Glenn McGrath Vs Wasim Akram?

[Keeper]

Pointless debate. It just comes down to your personal preference. It's like comparing having sex with the Mrs or an exotic stranger. One's safe and predictable, but atleast you know what you're getting, and she gets the job done. The other is unpredictable and exciting, but you don't know how the night is going to end - you'll either be on cloud 9 or trying to figure out what STD you're trying to itch off.

I guess when McGrath was tossed the new ball we always had the option of closing our eyes and pretending it was Akram bowling

Hello, by the way.

 

[Hybrid]

Comparing Akram to McGrath is like comparing a 4 to a 6. McGrath is twice as good.

If you are are a firm stats person have enough knowledge of it I could actually understand why you would think that. Not only is McGrath ahead on stats just in general but the the value of batsmen he dismissed is also much higher. As far as stats are concerned McGrath is well ahead.

However if you are saying it just for just for the sake of saying it I would say that's being quite harsh.

 

[Hooper]

If you are are a firm stats person have enough knowledge of it I could actually understand why you would think that. Not only is McGrath ahead on stats just in general but the the value of batsmen he dismissed is also much higher. As far as stats are concerned McGrath is well ahead.

However if you are saying it just for just for the sake of saying it I would say that's being quite harsh.

Its called common sense.. Anyone who knows a thing about cricket can honestly say without bias that McGrath was better then Akram.

Australian-haters are the only people who are lying when saying Akram was better.

 

[Cricketdude]

Its called common sense.. Anyone who knows a thing about cricket can honestly say without bias that McGrath was better then Akram.

Australian-haters are the only people who are lying when saying Akram was better.

aussies are cheaters!!!!!1111 and they paid the umpires!!!! they arent in the spirit of the game

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Australian-haters are the only people who are lying when saying Akram was better.

Akram was the better bowler. There's no question in that. His abilities and skill were far greater than that of McGrath, and I'll have to think for a long time to think of a more skilled bowler than him. McGrath was the more efficient, yes. But he only had two attributes - extreme patience and metronomical accuracy.

----------

Hello, by the way.

Hey, I guess.

 

[Hooper]

Akram was the better bowler. There's no question in that. His abilities and skill were far greater than that of McGrath, and I'll have to think for a long time to think of a more skilled bowler than him. McGrath was the more efficient, yes. But he only had two attributes - extreme patience and metronomical accuracy.

----------



Hey, I guess.

Ha, right o smurf.

Too bad Akram's superior 'abilities and skill' couldn't win him more games for Pakistan? Or get more wickets then McGrath could huh?

Going by your argument it goes to show 'extreme patience' and 'metronomical accuracy' are two of bowlings most effective attributes if he was able to snag more wickets doing that then bowling like Akram.

Seriously, I dont get how people can argue who the better bowler was... Im done with arguing on PC. I just peeped this thread to laugh at the McGrath-bashers.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Didn't I just say McGrath was the more efficient? Ofcourse Akram's wickets and stats are no where near as good as McGrath's. I'm not arguing that. But cricket isn't all about stats. I'm arguing that purely on bowling skill, Akram was superior, and probably is to most other bowlers in history. Plus, he was damn good to watch. And that's a big part in rating someone. McGrath was the most boring fast bowler I've ever seen play.

 

[macintosh]

Personally I think Vs threads are one of the most pointless threads in existence. I consider them the brainchild of adolescents. Hence I keep asking equally pointless questions that really have no right answer. My bad.

I think it's disrepectful to both players to try and say one was better than the other, as essentially both were awesome in their own ways, but also completely different bowlers, they would, in my opinion compliment each other very well. It always just comes down to personal preference in those issues, there is no right or wrong answer. Why must the world be black and white when there is so much variation in colour and tone?

Obviously, don't let me stop you all I seem to remember when I last used this forum a few years ago Versus threads constantly cropped up in some form or another, and essentially just degenerate into people insulting very talented cricketers. A glorified "my Dad is stronger than your Dad!" "Yeah, well my favourite cricketer is better than your favourite cricketer!"

Now, if you maybe asked what new ball pairing through time (whether a double act or sticking two different players together) would make you race to the first morning of a Test Match in the hope of not missing a single ball if they bowl. That might have been more interesting? In fact, to expand on that, what ground, in what conditions and against which batsmen? What would make your ideal first test match morning?

After all, you yourself said, ignoring various things like inspirationability (what? It can be a word haha).

Well, the right answer is McGrath, but that's not the point

Completely agree with you on this

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Except when it comes to The Don

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

a question like Akram v Mcgrath is probably more likely to show the personality of the person rather than state any actual fact.

I say akram, because I watch cricket and I like to see people doing what should be impossible on a cricket field, but if I was a cricket captain I might be different. However Allan Borders comment about Akram says a lot about him "If I ever get a chance to be reborn as a cricketer, I would want to be Wasim Akram."

but it is a bit silly is because it's glossing over the fact mcgrath achieved so much more with his more mortal tools and also, I get the fact that sometimes these things are taken quite seriously by people.

it is worth remembering that akram's name was bolstered by his ability in ODIs, we tend to look just at tests, because it is the purest form of the game, but in an ODI mcgrath's nagging length is not as useful as someone that can produce an unplayable delivery.

 

[puddleduck]

"Except when it comes to The Don"

Exactly

 

[sifter132]

it is worth remembering that akram's name was bolstered by his ability in ODIs, we tend to look just at tests, because it is the purest form of the game, but in an ODI mcgrath's nagging length is not as useful as someone that can produce an unplayable delivery.

Not so sure about that Akram's ODI record is better comparatively than his Test record, but McGrath's ODI record is very good also. If you want to crunch the stats, check this article:
Stats from the Past: The best ODI bowlers from across eras

 

[mrtwisties]

I think it's disrepectful to both players to try and say one was better than the other.

"This is a boring type of thread" is a reasonable point of view. But I don't think you have to try and take the moral high ground by suggesting these threads are disrespectful. Other people making judgment calls about your ability and ranking your worth against your peers is an everyday part of not only the game but also of life in general. Whether it's disrespectful or not depends entirely on how you go about it.

See also: "meritocracy: one of the best inventions ever" and "mistakes from the 80s and 90s: every child wins a prize".

 

[alexczarn]

Forced to pick, Glenn McGrath, However like said it's unfair to pick one.

Also as an allround player I would pick Wasim Akram

 

[puddleduck]

"This is a boring type of thread" is a reasonable point of view. But I don't think you have to try and take the moral high ground by suggesting these threads are disrespectful. Other people making judgment calls about your ability and ranking your worth against your peers is an everyday part of not only the game but also of life in general. Whether it's disrespectful or not depends entirely on how you go about it.

See also: "meritocracy: one of the best inventions ever" and "mistakes from the 80s and 90s: every child wins a prize".

Except, I'm not suggesting that every bowler who has ever played cricket are as good as each other am I? I'm not saying that Akram and Johnson have both played Test Match cricket, therefore it is unfair to say that Wasim Akram is much better than Johnson. I have made my point fairly clear that both were two of the finest bowlers of their generation, so essentially anyone who picks one or the other is pretty much doing so entirely subjectively. Therefore, most arguments that people could use would be (and in these instances normally are) disrepectful to the players. Afterall, it's nearly impossible to celebrate one more than the other and as such would probably require some kind of derogatory digging to attempt to falsely underplay either bowler's significant achievements.

For example, in a completely minor and isolated manner. Stinky has suggested that McGrath's nagging line and length were not as suited to ODI cricket, when the facts are that McGrath was still incredibly good in ODI cricket. Thus, even a legimate and at times insightful poster has almost unwittingly disrespected one of the most successful bowlers of his generation. I am not trying to suggest the players will lose any sleep over a bunch of forum posters on a predominately CPU game orientated site, merely that as a whole when trying to compare two players who reached the peak of their profession and pick one out as being better, there is a certain lack of respect for the player that has been ignored in terms of their considerable achievements.

Fair? Not fair? Meh, don't care