wasim akram vs glenn mcgrath

[Jono]

To be fair, Waugh was never compared with Lara and Tendulkar. His batting wasn't destructive enough. But he is definatly an all timer.

Yes he was. Those three are mentioned all the time together when describing the batsman of the 90s. Its no coincidence MRF got all 3 on board in their massive advertising campaign.

Regarding Deeps, I think he has made a fantastic point. Whilst I would choose McGrath over Wasim, its funny how people's memories fade when a player retires or drops off from their peak. Tendulkar's career is suddenly not even close to Dravid's, Ponting easily trumps Steve Waugh for best Aussie batsman since Bradman etc. It happens less with players of the 70s and 80s, but it occurs a lot for players of recent times who have slowly dropped off/retired.

 

[Sanz]

To be fair, Waugh was never compared with Lara and Tendulkar. His batting wasn't destructive enough. But he is definatly an all timer.

Ambrose for example, is still the most menacing bowler I've personally seen.

Actually he was, there were many people who said they would choose Waugh ahead of Sachin & Lara.

 

[Sanz]

It could be that or more likely it could be that Wasims achievements don't compare well to McGraths.

No, it's not.

 

[Goughy]

No, it's not.

Glad you can speak for me!

When comparing stats for guys like McGrath and Wasim it is fair to say they have had long and successful careers and can be judged accordingly.

I never like pulling one team out and looking at the stats for one opponent but with how cricket has evolved we could compare how they did against their strongest opponents.

Also, bear in mind that McGrath has a better overall record than Wasim, so its not like Im taking a smaller sample to show a point that the overall figures did not suggest.

McGrath

vs India - 11 games with 51 wickets at 18.64
vs Pakistan - 17 games with 80 wickets at 21.70
vs England - 25 games with 136 wickets at 20.47
vs South Africa - 17 games with 57 wickets at 27.33

Overall against the top 4 = 324 wickets @ 21.69

Wasim

vs India - 12 games with 45 wickets at 28.86
vs Australia - 13 games with 50 wickets at 25.76
vs England - 18 games with 57 wickets at 30.66
vs South Africa - 4 games with 13 wickets at 29.76

Overall against the top 4 = 165 wickets @ 28.62

Add the fact that as it was earlier shown that McGraths wickets have been of a higher quality (overall and in general) I think its fair to say that peoples opinions are based on fact and truths not because Wasim exploits have been forgotten.

It also should not be ignored, that despite Wasim being mentioned as more exiting and McGrath as steady, McGrath has a better strike rate.

Though why Ive done this I don't know, there are certain people that ignore all the facts (not aimed at you Sanz). Oh well!

 

[deeps]

To be fair, Waugh was never compared with Lara and Tendulkar. His batting wasn't destructive enough. But he is definatly an all timer.

Ambrose for example, is still the most menacing bowler I've personally seen.

I have to disagree, throughout the 90's they were all mentioned together. They were always 1,2,3 in the world in different orders, and for alot of that time Waugh was 1.

Tendulkar's plight is another. Suddenly his career means alot less than what it did 2 years ago. I've never rated him overly highly, i always felt he succumbed under pressure. When a match was there to be won against a quality side, he tended to fall short of winning the game. Dravid, Lara, Waugh, were all capable and often did win it. But anyway, that's off topic.

But 30 years later, people will again remember the brilliance of Steve Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar. It's short term memory loss. The reason for it, i have no idea

 

[Dasa]

@ Goughy, what about against the West Indies? Wasim played the Windies a lot more in the 80s when they were the strongest team around and emerged with excellent figures while McGrath has taken more of his wickets against them when they haven't been so good.

 

[silentstriker]

I have to disagree, throughout the 90's they were all mentioned together. They were always 1,2,3 in the world in different orders, and for alot of that time Waugh was 1.

Fair enough, I personally didn't rate him that high but I guess the others did.

Tendulkar's plight is another. Suddenly his career means alot less than what it did 2 years ago. I've never rated him overly highly, i always felt he succumbed under pressure. When a match was there to be won against a quality side, he tended to fall short of winning the game. Dravid, Lara, Waugh, were all capable and often did win it. But anyway, that's off topic.

Sachin does average more in matches won, than Lara. So I'm not sure about choking. But he has never played that 153* knock, like Lara did vs. Australia.

But 30 years later, people will again remember the brilliance of Steve Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar. It's short term memory loss. The reason for it, i have no idea

Yea, that does seem to happen. But I hope people don't forget about McGrath.

 

[Rajeev]

Wasim Akram

GOD's own Left Arm

 

[Sanz]

Glad you can speak for me!

When comparing stats for guys like McGrath and Wasim it is fair to say they have had long and successful careers and can be judged accordingly.

I never like pulling one team out and looking at the stats for one opponent but with how cricket has evolved we could compare how they did against their strongest opponents.

Also, bear in mind that McGrath has a better overall record than Wasim, so its not like Im taking a smaller sample to show a point that the overall figures did not suggest.

McGrath

vs India - 11 games with 51 wickets at 18.64
vs Pakistan - 17 games with 80 wickets at 21.70
vs England - 25 games with 136 wickets at 20.47
vs South Africa - 17 games with 57 wickets at 27.33

Overall against the top 4 = 324 wickets @ 21.69

Wasim

vs India - 12 games with 45 wickets at 28.86
vs Australia - 13 games with 50 wickets at 25.76
vs England - 18 games with 57 wickets at 30.66
vs South Africa - 4 games with 13 wickets at 29.76

Overall against the top 4 = 165 wickets @ 28.62

Add the fact that as it was earlier shown that McGraths wickets have been of a higher quality (overall and in general) I think its fair to say that peoples opinions are based on fact and truths not because Wasim exploits have been forgotten.

It also should not be ignored, that despite Wasim being mentioned as more exiting and McGrath as steady, McGrath has a better strike rate.

Though why Ive done this I don't know, there are certain people that ignore all the facts (not aimed at you Sanz). Oh well!

Yeah Right !! England were top 4 for majority of Mcgrath's career and WI were not and you accuse others of ignoring the facts.

If people opinions are based on facts then please accept it that in 2004 when the poll was taken on this forum, then more people thought that Wasim was better than Pigeon. 30 in favor of Wasim and only 8 in favor of Pigeon.

The fact that Wasim played majority of his matches in Pakistan where Mcgrath averages 31 compared to Akram's 22. In the Subcontinent Mcgrath averages 25.5 compared to Akram's 22.6. Wasim's Strike Rate in the subcontinent was 52.9 compared to Mcgrath's strike rate of 60.2.

Also Dont forget that Mcgrath was averaging around 28-29 against Pakistan until 2003. Only after 2003 world cup when Pakistan dropped 8 senior players and fielded a team of school boys, Mcgrath's average got to 21-22. Dont believe me Check it out :-

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
Also, continously harping that Wasim took tail wickets is kind of insulting to the great man especially when 65 % of his wickets were Top/middle order wickets.

Also ignore the fact that Akram made his debut in mid 80s and hence played better English, WI, Kiwi team than Mcgrath did.

 

[Sanz]

Also, bear in mind that McGrath has a better overall record than Wasim, so its not like Im taking a smaller sample to show a point that the overall figures did not suggest.............It also should not be ignored, that despite Wasim being mentioned as more exiting and McGrath as steady, McGrath has a better strike rate.

So ? Marshall and Ambrose have a better overall record too, Marshall has even better strike rate, does that stop people from saying that pigeon is a better bowler ?

 

[Xuhaib]

Wasim is a legend but McGrath just shades him.

 

[Hugh]

Wasim is a legend but McGrath just shades him.

Exactly. Some people seem to believe that claiming that McGrath was a tad better than Wasim means that Wasim was a no hoper. It isn't an argument that Wasim took only tail end wickets, the correct way to put it is that McGrath took far more top order wickets. When selecting a team for the decade, they would both make it. If a gun was pointed at ones head and only one of the two allowed in, McGrath would make it. That is all. This isn't to say that Wasim was not a great.

 

[adharcric]

Same thoughts here. Marshall > McGrath > Akram for me all-time.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'd pick Mcgrath but hey it's like choosing between someone who is mega unbelievably good or stupendously mega unbelieveably good. On any given day, whether McGrath or Wasim is better could change so I'd say they're both awesome and most arguments one way or the other reflect personal preference (whether you prefer consistency vs the knockout ball, nationalistic pride etc.) or is just an exercise in sementics to decide whether one or the other is 0.0000001% better than the other and it depends on the criteria who that 0.00000001% gets applied to.

 

[Goughy]

The reason I did not include the WI in the analysis is that they have changed considerably in terms of ability and it is hard to use them as a fair yardstick. However if that is what I am being criticised for then I will address the issue.

@ Goughy, what about against the West Indies? Wasim played the Windies a lot more in the 80s when they were the strongest team around and emerged with excellent figures while McGrath has taken more of his wickets against them when they haven't been so good.

Wasim only played 5 of his 17 Tests against the West Indies in the 80s and he certainly did not have excellent figures. They were good but he only had 1 5fer in those 5 games and averaged 25.35.

If you only look at the games against the WI both have played since McGrath career started then Wasim averages 19.58 and McGrath 19.38.

So even taking the 1980s out of the issue it is still marginally in favour of McGrath. The difference is too small to make any reason conclusion from but that is also why the use of the WI as a rebutal of the info I presented is useless.

During McGraths career the WI have been pretty weak thats why I did not include them in the original analysis.

Yeah Right !! England were top 4 for majority of Mcgrath's career and WI were not and you accuse others of ignoring the facts.

Since Glenn McGrath made his Test debut on Nov 12 1993

West Indies have played 134 tests and won 33. A winning % of less than 25%
West Indies have lost more games than they have won against England. 9 Won 14 Lost.
England have played 153 Tests and won 55. A winning % of 36%
West Indies have won 33 games and lost 65
England have won 55 and lost 50.

How can anyone say that England have not been better than the WI for the majority of their career? Crazy and blind.

The fact that Wasim played majority of his matches in Pakistan where Mcgrath averages 31 compared to Akram's 22. In the Subcontinent Mcgrath averages 25.5 compared to Akram's 22.6. Wasim's Strike Rate in the subcontinent was 52.9 compared to Mcgrath's strike rate of 60.2.

Picking 1 country never does prove anything, especially if you pick the best from 1 and compare it with the worst from another. It smats of twisting figures. The work I did was a fair composite of teams. I did not start saying Wasim averages over 30 against England therefore he is not very good. You have to look at the bigger picture.

The fact that McGrath has a better average away from Aus is something to be impressed by rather than Wasim relying on home tests to bring his average down. McGrath is a greater expert in a wider variety of conditions against all opponents

Also ignore the fact that Akram made his debut in mid 80s and hence played better English, WI, Kiwi team than Mcgrath did.

Thats funny. How much have you been drinking? The England team in the mid-late 1980s was terrible. It may have had some decent names and won the Ashes in 85 and 87 but believe me they were terrible.

From 1985 - 1990 England won 7, YES 7 out of 48 Tests played. Winning % = 14.6

To say England were better in the 1980s is an absolute joke which just shows how people will say anything to back a weak point.

McGrath is/was better than Wasim and in all honesty I don't care what a CW poll in 2004 said. I've been here long enough to know that I disagree with a lot said here and just because someone or something wins a CW poll does not make it correct.

 

[FRAZ]

Thats funny. How much have you been drinking? The England team in the mid-late 1980s was terrible. It may have had some decent names and won the Ashes in 85 and 87 but believe me they were terrible.

.

 

[Goughy]

Why is that funny? Its not as if the Aussies were anything close to what they are now.

As I said in the 5 years of the 2nd half of the 80s England won 7 Tests.

Since the end of the 80s and early 90s England have gradually progressed as a team and are a different class to 20 and even 10 years ago.

 

[FRAZ]

Yup !!!! Taking wickets against "test playing nations" is not a big deal .

 

[Goughy]

Yup !!!! Taking wickets against "test playing nations" is not a big deal .

What are you talking about?

 

[Sanz]

Picking 1 country never does prove anything, especially if you pick the best from 1 and compare it with the worst from another. It smats of twisting figures. The work I did was a fair composite of teams. I did not start saying Wasim averages over 30 against England therefore he is not very good. You have to look at the bigger picture.

So Subcontinent is one Country, isn't it ? That was my lesson of the Day, For 30 years I was told that India, Pakistan and SriLanka were 3 countries and now comes the fact. Thanks for showing the light to me.

It feels very good to know that Wasim played for the country named Subcontinet and both of us were Subcontientians.