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

[maniac]

The number of catches dropped off Srinath's bowling' date=' you never know, with that slip cordon, he would have ended with 500 wickets :)[/quote'] To be honest....with Azhar early on followed by Dravid and Laxman...we had a slip cordon leagues ahead of Pakistan or probably one of the most underrated slip cordons till recent times....infact Mongia was one of the safest wicket keeprs we had.

[gakgupta]

Wasim any day

[Harsh Thakor]

Akram was a better ODI bowler and Mcgrath was a better test bowler. I do think Akram under achieved as a test bowler. I think he could have done better despite Pakistan's poor fielding. Mcgrath, on the other hand, maximized his ability and was more consistent at the test level, so he deserves to be rated a bit higher than Akram in tests. If i was picking my all time test xi, Akram would be a automatic pick and Mcgrath would be a maybe for me. Despite Mcgrath's superior test record, i would pick Akram automatically because he is by far the best left armer i have ever seen and would bring so much versatility to the bowling attack. On the other hand, Mcgrath was excellent but among the control bowlers who are highly accurate he has some competitors. Hadlee and Ambrose were just as effective at drying up runs, getting edges, getting guys out etc. Ambrose also had that extra gear where he could bowl much quicker. So Akram makes it automatically into my all time test xi Mcgrath has to compete with other highly accurate bowlers like Ambrose, Hadlee and Garner for a spot.

Good analysis.I agree in picking Wasim with his greater talent and repertoire,which would be more effective on flat tracks.On bad wickets Ambrose was a champion.At his best Wasim would beat anyone.

[Harsh Thakor]

Yes, as in they would be averaging low 30s/high 20s instead of high-mid 30s. In Wasim's case though, he could've easily averaged under 21 if he had such a complement of catchers, instead of catchers like Inzy, Sohail or Ejaz ahmed. It says a lot that throughout Wasim's career, the best catcher he's played with in Pakistan was Anwar and Anwar was a mediocre slipper at best.

Had Wasim got full justice he should have averaged around 20.8 You made a very good point.

[Harsh Thakor]

Akram was fancy. Awkward to face, perhaps the most awkward bowler ever for batsmen. But Mcgrath was right up to the money. One would say, Akram used to waste a lot of energy with his ' magic ' balls. Mcgrath had none of them, but always had a plan against the best of the best batsmen. As a bowler, Mcgrath was better.

Mcgrath was more clinical but Wasim was more innovative.I would have Wasim in my all -time xi because he would trouble the best batsman more with unplayable deliveries in his repertoire.Mcgrath was a metronome,Akram a magician.

[Harsh Thakor]

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.

well summazrised.

[maniac]

Well from a world X1 perspective....I would say Akram,because being a Left Armer gives him that edge in any squad....but one to one I think Mcgrath accomplished a lot more as a bowler....asn an overall cricketer,Wasim gets the edge here for being a superior batsman.

[Marut]

If a bowler is getting more wickets due to bowled and LBWs it is natural that he will get less wickets with catches (and hence have poor catch/number of deliveries stat). Wasim more often beat the bat with swing than have the batsman edge one. The same problem happened to Kapil in England where his swing was so vicious that he would miss the edges most of the time - lesser bowlers like Binny had better stats in England compared to Dev.

[sage]

Was Akram ever ranked #1 in the ICC rankings?

[Marut]

Was Akram ever ranked #1 in the ICC rankings?

No. You can check the career graphs of McGrath and Akram in the chart below. Mcgrath was almost always ahead of Akram at any point in his career. I have marked Wasim's peak with a red line - you can see that even Wasim's peak is way below just about McGrath's any period. McGrath attained a peak rating of 914 and had an average career rating of 791. Wasim had a peak of 830 and an average of 694. McGrath averaged about 100 rating points more than Wasim over their entire career. That is like, say the difference between Sachin and Ganguly in terms of batting.

[sage]

Yes, I thought that. McGrath is definitely the better bowler.

[Rightarmfast]

Better or not, atleast Mcgrath was a way more " Effective " bowler. People seem to miss that.

[Trichromatic]

No. You can check the career graphs of McGrath and Akram in the chart below. Mcgrath was almost always ahead of Akram at any point in his career. I have marked Wasim's peak with a red line - you can see that even Wasim's peak is way below just about McGrath's any period. McGrath attained a peak rating of 914 and had an average career rating of 791. Wasim had a peak of 830 and an average of 694. McGrath averaged about 100 rating points more than Wasim over their entire career. That is like' date=' say the difference between Sachin and Ganguly in terms of batting.[/quote'] 1996-2005 93 matches, 444 wickets at avg of 19.9. No bowler can match that.

[Marut]

Mcgrath was more clinical but Wasim was more innovative.I would have Wasim in my all -time xi because he would trouble the best batsman more with unplayable deliveries in his repertoire.Mcgrath was a metronome' date='Akram a magician.[/quote'] I too would have Wasim in my All time XI because Wasim along with Marshall would make a formidable left-right combo. Marshsall + Wasim is better than Marshall + McGrath because the left-right combination is more deadly. But unplayable deliveries are a good way to get wickets in ODIs, not in test matches. Top batsmen are unusually good at handling the magic balls - they know how to leave them, defend them or even attack these balls. Bowlers who are most successful are ones who consistently bowl well - even the very best of batsmen make mistakes sometimes and if every ball is a potent wicket delivery, you can dismiss the very best batsmen. If you produce magic balls from time to time, but aren't very consistent throughout the spell, the chances are that good batsmen will weather those magic balls and cash in on to your inconsistency. McGrath's better record over Wasim was no accident - that is the way cricket works. The best way to dismiss batsmen is by being accurate every time so that one mistake will send the batsman back to the pavilion. Some magic balls here and there will usually be seen off by top batsmen.

[Muloghonto]

I too would have Wasim in my All time XI because Wasim along with Marshall would make a formidable left-right combo. Marshsall + Wasim is better than Marshall + McGrath because the left-right combination is more deadly. But unplayable deliveries are a good way to get wickets in ODIs, not in test matches. Top batsmen are unusually good at handling the magic balls - they know how to leave them, defend them or even attack these balls. Bowlers who are most successful are ones who consistently bowl well - even the very best of batsmen make mistakes sometimes and if every ball is a potent wicket delivery, you can dismiss the very best batsmen. If you produce magic balls from time to time, but aren't very consistent throughout the spell, the chances are that good batsmen will weather those magic balls and cash in on to your inconsistency. McGrath's better record over Wasim was no accident - that is the way cricket works. The best way to dismiss batsmen is by being accurate every time so that one mistake will send the batsman back to the pavilion. Some magic balls here and there will usually be seen off by top batsmen.

Yes, but that only works if you got a slip cordon to die for. Bowling on the 4th/5th stump line is quite pointless if you: a) do not have the bowlers at the other end to keep up the pressure b) do not have the slip cordon to catch everything that comes your way. And no, great batsman or not, nobody deals with magic ball. You just hope it doesn't get you but balls like the one Akram bowled to Chris Lewis in 92 world cup final would get every single batsman in any format. Also, don't forget that the most ignored reality of bowling and batting stats are each other. Ultimately, the biggest x-factor for a bowler's performance are the batsman and vice versa: the same bowler, will have better stats regularly defending 300 in the 4th innings than regularly defending sub-250. The same batsman will do better knowing his bowlers can defend 250 than being not sure if 300 is defendable. Lastly, its a brutal under-representation of Akram if one takes the view that Akram was 'not consistent'. He was the most consistent Pakistani bowler by far. Akram wasn't just a magic-ball bowler par excellence, he was also one of the most accurate and consistent bowlers ever. Of all the Paki bowlers, Akram was by far the most consistent- even more so than Imran. The oft-overlooked part of Pakistani attack of the 80s-early 2000s is that it was a highly inconsistent bowling attack that was one of the most talented & capable of epic spells ever, that hinged around Akram. Waqar, Saqlain, Mushtaq Ahmed, aaqib and Imran, they all had a very inconsistent streak in them. They were not the McGrath/Ambrose-esque 25-8-70-3 kinda bowlers, they were either doing something incredible like 15-5-35-5 kinda stuff or something embarrassing as 20-1-80-1. Akram was the only one that was consistent.

[Marut]

1996-2005 93 matches' date=' 444 wickets at avg of 19.9. No bowler can match that.[/quote'] Hmm, how come he was never ranked #1? It is because Akram piled his wickets from lower order batsmen and the rankings give higher weightage to strength of opposition/strength of batsmen.

[Marut]

Yes, but that only works if you got a slip cordon to die for. Bowling on the 4th/5th stump line is quite pointless if you: a) do not have the bowlers at the other end to keep up the pressure b) do not have the slip cordon to catch everything that comes your way. And no, great batsman or not, nobody deals with magic ball. You just hope it doesn't get you but balls like the one Akram bowled to Chris Lewis in 92 world cup final would get every single batsman in any format. Also, don't forget that the most ignored reality of bowling and batting stats are each other. Ultimately, the biggest x-factor for a bowler's performance are the batsman and vice versa: the same bowler, will have better stats regularly defending 300 in the 4th innings than regularly defending sub-250. The same batsman will do better knowing his bowlers can defend 250 than being not sure if 300 is defendable. Lastly, its a brutal under-representation of Akram if one takes the view that Akram was 'not consistent'. He was the most consistent Pakistani bowler by far. Akram wasn't just a magic-ball bowler par excellence, he was also one of the most accurate and consistent bowlers ever. Of all the Paki bowlers, Akram was by far the most consistent- even more so than Imran. The oft-overlooked part of Pakistani attack of the 80s-early 2000s is that it was a highly inconsistent bowling attack that was one of the most talented & capable of epic spells ever, that hinged around Akram. Waqar, Saqlain, Mushtaq Ahmed, aaqib and Imran, they all had a very inconsistent streak in them. They were not the McGrath/Ambrose-esque 25-8-70-3 kinda bowlers, they were either doing something incredible like 15-5-35-5 kinda stuff or something embarrassing as 20-1-80-1. Akram was the only one that was consistent.

No one said Akram was not consistent. An inconsistent bowler can never average sub 25 in cricket. Akram was inconsistent with respect to McGrath, no one can deny this. Akram used to bowl quite a lot of "hit me balls" but McGrath was very difficult to score off. One of the major difference between a good batsman and a great batsman is the ability to survive nasty deliveries. Batsmen like Gavaskar were very hard to dismiss because he had the technique to play pretty much any kind of delivery. The only kinds of deliveries I have seen Gavaskar struggle with were short pitch deliveries on wickets with uneven bounce. Gavaskar was always in double mind whether to play forward or backward with this type of delivery (due to his short stature and because he never hooked) and sometimes lost his wicket to such deliveries. Against a batsman like Gavaskar, McGrath like bowler (rather than Akram like bowler) would have found a way to breach his defenses by being relentless. Akram would be effective against impulsive stroke makers, flashy players or lower order batsmen because his magic deliveries would be too much for these type of batsmen.

[mancalledsting]

I actually think Wasim was better- his average suffered due to poor fielders, defending sub par scores and hence over attacking, infighting (his team revolted against him with his bowling partner as the figurehead) and match fixing. I would also argue that batsmen had tighter techniques in the 80s than 00s (LOI has become progressively more influential) and that Aus played more tests than pak allowing McGrath to capitalise more on bunnies in one series and better hone his test bowling skills. If you compare their averages over the common part of their careers- interesting reading (1993-2002) 79 matches 370 wickets average of 21.68 55 matches 228 wickets average of 22.82 Not much difference- wasims stats are adversely affected by an era McGrath never played in

[Muloghonto]

No one said Akram was not consistent. An inconsistent bowler can never average sub 25 in cricket. Akram was inconsistent with respect to McGrath, no one can deny this. Akram used to bowl quite a lot of "hit me balls" but McGrath was very difficult to score off. One of the major difference between a good batsman and a great batsman is the ability to survive nasty deliveries. Batsmen like Gavaskar were very hard to dismiss because he had the technique to play pretty much any kind of delivery. The only kinds of deliveries I have seen Gavaskar struggle with were short pitch deliveries on wickets with uneven bounce. Gavaskar was always in double mind whether to play forward or backward with this type of delivery (due to his short stature and because he never hooked) and sometimes lost his wicket to such deliveries. Against a batsman like Gavaskar, McGrath like bowler (rather than Akram like bowler) would have found a way to breach his defenses by being relentless. Akram would be effective against impulsive stroke makers, flashy players or lower order batsmen because his magic deliveries would be too much for these type of batsmen.

McGrath's overall test economy is much closer to Akram's than you re thinking. its 2.49 while akram's is 2.59 McGrath has been a bit more consistent day in, day out, that much is true but over the long term, there is very little separating McGrath and Akram in economy rate.

[Marut]

McGrath's overall test economy is much closer to Akram's than you re thinking. its 2.49 while akram's is 2.59 McGrath has been a bit more consistent day in, day out, that much is true but over the long term, there is very little separating McGrath and Akram in economy rate.

Overall economy rate does not give the clear picture here. McGrath had economy of 2.23 and 2.29 against strong batting teams like India and SA. Whereas Wasim's economy against these teams were 2.66 and 2.74. As I already said Wasim was at his best against moderately strong batting teams and lower order batsmen, but McGrath was strong against top teams and top order batsmen.