Wasim or McGrath?

[Laurrz]

Actually the top order equation has to also consider another aspect : Just who are they bowling with ?
Warney doesnt come in till the 15th-20th over in tests and quite a few times McGrath has 3-4 wickets before Warney shows up.
In Wasim's case, he had to share the top order wicket right after the first over- first with Imran and then with Waqar.
That clearly has an effect.
It is also another reason why i consider Malcolm Marshall to be the ultimate fast bowler- not only is his record better than almost everyone else outside of ancient history, he snared over 60% of his wickets from the top order, all the while having halcyon bowlers like Holding, Roberts, Garner, Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop to share them with.

but the thing is, he does well against the top order...he may get more wickets against the top order because Wasim mght have more competition [ Dizzy cannot be discounted tho]..but its not as if Pigeon has a high average against those batsmen

highest on the list i think

 

[Matt79]

Gillespie for the majority of his career was a very very good bowler - he carried the bowling attack very well during a couple of prolonged absences of McGrath and deserves to be ranked in the 2nd tier of all time bowlers, not up with the McGraths, Marshalls, Lillees, etc, but certainly with the Waqars, McDermotts, Holdings etc..

 

[nightprowler10]

Gillespie for the majority of his career was a very very good bowler - he carried the bowling attack very well during a couple of prolonged absences of McGrath and deserves to be ranked in the 2nd tier of all time bowlers, not up with the McGraths, Marshalls, Lillees, etc, but certainly with the Waqars, McDermotts, Holdings etc..

I don't think Gillespie was close to being as good as Waqar and Holding, neither statistically nor in terms of their contributions to cricket.

 

[bagapath]

i've had serious fights in another thread to convince everyone why mcgrath is better. dont have the energy to do it all over again. it is without doubt mcgrath for me.

 

[Perm]

McGrath is undoubtedly the better bowler, sure Wasim could be more explosive and "devastating" in his own way but McGrath will always get my vote.

 

[Laurrz]

i've had serious fights in another thread to convince everyone why mcgrath is better. dont have the energy to do it all over again. it is without doubt mcgrath for me.

link?? to the thread

 

[FRAZ]

Mcgrath for me . But let me tell you guys that as a fan of his side ,Wasim Akram was the person upon whom the viewers always depended upon to do miracles which are still quite rare . Wasim's ability to turn the tables in the matter of 6 balls is quite better than that of Mcgrath but over-all the fighter Mcgrath is my favorite for some obvious reasons .
Wasim had to play on some pitches which are like a grave yard for the fasties plus Wasim was a diabetic too and had a partner like Waqar to get a huge chunk of the top order wickets . I know that how it was when Wasim and Waqar were there and even the common blunders of the Pakistani top order were covered up by the bowling . I have seen many matches in which Pakistan defended a total less than 200 and just because of these two giants of World cricket i.e. Wasim and Waqar .
Mcgrath's ability to keep a great line and length and to find the weaknesses of the batsmen is just great and is a fighter and has shown that if one is a man then still can perform at the top level even at an old age !!!

 

[Matt79]

I don't think Gillespie was close to being as good as Waqar and Holding, neither statistically nor in terms of their contributions to cricket.

Honestly, both Holding and Waqar were clearly better bowlers than Gillespie, but I think both of them are "second-tier" bowlers, not quite up there with the all-time greatest, and I think Gillespie can comfortably stake a claim to belong to that group as well. If he had not played so much of his cricket in the shadow of McGrath, he'd be more recognised as one of the best Aussie bowlers ever, if not quite an all-time great.

His stats would appear to support this, especially when you consider just how badly he slumped in 2005 - puts the rest of his career in perspective.

Anyways - Gillespie v. Waqar v. Holding

Jason Gillespie
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
71 1218 201* 18.73 1 2 259 7/37 26.13 8 27 0
Including his 2005 where he returned figures of
7 96 35 9.60 0 0 11 3/38 64.18 0 6 0

Wickets per match – 3.65

Waqar Younis
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
87 1010 45 10.20 0 0 373 7/76 23.56 22 18 0

Wickets per match – 4.29

Michael Holding
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
60 910 73 13.78 0 6 249 8/92 23.68 13 22 0

Wickets per match – 4.15

 

[C_C]

Gillespie for the majority of his career was a very very good bowler - he carried the bowling attack very well during a couple of prolonged absences of McGrath and deserves to be ranked in the 2nd tier of all time bowlers, not up with the McGraths, Marshalls, Lillees, etc, but certainly with the Waqars, McDermotts, Holdings etc..

Err neither Gillespie or McDermott have any business being in the same category as Waqars or Holdings of the game- who are far closer to the McGrath category of alltime greats than merely being a 'very good' bowler ala McDermott or Dizzy. It is akin to comparing a Ron Harvey or Rohan Kanhai with Kepler Wessels or Gary Kirstien.

 

[Laurrz]

Mcgrath for me . But let me tell you guys that as a fan of his side ,Wasim Akram was the person upon whom the viewers always depended upon to do miracles which are still quite rare . Wasim's ability to turn the tables in the matter of 6 balls is quite better than that of Mcgrath but over-all the fighter Mcgrath is my favorite for some obvious reasons .
Wasim had to play on some pitches which are like a grave yard for the fasties plus Wasim was a diabetic too and had a partner like Waqar to get a huge chunk of the top order wickets . I know that how it was when Wasim and Waqar were there and even the common blunders of the Pakistani top order were covered up by the bowling . I have seen many matches in which Pakistan defended a total less than 200 and just because of these two giants of World cricket i.e. Wasim and Waqar .
Mcgrath's ability to keep a great line and length and to find the weaknesses of the batsmen is just great and is a fighter and has shown that if one is a man then still can perform at the top level even at an old age !!!

good man

McGrath/Warne or Wasim/Waqar?

 

[Matt79]

I can see that some would place Waqar in the top tier, and that's a matter of opinion - for me he's very close, but not quite there.

I don't think Holding is in the top tier either, even amongst the Windies alone Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Roberts and perhaps Walsh were better...

Prior to the 2005 Ashes, Gillespie would have taken 250 wickets at around 25. That's pretty good given he has played in an era dominated by batsmen.

 

[nightprowler10]

Honestly, both Holding and Waqar were clearly better bowlers than Gillespie, but I think both of them are "second-tier" bowlers, not quite up there with the all-time greatest, and I think Gillespie can comfortably stake a claim to belong to that group as well. If he had not played so much of his cricket in the shadow of McGrath, he'd be more recognised as one of the best Aussie bowlers ever, if not quite an all-time great.

His stats would appear to support this, especially when you consider just how badly he slumped in 2005 - puts the rest of his career in perspective.

Anyways - Gillespie v. Waqar v. Holding

Jason Gillespie
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
71 1218 201* 18.73 1 2 259 7/37 26.13 8 27 0
Including his 2005 where he returned figures of
7 96 35 9.60 0 0 11 3/38 64.18 0 6 0

Wickets per match – 3.65

Waqar Younis
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
87 1010 45 10.20 0 0 373 7/76 23.56 22 18 0

Wickets per match – 4.29

Michael Holding
Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50 W BB BowlAv 5w Ct St
60 910 73 13.78 0 6 249 8/92 23.68 13 22 0

Wickets per match – 4.15

I'd say you're over simplifying a bit. You said, Gillespie had an ordinary 2005. Alright then, lets take away all of his performances until the beginning of last year. He was averaging 25.08 since the beginning of his career till the end of the summer series against Pakistan in 2004. Its no secret that unlike Waqar, Gillespie had an amazing start to his career. He was averaging under 22 through his first 20 matches. But after that period, he started averaging higher than 22 and his average kept getting worse over time. Starting from his 26th test going on to his 63rd (last match against Pakistan) his average stayed between 26.36 and 24.35. Not exactly stuff of the legends but not exactly mediocre either. Infact, fairly decent and any team would've been happy to have him during that period.

Although, the point in question is if he was good enough to be considered as great as Waqar. As I said, Waqar started his career off very badly, averaging over 46 after his first 5 matches picking up only 10 wickets. But then the man went on to take 43 wickets in the next 5 matches and brought that average down to 17.77! And even though his average got worse (just over 20) he managed to bring it back down to 19.3 after 30 matches. It wasn't until the end of the millennium that Waqar started showing signs of wear and tear, and that is when his average started slipping and ended up at over 23, which is still pretty damn good. But if you take away the same amount of matches that we took away from Gillespie at the end of his career, Waqar would end up with an average of less than 23, and the more you take away the better his average gets, hinting to the possibilty that he retired about 2 years too late.

In conclusion, I think for a long time Gillespie was very good, but never Waqar quality. Had he kept the same form he had at the beginning of his career, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

 

[C_C]

I can see that some would place Waqar in the top tier, and that's a matter of opinion - for me he's very close, but not quite there.

I don't think Holding is in the top tier either, even amongst the Windies alone Marshall, Garner, Ambrose, Roberts and perhaps Walsh were better...

Prior to the 2005 Ashes, Gillespie would have taken 250 wickets at around 25. That's pretty good given he has played in an era dominated by batsmen.

Err no, Amongs the windians, Holding is normally rated on par with Garner and just below Marshall and Ambrose. He is an alltime top 10 pacer as far as i am concerned and Waqar is alltime top 15. Gillespie is not in the alltime top 25 as far as i am concerned.
Gillespie is a good solid bowler like Hughes, McDermott, Ntini, etc etc- i think you are massively overrating him by putting him in the same bracket as Waqar or Holding.

 

[Matt79]

Good post NP. I agree Waqar is a better bowler than Gillespie - my "tiers" are pretty broad and unscientific categories, and they both sit in the second tier for me.

I guess what I was getting at is that Gillespie was a very very good bowler - averaging 25 for the majority of his career during the most batsman friendly decade of cricket since arguably the 1930s - who is now probably under rated because his career coincided with McGrath and because he went out of the game (not counting his cameo in Bangladesh) on such a disasterously bad note.

 

[andmark]

Depends.
In ODIs, i'd pick Wasim. In tests, it'd have a lot to do with who the other bowlers are.McGrath is a more consistent bowler than Wasim and in general has less bad days at office. But picking a bowler isnt just about who is better bowler - it is about how they'd fit in the bowling attack and what they bring in the picture.

Glenn is superb at both test and odi.

 

[Matt79]

Err no, Amongs the windians, Holding is normally rated on par with Garner and just below Marshall and Ambrose. He is an alltime top 10 pacer as far as i am concerned and Waqar is alltime top 15. Gillespie is not in the alltime top 25 as far as i am concerned.
Gillespie is a good solid bowler like Hughes, McDermott, Ntini, etc etc- i think you are massively overrating him by putting him in the same bracket as Waqar or Holding.

I disagree - I think you are doing him a disservice by equating him to McDermott, Hughes and Ntini. But as stated, I guess at some point it becomes a matter of opinion.

I would have thought Garner had Holding comfortably covered in most observers eyes...

 

[C_C]

I disagree - I think you are doing him a disservice by equating him to McDermott, Hughes and Ntini. But as stated, I guess at some point it becomes a matter of opinion.

I would have thought Garner had Holding comfortably covered in most observers eyes...

Well in the opinion of the caribbean supporters, Holding is rated equal or better than any bowler who's name isnt Marshall or Ambrose from their lot.
And no, i dont think i am doing Dizzy a disservice by equating him with McDermott- he is far closer to that benchmark than he is to Waqar - who i'd rate neck and neck with Donald.
And Dizzy is not in Donald class.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Holding and Ambrose are the finest Windies pacemen IMO. I'd take him before Gillespie or Waqar any day.

I do agree however that Gillespie was a very fine bowler. Certainly in the top 10 of the last 20 years, which is an era that includes many great bowlers.

Incidentally, it's McGrath fairly comfortably for me in this particular debate. Wasim was a very fine bowler, but McGrath is genuinely one of the best seamers in history and I don't think Wasim is quite in that group. At least not in test cricket.

 

[nightprowler10]

Good post NP. I agree Waqar is a better bowler than Gillespie - my "tiers" are pretty broad and unscientific categories, and they both sit in the second tier for me.

I guess what I was getting at is that Gillespie was a very very good bowler - averaging 25 for the majority of his career during the most batsman friendly decade of cricket since arguably the 1930s - who is now probably under rated because his career coincided with McGrath and because he went out of the game (not counting his cameo in Bangladesh) on such a disasterously bad note.

Fair enough. And I wasn't trying to put Dizzy down or anything, like I said for a while there he was very good and could've walked into most teams' first XI, but I just don't rate him that high when compared to all time greats.

 

[C_C]

Glenn is superb at both test and odi.

Aye he is.
But when it comes to ODIs, i'd prefer Wasim.
Simply because McGrath's ODI picture is something like 9 outta 10 matches he's gonna bag a two-fer or one-fer while conceding 35 odd runs and take a bag in the next.
Wasim even though equally economical and wicket-taking as McGrath overall deliciously mixed wicket-taking performances with economic ones. I'd take a 10-0-45-4 and 10-2-30-1 any day of the week over 10-0-30-2 and 10-0-30-2.
Wasim also was absolutely peerless bowling at the death. McGrath is a good death bowler but Wasim was an absolute legend in the death overs. While everyone gets carted around him for 7-10 runs an over in the last 5, Wasim would habitually come in, concede a 4, pick up a wicket and blow a hole in the other team's hopes.