Akthar or Thomson?

[Teja.]

Both were the fastest bowlers of their respective eras, and both played a similar amount of matches.
Tests only, bowling only.

Thomson
M-51
I-90
W-200
BBI-6/46
BBM-9/105
Avg.-28.00
Eco.-3.18
SR-52.6
4w-16
5w-8
10w-0

Akhtar
M-46
I-82
W-178
BBI-6/11
BBM-11/78
Avg.-25.69
Eco.-3.37
SR-45.7
5w-12
10w-2

 

[Migara]

Both were the fastest bowlers of their respective eras, and both played a similar amount of matches.
Tests only, bowling only.

Mohammed Zahid was the fastest

 

[Sir Alex]

Aktar.

Much difficult pitches, much accomplished batsmen...

 

[Xuhaib]

Mohammed Zahid was the fastest

word.

 

[Briony]

Thommo, great action, great stamina and cruelly cut down by an untimely shoulder injury.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd rather Thommo was from my country than Akhtar was from my country, but on a single given day I'd rather Akhtar was bowling for me.

 

[chicane]

Their records suggest Shoaib was more potent, better average, SR, more 5fers, more 10s and similar ER. If the era Shoaib played in is considered to be tougher for bowlers, and the lack of a quality support consistently through his career is taken into account as a handicap, then it makes his record even more potent compared to Thomson.

IMO Shoaib's behaviour and availability is irrelevant to who was the better bowler.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I wouldn't say Thomson is necessarily a better bowler but I'd take him from 1974/75 and 1975/76 over anyone.

 

[Himannv]

Not much of a Shoaib fan but of the two I think he was certainly the better bowler.

 

[The Sean]

I'd be interested to see the results if Frank Tyson was added to the mix to make a three-way (ho ho) battle.

Though as that would break the seemingly mandatory Australian vs Asian player comparison that we've all become so fond of, I'm not sure if that would be allowed.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Thomson's stats in both tests and first class cricket indicate that he was nowhere near as good as he himself thought he was. He does look incredibly fast in his pomp though.

 

[Migara]

I just want to see what Ikki / Streetwise say about this.

 

[Sir Alex]

Actually I was surprised to see so many supporting Jeff.

 

[Furball]

I just want to see what Ikki / Streetwise say about this.

Migara, please don't bait other posters.

 

[Faisal1985]

Don't know Thomo.

I will take Akhtar of the late 90s and then 2000 - 2005.....Super bowler in these days.

 

[Ikki]

I just want to see what Ikki / Streetwise say about this.

I actually think it's rather easily Akhtar. Statistically a way in front. But gotta give Thomson his dues; was a frighteningly (metaphorically and literally) good bowler at his peak and his own legends. Still, think Akhtar could have been one of the greatest of all time had he not consistently shot himself in the foot.

 

[Teja.]

I'd be interested to see the results if Frank Tyson was added to the mix to make a three-way (ho ho) battle.

Though as that would break the seemingly mandatory Australian vs Asian player comparison that we've all become so fond of, I'm not sure if that would be allowed.

Tyson played considerably fewer tests and has a better record in those tests than both players, I don't think healthy comparison is possible.

 

[The Sean]

Tyson played considerably fewer tests and has a better record in those tests than both players, I don't think healthy comparison is possible.

Fair enough.

 

[slowfinger]

TBH Shoaib was never really bad when he bowled because he always got wickets, imo if he played a proper career he'd potentially be potential .

 

[zaremba]

The Thommo of the 1970s had a similar record to Shoaib. He damaged his record a bit by playing on into the 80s and ultimately bowling a lot slower than his awesome peak.