Waqar Younis vs. Glenn McGrath vs. Shoaib Akhtar

[G.I.Joe]

Peaks - Waqar > McGrath/Shoaib, not really aware of any peak McGrath may have had.

Overall, McGrath > Waqar > Shoaib

If we're talking overall in the Ian Botham sense, Waqar > McGrath > Shoaib

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Noble One

Maybe the key question is, when was McGrath at his absolute peak? I find it hard to pick out a single season from his entire career he was that consistent.

I'd say McGrath was @ his ulitmate peak between SA 96/97 (Centurion test) to Ashes 2002/03 (MCG Test). He was his usual metronmoic accurate self but was capable of bowling in the high 80s consistently & a few times he may have touched 90 mph, during that period.

Pre SA 96/97 of course he had the period of WI 94/95 - WI 96/97 where he had just become test quality - but no-one was calling him a great yet then during this breakout period. Then post Ashes 2002/03 (when he had the injury in the 4th test) - Ashes 06/07 when he still had the metronomic accuracy of SA 96/97 - Ashes 02/03 - but he was basically now medium pace (80-83 mph, sometimes under 75-79 range). During this Ashes 02/03-Ashes 06/07, he had that period in 2003 when he came back from injury after the 02/03 Ashes & WC 2003 triumph where during the WI & BANG test he looked absolutely woeful in those series & missed the remainder of 03 & most of 2004.I rememvber the selectors & commentators where questioning his place in the side during that injury lay-off. Before pigeon cam back vs SRI 04 with an immediate 5 wicket haul & straight through until Ashes 06/07 retirement - continued to proved his greatness. But McGrath certainly did have a peak.

[GameGod]

To clarify, by "peak" I mean the best 1-2 seasons of their career; you may choose whichever of those you want. I take it then that most people see it as:

1. Waqar Younis
2. Shoaib Akhtar
3. Glenn McGrath

But was Waqar during his best year (or Shoaib during his best year - I didn't get that clear of response on this) the best of any pace bowler ever in their respective peak years?

[aussie]

Including Shoaib in this debate is unfair. His peak although deadly cant comapre with McGrath & Waqar.

Waqar well known peak was between 1989-1994 (before he sufffered a back injury which kept him out of cricket for a year & he was never the same again). Where he took 190 wickets: 33 tests: @ 19.15. Stunning stuff.

While McGrath as i suggested above did have a peak between Centurion 1997 to MCG 2002, when he was metronomical but bowling @ his fastest. He took 309 wickets: 64 tests: @ 20.08

Its more even than people think. With Waqar bowling probably just being more eye-catching to people @ his peak.

[Debris]

Younis was extremely lethal at times (more so than McGrath and probably anyone) but his bowling seemed to be very condition dependent. He never seemed to do well in Australia, for example, and at times looked pedestrian. McGrath seemed to bowl well regardless of conditions which is why I would still pick him.

Akhtar is clearly third behind the other two.

[kingkallis]

@their peaks,

Waqar >> McGrath >>>>> Shoaib

@overall,

McGrath >> Waqar >>>>> Shoaib

[GingerFurball]

McGrath easily. His "peak" lasted about 7 years, I'd take 7 years of excellence over a shorter peak.

[Teja.]

Waqar's lasted five too, tbf. Not his fault that Pakistan played only 33 tests in a period where he was taking wickets at 6 wpm while striking at slightly above thirty at an average below twenty.

[vcs]

Originally Posted by aussie

Including Shoaib in this debate is unfair. His peak although deadly cant comapre with McGrath & Waqar.

Waqar well known peak was between 1989-1994 (before he sufffered a back injury which kept him out of cricket for a year & he was never the same again). Where he took 190 wickets: 33 tests: @ 19.15. Stunning stuff.

While McGrath as i suggested above did have a peak between Centurion 1997 to MCG 2002, when he was metronomical but bowling @ his fastest. He took 309 wickets: 64 tests: @ 20.08

Its more even than people think. With Waqar bowling probably just being more eye-catching to people @ his peak.

Originally Posted by Debris

Younis was extremely lethal at times (more so than McGrath and probably anyone) but his bowling seemed to be very condition dependent. He never seemed to do well in Australia, for example, and at times looked pedestrian. McGrath seemed to bowl well regardless of conditions which is why I would still pick him.

Akhtar is clearly third behind the other two.

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

McGrath easily. His "peak" lasted about 7 years, I'd take 7 years of excellence over a shorter peak.

Yeah, agree with these.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

This.

Akthar could crack open any batting lineup in the world at his peak. Waqar was brilliant in his early years.

True. McGrath could crack open any batting lineup in the world for pretty much his entire career.

[Athlai]

Waqar easily because he was at one stage the greatest bowler ever. It's as simple as that in my mind.

[Athlai]

Originally Posted by aussie

Its more even than people think. With Waqar bowling probably just being more eye-catching to people @ his peak.

See I disagree with this, sure McGrath was phenomenal at this time but Waqar's peak was just stellar.

His SR was 13 better than McGraths! And from those figures you mentioned Waqar took more 5fers and 10fers despite playing only about half the matches of McGrath. Waqar was taking about a whole wicket more per match. The averages stay similar but Waqar was just far far more accomplished as a strike bowler.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Teja.

Waqar's lasted five too, tbf. Not his fault that Pakistan played only 33 tests in a period where he was taking wickets at 6 wpm while striking at slightly above thirty at an average below twenty.

It could be speculated that he only maintained that rate because he had more time between games, rather than having to back it up time after time in a much shorter time period.

[silentstriker]

McGrath >>> Waqar >>>>>>>> Akhtar

[Lillian Thomson]

This should have been a poll then everyone could have voted for McGrath and gone to bed.