wasim akram vs glenn mcgrath

[Hodgo7]

Only exaggeration is being done by you and Swervy, you want me to look at the stats your way(that too without doing proper research) which is taking the top order wicket is somehow better than taking tail wickets. It can also be argued that Unlike Mcgrath, Wasim had the variety (such as bowling Yorkers) to knock off any wicket and that's the reason for the uniform distribution of his wickets. but You are taking this uniform distribution of his wickets as a negative for Akram and trying to argue this point in favor of Mcgrath in a rather insulting way.

Besides one needs to take 10 wickets to win a test match, If India were able to knock off Gillespie in 2004, we probable would have not lost the series, If England were able to knock off Vaas (and Murali) they probably would have won the series. If Mcgrath & Warne were able to knock off Giles and likes, they probably would have been defending the next ashes.

Hahahah...you are a joke mate. You can't seriously tell me that a tailender is a more important wicket than a top order batter or even a top 6 batter (which strengthens his point even more). He might have more variety but doesnt' make him a better bowler now does it ? McGrath doesn't need to bowl 6 different balls an over to get a wicket. He is Mr Consistent which is what makes him stand out from the bunch. Remember how the Kiwis played that one series by letting everything go ? What happened next series ? He cleaned them up with a little bit of variation.

That last paragraph is as uselful as ti.ts on a bull. Provides nothing to the argument at hand although you need to take 20 wickets to win a TEST match

 

[Hodgo7]

In the end mate when you weigh the stats of both players McGrath comes out on top no matter what way you look at it.

 

[Swervy]

Only exaggeration is being done by you and Swervy, you want me to look at the stats your way(that too without doing proper research) which is taking the top order wicket is somehow better than taking tail wickets. It can also be argued that Unlike Mcgrath, Wasim had the variety (such as bowling Yorkers) to knock off any wicket and that's the reason for the uniform distribution of his wickets. but You are taking this uniform distribution of his wickets as a negative for Akram and trying to argue this point in favor of Mcgrath in a rather insulting way.

Besides one needs to take 10 wickets to win a test match, If India were able to knock off Gillespie in 2004, we probable would have not lost the series, If England were able to knock off Vaas (and Murali) they probably would have won the series. If Mcgrath & Warne were able to knock off Giles and likes, they probably would have been defending the next ashes.

or it could be said that Australia use Warne to mop up the tails more than McGrath...but yeah anyway, a bowler like Akram will always rip a tail apart because of two things a) his huge skill levels and b) his line of attack. Akram was a master of it, and its not an insult to say it.

But we cannot get away from the fact that McGrath has been much more successful at getting the top and middle order batsmen...and so I still stand by what i said, that I would choose McGrath over Akram to knock over the top of the order, which is exactly what I want an opening bowler to do

 

[Sanz]

and just further note on the top order stuff

Akram took 1.25 wickets per test of batsmen in the top three
McGrath has taken 1.84 wickets per test of batsmen in the top three

This is getting even more ridiculous now. I hope you are not suggesting that Top 3 batsmen are better than 4-7 ? If at all it proves anything, then it is that Mcgrath was a better new ball bowler then Akram, but when you look at who Wasim's partners were (Waqar, Imran, Shoaib) at the other end and compare it Mcgrath's partners , then even that point becomes moot.

I hope you know that best batsmen of Akram's era such as Tendulkar, Lara, Waugh brothers , Kallis(majority of times), Azhar, Crowe, Flower, Inzi etc all didn't bat in the top 3.

 

[Sanz]

In the end mate when you weigh the stats of both players McGrath comes out on top no matter what way you look at it.

Unfortunately majority of the forum members dont think that way and there is a reason for it.

 

[Hodgo7]

This is getting even more ridiculous now. I hope you are not suggesting that Top 3 batsmen are better than 4-7 ? If at all it proves anything, then it is that Mcgrath was a better new ball bowler then Akram, but when you look at who Wasim's partners were (Waqar, Imran, Shoaib) at the other end and compare it Mcgrath's partners , then even that point becomes moot.

I hope you know that best batsmen of Akram's era such as Tendulkar, Lara, Waugh brothers , Kallis(majority of times), Azhar, Crowe, Flower, Inzi etc all didn't bat in the top 3.

Well with my stats I have used 1-6 and 7-11 (the first 6 being the BATTERS) which clearly shows McGrath has a higher % of wickets in the first grouping compared to Wasim.

Wasn't it you that mentioned that Wasim had to put up with Waqar at the other end ?

 

[Hodgo7]

Unfortunately majority of the forum members dont think that way and there is a reason for it.

Yeah because the majority if the forum members are from a sub-continent background which was reflected in the 30-8 vote count...

Why not put the reason then sunshine ? Pretty bad when it shows it all leaning towards McGrath and you are so quick to dismiss these prefering to focus on STATS that show Wasim equal to McGrath or getting close...

 

[Swervy]

Unfortunately majority of the forum members dont think that way and there is a reason for it.

yeah..because equal weighting is given on those polls to people who grew up being told Akram was the be all and end all, and probably saw some highlight montage of all the booming inswingers that seem to impress a lot of kids, without actually seeing much of him live and those who actually have followed the careers of both players from the very start....

everyone knows those polls arent worth anything, and for you to use that in favour of your arguement that Akram is the greatest modern era bowler (you said it!!!!) is just ridiculous

 

[Hodgo7]

I hope you know that best batsmen of Akram's era such as Tendulkar, Lara, Waugh brothers , Kallis(majority of times), Azhar, Crowe, Flower, Inzi etc all didn't bat in the top 3.

Of course he isn't saying that but like I have proved and mentioned several times McGraths figures for the Top 6 batsmen still outweight Wasims...

 

[Hodgo7]

yeah..because equal weighting is given on those polls to people who grew up being told Akram was the be all and end all, and probably saw some highlight montage of all the booming inswingers that seem to impress a lot of kids, without actually seeing much of him live and those who actually have followed the careers of both players from the very start....

everyone knows those polls arent worth anything, and for you to use that in favour of your arguement that Akram is the greatest modern era bowler (you said it!!!!) is just ridiculous

Well said mate. Considering you are a neutral your point should hold more value....

This is one reason why I don't post in here that much. Too much dribble and too many one-eyed people. You have stated in every sense with every statistic imaginable how McGrath is better and yet he still can't admit it ? Like trying to get blood out of a stone...

 

[Hodgo7]

Here are some stats to help..

In regards to batters from 1-6 Wasim's = 56.28% of his victims. McGrath's = 67.34%

In regards to batters 7-11 Wasim's = 43.72%. McGraths 32.66%

Thats a fair size difference which suggests that McGrath is a lot better knocking off the top order. In regards to the wicket distribution its dead even.

Wasims 1st innings accounted for 58.5% of his victims with McGraths (as of today) came in at 58.5% as well.

I'd have McGrath over Wasim if I had to choose one, but if I was choosing my All-time team I would have both.

Re-read this Sanz..

 

[Sanz]

Hahahah...you are a joke mate.

Attacking me isn't going to win you the argument. I can see the frustration in your posts. This is what the likes of you do every time a great Aussie player is discussed against an equally worthy opponent. I have seen this in Warne Vs. Murali, Dravid Vs. Ponting, Waugh vs. Tendulkar and now Mcgrath vs. Akram. It is very hard for the likes of you to accept that there is/was a player somewhere else in the world who could be as good as the Aussie player.

You can't seriously tell me that a tailender is a more important wicket than a top order batter or even a top 6 batter (which strengthens his point even more).

You dont even know the meaning of a tailender, according to your logic Gilchrist, Pollock, Klusener etc are all tailenders and not important as the wickets of Gautam Gambhir, Dasgupta, Butt and many other worthless players..

He might have more variety but doesnt' make him a better bowler now does it ? McGrath doesn't need to bowl 6 different balls an over to get a wicket.

It certainly makes akram much more entertaining (which is a very important factor) and he has proved that he is equally good. So I take the one who is a great entretainer and an all time great over an all time great.

He is Mr Consistent which is what makes him stand out from the bunch. Remember how the Kiwis played that one series by letting everything go ? What happened next series ? He cleaned them up with a little bit of variation.

Have any of you considered the fact that the Kiwi side in 2004/05 wasn't as good as the the 2001/02 one, what was Warnie's avg in the 2001/02 series, or may be they were leaving everything Warnie was bowling as well ? If they were letting everything go then how was Mcgrath's economy rate in the 2001-02 series was worse then that in 2004/05 series ?

 

[Swervy]

Well said mate. Considering you are a neutral your point should hold more value....
This is one reason why I don't post in here that much. Too much dribble and too many one-eyed people. You have stated in every sense with every statistic imaginable how McGrath is better and yet he still can't admit it ? Like trying to get blood out of a stone...

actually, I am Australian

 

[Sanz]

Yeah because the majority if the forum members are from a sub-continent background which was reflected in the 30-8 vote count...

Majority of the forum members are from subcontinent ??

Why not put the reason then sunshine ? Pretty bad when it shows it all leaning towards McGrath and you are so quick to dismiss these prefering to focus on STATS that show Wasim equal to McGrath or getting close...

What do you think I have been doing so far as opposed to your personal attacks ? And as for all the stats leading towards Mcgrath, I am sure you have checked Mcgrath's average in the subcontinent and compared it with Akram's.

PS :- Subcontinent isn't just one country, there are four countries that play cricket there - India,Pakistan, SriLanka and Bangladesh.

 

[Sanz]

Well said mate. Considering you are a neutral your point should hold more value....

This is one reason why I don't post in here that much. Too much dribble and too many one-eyed people. You have stated in every sense with every statistic imaginable how McGrath is better and yet he still can't admit it ? Like trying to get blood out of a stone...

Now you look pretty bad here.

Actually I am the one who is a Neutral here, I am neither an Aussie nor a Pakistani. I happen to be from the country that is just across the Pakistani Border (Kashmir side).

 

[Goughy]

A pure statistical analysis of fast bowlers.

Refer you to my earlier thread which I think was partly done in response to another thread about "Who was better Imran or Wasim?". The analysis would show Imran to be the answer to that question.

Anyway, Wasim just misses out from the top category which puts him in the S. Pollock, Walsh, Garner and Croft group. A bit has been made about that he missed out by the tiniest of margins but that required value was the minimum and the others were a fair bit above the min.

If the criteria is expanded only to include those with long careers (as Wasim also had a long career) the greatest fast bowlers with over 200 test wickets are-

DK Lillee
Glenn McGrath
Trueman
Hadlee
Imran
Ambrose
Holding
Marshall
Donald

A wide mix from a variety of countries and this represents the cream of the crop. The top 8 from over 50 years of post-war cricket.

As I said before Wasim falls into the category of S. Pollock, Walsh, Garner and Croft as those that just failed to make the best of the best category. They are undoubtably quality players but not in the top 8.

Original Post
http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=17119

 

[Sanz]

Yeah because the majority if the forum members are from a sub-continent background which was reflected in the 30-8 vote count...

Actually I went back to that thread and did the counting for the people who actually posted their preferences (as opposed to some who participated in the poll but didn't post in the thread)

And here is what I found :-

Wasim - Langeveldt, SquidAU, Tom Halsey, Bouncer, godofcricket, Mr Mxyzptlk, LankanPrince, Sanz, Anil, nibbs, masterblaster, Craig, iamdavid, Jono, ReallyCrazy, wrong hander, Richard, Arrow


Mcgrath - Swervy, marc71178(although Marc was arguing in favor of Pigeon at the same time he was being his usual self by not explicitly posting his choice)

All those highlighted nicks, I know , are from subcontinent, About Jono and Masterblaster, AFAIK they may be from Indian origin, but I dont see any reason for them to be biased against anyone.

Okay take the Subcontinentians out, Still leaves 12-2(or 3/4 If I missed a couple those were in favor of Pigeon ) in favor of Akram.

 

[Hodgo7]

Yes Sanz Pollock, Klusener etc aren't tail enders but they usually bat at one position. Are they more important than batters 1-6 ?

 

[Hodgo7]

Was that poll also done 2 years ago ? Things might change mate but you are an example of one of the dribblers around here.

 

[Hodgo7]

We can sit here all day and argue semantics in this case but there is numerous stats and facts that show Pigeon has done more than Akram. You only have to look at batters 1-6 in each case. What is your argument there champ ?

Why not comment on my post that I even bumped for your perusal ?