wasim akram vs glenn mcgrath

[Hodgo7]

Exactly and that is why the argument that Akram was less succesfull in taking order wickets is another worst argument.

How is that a worse argument ? The facts show that McGrath is better at getting top order wickets.... Nice one Sanz...

No, I am insinuating that it's not the position but the batsman that is harder to get out regardless of the position he bats. During Australia's last tour of India, Indian bowlers had more difficulty in getting Gillespie out than most aussie top order batsmen and it doesn't matter what position a batsman batted.

Thats one series mate. Everyone knows that numbers 1-6 are harder to get out than numbers 7-11. Who would you rather bowl to. Matt Hayden or Chris Martin ?

 

[Hodgo7]

What's with all the "champs" and "desparate man" insults? Agree with him or disagree, but don't patronize him. I have yet to see Sanz initiate the same tone as you in this debate. Swervy is debating him too, but without the use of an insulting tone.

Sorry. Would you rather I use the word "buddy" ? I use champ, mate etc all the time. Get over it..champ

 

[vic_orthdox]

This thread isn't even about McGrath or Wasim anymore ... it's become a mockery of accusations and accusations of accusations and so on.

It's called "Cricket Chat".

 

[Smudge]

It's called "Cricket Chat".

So why isn't there any talk about chirping insects???

 

[Craig]

I didn't even know you were out of the closet, Marc.

 

[bagapath]

But Sanz, what is your argument in favor of Akram over McGrath? I've gone through the whole thread, so please dont advice me to do that again. I see you counter punching others all the time but havent seen you take a step forward in presenting your case for Akram. I look forward to a constructive post from you.

I prefer McGrath over Akram.

But first, I do believe Akram is one of the greatest bowling artists of all time. He had charisma, style, big match temperament and the ability to produce new tricks all the time. Some of those tricks have been rumored to be illegal (1993 England). I am willing to ignore the rumors since they have not been proved. Watching him bowl in full form was a great delight.

But McGrath is something else. His accuracy, patience, ability to plan for each batsman and execute it without flaw, aggression, ability to rise to the occasion and supreme self-belief, make him stand tall above all his contemporaries including Akram and Ambrose. His sledging can be taken as a blot in his character but that doesnt amount to cheating as ball-tempering or match-fixing would.

But my arguments in favor of either of them is, as you may have realized, subjective. Both of them possessed all the good qualities i've listed above. Only one possessed more of certain traits than the other.

To separate them I have to turn towards their numbers. Looking at their stats McGrath comes out on top on all counts. average (21+ Vs 23+), strike rate (51+ Vs 53+), wkts per test (4.5 Vs 3.9), economy rate, performance against tougher opponents, more frequent dismissals of quality batsmen and performace in winning causes. I can always bring in other elements such as their bowling partners. But whatever influence Waqar, Imran, Saqlain, Akhthar and Mushtaq had on Akram's career, it can be compared to what Warne, McDermott, Gillespie, and Lee have had on McGrath's. If I need to back one of them under most circumstances I will choose McGrath without a moment of hesitation since I am unable to build such a comprehensive case statistically for Akram.

Why do you favor Akram over McGrath? Answers, please!

 

[Sanz]

But Sanz, what is your argument in favor of Akram over McGrath? I've gone through the whole thread, so please dont advice me to do that again. I see you counter punching others all the time but havent seen you take a step forward in presenting your case for Akram. I look forward to a constructive post from you.

Next time you ask for a constructive post, please post one yourself first. Neither was I counter-punching nor was I trying to force my opinion that Akram is better. My only beef was that Dont post ridiculous and stupid stuff like 'He was great @ knocking the tails' or that he was 'tampering with the ball' bring up stuff that isn't proven.

 

[GIMH]

Selective quoting won't work when the post you are quoting is directly above yours: his post was constructive - he gave his reasons for why he preferred McGrath and presented a balanced argument.

 

[Fusion]

Hasn't this been debated to death now? As one who thinks Akram is just slightly better than McGrath, I'll try to offer an explanation. I maintain that when comparing all time greats, one can not look at stats ALONE. There are intangibles that can't be measured. Let me offer a few:
-Akram played the majority of his career with a great new ball partner (Imran/Waqar etc). That had to cost him some wickets.

-Akram played half his games on the flat pitches of Pakistan. The fact that he has such an outstanding record still is even more remarkable in my book.

-During the majority of his career, McGrath played for a dominant team (one that can be legitimately debated as perhaps the best of all time). In fact, there was a considerable gap between Australia and second place for the last several years. As such, McGrath's opponents were nearly always under pressure (whether batting or bowling) from his team. Akram has played for some inconsistent Pakistan teams that can be great one day and horrible the next. How many times has Akram had to defend a sub-standard or pathetic total due to a batting collapse? Psychologically speaking, did the opposing batsman have more confidence facing the Pakistan team as a WHOLE, rather than facing Australia? Did that make any difference to their approach/confidence level for the game?

-Akram was involved in a fair amount of controversies and infighting during his career. He had the added burden of being Captain at times. He had to face player revolts and political infighting. Take Botham for example. The role of Captain affected his performance. I think Wasim was mostly consistent even while being Captain and dealing with controversies, but perhaps his performance would be even better if he doesn't face all those issues.

I know all the above points are speculative and can not be proven. But they are intangibles that can contribute to this discussion of who was better. I realize that my OPINION that Akram was better can be disputed and I accept that I can be wrong. However, stats alone do not tell the whole story when comparing these two outstanding bowlers!

 

[Sanz]

Selective quoting won't work when the post you are quoting is directly above yours: his post was constructive - he gave his reasons for why he preferred McGrath and presented a balanced argument.

Well I dont care if it works or not because I dont intend to change his opinion. He is definately entitled to think that Mcgrath is better than Akram as long as he doesn't come up with ridiculous and irrelevant Stats like Wickets per test and counting wickets by batting positions or asserstions like Mcdermott, Warne, Gillespie, Lee all had same impact on Mcgrath's wicket taking/sharing (especially the top order) is quite comparable to Imran, Waqar, Saqlain and Akhtar's wicket taking/sharing aiblity etc.

I have clearly told that I prefer Akram's world class versatility in pretty much every aspect of bowling, his superb performance in the lifeless pitches in the sub continent where Mcgrath fairs much worse than Akram.

 

[GIMH]

-Akram played the majority of his career with a great new ball partner (Imran/Waqar etc). That had to cost him some wickets.

In general, you produce a good argument, but McGrath has had to share his wickets with test cricket's all-time leading wicket taker, Shane Warne. Between them, they have 1200 wickets. Without Warne in the side, McGrath would probably have 600+, maybe even 700 wickets.

 

[Sanz]

In general, you produce a good argument, but McGrath has had to share his wickets with test cricket's all-time leading wicket taker, Shane Warne. Between them, they have 1200 wickets. Without Warne in the side, McGrath would probably have 600+, maybe even 700 wickets.

That is the problem with getting into the discussion without following the context. Well the arguments made in the previous pages was that Mcgrath takes more top order wickets and Akram is great at 'knocking the tails' hence some people would take Mcgrath to pick the top order wickets.

Then someone pointed that maybe it was a weakness in Mcgrath's bowling that he wasn't as successful against lower order batsmen, then our own great Marcus came up with the argument "SKW rips out the tail before" Mcgrath "gets another bowl".

Ironically that same argument doesn't work for Akram who has had to share ball with so many attacking new ball bowlers like Imran, Waqar and Shoaib. And then there were spinners like Saqlain, Mushtaq and Qadir.

 

[aussie]

Akram was the better bowled up until 1999 (the year when McGrath firmly established himself as the premier fast bowler in world cricket). Plus overall stats even though McGrath tops Wasim in most area's, the gap between them is slight.

 

[marc71178]

-Akram played the majority of his career with a great new ball partner (Imran/Waqar etc). That had to cost him some wickets.

It's been shown that McGrath's main opening partner cost McGrath more wickets than Wasim's.

 

[Sanz]

It's been shown that McGrath's main opening partner cost McGrath more wickets than Wasim's.

How does it prove that, it can very well prove Jason's inability against the tail. And obviously Gillespie with a strike rate of 55 stole more wickets from Mcgrath than Waqar did from Akram with the strike rate of 43.5.

Anyways, here is a chart that might explain it all :-

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerWicketAnalysisGraph.asp?PlayerID=1856

 

[Swervy]

That is the problem with getting into the discussion without following the context. Well the arguments made in the previous pages was that Mcgrath takes more top order wickets and Akram is great at 'knocking the tails' hence some people would take Mcgrath to pick the top order wickets.

Well that seems like a pretty good arguement to me!!!!

1. McGrath does take more top order wickets
2. Akram was great at knocking over the tail
3. and yep, I would choose McGrath over pretty much any fast bowler of the last 15 years to wipe out the top order

 

[Sanz]

Well that seems like a pretty good arguement to me!!!!
1. McGrath does take more top order wickets
2. Akram was great at knocking over the tail
3. and yep, I would choose McGrath over pretty much any fast bowler of the last 15 years to wipe out the top order

Well that's your choice and I respect that and as it has been said over and again, no.2 was said in a different way in that thread and hence my reaction in that thread.

In any case I would rather have someone who has the versatility to take out tailenders with equal ease. I would chose Akram over anyone and everyone in terms of flair, versatility, entertainment value and at the same time being almost equally potent as a wicket taker as anyone in the post-packer era.

Last but not the least, Since all XI are required to bat(if needed) that means with Akram's Batting and fielding added into the mix, there really is no comparison between the two in any form of game.

 

[Swervy]

Well that's your choice and I respect that and as it has been said over and again, no.2 was said in a different way in that thread and hence my reaction in that thread.

In any case I would rather have someone who has the versatility to take out tailenders with equal ease. I would chose Akram over anyone and everyone in terms of flair, versatility, entertainment value and at the same time being almost equally potent as a wicket taker as anyone in the post-packer era.

Last but not the least, Since all XI are required to bat(if needed) that means with Akram's Batting and fielding added into the mix, there really is no comparison between the two in any form of game.

all fair points (I dont really know how I intended to say that about great at knocking over the tail all those years ago..I may well have only said it to encourage discussion..or I may well have actually said it because it was the truth, he was great at knocking over the tail).

You know I completely respect anyones views and opinions on this one...you would prefer to have Akram bowling for you, I would rather have McGrath...there you go....but I just want to mak it clear ..all I was argueing against was the notion that McGrath didnt deserve to be mentioned in the same category of great bowlers as Akram...because that does a great disservice to McGrath!!!!!

And also, there can be no doubt whatsoever that McGrath, based on all the major statistical measurements in test cricket and indeed in most of them in ODI's, must actually be considered, STATISTICALLY the more successful bowler of the two...and even you cannot actually argue against that fact

 

[Sanz]

You must keep one thing in mind that although the old thread was about comparing the two as bowlers, some members were bringing in Akram's batting as well and I dont remember whether I considered Akram as a cricketer or as a bowler alone while making the post. I would like to believe that I made that statment while comparing them as cricketers.

In any case I have already stated in this thread that My opnion on Mcgrath has ceratinly changes since then and If I have to make that choice today, I dont know who I will vote for as a bowler.

 

[Swervy]

You must keep one thing in mind that although the old thread was about comparing the two as bowlers, some members were bringing in Akram's batting as well and I dont remember whether I considered Akram as a cricketer or as a bowler alone while making the post. I would like to believe that I made that statment while comparing them as cricketers.

In any case I have already stated in this thread that My opnion on Mcgrath has ceratinly changes since then and If I have to make that choice today, I dont know who I will vote for as a bowler.

and that, I think, ends this discussion for me!!!!!



I do enjoy our discussions Sanz ....who do we talk about next...go on..Botham vs Dev