wasim akram vs glenn mcgrath

[Sanz]

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

Only if you going to argue in favor of Dev as the better allrounder of the two.

 

[Swervy]

Only if you going to argue in favor of Dev as the better allrounder of the two.

never my friend

 

[nightprowler10]

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!

Yours are the only posts that I really agree with on here. The kinds of comparisons being done really do show McGrath as superior, but it doesn't show just how great Akram really was. The point of yours I put in bold letters is the one that makes him greater IMO. How many times has McGrath had to rescue Australia out of a jam? Not nearly as many times as Akram or even Younis.

Add to your list the point that Akram's fitness was always dodgy. He was diabetic, his vision was blurred through the latter part of his career. His groin was first operated on in 1988 and again two years later. The latter operation was complicated when an adductor muscle separated from his pelvis, leaving his left leg only half as strong as his right. It was restored only by intensive physiotherapy. Not to mention his shoulder injury.

So in my book, Akram was a much better bowler, and that is my unbiased opinion. (stop looking at my avatar!!)

 

[bagapath]

Sanz,

Looks like the discussion is coming to a close. Just want to have a word since you have said I am using stupid stats.

Wickets per test is an important stat. It shows a bowler's match winning ability (you need 20 wickets to win a test match; the more one takes the more useful he is to his team in winning the game) and it becomes important in assessing a bowler's consistency over a long career (more wickets per test for more number of matches results in better wicket aggregate). In that sense, McGrath's average of 4.5+ is definitely a great stat compared to Akram's 3.9+ with both having represented their countries in more than 100 tests. Of course, it is not the only criteria to judge a bowler's class and I never made it sound like that.

And you claim Akram was far better than McGrath on the subcontinental pitches. McGrath is better than Akram in India by miles. So please check facts before you shoot off.

McGrath 8 313.2 703 33 4/18 7/121 21.30 2.24 56.9 0 0
Akram 8 283.2 748 27 5/96 5/129 27.70 2.64 62.9 1 0

McGrath has played only four tests in Srilanka. Akram's record is superb in Pakistan but it is his home, remember.

 

[Sanz]

And you claim Akram was far better than McGrath on the subcontinental pitches. McGrath is better than Akram in India by miles. So please check facts before you shoot off.

McGrath 8 313.2 703 33 4/18 7/121 21.30 2.24 56.9 0 0
Akram 8 283.2 748 27 5/96 5/129 27.70 2.64 62.9 1 0

McGrath has played only four tests in Srilanka. Akram's record is superb in Pakistan but it is his home, remember.

First of all dont post selective stats and If at all you are going to use them please dont use excuses when those selective stats dont work for you.

 

[Sanz]

Wickets per test is an important stat. It shows a bowler's match winning ability (you need 20 wickets to win a test match; the more one takes the more useful he is to his team in winning the game) and it becomes important in assessing a bowler's consistency over a long career (more wickets per test for more number of matches results in better wicket aggregate). In that sense, McGrath's average of 4.5+ is definitely a great stat compared to Akram's 3.9+ with both having represented their countries in more than 100 tests. Of course, it is not the only criteria to judge a bowler's class and I never made it sound like that.

Wickets/test It is a stupid stat because it doesn't say how many overs a bowler was bowling. Mcgrath bowls 3 overs more per test compared to Akram. So the better stat is Strike Rate.

Murali bowls 56 overs per test and takes 6+ wickets per test match.

 

[bagapath]

mcgrth's strike rate is far better than akram's. and he also concedes less runs per over. that's why he takes more wickets per test at a better average. his extra three overs per test cant add up to the 0.57 extra wicket he takes per test when his strike rate is 51 balls!! It would need 4.2 overs. Even so what is wrong if a bowler bowls extra overs as long as his strike rate and economy rate are good? McGrath's economy rate and strike rate are far better than Akram's. Akram is statistically inferior to McGrath on all counts.

murali is a spinner. but even he takes just one ball more than akram to take a wicket. his economy rate is also better than akram's and thats why his bowling average is also better than akram's. Imagine this. Akram gives away more runs per wicket than Murali, an off-spinner.

not pulling akram down. just making you see the point.

McGrath Akram

Wkts 542 414
Ave 21.55 23.62
Econ 2.5 2.59
SR 51.6 54.6
Wkt/Mat 4.55 3.98

Thats why I prefer McGrath. Cant make it clearer.

Well, there must be some reason behind your backing Akram. It cant be statistical supreriority. It cant be performance in the subcontinent. McGrath is better in all these counts.

Without being aggressive like you, I have managed to expose the weakness in your arguments. You have just tried to twist and turn others' words - calling them stupid and ridiculous etc. - without managing to say anything constructive. Now it is high time you said something sensible.

What is it you are hanging your arguments on? I am very curious now.

 

[Sanz]

Akram is statistically inferior to McGrath on all counts

No he is not. Get your eyes checked or learn to read.

 

[Sanz]

Without being aggressive like you, I have managed to expose the weakness in your arguments. You have just tried to twist and turn others' words - calling them stupid and ridiculous etc. - without managing to say anything constructive. Now it is high time you said something sensible.

Awww, you are so polite. I am touched at your mannerism.

What is it you are hanging your arguments on? I am very curious now.

Only if you had cared to read the posts in the previous pages, you would have known my stand on the issue.

 

[FRAZ]

Some new body is precieving some senior and respectable person as NRP instead of NRI

 

[aussie]

No he is not. Get your eyes checked or learn to read.

well in most area's except a few he is.

 

[Hodgo7]

There is a certain few people choosing Akram purely because he has more flair than Pigeon. All the figures point to McGrath yet they are quite quick to dismiss these. Yes Wasim was a freakish and talented player but McGrath just shades him. If the stats were 50/50 I could believe some of your reasoning but when its purely because you like Akram more (when clearly McGrath has done more and done it better) then its a pretty ordinary effort. The only argument you guys have is Akrams better record in Pakistan over McGrath. What do you expect when he plays half of his tests there ? I'd expect him to perform better as he grew up in those conditions.

A better indicator would be to ask some of the international cricket captains of the past and present who they would choose if they could only have 1. I'm pretty certain they would choose McGrath given his record and consistency over the years. Captains want someone who can do the job whether they look pretty or not and the stats show that McGrath gets it done better (stats wise) than Wasim.

 

[Sanz]

The only argument you guys have is Akrams better record in Pakistan over McGrath. What do you expect when he plays half of his tests there ? I'd expect him to perform better as he grew up in those conditions.

If a batsmeen scores runs in the subcontinent, it is because of the flat wickets. However if the bowler is massively successful in those same condition, it must be because he grew up in those conditions, isn't it ? Really very convincing and very fair argument.

 

[Sanz]

A better indicator would be to ask some of the international cricket captains of the past and present who they would choose if they could only have 1. I'm pretty certain they would choose McGrath given his record and consistency over the years.

And if they dont, accuse them of whatever you are capable of exactly like you did on this forum.

 

[Sanz]

well in most area's except a few he is.

Most <> ALL.

 

[marc71178]

So what are these statistical areas where Wasim is better then, because S/R, eco and average are all against him.

 

[Sanz]

So what are these statistical areas where Wasim is better then, because S/R, eco and average are all against him.

How about being better than Mcgrath in picking tailenders . For more please refer to www.cricinfo.com

 

[bagapath]

How about being better than Mcgrath in picking tailenders . For more please refer to www.cricinfo.com

Sanz. You are like a politician. I can see that you have mastered the art of talking for hours without having a point.

Now that you have said Akram's stats against tailenders are better than McGrath's you've essentially agreed that "he is good at finishing off the tail". Thank you. I am glad you have conceded defeat.Now you can use your choice words like stupid, ridiculous etc at yourself.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz. You are like a politician. I can see that you have mastered the art of talking for hours without having a point.

Now that you have said Akram's stats against tailenders are better than McGrath's you've essentially agreed that "he is good at finishing off the tail". Thank you. I am glad you have conceded defeat. Now you can use your choice words like stupid, ridiculous etc at yourself.

Ofcourse he is great @ knocking off the tails and I will take him over Mcgrath any day but I will not take Mcgrath over Wasim any day to take out the top. If that means I have lost the argument, then be it.

And thank you for finally noticing that I didn't have a point. Now you can relax and rave in the glory of winning the argument which I wasn't arguing with you to start with. And yes wickets/test still is a stupid stat and so is your selective quoting.

 

[bagapath]

Some new body is precieving some senior and respectable person as NRP instead of NRI

No Fraz. It is not personal. I am just interested in hearing pro-Akram arguments from Sanz. This is a forum and we are discussing cricket. It should be fun. I was a bit irritated with him using terms like "stupid" and "ridiculous" without actually building his argument, a bit like a lonely man in a crowd who pinches people walking past him without explanation. It has got nothing to do with nationality or anything like that! Peace.