Wasim or McGrath?

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

He certainly would have walked into any side in the world at the peak of his career. Australia were the best team with the best bowling attack in this time after all, and he was the third bowler on the team sheet without fail.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

Doesn't this fly in the face of your usual arguments about cricket? We've had a number of debates on here about consistency vs devastating ability, and you've consistently maintained that a player who is always good is better than a player who is occasionally unstoppable but usually slightly less good.

 

[C_C]

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.

Gillespie in top 10 over the last 20 years ? For pacers ?
No i dont think so.
Lets see who i'd rate CLEARLY better than Gillespie in the last 20 years:

Marshall
Ambrose
Walsh
Imran
Wasim
Waqar
Akhtar
Donald
Pollock
Kapil
Hadlee
Bond
McGrath

Vaas, Ntini, Gough, Fraser, Bishop, etc. are more like Dizzy's category- good solid worldclass bowlers but not elite.

 

[Laurrz]

Wasim was definately more talented... with his ability to reverse and more pace... i think Glenn uses what he has so very well though

 

[nightprowler10]

Vaas, Ntini, Gough, Fraser, Bishop, etc. are more like Dizzy's category- good solid worldclass bowlers but not elite.

Really?

 

[C_C]

Doesn't this fly in the face of your usual arguments about cricket? We've had a number of debates on here about consistency vs devastating ability, and you've consistently maintained that a player who is always good is better than a player who is occasionally unstoppable but usually slightly less good.

Well not really.
There isnt much to choose from in terms of consistency between Pidge and the sultan of swing. Pidge is more consistent but very slightly IMO. And in ODIs, economy is important but so is wicket-taking. An ideal bowler in my opinion is the Wasim type- when he isnt taking wickets, he is extremely economical and when he is being aggressive, he picks up a boatload of wickets at a bit higher economy rate.
Throw in the death bowling factor and significantly weaker fielding ( this plays a very strong part in economy rates- how many times have Aussies saved a certain boundary and how many times have the Pakistanis done so?) and i'd say that Wasim edges Pidge in ODIs.

 

[C_C]

Really?

Aye really.
Dont see why Gough and Gillespie arnt in the same boat.

 

[Laurrz]

Well not really.
There isnt much to choose from in terms of consistency between Pidge and the sultan of swing. Pidge is more consistent but very slightly IMO. And in ODIs, economy is important but so is wicket-taking. An ideal bowler in my opinion is the Wasim type- when he isnt taking wickets, he is extremely economical and when he is being aggressive, he picks up a boatload of wickets at a bit higher economy rate.
Throw in the death bowling factor and significantly weaker fielding ( this plays a very strong part in economy rates- how many times have Aussies saved a certain boundary and how many times have the Pakistanis done so?) and i'd say that Wasim edges Pidge in ODIs.

correct me if i'm wrong, but isn;t McGrath and Wasim's Strike Rate similar?

 

[nightprowler10]

Aye really.
Dont see why Gough and Gillespie arnt in the same boat.

Because Gough has been averaging between 27 and 32 his whole career where as Gillespie never once ventured over 27 and bowled at 25 for a good part of his career. Gough is too inconsistant to be compared with Dizzy IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Gillespie in top 10 over the last 20 years ? For pacers ?
No i dont think so.
Lets see who i'd rate CLEARLY better than Gillespie in the last 20 years:

Marshall
Ambrose
Walsh
Imran
Wasim
Waqar
Akhtar
Donald
Pollock
Kapil
Hadlee
Bond
McGrath

Vaas, Ntini, Gough, Fraser, Bishop, etc. are more like Dizzy's category- good solid worldclass bowlers but not elite.

"20 years" was a bit loose, what I meant was in the top 10 since the start of the 90s, a group I wouldn't include Marshall, Imran, Kapil or Hadlee in.

My top 5 in that period would be McGrath, Ambrose, Donald, Wasim and Waqar. Outside of them, I'd say Pollock was clearly better than Gillespie, and Walsh gets him for his longevity as well. Gillespie was certianly better than Akhtar, and Bond really hasn't played enough test cricket to put in this sort of group. Gillespie was comfortably a better bowler than Vaas or Fraser, and Ntini's only just reaching his peak now so certainly hasn't eclipsed him yet. Gough is a fair comparison, but Gillespie is a better bowler IMO, if only by a relatively small margin. Bishop was better than Gillespie, but injuries cut his career short quite badly, much like Bruice Reid or someone.

I'd probably put Gillespie around 8th in the period in question.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Throw in the death bowling factor and significantly weaker fielding ( this plays a very strong part in economy rates- how many times have Aussies saved a certain boundary and how many times have the Pakistanis done so?) and i'd say that Wasim edges Pidge in ODIs.

Wasim was a better death bowler than McGrath, and a far better batsman, but I don't know where you got the fielding idea from. McGrath is and always has been a high quality outfielder. Hell, even at 36 he's still sprinting around at third man and saving boundaries, and has a very safe pair of hands and rarely drops a thing. He's pretty much the ideal fast bowler in this regard.

edit: Haha, whoops. Just realised I totally misunderstood your point here.

 

[C_C]

Because Gough has been averaging between 27 and 32 his whole career where as Gillespie never once ventured over 27 and bowled at 25 for a good part of his career. Gough is too inconsistant to be compared with Dizzy IMO.

Simple averages for bowlers are not a very good barometer without considering the kind of support they have. Better support equals better average.
Gillespie has had considerably more support than Gough has and in my eyes they are equal.

 

[C_C]

Gillespie was certianly better than Akhtar, and Bond really hasn't played enough test cricket to put in this sort of group. Gillespie was comfortably a better bowler than Vaas or Fraser

comfortably better than Vaas ? I disagree.
I'd rate them very close with Vaas having the slight advantage.Fraser i'd rate in the same bracket too. Akhtar i consider better because he's really done well (despite injuries,petulance and being a ******) spearheading the attack on his own while Gillespie has always had support.
Bond- well lack of experience be damned, he is a special case and i think he is better than Dizzy.

 

[adharcric]

Since 1990, my top ten pace bowlers would be as follows ...

1. Glenn McGrath
2. Curtly Ambrose
3. Wasim Akram
4. Allan Donald
5. Waqar Younis
6. Shaun Pollock
7. Courtney Walsh
8. Shoaib Akhtar
9. Jason Gillespie
10. Chaminda Vaas

Thoughts??

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Since 1990, my top ten pace bowlers would be as follows ...

1. Glenn McGrath
2. Curtly Ambrose
3. Wasim Akram
4. Allan Donald
5. Waqar Younis
6. Shaun Pollock
7. Courtney Walsh
8. Jason Gillespie
9. Chaminda Vaas
10. Darren Gough

Agreed on bascially all counts. I'd have Donald ahead of Wasim, and I'm not so sure about Vaas. I might put someone like Shoaib in there. I think Gillespie at his best was probably a better bowler than Walsh, but you can't go past his longevity by comparison. Gillespie basically fell in a heap at 30, and that brings down his value a bit, so I'd also have Walsh ahead.

 

[C_C]

My top 10 pacers of the last 15 years:

1. Ambrose
2. McGrath
3. Wasim
4. Donald
5. Waqar
6. Pollock
7. Walsh
8. Vaas
9. Akhtar
10. Gillespie

Current probable candidates to leapfrog Dizzy in a few year's time : Ntini, Flintoff, Jones.

 

[Laurrz]

If Jones can get on the field....he's got a lot to do to catch up to Dizzy..

 

[oz_fan]

My top 10 pacers since the 90's:
1. McGrath
2. Ambrose
3. Donald
4. Akram
5. Pollock
6. Waqar
7. Walsh
8. Gillespie
9. Vaas
10. Akhtar/Gough

At his best Waqar was better than Pollock but I put Pollock ahead for his consistently good performances (in tests his form has dropped but up until 2003 averaged over 30 in a test series only once and for a short period of time in the middle of his career his career bowling average was below 20).

 

[nightprowler10]

At his best Waqar was better than Pollock

At his best Waqar should be on top of that list, but we're looking at careers. Anyway, here's my top 10, pretty much the same as everyone else, only a different order:

Wasim
McGrath
Donald
Waqar
Ambrose
Pollock
Akhtar
Walsh
Vaas
Gillespie

 

[Matt79]

My top 10 since 1990 would be:

1. Ambrose
2. McGrath
3. Donald
4. Akram
5. Waqar
6. Gillespie
7. Pollock
8. Walsh
9. Vaas
10. Akhtar