Who is better Imran Khan or Glenn Mcgrath?

[Migara]

Imran bowled successfully on some of the flattest pitches anywhere. Reverse swing was just one of Imran's weapons, he was equally potent with the new ball and was as complete a bowler as Marshall was, if only less effective by a hair.

It's true that Imran bowled in flat pitches, but they were flat for the fast men (mainly in Pakistan). But for the spinners they were excellent wickets. Qadir, Alam, Tauseef kept batsman under check even on those tracks. When you compare them with Australian featherbeds that McGrath bowled, (especially non-spinning ones prepared for India and SL, where Warne is shadow of a bowler what he is, and he's getting very much less help what he used to get) McGrath has excelled so much. That's why I rate him above Imran as a bowler

Waqar in his late career was a shadow of himself as a bowler, his pace and swerve was gone and it's no surprive de Silva took him apart. And if everyone knows how to play reverse swing, why did the world's best batting lineup have so much trouble with it in the Ashes 2005? Dale Steyn uses it effectively and he's a raging success.

Even when Waqar was going well in 1994, de Silva just treated him with disdain. And at age of 36, he took apart Brett Lee's blistering reverse swing in WC 2003 too. Waqar at his best wouldn't have been treated much differently by Silva at his peak. (Not only Waqar, he took apart Wasim as well, and still Wasim regards de Silva is the best he bowled to).

Coming back to the topic, Aussies were never good at playing reverse swing. When Akthar got it going at P. Sara. in Colombo, they folded like a pack of cards against him. And they are not good playing conventional swing as well, the best instance I can remeber is, Aussies getting shot out for 200 in 1999 and 120 in 2003 at Asgiriya, against mediocre SL fast bowlers (with due respect to Vaas), in swinging conditions. And ones that swing the bowl has always troubled them. On that note, Imran may do better than McGrath against current Aussies, due to the differences of tactics each bowler uses.

 

[JBH001]

Wow, and here I was thinking they were the same thing. Cutters being a ball that hits the seam and either cuts in to the batsman or away from him. Seamers being a ball that hits the seam and either cuts in to the batsman or away from him.

You being sarcastic dude? Cutters and seamers are different things. The balls seams of the pitch based on the direction of the seam and if it hits right and gets purchase off the wicket. Cut has to be imparted on to a ball by the semi-rotation of a bowlers fingers on the ball at the point of delivery. Toward a batsman (rhb vs rbh) being an off-cutter and away from a batsman being a leg cutter. The latter incidentally is perhaps the hardest delivery for a fast bowler to bowl, and if done right, is tremendously difficult for a batsman to face. S F Barnes is supposed to have come up with it, ball coming in with the arm, pitching leg, and cutting away to take the top of off. Bedser had a very effective leg cutter to go with his stock inswinger, and it was only after Walsh developed an effective leg cutter in the middle and latter 90's that he became the top tier bowler he was in that period (Srinath is another who became far more effective after the development of an adequate leg cutter).

 

[JBH001]

Even when Waqar was going well in 1994, de Silva just treated him with disdain. And at age of 36, he took apart Brett Lee's blistering reverse swing in WC 2003 too. Waqar at his best wouldn't have been treated much differently by Silva at his peak. (Not only Waqar, he took apart Wasim as well, and still Wasim regards de Silva is the best he bowled to).

What game was this? When Pak toured SL in 94? Also, Wasim rated Ara the second best bat he bowled to, the first was M Crowe.

 

[Migara]

What game was this? When Pak toured SL in 94? Also, Wasim rated Ara the second best bat he bowled to, the first was M Crowe.

This game my dear

De SIlva hammered 127(156) on swinging conditions. Nearly scored a century in the morning session. Waqar's 16-84-1 was mainly due to de Silva's deeds.

 

[Son Of Coco]

You being sarcastic dude? Cutters and seamers are different things. The balls seams off the pitch based on the direction of the seam and if it hits right and gets purchase off the wicket. Cut has to be imparted on to a ball by the semi-rotation of a bowlers fingers on the ball at the point of delivery. Toward a batsman (rhb vs rbh) being an off-cutter and away from a batsman being a leg cutter. The latter incidentally is perhaps the hardest delivery for a fast bowler to bowl, and if done right, is tremendously difficult for a batsman to face. S F Barnes is supposed to have come up with it, ball coming in with the arm, pitching leg, and cutting away to take the top of off. Bedser had a very effective leg cutter to go with his stock inswinger, and it was only after Walsh developed an effective leg cutter in the middle and latter 90's that he became the top tier bowler he was in that period (Srinath is another who became far more effective after the development of an adequate leg cutter).

No...as far as I'm aware a seam bowler will generally roll his fingers across the ball when trying to move it in a direction that is the opposite of his stock delivery off the wicket. I've never ever had to roll my fingers across the ball to get it to cut in, as that's my natural seam position. To get it to cut away on the other hand...is much more difficult and the most effective way to do this is indeed to roll my fingers down one side of the ball. In rotation the ball will seam away if it hits the seam, and if it doesn't it skids through. Even at my level though, you don't get any bowlers who bowl 'cutters' as their stock ball. One guy played a game of firsts and rolled his hand across it constantly when he delivered the ball and only lasted two overs as the rest of us were sick of watching the ball become more and more scuffed.

My response was to Richard's suggestion that McGrath had been using mainly cutters for an extended period of time. As far as I'm concerned, if you're not getting a lot of seam movement trying to bowl cutters won't help a great deal either, especially at 130+. To get a lot of movement you still have to land it on the seam, and it won't move a lot if the wicket's flat.

The leg-cutter is a great delivery though!

 

[subshakerz]

It's true that Imran bowled in flat pitches, but they were flat for the fast men (mainly in Pakistan). But for the spinners they were excellent wickets. Qadir, Alam, Tauseef kept batsman under check even on those tracks. When you compare them with Australian featherbeds that McGrath bowled, (especially non-spinning ones prepared for India and SL, where Warne is shadow of a bowler what he is, and he's getting very much less help what he used to get) McGrath has excelled so much. That's why I rate him above Imran as a bowler

Last I checked Imran was a fast bowler, not a spinner. And Australian wickets, featherbeds or not, still generate much more bounce than anything in the subcontinent. And they were hardly featherbeds for the first half of McGrath's career. Which ever way you cut it, Imran faced tougher conditions in Pakistan than McGrath did at home.

Even when Waqar was going well in 1994, de Silva just treated him with disdain. And at age of 36, he took apart Brett Lee's blistering reverse swing in WC 2003 too. Waqar at his best wouldn't have been treated much differently by Silva at his peak. (Not only Waqar, he took apart Wasim as well, and still Wasim regards de Silva is the best he bowled to).

de Silva also regards the reverse swinging Wasim as the best bowler he faced, so go figure.

Coming back to the topic, Aussies were never good at playing reverse swing. When Akthar got it going at P. Sara. in Colombo, they folded like a pack of cards against him. And they are not good playing conventional swing as well, the best instance I can remeber is, Aussies getting shot out for 200 in 1999 and 120 in 2003 at Asgiriya, against mediocre SL fast bowlers (with due respect to Vaas), in swinging conditions. And ones that swing the bowl has always troubled them. On that note, Imran may do better than McGrath against current Aussies, due to the differences of tactics each bowler uses.

If the supposed best batting lineup in the world can't play reverse swing, then I don't see how you can say it's less effective than it was before. The fact is there are fewer express bowlers who bowl it with a similar degree of skill as the Pakistanis did and at that pace. The few that have, such as Dale Steyn, are hugely successful.

 

[Debris]

Which ever way you cut it, Imran faced tougher conditions in Pakistan than McGrath did at home.
QUOTE]

This is what I don't agree with.

If conditions in Australia were so great, why was Mcgrath's record better away.

Just because a pitch is bouncing does not make it easier for a quick bowler. A lot of batsmen prefer the ball coming through at waist height to knee-height. And reverse swing is pretty much non-existent under Australian conditions.

 

[SJS]

JBH is right. Seamers and cutters are different deliveries easy to distinguish in bowling methodology by the terminology itself.

Though this is not the first time that I have come across someone mixing one with the other.

 

[Migara]

If the supposed best batting lineup in the world can't play reverse swing, then I don't see how you can say it's less effective than it was before. The fact is there are fewer express bowlers who bowl it with a similar degree of skill as the Pakistanis did and at that pace. The few that have, such as Dale Steyn, are hugely successful.

Now you are suggesting that best batting lineup in the world should be the best against fast bowling, swing bowling, seam bowling, spin and reverse swin g? You are nuts I have to say. It is relative strength of each departments that gives the final result.

Ex. Great West indian batting line up was fragile against spin, that did not make them better than Indians, who were very strong by then against spin.

South African batters in late 1990s were ruthless on anything that had considerable pace on it, but they sucked against spin. But at that time they were the second best line up.

Indian batting lineup is excellent on any surface than when it has lateral movement. But that does not make them worse than the seconmd best batting line up in today's cricket.

The strengths and weaknesses are relatived to each other

 

[subshakerz]

This is what I don't agree with.

If conditions in Australia were so great, why was Mcgrath's record better away.

That's some really flawed logic there. Imran's record is better at home, therefore Pakistan was better for fast-bowling or he got help from umpires. McGrath's record is not as great at home, therefore Australia is not good for fast-bowling.

Just because a pitch is bouncing does not make it easier for a quick bowler. A lot of batsmen prefer the ball coming through at waist height to knee-height. And reverse swing is pretty much non-existent under Australian conditions.

You think 99 out of 100 pace bowlers would prefer more bounce or less bounce? And McGrath barely uses any reverse swing anyways.

This is a no-contest. Pakistan wickets are mostly devoid of grass, have little to no bounce and are the slowest in the world. Wickets in Australia do generate good bounce and much more pace. Even if wickets in the second half of McGrath's career were flatter and had less grass, they don't hold a candle to wickets in Pakistan. Just look at the percentage of draws in both countries and that will give you an idea.

 

[subshakerz]

Now you are suggesting that best batting lineup in the world should be the best against fast bowling, swing bowling, seam bowling, spin and reverse swin g? You are nuts I have to say. It is relative strength of each departments that gives the final result.

Ex. Great West indian batting line up was fragile against spin, that did not make them better than Indians, who were very strong by then against spin.

South African batters in late 1990s were ruthless on anything that had considerable pace on it, but they sucked against spin. But at that time they were the second best line up.

Indian batting lineup is excellent on any surface than when it has lateral movement. But that does not make them worse than the seconmd best batting line up in today's cricket.

The strengths and weaknesses are relatived to each other

Your whole point is that reverse swing has somehow been nullified, while I am saying that even a good batting lineup like Australia's fell prey to it recently. I am not suggesting that they are the best at playing it.

When reverse swing is employed effectively by a true fast bowler nowadays, he will succeed, as Dale Steyn as shown. The sad fact is that there are fewer fast bowlers nowadays in the first place, and nobody approaches the skill at the art as Imran, Waqar and Wasim did. That doesn't mean reverse swing is no longer effective, there are just few effective practitioners of it. Imran would be as successful now with reverse swing as before.

 

[Migara]

Your whole point is that reverse swing has somehow been nullified, while I am saying that even a good batting lineup like Australia's fell prey to it recently. I am not suggesting that they are the best at playing it.

I said it is not the surprise package it used to be. Now everyone knows about it. Mastering it is another matter. It's easier to master a known entity than an unknown one. Even a player of Bradman's class would have been surprised if he played rteverse swing first up, but would have deviced out a method if he knew what was coming.

When reverse swing is employed effectively by a true fast bowler nowadays, he will succeed, as Dale Steyn as shown. The sad fact is that there are fewer fast bowlers nowadays in the first place, and nobody approaches the skill at the art as Imran, Waqar and Wasim did. That doesn't mean reverse swing is no longer effective, there are just few effective practitioners of it. Imran would be as successful now with reverse swing as before.

That may be a cause. Or otherwise Waqar, Wasim and Imran may have aided roughing of the ball using various foreign objects. We cannot exclude that possibility as well.

 

[Engle]

So, as an exercise, I checked Imran's and M.Marshall's performance in all matches they bowled against each other.
.
Amazingly, in 4 series of 10 matches they contested, Imran garnered the same number of wickets (44 @ 17.82) as Macko (44 wkts @ 21.02), albeit at a lesser average.

Continuing this exercise (since my curiousity is piqued), Imran comes out ahead of the other greats of his day in matches they bowled together.

Against Lillee, in 3 series of 8 matches (6 in Aus):
Imran got 40 wkts @ 24.37, Lillee got 39 wkts @ 27.79

Against Hadlee, in 3 series of 7 matches(4 in NZ)
Imran got 31 wkts @ 28.19, Hadlee got 25 wkts @ 35.4

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Engle,the comparisons you have done with Marshall & Lillee are one of the several reasons I rate Imran as the best bowler ever.

And anyone who says Imran wouldn't be successful needs to know more abot cricket.Its not just Aussies,I have seen even likes of Lara,Tendulkar,Thorpe,Atapattu,Jayawardene,Kallis,Fleming etc felling prey to reverse swinging deliveries of Wasim/Waqar/Shoaib.Reverse swing is as useful art today as it was yesterera but we have only one or two bowlers in the world who can use it properly.

 

[subshakerz]

I said it is not the surprise package it used to be. Now everyone knows about it. Mastering it is another matter. It's easier to master a known entity than an unknown one. Even a player of Bradman's class would have been surprised if he played rteverse swing first up, but would have deviced out a method if he knew what was coming..

Reverse swing has been known since the 1990s, but Australia's batting lineup (among others) were completely at sea against it in 2005. All modern batsmen are vulnerable against the reverse-swinging ball delivered at high pace. But there are precious few to deliver such lethal balls.

Reverse swing is not like a mystery ball that looses its effectiveness once you decipher it.

That may be a cause. Or otherwise Waqar, Wasim and Imran may have aided roughing of the ball using various foreign objects. We cannot exclude that possibility as well.

Almost every bowler from Imran's time tampered with the ball. As Richard said, that doesn't affect the skill of the bowler, you still need the skill to deliver the ball in that condition.

 

[Richard]

All modern batsmen are vulnerable against the reverse-swinging ball delivered at high pace.

Really, I think it's accurate simply to say that all batsmen (of any time) are vulnerable against the swinging ball delivered at high pace, regardless of whether it's conventional or reverse swing.

The difference between the two is somewhat overstated, at least as far as the batsmen countering it is concerned. The batsman has to do the same thing regardless of whether the swing is conventional or reverse.

The real difference between conventional and reverse swing is what the bowler has to do to get it. What it does is essentially the same.

Of course, the biggest difference is that more conventional-swing than not tends to be out (away from the right-hander). Whereas more reverse-swing than not tends to be in (to the right-hander). But an inswinger is the same to the batsman whether it's a conventional-inswinger or a reverse-inswinger.

 

[Richard]

Mints!!!!

XXX mints!!!!!

You Poms love 'em don't ya???? be honest now, c'mon.....

I love suncream, I love anything really that will help me shine the ball as well as I can.

As long as it's shining rather than de-shining, I honestly don't really mind whatever the fielders use. If someone can sneak vaseline onto the field to shine the ball, I'll shake his hand and say well played. Don't do it myself, as I find suncream-enhanced sweat a) works perfectly well and b) is generally less likely to be called-out. But I'd have no objection to doing it.

IMO, anything which helps swing is good.

 

[subshakerz]

Really, I think it's accurate simply to say that all batsmen (of any time) are vulnerable against the swinging ball delivered at high pace, regardless of whether it's conventional or reverse swing.

The difference between the two is somewhat overstated, at least as far as the batsmen countering it is concerned. The batsman has to do the same thing regardless of whether the swing is conventional or reverse.
QUOTE]

True, but reverse swing delivered at high pace in general tends to swing in late and swing in more than a conventional swinging delivery. Of course, this depends upon the state of the pitch and ball as well...

 

[Slifer]

Continuing this exercise (since my curiousity is piqued), Imran comes out ahead of the other greats of his day in matches they bowled together.

Against Lillee, in 3 series of 8 matches (6 in Aus):
Imran got 40 wkts @ 24.37, Lillee got 39 wkts @ 27.79

Against Hadlee, in 3 series of 7 matches(4 in NZ)
Imran got 31 wkts @ 28.19, Hadlee got 25 wkts @ 35.4

Imran taking the same number of wkts per tests played together as Marshall proves nothing. Clearly Marshall had much more competiton for wkts than did Imran. Overall Marshall > Imran (as a bowler ) but not by much.

 

[Richard]

True, but reverse swing delivered at high pace in general tends to swing in late and swing in more than a conventional swinging delivery. Of course, this depends upon the state of the pitch and ball as well...

Hmm, while reverse-swing's most famous exponents (Waqar, Gough, etc.) have indeed shown-off devastatingly late inswing on their Yorkers, I could find people who swung the ball in conventionally every bit as deadlily.

I honestly think it's more a case of the fact that reverse-swing is a rarer art and generally tends to be brilliant \ very good or not at all, whereas you get all sorts of mundane bowlers that bowl inswing with the new-ball and make it look fairly innocuous.

But I've seen some bowlers swing the new-ball in every bit as dangerously as the old one. It's just you generally have to watch far more bowlers who bowl conventional inswing to find them.