Who was the better bowler: Glenn Mcgrath or Wasim Akram?

[sachin200]

In general I believe Luck is very even in the sports I have watched (cricket tennis etc)
But I do believe I have found McGrath (only exception I can think of) to be the more luckier as a bowler I have seen in my time esp regarding the LBWs.
But I also do believe he (McGrath) has been very unlucky as a batsman and also in his personal life he has been a bit unlucky...

 

[Cruxdude]

Mcgrath was a phenomenal bowler. The ease and regularity with which he took out the opponents best player belies belief. But Wasim is more of a favourite than Mcgrath for me.

 

[MW1304]

Indeed. His 124 match career was just one continuous lucky streak - could've happened to any RP Singh.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Mcgrath was a phenomenal batsman.

I wouldn't say phenomenal but he was pretty good. Got behind the line of the ball brilliantly and generally had a very compact technique. Played the sweep quite well and had the temperament to nudge around for runs.
His strokeplay on the off side could have been better though.

 

[Cruxdude]

I wouldn't say phenomenal but he was pretty good. Got behind the line of the ball brilliantly and generally had a very compact technique. Played the sweep quite well and had the temperament to nudge around for runs.
His strokeplay on the off side could have been better though.

Haha. Caught me before I edited it.

 

[r3alist]

i am a huge akram fan, but mcgrath was the more effective bowler.

akram had the variety, but bottom line is wickets and consistency, mcgrath rules on both.


the only argument in mitigation for akram are catches and relative strength of fielding teams.

i tihnk for every sitter dropped by a pakistani player, another brilliant catch was taken by an aussie.

so in other words mcgrath had awesome fielders boosting his wickets, akram the opposite.

if you could somehow quantify that aspect i think the gap would narrow - but mcgrath still for me.

 

[GotSpin]

In general I believe Luck is very even in the sports I have watched (cricket tennis etc)
But I do believe I have found McGrath (only exception I can think of) to be the more luckier as a bowler I have seen in my time esp regarding the LBWs.
But I also do believe he (McGrath) has been very unlucky as a batsman and also in his personal life he has been a bit unlucky...

"THE" WORST UMPIRE OF ALL TIME- 2 PLUMB LBW's NOT GIVEN IN PAKISTAN 1998- MCGRATH - YouTube

 

[Burgey]

In general I believe Luck is very even in the sports I have watched (cricket tennis etc)
But I do believe I have found McGrath (only exception I can think of) to be the more luckier as a bowler I have seen in my time esp regarding the LBWs.
But I also do believe he (McGrath) has been very unlucky as a batsman and also in his personal life he has been a bit unlucky...

Yes, losing your wife to cancer in her 30s is a little bit unfortunate, isn't it?

 

[Son Of Coco]

In general I believe Luck is very even in the sports I have watched (cricket tennis etc)
But I do believe I have found McGrath (only exception I can think of) to be the more luckier as a bowler I have seen in my time esp regarding the LBWs.
But I also do believe he (McGrath) has been very unlucky as a batsman and also in his personal life he has been a bit unlucky...

McGrath was incredibly lucky as a bowler. In fact, he was lucky 563 times at an average of 21.64. Probably the luckiest fast bowler ever.

As for his batting, again you're right. I think you'll find he started out in tests as a batsman and only became a bowler when he realised he was luckier in that area than he was with the willow.

It truly is incredible that he achieved so much as a bowler when he clearly invested no time in the art and lacked all the skills needed to be successful. Actually, I heard he was so lucky he bought a packet of party hats at the local newsagent the day after he retired and inadvertently won the $100 million first prize in the national lottery.

What's most amazing about the whole story is that he ended up being lucky doing something he had a single-minded focus on being the best at, and was unlucky in the other area of the game he didn't really bother too much about. ****ing incredible!

Right, I'm off to hang myself from the doorknob after reading your last post. Goodnight.

 

[sachin200]

Yes, losing your wife to cancer in her 30s is a little bit unfortunate, isn't it?

McGrath was incredibly lucky as a bowler. In fact, he was lucky 563 times at an average of 21.64. Probably the luckiest fast bowler ever.

As for his batting, again you're right. I think you'll find he started out in tests as a batsman and only became a bowler when he realised he was luckier in that area than he was with the willow.

It truly is incredible that he achieved so much as a bowler when he clearly invested no time in the art and lacked all the skills needed to be successful. Actually, I heard he was so lucky he bought a packet of party hats at the local newsagent the day after he retired and inadvertently won the $100 million first prize in the national lottery.

What's most amazing about the whole story is that he ended up being lucky doing something he had a single-minded focus on being the best at, and was unlucky in the other area of the game he didn't really bother too much about. ****ing incredible!

Right, I'm off to hang myself from the doorknob after reading your last post. Goodnight.

way to miss a point.............

I didn't say McGrath picked up the wickets because he was lucky what I meant was I found him more luckier (than other bowlers) in lbw decisions...

Ofcourse he is the best fast bowler of his generation and is better than Wasim....

 

[smash84]

It is ridiculous that people scoff even at the idea of someone rating Wasim close to McGrath.

 

[Manee]

It is ridiculous that people scoff even at the idea of someone rating Wasim close to McGrath.

It is because there is a widely accepted statistical method on this forum in which Mcgrath is clearly ahead of Wasim. It basically goes in line of comparing averages and strike rates and then looking at whether these figures are skewed in any way by weak opposition or easy conditions. Unless you challenge that system, it is difficult to challenge that Mcgrath>Wasim.

 

[Furball]

It is ridiculous that people scoff even at the idea of someone rating Wasim close to McGrath.

I scoff at the idea mainly because to rate Wasim ahead of McGrath you've been seduced by all Wasim's tricks and ignored McGrath's trick, which is the most important one of all.

 

[r3alist]

I scoff at the idea mainly because to rate Wasim ahead of McGrath you've been seduced by all Wasim's tricks and ignored McGrath's trick, which is the most important one of all.

everyone likes artistry and unique talent.

mcgrath is like the gerd muller of cricket - a ridiculously good record but basically a one trick pony (more or less).

akram is maybe more akin to Madonna, because if you were to look at numbers alone that doesn't nearly tell the full story.


i will repeat again, mcgrath is the more effective and consistent bowler, and he deserves to be places ahead of akram based on that.

 

[Howe_zat]

What a godawful last few pages.

Two thoughts:

1. If you want to be serious, objective and completely rational whenever rate a player, there's really very little choice in this case other than to rate McGrath ahead of Wasim by a distance.

2. Why would you want to do that?

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

mcgrath is like the gerd muller of cricket - a ridiculously good record but basically a one trick pony (more or less).

Which other 'one trick pony' has claimed over 500 test wickets? I might as well learn that one trick and end up being an ATG bowler.

 

[Furball]

Which other 'one trick pony' has claimed over 500 test wickets? I might as well learn that one trick and end up being an ATG bowler.

I tend to see that as a backhanded compliment, McGrath's one trick was getting the best batsmen he faced out time and again. A much better trick up your sleeve than getting ***y looking reverse swing IMO.

 

[r3alist]

Which other 'one trick pony' has claimed over 500 test wickets? I might as well learn that one trick and end up being an ATG bowler.

he bowled line and length with ridiculous discipline, ofcourse that takes skill but essentially thats all he did.

and he has admitted as such, please read this article McGrath’s secret of success: Bore the batsmen - Express India

it was an effective formula, so why change it, he can stop at that so fair enough.

but whatever way you cut it he didn't have a varied arsenal, its not a defence of akram, its just an accurate reflection, akram had more in his arsenal, and i would say he had more craft, that only translates to success if you use it well, i dont think he used it optimally.

 

[Son Of Coco]

way to miss a point.............

I didn't say McGrath picked up the wickets because he was lucky what I meant was I found him more luckier (than other bowlers) in lbw decisions...

Ofcourse he is the best fast bowler of his generation and is better than Wasim....

Given that's not exactly what you said you'll have to excuse me for 'missing the point'. There might've been some language issues there.

And I never mentioned Wasim. My post was in response to what you'd said, nothing to do with whether I think McGrath is better than Wasim or vice versa.

 

[Burgey]

everyone likes artistry and unique talent.

mcgrath is like the gerd muller of cricket - a ridiculously good record but basically a one trick pony (more or less).

akram is maybe more akin to Madonna, because if you were to look at numbers alone that doesn't nearly tell the full story.


i will repeat again, mcgrath is the more effective and consistent bowler, and he deserves to be places ahead of akram based on that.

Dwta.

Subtle genius is still genius. Watching highlight reels doesn't tell you everything (not saying that's you btw).

You watch McGrath land a ball outside off and move away, and you wonder why the batsman played at it.

But you don't see him taking the bloke apart for an over or two beforehand.. Bringing one back in off the deck, bowling a bouncer to keep him on the crease, maybe variations in length, etc.

So sure, you look at the wicket ball and think "Why did the bloke play at that?", but the man has been deconstructed over an over/ spell/ session.

Watch the clip of McGrath bowling to Warner in a T20 a couple of years back, and listen to him talk about bringing two back into him then taking the third one across him for a catch in the slips. It doesn't do a lot, just enough. It's another kind of genius.

And that was him. Landing it on the right line, at the right length, doing just enough. Time after time after time. What a bowler he was.