McGrath Vs Akram!

[Swervy]

yeah and if I had have played continuous cricket all my life...and had had first class coaching since i was 6 years old,and i didnt start smoking and drinking etc, I might have been the best bowler in the world...but real life doesnt deal with hypotheticals.The fact of the matter is McGrath has been as effective if not more effective as a bowler as Akram

 

[godofcricket]

yeah and if I had have played continuous cricket all my life...and had had first class coaching since i was 6 years old,and i didnt start smoking and drinking etc, I might have been the best bowler in the world...but real life doesnt deal with hypotheticals.The fact of the matter is McGrath has been as effective if not more effective as a bowler as Akram

I dont know from where you all making this up but i was telling the real incidents that happen in his life and had a significant affect in his cricketing career.
And i dont blame your opinion on he being more or less equal to McGraths quality as that is your opinion.

 

[Swervy]

my point is...it doesnt matter what has effected someones life during their childhood or whatever,what counts is how effective the player is on the field.

hats off to Akram for dealing with diabetes etc....but thats life i am afraid, when it comes down to the crunch McGrath has been a more effective bowler in tests and ODI's than Akram was.

the question was 'Akram or Mcgrath' from that I take it that it was asking who was better or who you would rather have on your team. I understand your opinions on this about Akram, and yes he was exciting to watch...but if my life depended on it,I would choose Mcgrath in both forms of cricket over Akram any time.

 

[godofcricket]

right so McGrath has never been able to slow the run rate down....ok....just a couple of stats here

ODI
McGrath Ave 22.38 rpo 3.89 strike 34.4
Akram Ave 23.52 rpo 3.89 strike 36.2.

Ok you tell me where it shows Mcgraths ability to slow the run down in the depth? I do beleive he has the ability to bowl a very good line in the opening spell and that is the cause of such an economy rate.

 

[Swervy]

oh come on now....i dont really need stats to tell me that McGrath is one of the better bowlers as slowing an opponents run rate down. and I'll tell you what, I have seen Akram get smashed all over the place in the last overs of a one day game on a number of occasions, in fact a lot more than I have seen McGrath get smacked about

I have shown you that both players go for the same number of runs per over in ODI and McGrath is actually stingier in tests than Akram was (and McGrath has played more in the era of high scoring rates).

A lot of people on here seem to be equating the fact that because Akram is there fave player then he must be the greatest bowler of the modern era...so much for objective, reasoned discussion

 

[godofcricket]

hats off to Akram for dealing with diabetes etc....but thats life i am afraid, when it comes down to the crunch McGrath has been a more effective bowler in tests and ODI's than Akram was.

the question was 'Akram or Mcgrath' from that I take it that it was asking who was better or who you would rather have on your team. I understand your opinions on this about Akram, and yes he was exciting to watch...but if my life depended on it,I would choose Mcgrath in both forms of cricket over Akram any time.

Again it comes back to your opinion. I wouldn't say anything on it.

 

[godofcricket]

oh come on now....i dont really need stats to tell me that McGrath is one of the better bowlers as slowing an opponents run rate down. and I'll tell you what, I have seen Akram get smashed all over the place in the last overs of a one day game on a number of occasions, in fact a lot more than I have seen McGrath get smacked about

And now you want to argue with me who is a better depth bowler? I am sure there was thread of it and i would request you to read it. I didn't even manage to see his name there.

I have shown you that both players go for the same number of runs per over in ODI and McGrath is actually stingier in tests than Akram was (and McGrath has played more in the era of high scoring rates).

Yes but i gave you one of the biggest advantages and that was he had the worlds best fielders and batsman.

 

[Swervy]

so tell me on what foundation is your opinion based on.....

when it really comes down to it, its a daft question..two completely different bowlers (left and right handed, swing and seam bowling, fast and fastish) but the figures would suggest that Mcgrath (whether he has better fielders with him or not) he has been a more effective bowler, and thats not opinion thats fact

 

[godofcricket]

so tell me on what foundation is your opinion based on.....

when it really comes down to it, its a daft question..two completely different bowlers (left and right handed, swing and seam bowling, fast and fastish) but the figures would suggest that Mcgrath (whether he has better fielders with him or not) he has been a more effective bowler, and thats not opinion thats fact

Thats the point it does matter, now if you ignore all of such facts then whats the use such a topic???Yes and you have to understand that this topic is based on opinions and not only what the stats say. If we only looked at the stats then why do you see 23 votes for Akram and 3 for Mcgrath??? You might be able to explain it this to urself.

 

[marc71178]

I do beleive he has the ability to bowl a very good line in the opening spell and that is the cause of such an economy rate.

But seeing as that is in the first 15 overs, when run scoring opportunities are far more easy to come by (with the fielding restrictions), surely that makes his Eco even more valuable than it is?

 

[marc71178]

If we only looked at the stats then why do you see 23 votes for Akram and 3 for Mcgrath???

Akram's value to the team with the bat would give him the advantage.

Purely as a bowler, I'd take McGrath, but when all round play comes into account, then it's Akram.

 

[Swervy]

i am responding to what many people seem to be saying on this thread, that Akram was by far the better bowler...when that is obviously a pile of poo, he wasnt a better bowler by the distance some people seem to be making out, although I do understand that some people may think he was, but in my opinion (and I have seen Akram from the very start of his international career through to the end, and also playing for my county Lancashire),MCgrath is or was the better bowler.

 

[godofcricket]

But seeing as that is in the first 15 overs, when run scoring opportunities are far more easy to come by (with the fielding restrictions), surely that makes his Eco even more valuable than it is?

Fielding plays an important part (inside and outside 15 overs).and yes there are quite many bowlers who have a good eco inside 15 overs which includes pollock, Mcgrath and wasim.
(Pollock and McGrath being more accurate) but dont you think to maintain ur economy rate when batsman have adapted to the conditions is more difficult thing to do because in the end all batsman have to do is play big strokes.

Openers also play attacking strokes but they also try to save there wickets untill the first 15 overs. But that isn't the case in the depth where they try to hit every delivery they play.

 

[marc71178]

Erm, doesn't McGrath tend to bowl at the death as well though, which rather negates this argument regarding effectiveness.

Whichever way people try to look at it, in terms of mere performance, McGrath is the better bowler.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yes, but in terms of skill, Wasim was the better bowler.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yes, but in terms of skill, Wasim was the better bowler.

Why?? Surely the ability to put six balls an over in the same spot a la McGrath is more skilled than most things?? True both were immensely skilled, but its a different kind of skill...

 

[ReallyCrazy]

swervy, yes mcgrath's bowling eco is the same as wasim's. But Mcgrath has not played 350 games. I am sure his bowling eco is going to go up. And as godofcricket said, mcgrath has had the support of one of the best fielding sides in the world which wasim did not have. There is not much separating the two in any of the six categories you brought up. Yes, Mcgrath does beat wasim in 5 of them but I'd still go for Wasim. There was just something about the way wasim approached his bowling and his cricket, it was something special. Wasim showed his genius by attacking and getting the batter out. Mcgrath, however, keeps bowling the same monotonous line and waits for the batter to make a mistake.

Also there is something called charisma and wasim wins that by a mile!

 

[Jono]

Tough, very tough. I choose Akram but only by the smallest of margins, really they're completely different bowlers so you'd love to have them both in your team to open the bowling.

 

[wrong hander]

ok first of all before you think "pakistani who only sees pakistan in his eye" this is not the case here with me. But based on what i truly think n what a lot of people do think Wasim Akram is the better bowler. Mcgrath may have better stats then Akram in Tests, but if u care to look at the odi stats and combined stats, you see that wasim akram comes out on top. he sustained his record over a longer period of time, and was juss as effective everywhere he played, whereas Mcgrath as we've seen in the west indies on thier last tour and in the subcontinent, isnt as effective as he normally is. No one is doubting Glenn's greatness, he was no doubt a star of his era, but jss look at it this way, Wasim had really everythin, swing both ways, seam, slower balls, deadly yorkers, he was the complete bowler. You mite say that well hes been slapped around the park on many occasions, but that is part and parcel of being suck an attacking bowler who is always going in for the kill.

Indeed mcgrath's test resume looks very good n better then wasim akram's, but how many times have we seen Akram turn a match on its head, how many times have we seen akram come in and clean up the last 4-5 wickets inside 20 runs, how many times have we seen him get a batsman out who looked in complete control. If somebody would care to look up how many hat-tricks wasim has got in comparison to glenn, im sure the former would also come out on top.

I know by now this looks like a completely biased opinion because im pakistani, but i assure you, this has nothing to do with bias, i always judge cricketers and everything about cricket as a neutral, and have many times judged against pakistanis, and doing the same this time i could not go past wasim akram, everything about the bowler, just stand them side by side, the great bowler mcgrath undoubtedly, i could never pick him in front of wasim akram

But then, it' just my opinion :saint:

 

[godofcricket]

swervy, yes mcgrath's bowling eco is the same as wasim's. But Mcgrath has not played 350 games. I am sure his bowling eco is going to go up. And as godofcricket said, mcgrath has had the support of one of the best fielding sides in the world which wasim did not have. There is not much separating the two in any of the six categories you brought up. Yes, Mcgrath does beat wasim in 5 of them but I'd still go for Wasim. There was just something about the way wasim approached his bowling and his cricket, it was something special. Wasim showed his genius by attacking and getting the batter out. Mcgrath, however, keeps bowling the same monotonous line and waits for the batter to make a mistake.

You couldn't have defined it better ReallyCrazy. Well tell you one thing more about Glenn McGrath why shouldn't his record be good or better than wasim when he has played almost half of his ODI's and test Matches in his HOME country.

He had almost so much support for his bowling. As i defined earlier he had the best fielding and the worlds best batsman.