McGrath Vs Akram!

[Swervy]

but Akram played a lot of his cricket in a time when a score of 240 was considered a definate game winner..run rates were lower in the late 80's than they were in the late 90's and this century...so Akrams figures do have the benefit of that.

And anyway..what is wrong with having your first spell figures of 7 overs for 14 or 15 runs...the first 15overs is a time for batsman to push on with the score.

 

[godofcricket]

And anyway..what is wrong with having your first spell figures of 7 overs for 14 or 15 runs...the first 15overs is a time for batsman to push on with the score.

I know but i also said the batsman try to save there wickets, which isn't the case in the death.

 

[Swervy]

which is in fact more of a testiment to McGrath's wicket taking ability, to have a better average whilst mainly bowling when batters are defending their wickets.
When it comes down to it, McGrath is more suited to the test arena anyway

 

[marc71178]

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.

Wasim benefitted from playing a lot earlier though when overall run rates were a lot lower than they are nowadays...

 

[marc71178]

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.

Not quite sure where you get that from - McGrath has a lower S/R and lower average than Wasim in ODIs.

 

[godofcricket]

which is in fact more of a testiment to McGrath's wicket taking ability, to have a better average whilst mainly bowling when batters are defending their wickets.When it comes down to it, McGrath is more suited to the test arena anyway

Did you read the previous posts where it tells how these bowlers tend to play against a batsman? It will answer your post.

 

[Swervy]

oh so coz its on another post, it must be the truth.

This discussion is going round in circles. the statistics have been presented to you, but you find ways of getting round them.

i am not only using stats, I am using the fact that I have followed cricket for the last 25 years, I have seen all of the great bowlers in that time. In my opinion McGrath is right up there, and if I was a captain, I would much prefer to have McGrath bowling for me, than Akram.(Obviously, Akrams batting is a definate plus point).

I am not basing this on 'charisma', or whatever, I am basing this on results.McGrath has a superior record in both forms of cricket,has been a major factor in Australia being by far the best team in the world...and I would also like to say McGrath has never been involved in a ball tampering scandal..but I wont say it

Just think of it from a captains point of view..do you want reliability (and great results) from a bowler...or do you want an exciting charismatic bowler.

 

[godofcricket]

oh so coz its on another post, it must be the truth.

Well i meant in previous replies. And i agree to it thats why i wanted you to have a look at it other than i posting everything again.

This discussion is going round in circles. the statistics have been presented to you, but you find ways of getting round them.

Yes i can see you have presented the stats and we have also looked at it but i dont go with the stats altoghter. There are variuos factors why McGrath has got such figures. (facts presented before)

Just think of it from a captains point of view..do you want reliability (and great results) from a bowler...or do you want an exciting charismatic bowler.

Well it might be interesting for you if i start naming the top players
(which include captains, batsman and bowlers) who always thought Akram was the best. (again i named some of them in my first post)

 

[Swervy]

Yes i can see you have presented the stats and we have also looked at it but i dont go with the stats altoghter. There are variuos factors why McGrath has got such figures. (facts presented before)



[/B][/QUOTE]

where are these facts???????

Just one interesting fact...maidens bowled in ODI's (I dont know why Tests arent really being mentioned here) is usually a key measure of a teams success, due to the pressure that is put on the batting team who are not keeping the score ticking over.(this may well then turn into wickets for other bowlers)

Akram bowled 3031 overs in ODI's, and bowled 238 maidens
McGrath has bowled 1630.4 overs in ODI's, of which 218 are maidens.

Now Akram did used to open the bowling, so had a much opportunity to bowl in those first 15 overs as Mcgrath, and yet the proportion of maiden overs is HEAVILY in favour of McGrath.

It that sort of pressure that has made Australia into what they are...the best

 

[Richard]

I haven't even read this thread, but IMO it's simple:
McGrath: seamer; Akram: seamer, swinger, cutter.
McGrath a bit more accurate than Akram, a few less no-balls.
On a green wicket McGrath might be slightly better.
On a wicket with no seam-movement, I'd take Akram every single time.

 

[Arrow]

I dont like the use of statistics as the be all end all of discussion as they do tend to lie a lot.
Mcgrath has slightly better numbers but its really negligable and he hasnt had the longevity of akram so his numbers WILL go up.
Plus you have to take into consideration the opposition they played against,which is why making such direct pure number comparisons quite erroneous.

 

[Swervy]

of course you are right about statistics, but they can be useful in highlighting certain points, for example the gap between Akram and McGrath is slight (not the huge gap that some)people have suggested.

Some people seem to think that because Akram could move the ball around more, then he is without the better bowler. Well give me a more sucessful bowler who doesnt move the ball and is 5mph slower,because results at the end of the day are what count.

Yes,it is down to peoples opinions,but some peoples thoughts do seem to be blinkered slightly by the fact that McGrath is what has been called 'bland' bowling.

 

[Richard]

IMO you shouldn't judge that a bowler has to have bowled well because he's got wickets against his name.
Personally I like to judge a bowler on what he has earned. All right, I can't do that for the whole careers of either bowler, because I've only seen about 1\4 at the most, but I can judge on what I've seen - and from what I have seen, Akram has the ability to earn wickets in far more conditions than McGrath.

 

[Swervy]

do you have any idea about this sport?

 

[Richard]

Yes, far more, it seems, than those who would simply credit a bowler because he has got good figures against his name, rather than actually looking at whether the figures were earned by bowling well.

 

[Swervy]

I think it is you on another thread that has basically dismissed the notion that pressure generated by consistantly on the spot bowling can be the cause of wickets to fall. indeed , it can be the loose ball that gets the wicket after a spell of tight bowling.

Not only does a bowler like McGrath (and maybe someone like Gus Fraser) take wickets, but he opens it up for others to take wickets, due to the pressure of constantly putting the ball where the batsman is in no position to play a shot,but is running the risk getting out if he doesnt play a shot.

And to be honest, I have never heard anyone say that McGrath didnt deserve many of the wickets he has got.

 

[Sanz]

The greatest bowler of the modern era...do me a favour.
Lillee, Marshall,Ambrose,Hadlee to name just four that ican think of that were better bowlers than Akram.

That is your opinion. In my opinion Akram is the Greatest bowler on the modern era. He was certainly better than Mcgrath. If you believe Mcgrath is better than I am sorry not too many people agree with you. Try a poll anywhere in the world and you will see Akram winning the Poll. :P

Akram was great at knocking over the tail and yes he was a great bowler,but give me McGrath to get rid of the openers any day of the week.

Are you telling that Mcgrath was not good enough to knockout the tail ? So much for his bowling talent.:rolleyes:

 

[Swervy]

hehehe...talk about twisting my words...did i say McGrath was no good at getting rid of the tail?

Yes it is my opinion, however what i am trying to figure out, discuss etc, is whether it is just an 'illusion' (for want of a better word) that Akram was a much better bowler than McGrath, because he moved the ball around more, when in fact McGrath has been the more successful bowler in both forms of cricket (no matter how small statisically the gap is).

In my opinion, I would rather give the ball to McGrath againt top order batsmen than Akram...however,I do agree that Akram was brilliant at finishing off a tail.

I am not saying that Akram wasnt a great bowler, however I do not think that the gap between the two is all that great, well certainly not enough to be saying that Akram is without a doubt miles better

 

[Swervy]

That is your opinion. In my opinion Akram is the Greatest bowler on the modern era. He was certainly better than Mcgrath. If you believe Mcgrath is better than I am sorry not too many people agree with you. Try a poll anywhere in the world and you will see Akram winning the Poll. :P



Are you telling that Mcgrath was not good enough to knockout the tail ? So much for his bowling talent.:rolleyes:

can i ask..what is your opinion on what the 'modern era' actually is. I cant help but think that the likes of Marshall,Hadlee,Lillee all fall into that 'era' and in my opinion, Akram doesnt come close to them

 

[Sanz]

hehehe...talk about twisting my words...did i say McGrath was no good at getting rid of the tail?

But You did say Akram was better than Mcgrath when it came to getting the tail. Didn't you ??

In my opinion, I would rather give the ball to McGrath againt top order batsmen than Akram...however,I do agree that Akram was brilliant at finishing off a tail.

Who would you give the ball to when bowling to the tail ? I mean if a Bowler is good enough to finish the Top, Shouldn't he be good enough to finish the tail as well ?