Wasim Akram or Glen Mcgrath?Who was the better bowler?

[Harsh Thakor]

Wasim Akram and Glen Mcgrath rank amongst the greatest bowlers of all time.It would take a photo-finish to morally separate them.Mcgrath was a bowling metronome like a programmed machine ,Wasim was a magician with the creativity of a musical composer.Mcgrath could bowl six deliveries in the same spot in the same over,Akram could bowl 6 different types of balls in an over.Akram posessed unmatched variations of reverse -swing in his armoury while Mcgrath posessed control or acuracy not surpased by any fast-bowler. What arguably let down Wasim was his diabetes,the internal politics of Pakistan cricket and his slip fielders dropping catches.Maybe playing for a top Australian sided Wasim would have been more successful.Wasim also did not bowl on as many bouncy tracks as Mcgrath did. Wasim Akram to be was fast bowling's equivalent of a magician.He could do things with a cricket ball which no pace bowler could ever do.Wasim was like a surgeon,sculptor and poet moulded into one.There have been quicker,more accurate.Wasim Akram posessed the total package of the complete fast bowler.Wasim was the equivalent of a magician to fast bowling.At his best he reminded one of a musical composer with his extraordinary innovations of reverse swing.He could do things with a cricket ball that no pace bowler could ever do.He could bowl six different deliveries in an over. To me had Wasim done full justice to his potential he should have had figures of the equivalent the legendary Sydney Barnes had in his era or been the 'Bradman' of fast bowling.No paceman posessed Wasim's creative genius who was the equivalent of a Michelangelo or Rembrandt to fast bowling.Wasim had deliveries in his armoury which greats like Marshall or Lillee did not have.He could bowl more unplayable deliveries or capture wickets with them than nay other pace bowler.Alan Donlad rated Wasim as the most complete fast bowler he ever saw. Glen Mcgrath was the most complete post-war fast -medium pace bowler of all.He posessed all the essential components in almost perfect proportion be it pace ,bounce,control or movement.Above all he assesed a batsman's weaknesses like a computer.He posessed the consistency of a machine.There were more versatile bowlers,faster bowlers,bowlers who moved the ball more but none who could produce the perfect ball to capture an opponent's wicket.The batsman were perplexed whether to play back or forward.Richard Hadlee had equally good control but not as effective bounce or as subtle variations.Capturing 563 wickets at 21.63 arguably make him the finest of all pace bowlers .Mcgrath was like an architect and engineer rolled into one. So overall,who would I choose in preference in an all-time xi and who was the better bowler. Points favouring Wasim 1.He got half his scalps on flat subcontinent tracks.His mastery of reverse swing enabled him to overcome the barriers of the subcontinent's pancakes.Wasim also was not supported often by his fielders or his team's batsmen. 2.Wasim had far more variations.He would often dismiss batsmen with deliveries that were unplayable while Mcgrath would gain wickets often through mistakes created by batsmen.Brian Lara and Jacques Kallis rated him the best pace bowler they ever faced.Alan Donald rated him the most complete. 3.Wasim was faster and could move the ball far more. 4.More 5 and 10 wicket hauls compared to no.of tests played than Mcgrath.Mcgrath got 5 wickets 28 times in 124 tests while Wasim got 5 wickets 25 times in 104 tests.Wasim had 5 10 wicket hauls in compariosn's to Mcgrath's 3.Also Wasim has better bowling average in games won.In peak period a marginally better strike rate than Mcgrath of 46.7. 5.In terms of pure match -performances in a career evaluated in rating sof test match bowlers in 2009 by Anantha narayana on cricinfo cordon almost on level woth Mcgrath with 18.7 as against Mcgrath's 18.9.Match performances in career asses nature of opposition,nature of wickets,situation of game etc.Had he got better support from his fielders he may have even surpassed Mcgrath in this respect. Points favouring Glen Mcgrath 1.Possessed more control and accuracy 2.More intelligent and could analyze opponent's weaknesses better. 3.Statistically better with 149 more scalps and a more economical average by 2 runs.Mcgrath has a strike rate of 51.9 compared to Wasim's 54.6 and best figures of 8-23 and 8-38 while Wasim's best is 7-119. 4.More top order wickets from 1-6 position and percentage of scalps in games won.He also ran through batting line-ups more.Mcgrath has 66.9% of top order wickets than Wasim Akram's 56.9% of top-order scalps. If I had to choose a world xi i would choose Wasim Akram,principally because of his left-arm variety to join Lillee,Marshall,Warne etc in the attack.Akram's incredible versatality would be a greatest menace to opponents than Mcgrath's consistency.For a place in an all-time xi many more cricketers have chosen Wasim over Mcgrath.Wasim got 27 votes to be selected in the all-time xi above Mcgrath's 8 votes.Wasim was chosen in the all-time world xi in the overall selection of 100 cricket legends of Richard Sydenham.To me more than Mcgrath's ultra-accuarte line and intelligence Wasim's magical innovation sand mastery of bowling art would be a greater threat for opponents.Generally,Wasim was the more difficult to face at his best. Still if you go by statistics,Mcgrath is better.Although Wasim had more all-round skill over a prolonged period he could cause as much trouble as Wasim against batsmen like Viv Richards or Gavaskar.In Anantha Narayan's statistiacl analysis of 15 most faersome bowlers in August 2010 Mcgrath is ranked 2nd behind Murlitharan while Akrm is placed at 13th place considering a huge range of factors. Below posting sections from Anantha Narayans' s analyis in August 10, 2010 The fearsome fifteen: a look at the great bowlers The following measures are used. 1. Wickets captured. 2. Bowling strike rate (Bpw). 3. Bowling accuracy (Rpo). (These two are components of the Bowling average, but have been considered independently). 4. Quality of wickets captured (Average of dismissed batsmen's batting averages) 5. Away bowling average. 6. % of top order wickets captured. 7. Team load borne by bowler (balls bowled and wickets captured). 8. Ratio of bowling average to peer bowling average - all teams. 9. Ratio of bowling average to peer bowling average - other bowlers of own team. 10.Win index (Combination of two ratios)- (% of win wickets to career wickets and % of win wickets to team win wickets). Just to summarize, Muralitharan leads in 2 measures (Wickets and Team load factor). The other 8 measures are led by Ambrose (RpO), Garner (Away bowling average), Imran Khan (Dismissed batsman quality), Waqar Younis (Bowling strike rate), Marshall (Peer comparison to all bowlers), Hadlee (Peer comparison to own team bowlers), McGrath (Top order wickets ratio) and Warne (Win index). A very fair distribution of the top positions with nine bowlers leading in one or more measures. There is no domination by one bowler. Muralitharan M 87.54 10.00 7.52 9.10 7.87 7.74 6.99 10.00 9.53 9.25 9.54 McGrath G.D 85.38 7.04 8.18 8.98 7.46 9.70 10.00 6.85 9.84 7.49 9.84 Hadlee R.J 84.89 5.39 8.42 8.29 9.18 9.31 8.75 8.26 9.33 10.00 7.96 Marshall M.D 83.36 4.70 9.30 7.99 8.92 9.35 8.87 6.89 10.00 7.63 9.73 Ambrose C.E.L 82.72 5.06 7.62 10.00 7.77 9.98 9.46 6.76 9.76 8.04 8.27 Imran Khan 81.00 4.53 7.79 8.74 10.00 7.99 9.21 7.40 9.09 8.98 7.27 Lillee D.K 80.76 4.44 8.17 7.61 9.54 8.70 9.33 7.62 8.59 7.74 9.01 Donald A.A 79.75 4.12 9.24 7.19 7.79 8.93 9.92 7.01 9.24 7.80 8.51 Garner J 79.34 3.24 8.41 9.12 8.61 10.00 8.09 6.74 9.73 7.54 7.86 Warne S.K 78.63 8.85 6.99 8.18 7.17 8.33 6.35 7.77 8.35 6.63 10.00 Trueman F.S 76.86 3.84 8.72 8.35 6.91 8.04 9.04 6.71 9.25 7.62 8.38 Wasim Akram 76.37 5.18 7.60 8.49 7.59 8.77 7.86 6.92 8.77 7.51 7.68 Waqar Younis 75.84 4.66 10.00 5.02 7.89 7.99 8.72 6.63 8.79 7.32 8.81 Kumble A 71.40 7.74 5.16 7.95 7.96 4.26 7.64 8.21 7.14 7.33 8.01 Kapil Dev N 68.24 5.43 5.61 7.49 9.25 5.83 9.84 6.14 7.00 7.70 3.96 So to conclude if I based my selection on statistics then Glen Mcgrath would win.However if I based it on all-round skill of a fast bowler them Wasim Akram would be the victor.In the end we should ask ourselves whether we make ranking son the basis of statistics or on skill.Perhaps Mcgrath and Wasim rolled into one comprised the perfect pace bowler.

[tweaker]

Wasim Akram

[MechEng]

Mohammad Asif.

[BlueBee]

Akram

[Gunner]

Mcgrath

[adi B]

Akram

[kosingh]

Subroto Banerjee

[FischerTal]

Mcgrath for tests, wasim for odis

[Vijy]

Mohammad Asif.

Yes, the convict had some impressive skills indeed. I'd go with Akram for skills, but I'd rate McGrath the better bowler... Akram never quite knew hot to utilize his considerable abilities to the fullest.

[CricketBuffOne]

Tough one, but I will go with McGrath.

[BeautifulGame]

Low bounce wickets Akram Bouncy wickets McGrath Seam bowling - McGrath Swing (conventional and Reverse ) Akram I really don't think there is much between both and will pick based on the conditions if need to make a choice tbh Ideally I would have Marshall McGrath and Akram as my all time pace attack

[Marut]

McGrath has a much better overall record. McGrath has sub 25 averages in every continent he played, while Akram has 25+ averages in three continents. McGrath was so good that his worst average in any continent was 23! McGrath and Akram both played in strong bowling teams, so they were well supported by good support bowlers. Wasim played more in Asia so that is a point against McGrath, but McGrath outperformed Akram pretty much every where outside Asia. My pick would be: Wasim for Asian matches McGrath otherwise.

[Muloghonto]

Akram. McGrath had one huge advantage over Akram and Ambrose: his slip catching cordon were mostly ATGs in slip catching while Ambrose's slip catching cordon was a 2 man team ( Hooper and Lara) and Akram's slip catching team would be..well.. dodgy at catching with even baseball mitts on. These things do make a huge difference over time. Given how much McGrath relied on the 4th stump line and sharp catching from his wicketkeeper, first and 2nd slip, he'd have about 100-150 wickets less if he had Pakistan for his slip cordon, with an average pushing closer to 30 than 20. Atleast Akram was able to neutralize his slip catchers (or non-catchers?) by being far more effective than McGrath when attacking the stumps.

[Marut]

Akram. McGrath had one huge advantage over Akram and Ambrose: his slip catching cordon were mostly ATGs in slip catching while Ambrose's slip catching cordon was a 2 man team ( Hooper and Lara) and Akram's slip catching team would be..well.. dodgy at catching with even baseball mitts on. These things do make a huge difference over time. Given how much McGrath relied on the 4th stump line and sharp catching from his wicketkeeper, first and 2nd slip, he'd have about 100-150 wickets less if he had Pakistan for his slip cordon, with an average pushing closer to 30 than 20. Atleast Akram was able to neutralize his slip catchers (or non-catchers?) by being far more effective than McGrath when attacking the stumps.

A naïve assumption to make. If a catch is dropped off you, you can never get that wicket again? Australia often won matches so convincingly that it is not unreasonable to think that dropped catches would have altered the course of matches. McGrath was so accurate that he was sure to induce another edge sooner or later and fill up his wickets column again. Those slip catches were so successful strategies for McGrath so he probed the offstump for getting wickets. If he wasn't so sure of his fielders he too would have developed an alternate strategy (like going for the stumps), and would not be going 150 wickets lesser. Akram benefitted a lot by dismissing lower order batsmen. 67% of Mcgrath's victims were #1-#6 batsmen whereas the same figure for Wasim was 56%.

[Muloghonto]

A naïve assumption to make. If a catch is dropped off you' date= you can never get that wicket again? Australia often won matches so convincingly that it is not unreasonable to think that dropped catches would have altered the course of matches. McGrath was so accurate that he was sure to induce another edge sooner or later and fill up his wickets column again. Those slip catches were so successful strategies for McGrath so he probed the offstump for getting wickets. If he wasn't so sure of his fielders he too would have developed an alternate strategy (like going for the stumps), and would not be going 150 wickets lesser. Akram benefitted a lot by dismissing lower order batsmen. 67% of Mcgrath's victims were #1-#6 batsmen whereas the same figure for Wasim was 56%.

If a catch is dropped off of you, it will keep bloating your average and yes, it will lead to less wickets often. To put it in perspective, both these bowlers (Akram and McGrath) were the most vital cogs of amazing bowling units that were easily ATG bowling attacks fielded. Akram had to contend with wicket-taking from Waqar, Shoaib, Mohammed Zahid, Saqlain, mushie, etc. McGrath had to contend with Gillespie, Fleming, Lee, Warne, McGill. So lets say its the 12th over, Akram has so far 6-1-20-1. Now catch dropped. Could've been 6-1-20-2 But the guy survives, scores a few more runs, 4 overs later, Akram is rested, with figures of 8-2-25-1, instead of 8-2-25-2.Waqar also takes 2 wickets. Then mushy & saqqi come on, they bowl 10 overs each straight, take 3 wickets between them, Akram and Waqar come back on- now the oppsition is 7 down, with 3 more wickets to go. Akram gets 2, waqar takes one. Akram finishes with 3 wickets instead of 4 due to dropped catches. This happens quite a lot. Its not realistic to think that when there is a finite wickets to be taken (20 per match), each lost opportunity off of you reduces your slice of the 20 to be had. As per McGrath being more successful if he attacked the stumps- i am not sure about that. McGrath often got belted when he bowled stump-to-stump, especially early on in his career and that is because he relied predominantly on bounce and tiny seam movements, which are a lot easier to cover closer to your body than just outside your natural stance (the 4th stump line), thus requiring you to reach for the ball. You will notice that a lot of bowlers who have been successful attacking the stumps have been swing bowlers or big movers of the ball. McGrath is neither, so not quite sure how he'd maintain his effectiveness bowling more attacking the stump line.

[Vijy]

A naïve assumption to make. If a catch is dropped off you, you can never get that wicket again? Australia often won matches so convincingly that it is not unreasonable to think that dropped catches would have altered the course of matches. McGrath was so accurate that he was sure to induce another edge sooner or later and fill up his wickets column again. Those slip catches were so successful strategies for McGrath so he probed the offstump for getting wickets. If he wasn't so sure of his fielders he too would have developed an alternate strategy (like going for the stumps), and would not be going 150 wickets lesser. Akram benefitted a lot by dismissing lower order batsmen. 67% of Mcgrath's victims were #1-#6 batsmen whereas the same figure for Wasim was 56%.

This is a pretty important stat; hence, most people seem to be bypassing it.

[adi B]

Actually Pishant sharma is better than both

[mancalledsting]

If a catch is dropped off of you, it will keep bloating your average and yes, it will lead to less wickets often. To put it in perspective, both these bowlers (Akram and McGrath) were the most vital cogs of amazing bowling units that were easily ATG bowling attacks fielded. Akram had to contend with wicket-taking from Waqar, Shoaib, Mohammed Zahid, Saqlain, mushie, etc. McGrath had to contend with Gillespie, Fleming, Lee, Warne, McGill. So lets say its the 12th over, Akram has so far 6-1-20-1. Now catch dropped. Could've been 6-1-20-2 But the guy survives, scores a few more runs, 4 overs later, Akram is rested, with figures of 8-2-25-1, instead of 8-2-25-2.Waqar also takes 2 wickets. Then mushy & saqqi come on, they bowl 10 overs each straight, take 3 wickets between them, Akram and Waqar come back on- now the oppsition is 7 down, with 3 more wickets to go. Akram gets 2, waqar takes one. Akram finishes with 3 wickets instead of 4 due to dropped catches. This happens quite a lot. Its not realistic to think that when there is a finite wickets to be taken (20 per match), each lost opportunity off of you reduces your slice of the 20 to be had. As per McGrath being more successful if he attacked the stumps- i am not sure about that. McGrath often got belted when he bowled stump-to-stump, especially early on in his career and that is because he relied predominantly on bounce and tiny seam movements, which are a lot easier to cover closer to your body than just outside your natural stance (the 4th stump line), thus requiring you to reach for the ball. You will notice that a lot of bowlers who have been successful attacking the stumps have been swing bowlers or big movers of the ball. McGrath is neither, so not quite sure how he'd maintain his effectiveness bowling more attacking the stump line.

Need a stat to compare catches dropped off bowling wasim vs McGrath

[cricket.fan]

Without match fixing,Akram would have achieved a lot lot more..

[Number]

I think one thing McGrath scores over Akram in is that it was very rare of him to get dominated by batsman. Skill wise I don't think anyone can match Akram. He was a magician.