wasim akram vs glenn mcgrath

[silentstriker]

It is a knock against Wasim when you qualify those posts with statements like "he was great at knocking tails, give me Mcgrath to get the top any day" or bring up ball tampering etc.

But Wasim was better at knocking off tails, while McGrath is better at knocking off the top. That doesn't mean anything, except when you compare the two. Wasim also knocked off a hell of a lot of top order, but McGrath is an all time best at knocking off the top.

 

[silentstriker]

In the very near future, Inzi will have better stats than Viv Richards in most categories. He will have more runs, better average(based on current comparison), more centuries, more fifties, and a better high score. And he will do it in fewer games. Yet I highly doubt that many would claim that Inzi is a better batsman than the great Viv.

If all those things are true: better average, more runs, more centuries, a better high score in fewer games, then I have no problems ranking him higher. Inzy isn't as destructive as Sir Viv, but that does not preclude him from being a better batsman. Unless Inzy scored at an S/R of 25...which he certainly does not. A stat here and there can be ignored, but if someones' stats are better across the board, then you have to look at your personal bias if you think that person is still better. Sure, there are exceptions...but the rule in general holds.

 

[Dasa]

But Wasim was better at knocking off tails, while McGrath is better at knocking off the top. That doesn't mean anything, except when you compare the two. Wasim also knocked off a hell of a lot of top order, but McGrath is an all time best at knocking off the top.

It's not what was said, it's how it was said.

 

[Slifer]

Not a single person in this thread is saying that Wasim was not a great bowler. Just thought I'd clarify. What some of us are saying, is that as great as Wasim was, McGrath was better. Thats is not a knock against Wasim. McGrath is better than Lillee, Ambrose, Marshall and everyone else too....that does not diminish Ambrose, Marshall and Lillee.

Exactly how is Mcgrath better than Marshall, Hadlee and Ambrose because unlike with Akram the stats donot show him as being better in all the major categories?

 

[silentstriker]

Exactly how is Mcgrath better than Marshall, Hadlee and Ambrose because unlike with Akram the stats donot show him as being better in all the major categories?

Nope, its unclear so it goes back to opinion.

 

[Anil]

Well no duh. But because its my opinion that McGrath is better, that does not diminish Wasim.

it was kind of an absolute statement in your earlier post, and especially comparisons to marshall, hadlee, ambrose are by no means open-and-shut, just pointing that out, that's all...

 

[Hugh]

I know what I am talking about. I just proved it that how shallow that argument is.(gilchrist, Pollock etc bat @ 7-8 etc).

No, you didn't. You're arguing that wickets 7-11 are more valuable than 1-6 Can you even hear yourself talk ?

And no Swerwy didn't say that Mcgrath picked up more top order wickets, he said Wasim was great @ knocking the tails as if Akram was some Irfan Pathan or something.Besides a wicket is a wicket is a wicket. If Mcgrath isn't able to pick tailenders or was less succefull against them then I would consider it as his weakness.

Anyone would take a guy who is more successful at knocking over the top 6 over one who is more successful at knocking over 7-11.

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.

Accusing others of your crimes isn't going to help you. For once and for all, take a stand like a man. Say it out aloud "Wickets 7-11 are more important than wickets 1-6". That is the essence of your argument.

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.

"Uniform distribution of wickets for Wasim" ??? Please. Get a grip. Even Gillespie has a better top order percentage of wickets than Wasim. So does Waqar. If anything, it is McGrath, Waqar and even Gillespie who have the uniform distribution, not Wasim.

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.

And McGrath would be more likely to actually get the team to the position of getting to bowl at numbers 7-11 than Wasim, who would still be working out number 6 at that point.

 

[Slifer]

Nope, its unclear so it goes back to opinion.

Oh this is your opinion, now that makes sense.

 

[Hugh]

It's not what was said, it's how it was said.

Its no longer 'how it was said', when you hear ridiculous arguments about how bowler A is still better than bowler B, despite bowler A being better at knocking off numbers 7-11 but poorer at getting rid of numbers 1-6 than bowler B.

 

[Hugh]

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 ?

It shatters his so called argument. Thats why.

 

[Swervy]

It's not what was said, it's how it was said.

for crying out loud, I said it over 2 years ago, even I cant absolutly remember 'how' it was said, and I said it.

I think people are just not reading what I have said, and because of this I am being accused of bias:
Akram was a great bowler
He was great at knocking over the tail
McGrath has proven to be more prolific at getting the higher order batsmen out
McGrath is superior in almost all major statistical categories
I would choose McGrath over Akram for doing the job I want my opening bowlers to do
I never accused Akram of ball tampering, I originally said 2 years ago, I cant get the accusations of ball tampering out of my head.

I first saw Akram play in about 1986 maybe 85 and followed him throughout his career. I am a Lancashire supporter, as a bowler Akram could do little wrong in my eyes.
I have watched MCgrath since the start of his international career.
I hold my hand up, it was much more fun watching Akram bowl than McGrath...
But that doesnt get away from the facts....and the facts are McGrath has been a more effective wicket taker in test cricket than Akram...McGrath has a better average, better strike rate, better economy rate, better wickets per match ratio, taken more higher order wickets per game than Wasim.....the currency which bowlers deal in are wickets...McGrath dealt that currency out more effectively and efficiently...they are the facts of the matter

My opinion is based on watching the game, and I would rather have McGrath bowling for me than Akram....the facts state his was a more efficient bowler than Akram

I dont know of any more ways I can try to justify what I said, now or 2 years ago.
In fact, I dont understand why I am getting accused of being biased, when all I did 2 years ago was react to the ridiculous statement from Sanz that Wasim was the greatest modern era bowler and was way way ahead of McGrath.

Here is a quote from me from the old thread:
I dont think I have ever said that mcGrath is a better bowler than Akram...I have said that I would prefer McGrath playing in my team if my life depended on it, and I have said that statistically, McGrath has actually been more effective.

i am not going to say who is better, because you may as well ask who was better warne or derek underwood..impossible to answer as they were two completely different bowlers...but I will not buy into the thing that Akram is by far the better bowler, because a)they are completely different and b))not that it matters too much coz the question is not valid) McGrath has actually been more effective...........

i am not arguing with those who say they would rather Akram in there team over McGrath or whatever, I am arguing againt the idea that mcGrath doesnt even have the right to be classed up there with akram as an all time great bowler (of any type) which some people seemed to be making out earlier in this thread

 

[shankar]

First of all, I do think McGrath is the better of the two.

However, I don't think this '% of wickets' method is sound. Now, this would be a valid method of finding out who's better against the top-order if we used total no. of wickets taken by a bowler as the gauge for his quality - In which case we could say that tail-enders have contributed more to Wasim's 'score' thus devaluing it. But clearly, we dont do that - we merely use total no. of wickets as a testament to the longevity of the bowler. Average and strike-rate are far better indicators of a bowler's quality. So a statistic of the bowlers' respective strike-rate and averages while bowling to top-order batsmen is required to make a judgeent as to was better against top-order batsmen.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh this is your opinion, now that makes sense.

Um...duh? All of this is opinion.

 

[Hugh]

First of all, I do think McGrath is the better of the two.

However, I don't think this '% of wickets' method is sound. Now, this would be a valid method of finding out who's better against the top-order if we used total no. of wickets taken by a bowler as the gauge for his quality - In which case we could say that tail-enders have contributed more to Wasim's 'score' thus devaluing it. But clearly, we dont do that - we merely use total no. of wickets as a testament to the longevity of the bowler. Average and strike-rate are far better indicators of a bowler's quality. So a statistic of the bowlers' respective strike-rate and averages while bowling to top-order batsmen is required to make a judgeent as to was better against top-order batsmen.

Who is using number of wickets ? We're using percentage of wickets, which is not a function of longevity at all.

 

[shankar]

Who is using number of wickets ? We're using percentage of wickets, which is not a function of longevity at all.

No, you haven't understood me - Percentage of wickets against the top-order would be a useful statistic only if total wickets is a considered the benchmark for gauging the quality of a bowler. But in reality it's average and strike-rate that are considered benchmarks of quality - So the average/strike-rate of the bowlers while bowling to the top-order is the right way to just their efficacy in bowling to the top-order batsmen.

 

[Sanz]

for crying out loud, I said it over 2 years ago, even I cant absolutly remember 'how' it was said, and I said it.

Yeah Swervy you dont remember how it was said, but everytime Akram Vs. Mcgrath discussion takes place, you act like the martyr and claim that you were bashed in that particular thread for saying Mcgrath is better, which is simple untrue.

Obviously you dont remember how it was said or may be dont want to remember, but I have a good memory and I exactly remember how it was said. Also it doesn't take a genius to figure out how it was said. It was said in simple English anyway.

 

[Sanz]

I dont know of any more ways I can try to justify what I said, now or 2 years ago.
In fact, I dont understand why I am getting accused of being biased, when all I did 2 years ago was react to the ridiculous statement from Sanz that Wasim was the greatest modern era bowler and was way way ahead of McGrath.

My statement may have been ridiculous, but it still was an opinion without insulting Mcgrath or anyother bowler as compared to you.And yes I think he was better than most modern era bowlers because while being the great bowler he was a great entertainer as well, he had a great variety. He was an artist or simply the greatest artist of the ball I have seen and a very successful one @ that.

 

[Sanz]

Its no longer 'how it was said', when you hear ridiculous arguments about how bowler A is still better than bowler B, despite bowler A being better at knocking off numbers 7-11 but poorer at getting rid of numbers 1-6 than bowler B.

Obviously if Bowler B is so good, why cant he knock off Batsmen from 7-11 as well as others ? May be that is a weakness in Bowler B ?

 

[Sanz]

No, you didn't. You're arguing that wickets 7-11 are more valuable than 1-6 Can you even hear yourself talk ?

I can hear myself talk, but may be you need to learn.

Anyone would take a guy who is more successful at knocking over the top 6 over one who is more successful at knocking over 7-11.

That's why people voted 30-8 in favor of Akram.

Accusing others of your crimes isn't going to help you. For once and for all, take a stand like a man. Say it out aloud "Wickets 7-11 are more important than wickets 1-6". That is the essence of your argument.

Wickets 7-11 are as important as 1-6.

"Uniform distribution of wickets for Wasim" ??? Please. Get a grip. Even Gillespie has a better top order percentage of wickets than Wasim. So does Waqar. If anything, it is McGrath, Waqar and even Gillespie who have the uniform distribution, not Wasim.

I think you need to learn the meaning of the words like 'Uniform' and 'Distribution' and their meaning when they are used to together.

And McGrath would be more likely to actually get the team to the position of getting to bowl at numbers 7-11 than Wasim, who would still be working out number 6 at that point.

He still wont be able to finish though, it would be left to that pathetic bowler Akram who will be more likely to finish the tail due to his variety.

 

[Sanz]

My opinion is based on watching the game, and I would rather have McGrath bowling for me than Akram....the facts state his was a more efficient bowler than Akram

The problem with that is you switch gear to suit your argument. When stats favor your argument, you keep harping on that, when they dont, you say you dont care about what the stats say.