Waqar Younis vs. Glenn McGrath vs. Shoaib Akhtar

[kingkallis]

@their peaks,

Waqar >> McGrath >>>>> Shoaib

@overall,

McGrath >> Waqar >>>>> Shoaib

 

[Furball]

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]

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.

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.

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

Yeah, agree with these.

 

[Uppercut]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Faisal1985]

I would say Waqar at his short peak was probably the best bowler of the three....Akhtar would always come third in all cases...McGrath over all was way above Waqar for the sheer consistency he had through out his career..But Waqar at his peak was easily the best...

 

[aussie]

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.

Dont think having a superior SR makes you better really. For example Dale Steyn in the last 4 years is the closest thing we have seen in comparison to Waqar's peak. 203 wickets @ 21 in 38 test. His SR was just as similar to Waqar's during his peak & given i have seen basically all of Steyn ungoing peak - i would definately rate McGrath's peak over Steyn.

Waqar was all out attack - no defesne. Thus although he would still run through top batting sides with wickets - he could be expensive. See the 1993 series in the caribbean.

McGrath was less devastating than Waqar in attack mode yes. But McGrath made up for that with a better economy rate.

On a greentop or bouncy deck Waqar would give you take 25-3-100-6. McGrath would give you 25-10-50-6.

 

[Cevno]

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.

Akthar from 1 jan 2000 to 1 jan 2006 took 127 wickets @ 20.56

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com


And if you remove the injury affected end of 2006 ,then from 1 jan 2000 to 1 jan 2005 then he took 110 wickets @ 19.31 in 22 matches.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

While Mcgrath had a strike rate of 49.1 in the period you mentioned ,Waqar had a strike rate of 36 ,Akthar had a stunning strike rate of 35.1

 

[Faisal1985]

Akthar from 1 jan 2000 to 1 jan 2006 took 127 wickets @ 20.56

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com


And if you remove the injury affected end of 2006 ,then from 1 jan 2000 to 1 jan 2005 then he took 110 wickets @ 19.31 in 22 matches.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

While Mcgrath had a strike rate of 49.1 in the period you mentioned ,Waqar had a strike rate of 36 ,Akthar had a stunning strike rate of 35.1

For a person like me...this is a wow moment...Akhtar also had stunning figures in those peak years..

 

[aussie]

Akthar from 1 jan 2000 to 1 jan 2006 took 127 wickets @ 20.56

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com


And if you remove the injury affected end of 2006 ,then from 1 jan 2000 to 1 jan 2005 then he took 110 wickets @ 19.31 in 22 matches.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

While Mcgrath had a strike rate of 49.1 in the period you mentioned ,Waqar had a strike rate of 36 ,Akthar had a stunning strike rate of 35.1

This is avery confusing statistical breakdown of Akhtar's record my friend.

Firstly why did you start @ Jan 1 & end @ Jan 06?. What significant event occured in his career that made you chose those dates?. Was some series in 2000 a breakout series for Akhtar like McGrath vs WI 95?. Did he have a career changing injury @ the end 2006 like Waqar @ the end of 1994 vs AUS?. I dont think he did to my knowledge.

The period for McGrath & Waqar in which i highlited as their peaks. I follwoed their careers (especially McGrath who i saw most of his test live after Ashes 97) which i considered their peaks - then looked for their stats of that period.

With Akhtar AFAIC he never really had a peak. Like Bond his test career was a constant stop start thanks to injuries (also @ times he was accused of not being focused), where we saw the best of him in individual spells spread over 10 years. So like Bond, we are left to wonder what could have been with Akhtar if he wasn't so injury proned.

 

[Faisal1985]

This is avery confusing statistical breakdown of Akhtar's record my friend.

Firstly why did you start @ Jan 1 & end @ Jan 06?. What significant event occured in his career that made you chose those dates?. Was some series in 2000 a breakout series for Akhtar like McGrath vs WI 95?. Did he have a career changing injury @ the end 2006 like Waqar @ the end of 1994 vs AUS?. I dont think he did to my knowledge.

The period for McGrath & Waqar in which i highlited as their peaks. I follwoed their careers (especially McGrath who i saw most of his test live after Ashes 97) which i considered their peaks - then looked for their stats of that period.

With Akhtar AFAIC he never really had a peak. Like Bond his test career was a constant stop start thanks to injuries (also @ times he was accused of not being focused), where we saw the best of him in individual spells spread over 10 years. So like Bond, we are left to wonder what could have been with Akhtar if he wasn't so injury proned.

I don't quite follow you...what's wrong with those dates?

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I don't quite follow you...what's wrong with those dates?

It doesn't suit his argument

In all seriousness, for those who say Akhtar doesn't belong in the discussion-on what basis can you say that?He hasn't exactly been a controversy free cricketer but when on song,few have been more devastating.He's played close to 50 matches and got 180 wickets or threabouts from the top of my head @ 25 with a tremendous SR.That's hardly scoff-worthy. The only thing that prevents Akhtar from being an all time great like Waqar in my mind is the longevity factor.If Steyn were to retire today,he'd probably be on par with Akhtar.

 

[aussie]

I don't quite follow you...what's wrong with those dates?

What career changing defining event occured in Jan 1 2000 that would suggest thats a good starting point for Akhars peak. Like with McGrath vs WI 95, when it unanimously known that was his breakout series. So Pigeons greatness is always judged from WI 95 onwards.

Jan 1 2000, cant be right for Akhtar to my knowledge, since for example the stunning double yorkers he bowled to Dravid & Tendy @ Kolkatta happened in 99.

Nor do i know of any serious injuries after either Jan 05 or Jan 06, that sent Akhtar into any decline, like Waqar @ the end of 1994. His career career was a constant stop start thanks to injuries (also @ times he was accused of not being focused), where we saw the best of him in individual spells spread over 10 years.

 

[Faisal1985]

What career changing defining event occured in Jan 1 2000 that would suggest thats a good starting point for Akhars peak. Like with McGrath vs WI 95, when it unanimously known that was his breakout series. So Pigeons greatness is always judged from WI 95 onwards.

Jan 1 2000, cant be right for Akhtar to my knowledge, since for example the stunning double yorkers he bowled to Dravid & Tendy @ Kolkatta happened in 99.

Nor do i know of any serious injuries after either Jan 05 or Jan 06, that sent Akhtar into any decline, like Waqar @ the end of 1994. His career career was a constant stop start thanks to injuries (also @ times he was accused of not being focused), where we saw the best of him in individual spells spread over 10 years.

So you are defining peak as a start of an impressive series (i.e. McGrath v WI in 95) until a bowler gets injured which is career threatening (i.e. Waqar's injury)...?

Why can't be the period during which the player actually performed better then his over all stats be the peak period? That makes more sense to me. Plus as far as i remember Akhtar did have a knee injury around that time..

 

[Furball]

What career changing defining event occured in Jan 1 2000 that would suggest thats a good starting point for Akhars peak. Like with McGrath vs WI 95, when it unanimously known that was his breakout series. So Pigeons greatness is always judged from WI 95 onwards.

Jan 1 2000, cant be right for Akhtar to my knowledge, since for example the stunning double yorkers he bowled to Dravid & Tendy @ Kolkatta happened in 99.

Nor do i know of any serious injuries after either Jan 05 or Jan 06, that sent Akhtar into any decline, like Waqar @ the end of 1994. His career career was a constant stop start thanks to injuries (also @ times he was accused of not being focused), where we saw the best of him in individual spells spread over 10 years.

Surely the fact that Shoaib has barely played any international cricket for almost 5 years due to various injury problems is pretty much the definition of the end of his peak?