Glenn McGrath Vs Wasim Akram?

[StinkyBoHoon]

i think this is getting a bit over the top now and what puddleduck says is ringing true about disrespecting players. yes, mcgrath was more succesful, but you're comparing him to wasim akram not steve harmison.

akram took more 5-fers per innings and 5 10-fers to mcgrath's 3. mcgrath's got the better average but lets not go nuts and say akram was purely mercurial not also extremely effective. there are statistical areas akram beats mcgrath on.

I think saying you can't see any justifiable area akram beats mcgrath on sounds like you're being obtuse rather than brutally honest. quite a few "expert" panels have selected akram in all time XIs and omitted mcgrath.

 

[Hybrid]

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.

Being more skilled is taking more wickets, conceding less runs, and winning more matches for your team. McGrath is ahead on all those department

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.

Your typical fan might find Akram more entertaining than McGrath but that doesn't make him better in any sense. Your typical fan would also find Afridi more entertaining than Dravid. Doesn't mean he is better.

Besides all this entertaining to watch stuff is purely 100% opinion. One man's entertaining could just be another man's boring. I didn't think McGrath was boring at all and I'm not Australian. It was plenty entertaining watching him dismiss batsmen all day long. Not that I'm saying Wasim was boring to watch or anything. I liked watching him especially as a kid. But when he wasn't doing what really matters (taking more wickets, conceding less runs, and winning more matches for your team) I found all his swing to be completely useless.

Besides, I would much rather have a great boring player on my team than a mediocre entertaining player. Hence why I said on the original post why rate on who is better only. Entertainment factor doesn't matter a least bit when it comes to who bowled better.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

you think akram was "mediocre"?

you think 414 wickets is a "completely useless" utilisation of swing?

sorry, but you're an idiot.

 

[Hybrid]

i think this is getting a bit over the top now and what puddleduck says is ringing true about disrespecting players. yes, mcgrath was more succesful, but you're comparing him to wasim akram not steve harmison.

Not disrespecting him at all. He was an all time great not going to deny him that. I don't see how not rating him at the very top qualifies as disrespecting. Calling McGrath boring seems more disrespectful to me.

akram took more 5-fers per innings and 5 10-fers to mcgrath's 3. mcgrath's got the better average but lets not go nuts and say akram was purely mercurial not also extremely effective. there are statistical areas akram beats mcgrath on.

And yet McGrath still has a better strike rate. Makes you think about all those times he barely took wickets. And there are always players that beats another player to some statistical aspect no matter how great they are. Even Brett Lee beats Wasim to some statistical aspect. Its impossible to have better statistics at everything.

I think saying you can't see any justifiable area akram beats mcgrath on sounds like you're being obtuse rather than brutally honest. quite a few "expert" panels have selected akram in all time XIs and omitted mcgrath.[/QUOTE]

I don't find Ian Chappel an "expert" at all. There are quite a lot of people that you find disagrees with that list. To me personally that list seems more like an most inspirational XI than an all time best XI. Because with all due respect to them there are better players than Viv, Wasim, and Lillie out there.

If you wanna say that Wasim was more entertaining than McGrath go ahead knock yourselves out you won't hear any complains from me. But to say that he was "more skilled" and that "there is no doubt about it" sorry you have to give me a break there because that to me is just an epic fail statement.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

lol

 

[Hybrid]

you think akram was "mediocre"?

you think 414 wickets is a "completely useless" utilisation of swing?

sorry, but you're an idiot.

I never said that at all. I could quote me saying Akram was an all time great more than just once. I was trying to make a point there which you were clearly too thick to understand.

Your the one jumping to conclusions and starting unnecessary fights here so you might wanna think again about who the idiot is here.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Besides, I would much rather have a great boring player on my team than a mediocre entertaining player. Hence why I said on the original post why rate on who is better only. Entertain factor doesn't matter a least bit when it comes to who bowled better.

which was I noted you were comparing him to akram not harmison. what relevance does a mediocre entertaining player have in this debate?

you are over-stating your point, I don't have problem with someone saying they think mcgrath is better, but you are doing so in an utterly clumsy manner.

all those times? I can find 44 instances of when akram took 1 or no wickets (set a result qualification of conceding 30 runs) and 64 for mcgrath. that sounds like there was plenty of times mcgrath was being pretty ineffectual too.

this is now getting into discredit players I have no desire to discredit but the point i'm making is when a bowling average differs by, i think it's two runs and they're both at the high end of the scale then you get into pretty marginal territory. the fact is, mcgrath took the odd wicket more than akram, or kept the odd boundary down, there are very few holes in akrams record (his average in england at 30.66 is probably the major one, largely because reverse is quite difficult to find in englands humid atmosphere I imagine) so lets not get silly.

Also, can't quite take you saying their are loads of players better than viv richards seriously. I mean really? who?

 

[Hybrid]

which was I noted you were comparing him to akram not harmison. what relevance does a mediocre entertaining player have in this debate?

Entertainment factor doesn't matter a least bit when it comes to who bowled better

Exactly what I meant when I said you completely failed to comprehend the argument I'm trying to make.

you are over-stating your point, I don't have problem with someone saying they think mcgrath is better, but you are doing so in an utterly clumsy manner.

I don't think so. Your just making a big deal out of nothing. I don't rate Wasim as highly as McGrath but that doesn't mean I am disrespecting Wasim in any ways.

all those times? I can find 44 instances of when akram took 1 or no wickets (set a result qualification of conceding 30 runs) and 64 for mcgrath. that sounds like there was plenty of times mcgrath was being pretty ineffectual too.

Where exactly are you coming up with these numbers? Using the criteria you set, there have been a total of 10 times that McGrath took 0-1 wickets in a match while conceding more than 30 runs. That's 20 times for Wasim.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

That's twice as much of a difference if you didn't notice.

Also, can't quite take you saying their are loads of players better than viv richards seriously. I mean really? who?

I don't ever remembering saying that. I just said there are others whom are better which there are. I won't even rate him as the best batsmen of his era. His average should be enough to tell you why.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

no, I think then I have perfectly shown you why your arguement was clumsy, you are not comparing a mediocre player to a great player, it's an absolutely pointless remark and makes about as much sense as me saying I'd rather a great entertaining player than a mediocre boring one. you are trying to frame the arguement in entertaining ineffectualness against boring result orientated cricket to suit your end. I was also pretty respectful in my first post and then you posted that nonsense.

and my stats are by innings, which I picked deliberately to have a look at periods of ineffectualness.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

and fair enough, you didn't say there were loads of players better than viv richards, but again, you dismiss someone out of hand and then expect me now to read into that you think he's marginally out of the running for, say an all time XI. again clumsy.

 

[mrtwisties]

Seemed to me Hybrid was just doing some standard thought experiment type thinking. If he was comparing an entertaining vs a less entertaining but more effective player, he'd rank the latter as being the greater. From there, he reasons that entertainment isn't a factor in assessing greatness, and should be excluded when comparing two highly effective players like Akram and McGrath.

You could disagree with his initial thought experiment, but the argument from there on is sound. Not sure why it's descended into an "I said - You said" argument, tbh. That's the internets for you, I guess.

Would be interested to hear more about how Akram's consistency compared with McGrath's. I always thought that he thrived when it swung and battled when it didn't. Is that not true?

 

[cricket_icon]

I'd g with Akram but there's nt much between them Bth were great, both had differing skill sets.
I preferred Was's ability t swing the ball at a high pace and his ability to use the old ball better than anyone else, ever!!
And Hybrid, to say Mcgrath won more games than Akram is a useless stat, was he the only one in the team?

 

[Aoun13]

Just one point for those who are saying that having skills means you need to take wickets etc etc.

Although Wasim has taken ample amount of wicketsto prove that he was the best in the business but you need to know that he has played mostly in subcontinent where pitches are too dull for a bowler compare to Macgrath who do have a good success in subcontinent but having success in some matches is little different from getting regular wickets on flat tracks.
Plus saying that Macgrath won more matches for Aussies then Wasim is non sense, MacGrath did well because he has the all time best team with him. He don't have fielders who drop catches so randomly or he don't have a board like PCB was and is.
I am not saying that MacGrath was a rubbish bowler he was among the best but saying that Wasim was nothing compare to him is very rubbish.Both are totally different in their style and way of bowling both have different sort of career both bowl from different hand too.
In the end both were great to watch but I like Wasim more because you can't predict what he will offer you in the next bowl.

 

[Hybrid]

no, I think then I have perfectly shown you why your arguement was clumsy, you are not comparing a mediocre player to a great player, it's an absolutely pointless remark and makes about as much sense as me saying I'd rather a great entertaining player than a mediocre boring one. you are trying to frame the arguement in entertaining ineffectualness against boring result orientated cricket to suit your end. I was also pretty respectful in my first post and then you posted that nonsense.

Your being too arrogant and stuck up to even try to understand my argument. It doesn't matter if Wasim was a mediocre entertaining player or not. The fact is entertainment is something that shouldn't be brought up in the argument in the first player. Why should Wasim's entertainment factor be treated more specially than someone like Afridi? Because you like him better

and my stats are by innings, which I picked deliberately to have a look at periods of ineffectualness.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

First thing is first, a match lasts 2 innings not one. And secondly looking at it by an innings is intellectually dishonest. A bowler like McGrath sometimes bowled just to keep the run rate economical. Like this for example:

3rd Test: England v Australia at Nottingham, Aug 2-4, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Warne and Gillespie took 9 wickets for themselves in the second innings. How many wickets. How many wickets were you expecting McGrath to take there? If a bowler was struggling he would be struggling for the whole match. In the previous innings McGrath took a 5-fer.

The fact in the matter is even if McGrath took only 0-1 wickets in 64 instances, in 54 of them he made up for it in the other innings something which Wasim managed to do only 24 times. Besides I don't even know why this stuff is even being debated. Taking a 5-fer in one match and 2 wickets on the other is not better than taking 4 on each. At the end of the day all that matters is that McGrath got wickets at a faster rate. So no I am not the framing arguments to suit my end. I can actually back up my argument with actual facts.

and fair enough, you didn't say there were loads of players better than viv richards, but again, you dismiss someone out of hand and then expect me now to read into that you think he's marginally out of the running for, say an all time XI. again clumsy.

Again you make a big deal out of nothing. All I said was there are better batsmen out there than Richards which is actually a true statement if you didn't notice. You claim you were being "respectful" in your posts? Well the word must have a different meaning in your dictionary.

----------

Just one point for those who are saying that having skills means you need to take wickets etc etc.

Although Wasim has taken ample amount of wicketsto prove that he was the best in the business but you need to know that he has played mostly in subcontinent where pitches are too dull for a bowler compare to Macgrath who do have a good success in subcontinent but having success in some matches is little different from getting regular wickets on flat tracks.

In other words his home pitches? He also played in flat pitches of India where its neutral conditions for him where his records are worse than McGrath. If he was the better flat track bowler which I am assuming your trying to suggest why didn't he do better than McGrath in foreign conditions. Also, its not like he did better than McGrath green track of South Africa or England either.

Plus saying that Macgrath won more matches for Aussies then Wasim is non sense, MacGrath did well because he has the all time best team with him. He don't have fielders who drop catches so randomly

He also doesn't have player who manage run-outs time after time like Ponting just to give one example.
1000th UPLOAD!! RICKY PONTING - EVERY RUN OUT IN INTERNATIONAL CRICKET!!!! - YouTube

Every run-out managed by an Aussie fielder decreases the wicket count McGrath can take.

And yeah I'm sure he had nothing to do with his team winning matches it was all the rest of his team mates that won it for him. I bet that's why Australia kept winning and remained the No.1 team even after his retirement. Oh wait....

or he don't have a board like PCB was and is.

What does that have to do with anything?

but saying that Wasim was nothing compare to him is very rubbish

Nobody is saying that at all.

 

[SaiSrini]

Being a neutral, I pick Akram. Comparing both of them at their best, Akram was more deadlier and far more untolerable to a batsman with his swing and variations. McGrath was water tight in his line and length and gave no inch and reaped rewards. Akram was more attacking, more aggressive and yet he was as successful.

 

[midgetwars]

Wouldn't a better example be comparing Akarm with Lee??

Both are fast bowlers. You really can't fairly compare Right Fast Medium with Right Fast bowlers.

Also, McGrath had swing, accuracy on his side.

Didn't someone say if you put a coin on top of off stump, McGrath could hit it all day?