The Outsider Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Much more talented than Akram I would say, just had some concentration problems occasionally and despite the handicap look at the numbers : 288 wickets in 199 matches @ 1.5 wickets per match In contrast, Akram has only 502 wickets in 356 matches @ 1.4 wickets per match. Akram's SR is a pedestrian 36.2 compared to Agarkar's 32.9. Agarkar picked up a 4 wicket haul 10 times in 199 matches @ 0.05 Akram on the other hand has only 17 4 wicket hauls in 356 matches @ 0.047. Against the '99, '03, and '07 WC champions Australia, Agarkar averages 28.4 at a phenomenal SR or 29 - Akram 27.4 at a pathetic SR of 38.9. Against the '96 WC champions SL, Agarkar smokes an average of 20.6 and Akram is at 21.0. Moreover, Agarkar's SR is an unreal 24 as opposed to Akram's 33. They have similar batting averages and Agarkar was miles and away the better fielder. The flat fast throw from the outfield and diving stops would make Akram look like Powar. It is evidenced in Agarkar taking 0.275 catches per innings and Akram managing only 0.250. If Agarkar had played to his potential and tailunt he would have been the best cricketer of the generation because despite him not fulfilling his potential he has better numbers than the overrated Akram. Discuss.
DomainK Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 What a post. Genius. Agarkar pwns Akram. Those stats are eye openers.
Guest Hiten. Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Wrong side of the bed, Prof ? :hehe: P.S: Calling Salil, the eternal Aggy hater :sherlock:
Sachinism Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 hahahaha Salil's head is going to explode
DomainK Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 hahahaha Salil's head is going to explode To explode, I think there are more heads than one. But this is conclusive. Agarkar>>>>>>Akram. I also wonder what Mohanty could have achieved if he had played to his potential. 1.26 wickets per match was not bad, was it?
The Outsider Posted September 1, 2009 Author Posted September 1, 2009 PS : Credit for the original idea for this comparison and thread goes to a poster blade_bhai on the old ICF. I am just hammering in the point.
Guest Hiten. Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 What the hell...this post was in jest ? :omg: I really think Aggy is a better bowler than Akram :amitdance: :poink:
DomainK Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 What the hell...this post was in jest ? :omg: I really think Aggy is a better bowler than Akram :amitdance: Where did you get the idea of jest? Agarkar is indeed better than Akram. Read the OP for proof.
Lurker Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Much more talented than Akram I would say, just had some concentration problems occasionally and despite the handicap look at the numbers : 288 wickets in 199 matches @ 1.5 wickets per match In contrast, Akram has only 502 wickets in 356 matches @ 1.4 wickets per match. Akram's SR is a pedestrian 36.2 compared to Agarkar's 32.9. Agarkar picked up a 4 wicket haul 10 times in 199 matches @ 0.05 Akram on the other hand has only 17 4 wicket hauls in 356 matches @ 0.047. Against the '99, '03, and '07 WC champions Australia, Agarkar averages 28.4 at a phenomenal SR or 29 - Akram 27.4 at a pathetic SR of 38.9. Against the '96 WC champions SL, Agarkar smokes an average of 20.6 and Akram is at 21.0. Moreover, Agarkar's SR is an unreal 24 as opposed to Akram's 33. They have similar batting averages and Agarkar was miles and away the better fielder. The flat fast throw from the outfield and diving stops would make Akram look like Powar. It is evidenced in Agarkar taking 0.275 catches per innings and Akram managing only 0.250. If Agarkar had played to his potential and tailunt he would have been the best cricketer of the generation because despite him not fulfilling his potential he has better numbers than the overrated Akram. Discuss. Not to mention Agarkar managed to out-stat Akram even though he was a good 6 inch shorter. Wickets per inch Agarkar beats Akram pants down.
flamy Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Not to mention Agarkar managed to out-stat Akram even though he was a good 6 inch shorter. Wickets per inch Agarkar beats Akram pants down. :haha::haha::haha:
Malcolm Merlyn Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 AKRAM is a legend.........absolutely legend.......no comparision with anyone let alone that no good AGGY....... As Sidhu Said"What stats show is very suggestive what they hide is very vital" Every batsman from Tendulkar to Lara and Great Bowlers like Donald and Ambrose that what Akram could do with the ball was exceptional.......So talent wise AGARKAR was no where near The Great Wasim Akram......
Guest Hiten. Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 AKRAM is a legend.........absolutely legend.......no comparision with anyone let alone that no good AGGY....... As Sidhu Said"What stats show is very suggestive what they hide is very vital" Every batsman from Tendulkar to Lara and Great Bowlers like Donald and Ambrose that what Akram could do with the ball was exceptional.......So talent wise AGARKAR was no where near The Great Wasim Akram...... You can now return the bait to Shwetabh. Thank you for participating :hehe:
Lurker Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Every batsman from Tendulkar to Lara and Great Bowlers like Donald and Ambrose that what Akram could do with the ball was exceptional.......So talent wise AGARKAR was no where near The Great Wasim Akram...... In the Kanga league of Mumbai batsmen refuse to play Agarkar so deadly was he. Akram of course chickened out of Kanga league. Are you holding opinions of Laras and Ambroses ahead of Kanitkars and Kuruvillas? What gives? Clarke 1
Texy Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 AKRAM is a legend.........absolutely legend.......no comparision with anyone let alone that no good AGGY....... As Sidhu Said"What stats show is very suggestive what they hide is very vital" Every batsman from Tendulkar to Lara and Great Bowlers like Donald and Ambrose that what Akram could do with the ball was exceptional.......So talent wise AGARKAR was no where near The Great Wasim Akram...... he's kissing up to Akram 'coz AKR could be the new KKR coach :--D
Malcolm Merlyn Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 In the Kanga league of Mumbai batsmen refuse to play Agarkar so deadly was he. Akram of course chickened out of Kanga league. Are you holding opinions of Laras and Ambroses ahead of Kanitkars and Kuruvillas? What gives? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: GEM of An Opinion..........u r true...........wasnt it kanitkar who stroked saqlain for four in dhaka to take India to victory againist Pakistan And dont talk about Kuruvilla..............that man was better than ambrose walsh put together in 1997 windies true i'm so srry to have doubted them
Malcolm Merlyn Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 he's kissing up to Akram 'coz AKR could be the new KKR coach :--D He was recommended by DADA.............any comments.........on him now.............whatever hope KKR wins a few matches for a change
gs Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Sir Aggy is God! Even better, he is Chuck Norris!
rishi008 Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 No ways !!! Akram was genious...have to say agarkar could have improved his batting after playin for so long...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now