Waqar Younis vs. Glenn McGrath vs. Shoaib Akhtar

[BhupinderSingh]

Would you say that Waqar at his peak/prime would be the best pace bowler of all-time?

No,this bowler is the best ever,not only in terms of peak but overall career also.

 

[G.I.Joe]

No,this bowler is the best ever,not only in terms of peak but overall career also.

Mohammad Sami?

 

[marc71178]

Waqar obviously decided how many Tests Pakistan played.

While McGrath can be given extra points for maintaining those statistics despite Australia playing so many tests, It is not Waqar's fault that Pakistan did not play as many tests as AUS did, He was still tearing it up in the county circuit FTR.

Yes I know he was doing it in the County game, but that just isn't the same level of competition and intensity - I just have the feeling that had he played as many games as McGrath in the period he wouldn't have been able to maintain the level of performance which he did over his peak.

 

[aussie]

No,this bowler is the best ever,not only in terms of peak but overall career also.

Based on all i've heard & read of Imran. I've always had the view that his bowling peak was was SCG 1977 - Bridgetown 1988. I end @ the WI 88 series since by all reports i've come across, that was the last series where he was bowling 90 mph. From 89-92 his bowling was nothing special.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Based on all i've heard & read of Imran. I've always had the view that his bowling peak was was SCG 1977 - Bridgetown 1988. I end @ the WI 88 series since by all reports i've come across, that was the last series where he was bowling 90 mph. From 89-92 his bowling was nothing special.

He was a very devastating bowler from 1977 till 1988 but by peak mean when he was at his very best and that was the period I mentioned in my last post.His bowling declinded after 1988 but was till a good bowler.I think he was not as fast and devastating as before thats why he didn't bowl in his last few tests.But the point I was trying to make was that his peak is better than any modern day bowler.Only Barnes & Lohmann have better although very short peak as compared to his.

 

[Uppercut]

Waqar's figures are destroyed by the last three years of his career. People talk about how McGrath is way better than Waqar because he had better statistics over a decade. How about comparing McGrath's 'decade' with Waqar's 'decade'?

McGrath:-468 wickets @ 20.49 @ a SR of 50.1 and 4.7 wickets per match on average and three 10-fers from 1996 to 2005

Waqar? Surely the five year peak-freak show is statistically way behind since his peak was only for half this period?

Er, No.

Waqar:-271 wickets @ 21.71 @ a SR of 40.9 and 4.9 wickets per match on average and five 10-fers from 1990 to 1999

So, even if we compare across a ten year period, the difference, statistically is negligible despite what people think so. The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)

See, I have no problem with people considering McGrath to be a better bowler than Waqar, but when people think he is some kind of peak freak who does not deserve to be compared to be McGrath, It'd do good for them to remember that he averaged almost five wickets a game at 21 for an entire decade while still taking wickets close to two overs faster than your average ATG bowler.

Just Sayin'

Thing is, when people compare Tendulkar with Kallis (for instance), the first thing brought up is invariably how much easier it's been to bat since the turn of the century. How come it doesn't even warrant a mention when comparing bowlers?

 

[aussie]

Thing is, when people compare Tendulkar with Kallis (for instance), the first thing brought up is invariably how much easier it's been to bat since the turn of the century. How come it doesn't even warrant a mention when comparing bowlers?

Cricket is a batsman's game. Bowlers are always the cats who are toiling for wickets. For fast bowlers guys like Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Imran etc are rated so highly because they were able to test & dismiss batmsen not just when they got green-tops or very bouncy decks - but even on the roads that were present in sub-continent or anywhere else in the world. They possesed a unique ability to take wickets in ALL conditions, this is why runs againts those cats are rated so highly. But not all fast bowlers in cricket history had those unique skills.

For example not because McGrath averaged 20 witht he ball in this FTB era (2000s era), means his average means more than Imran, Marhsall, Hadlee, Ambrose, Donald, Lillee who played in era of more helpul pitches. All of those bowlers had unique skills to to bowl on flat pitches too & if they had to bowl on the roads of the last 10 years i dont see why they wouldn't have had equal success like McGrath.

 

[Jono]

That argument can be made for batsman that succeeded in the 2000s. Why would Kallis not have succeeded in the 80s or 90s? What exactly is wrong with his technique to suggest he'd average less?

 

[Furball]

Thing is, when people compare Tendulkar with Kallis (for instance), the first thing brought up is invariably how much easier it's been to bat since the turn of the century. How come it doesn't even warrant a mention when comparing bowlers?

Because it doesn't suit the agenda of people who want to "prove" that their particular favourite bowler was better than McGrath.

edit: it's also interesting that McGrath never gets the "unhelpful home pitches" excuse that's afforded to other bowlers, particularly the great Pakistani bowlers.

 

[aussie]

That argument can be made for batsman that succeeded in the 2000s. Why would Kallis not have succeeded in the 80s or 90s? What exactly is wrong with his technique to suggest he'd average less?

Yea the likes of Kallis, Ponting, Sangakkara, Pietersen, Dravid, Inzamam (Hayden, Smith, Laxman, C"Paul & Jayawardene to a degree also would be close to, but IMO they would be 45+). Are the few batsmen who did well in 2000s (averaging 50+), that IMO would have certainly had success in more tougher batting era's.

Its the likes of Yousuf, Gilchrist, Sehwag, Samarweera, Y Khan, Gambhir, Clarke etc who had/have had the 50+ average over the likes decade, where the post would more apply to.

 

[Jono]

Dravid averaged 50 in the 90s anyway ftr.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That argument can be made for batsman that succeeded in the 2000s. Why would Kallis not have succeeded in the 80s or 90s? What exactly is wrong with his technique to suggest he'd average less?

Not pertaining specifically to Jacques Kallis, but take a look at the Test Cricket in England this summer. Some of the pitches have been less than perfect and the conditions have often been favourable for bowlers - because the batsman are not used to it they've been found out technique wise. In the 80's in particularly you didn't get the flat wickets you get today, especially in Australia and the West Indies.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not pertaining specifically to Jacques Kallis, but take a look at the Test Cricket in England this summer. Some of the pitches have been less than perfect and the conditions have often been favourable for bowlers - because the batsman are not used to it they've been found out technique wise. In the 80's in particularly you didn't get the flat wickets you get today, especially in Australia and the West Indies.

Hmmm, depends on whom you're talking about. Aussies of all eras being found out by swing bowling is always a possibility, generally because those conditions almost never pop up here.

 

[Top_Cat]

IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN! IMRAN!

We know.

 

[Prince EWS]

Cricket is a batsman's game. Bowlers are always the cats who are toiling for wickets. For fast bowlers guys like Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Imran etc are rated so highly because they were able to test & dismiss batmsen not just when they got green-tops or very bouncy decks - but even on the roads that were present in sub-continent or anywhere else in the world. They possesed a unique ability to take wickets in ALL conditions, this is why runs againts those cats are rated so highly. But not all fast bowlers in cricket history had those unique skills.

For example not because McGrath averaged 20 witht he ball in this FTB era (2000s era), means his average means more than Imran, Marhsall, Hadlee, Ambrose, Donald, Lillee who played in era of more helpul pitches. All of those bowlers had unique skills to to bowl on flat pitches too & if they had to bowl on the roads of the last 10 years i dont see why they wouldn't have had equal success like McGrath.

That's just guessing though; that's not really analysing what they did.

No-one's suggesting that someone like Ambrose would've been crap in the 21st century, but his average would have been inflated a little bit if he had as the pitches were less in his favour. And tbh even if he would've had the exact same average I don't even think that's really the point - McGrath out-performed his contemporaries by a larger margin. Having someone averaging 20 with the pill means a lot more these days, whether it's harder to achieve or not.

You can't just have it both ways, and say batting is much easier these days but then not given extra credit to the bowlers who succeed despite that. It just reeks of era bias.

 

[Burgey]

Not pertaining specifically to Jacques Kallis, but take a look at the Test Cricket in England this summer. Some of the pitches have been less than perfect and the conditions have often been favourable for bowlers - because the batsman are not used to it they've been found out technique wise. In the 80's in particularly you didn't get the flat wickets you get today, especially in Australia and the West Indies.

But that's because they are a product of their time. Players these days pick the first line and play through it. Not because they lack the ability to do otherwise, but because that's the modern game.

Had ODIs and T20s not come about, do you reckon today's players wouldn't be more circumspect? Likewise, if they grew up in conditions where the ball moved around a lot, I think they'd play well in it. I don't think batsmen born after 1975 are just a generation born with less ability. They just have adjusted to the game and the preponderance of conditions around now.

 

[aussie]

That's just guessing though; that's not really analysing what they did.

Not baseless guessing. Its an educate guess based on watching (or reading up of past greats that i didn't see bowl live) & comparing it to McGrath 2000s era bowling which i basically saw ever test of. Of course no absolutely certainly will be there, but i dont mind putting my head on a block for an "educated guess" like that. Especially when it as proven in test history that all the great fast-bowlers of the past had the unique ability to bowl on flat decks.

No-one's suggesting that someone like Ambrose would've been crap in the 21st century, but his average would have been inflated a little bit if he had as the pitches were less in his favour.

TBF. Out of that list og great fast-bowlers that i listed in that post. Ambrose wasn't known for his ability to reverse swing the ball like McGrath & others. On flat pitches Ambrose was usually reduced to be a ultimate metronome - but he still was able to get batsmen out on flat surface similar to that present in the 2000s era, even without reverse-swing, see:

- vs PAK 90/91
- Adelaide 92/93
- Bourda 93/94
- Antigua 95/96

While all the other great fast-bowlers i listed certainly had the ability reverse-swing the ball & be destructive on flat wickets - like McGrath. You just have to look @ their records in the sub-continent. So based on these facts - i see no reason why those past great fast-bowlers wouldn't have been able to average the same/close to what McGrath accomplished between 2000-2006, if they had played @ their peaks in the last 10 years.

And tbh even if he would've had the exact same average I don't even think that's really the point -

McGrath out-performed his contemporaries by a larger margin. Having someone averaging 20 with the pill means a lot more these days, whether it's harder to achieve or not.

You can't just have it both ways, and say batting is much easier these days but then not given extra credit to the bowlers who succeed despite that. It just reeks of era bias.

The only reason McGrath outperformed his contemporaries between 2000-20006 was because their was no comparable great fast-bowler around to rival him. The only comparable fast-bowler to McGrath in the 2000s era has been Steyn between 2006-now & (Waqar Younis 89-94 esque like stats). He certainly in recent years has been comparable to what McGrath accomplished between 2000-2006.

Plus now that i think about McGrath of 2000-2006 again. He wasn't as perfect as many would think. As i mentioned before in this thread:

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[/B].

Which would mean of the 2000-2006 period. Pigeon was only at his ultimate peak only ran over for 2 years of this 2000s era between SCG 2000-MCG 20002. Although McGrath along with Hadlee & Walsh & Ambrose are amongst the small list of great quicks who still maintained greatness @ 35+ in test history. Their is no way a reduced pace/advancded age McGrath (bowling @ Mohammad Asif of today style in pace) for 4 years of 2000-2006 period, was better than other great fast-bowlers of past era's who where @ their peak who had all McGrath's skills - but where bowling close to 90 mph:

- Marshall 83-91
- Imran 78-88
- Hadlee 78-90
- Ambrose 88-96


Batsmen certianly had it easier. Its not have matter of "having it both ways". Juding great batsmen & great bowlers have two different standards - you cannot use the same argument for both.

FOR BOWLERS:

As i said in that same post:

Cricket is a batsman's game. Bowlers are always the cats who are toiling for wickets. For fast bowlers guys like Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Imran etc are rated so highly because they were able to test & dismiss batmsen not just when they got green-tops or very bouncy decks - but even on the roads that were present in sub-continent or anywhere else in the world. They possesed a unique ability to take wickets in ALL conditions, this is why runs againts those cats are rated so highly. But not all fast bowlers in cricket history had those unique skills.

Then section of quicks who didn't have those unique skills for eg oare your traditional English style seamer like a Hoggard, Allan Moss, James Anderson, Geoff Arnold, Onions, Doull, Ken Higgs would only be super effective on greentop, but would be far less effective on a flat decks if they left England.


For spinners its even worse. A spinner use in test match unless he is playing on a sub-continental dustbowl, usally would come on the 4th & 5th days of a match when the pitch begins to deteriorate right?. But Warne, Murali & (maybe O'Reilly as well) are the only spinners in the games history who had the unique ability to be effective from day 1 when the pitch is still solid - instead of just when the pitch begins to deteriorate. This is why they are rated so highly (some people even reckon Murali is greatest bowler of all-time because of this).

Theirfore generally unless the spinner is Warne, Murali or O'Reilly, batsmen wont have to worry about a spinner being a threat to them until the 4th or 5th days of a test unless its on a dustbowl that they are playing on.

FOR BATSMEN:

For a batsman to be considered really quality he needs to score againts a quality pace attacks in testing conditions instead of just on roads. Since thats the only time when a fast-bowler/pace attack is in his/their "domain", thus dominating him/the attack in his/their "domain" (a bowler friendly deck or conditions) is worth more than dominating the fast-bowler/attack good/great/world-class on a road.

Based on this reasoning above, its fairly clear why batsmen have had it easier these days (amt of players averaging 50+ compared to the past), due to a reduction of quality bowling attacks (espcially pace) & flatter pitches. In the 2000s era we have seen a clear trend of average/decent/poor batsmen & very-good/great batsmen have been able to score runs againts quality pace-attacks on roads/flat-ptiches. But only the upper echelon
of batsmen like your Ponting, Dravid's, Kallis, Pietersen, Sangakkara for eg, have been able to step when they had to face top-pace attacks in bowler friendly conditons.


I have made these same points over & over & over & over & over on CW down the years & people on this site still defend the modern days FTBs. Its has officially gotten boring now...

 

[Top_Cat]

 

[aussie]

But that's because they are a product of their time. Players these days pick the first line and play through it. Not because they lack the ability to do otherwise, but because that's the modern game.

Had ODIs and T20s not come about, do you reckon today's players wouldn't be more circumspect? Likewise, if they grew up in conditions where the ball moved around a lot, I think they'd play well in it. I don't think batsmen born after 1975 are just a generation born with less ability. They just have adjusted to the game and the preponderance of conditions around now.

Saying the modern day bats (FTBs) are products of their time is another of the regular defenses on CW over the years, which i struggle to agree with.

For example the increase in amount of 300+ scores in a day & overall pace of scoring in tests has a bit to do with the aggressive instincts that have come from ODIs & now T20s.
But it has happened a bit too often in the last decade, very good/great bowling attacks in test history are hardly ever dominated with batsmen scoring at 3.5 to 4 rpo againts them that regularly. The contest between quality batsmen vs quality bowling is usually very balanced.

Using the example of the few quality attacks that have been present in the last decade. How many opposition teams have scored 300+ in a day vs AUS vs McGrath/Warne/Dizzy or in IND or SRI facing Kumble/Harbhajan or Vaas/Murali - or for top opposition batsmen how many of them smoked hundreds againts these few top attacks?. I dont recall many, if any we would have to check that out.

Finally to suggest..."Likewise, if they grew up in conditions where the ball moved around a lot, I think they'd play well in it".

Well in some way Matthew Hayden revival as a test batsman kind of questions this theory TBH.

He was the premier opener of the 2000s era who hit more balls than left in his typical "bully-mode/see the line & hit it mode" between Mumbai 2001 to Cairns 2004, againts many average new-ball attacks on flat decks.

But as many know when he ran into a quality ENG attack in the 2005 Ashes, he failed miserably with that "bully mode/see the line & hit it mode" type batting. He had to reinvent back himself into the more traditional style of opening againts quality new-ball bowling (leaving alot more) or else he wouldn't have saved his career with his Oval 05 hundred - nor scored the runs he did vs SA 05/06. Hayden "the bully" was never seen again after the 2005 Ashes. (Although still to some degree is my subjective analysis of Hayden, but i'm fairly confident that how his career went).

Hayden is one the few FTBs who made this adjustment in 2000s era after being technically exposed. Many of the others haven't, they get exposed by the few times they face quality attacks in conditons where the ball was moving around (as you said) - then go back & look superb againts joke attacks on roads.

 

[Burgey]

All right mate. Every test batsman born since 1975 has bucked the physiological trend of human existence and has gone backwards.

They don't adjust to difficult conditions because it's so rare that they face them. If you play on predominantly flat pitches for 4 years, and play one series in that time in harder conditions, of course you'll struggle.

But if you bat for the rest of the time like you're playing in tough conditions - that is, be more circumspect, play the ball later and dont be as aggressive, then you won't see the tough conditions in 4 years' time because you'll get dropped along the way as other batsmen who score faster and score as many runs replace you.