had a very short peak and never performed even decently against the WI, or that Gavaskar's best selling point, his average vs the W.I was heavily boosted during the WSC days. I say all of that to say, everyone on this site knows about those factors, and factors them into their rankings of those players, similarly as PEWS, Subz, Smali or ORS knows about Wasim's difficulties with support and factors that in already.

PFK talks about why should we punish Wasim for playing longer, but one, it was past of his actual damn career and two, we don't automatically rate players just on numbers and ignore their peak. But it depends on the player, look at Viv and Ponting. Both had awful ends to their respective careers, but Viv is still seen as top 5 and Ponting in that second tier of batsmen. There's already nuance involved here and for the most part, the vast majority of posters who are coming after me, doesn't have Wasim rated any, if at all higher than I do (referencing a ratings vote completed about a month or so ago) most had Wasim on the tail end of the top 10 or just outside.
Again, with regards to my supposed hypocrisy regarding slip fielding, as stated above I've been the no 1 proponent on this site for factoring in slip fielding for ATG teams and player rankings and it's importance to team success is undeniable. If one looks at the great teams of the modern game, more if them had good cordons than had strong tails (not starting that conversation, because they are more a factor among evenly matched teams). So I've never downplayed it.
What I did say, which was misconstrued, was how can you consistently have a poor fielding team for over a decade. It's almost like there was no emphasis on it at all, to the point that they almost didn't care. As such I made a glib comment as to of they didn't care, why should we. But that's not downplaying the impact. But seriously why was Aamir in the slips that long.
So, I'm not downplaying the impact of cordon support, I'm saying it's hard to exactly quantify and for many it's already baked into their opinions of the player. Ironically though it's the posters who do play down fielding support, especially in the slips, who are pushing this now, but again not pushing back on that.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Still don't understand this point as if its some statistical anomaly and not mention that other subcontinent pacers like Vaas, Srinath and Kapil have similar differences between their home and away records.

I think you will agree that ball tampering./umpires is as non-quantifiable as fielding drops and shouldnt be used as a point to downgrade/upgrade a particular player.

As for ball tampering, I would be willing to say that while the Pakistani pacers of the time were likely more involved in scratching/scuffing the ball, I think ball tampering as a whole (including applying a foreign substance and lifting the seam) was pretty much universal in cricket at that point.
I was not brining it up again, I was responding to a very specific accusation to me re Imran.

But since you brought it up.

1. Why are we comparing Imran to Kapil, Vaas etc, in the specific arguments we were comparing his numbers to Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee etc, where there isn't a great variance. That's the class he's compared to.

2. I never used it to up or down grade him, used it as a possible explanation for the difference in home and away numbers. From that aspect it was quantifiable, not for any adjustments to be made (which I never did), but to explain the difference that existed.

So your argument is basically ****

I never used any of those things to downgrade Imran's or anyone's numbers.

Apparently a point is trying to be made, and I'm being used to make it. So have fun with it. But kindly note, I just voted for Imran for the 1st team, because along with Hadlee he is among the two best options for the no 8 position for the all time team, and Imran was better with the older ball. But yeah, I'm really biased against him.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I was not brining it up again, I was responding to a very specific accusation to me re Imran.

But since you brought it up.

1. Why are we comparing Imran to Kapil, Vaas etc, in the specific arguments we were comparing his numbers to Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee etc, where there isn't a great variance. That's the class he's compared to.

2. I never used it to up or down grade him, used it as a possible explanation for the difference in home and away numbers. From that aspect it was quantifiable, not for any adjustments to be made (which I never did), but to explain the difference that existed.

So your argument is basically ****

I never used any of those things to downgrade Imran's or anyone's numbers.

Apparently a point is trying to be made, and I'm being used to make it. So have fun with it. But kindly note, I just voted for Imran for the 1st team, because along with Hadlee he is among the two best options for the no 8 position for the all time team, and Imran was better with the older ball. But yeah, I'm really biased against him.
Ok
 

Top