Is mcgrath better than wasim?

[wasims_fan]

i want u to tell me that is mcgrath a better bowler than wasim akram?

 

[Neil Pickup]

And I won't, as they are completely different types of bowler.

McGrath = line and length, metronomic, bore-you-out
Akram = attaking, gets you out...

Very hard to accurately compare, like Murali v Shoaib...

 

[marc71178]

But as Wasim has just 7 Test Wickets in the past 2 years I will say he's past it.

 

[R_Powell_fan]

I agree that Wasim Akram is no more as intimidating as he used to be, one thing I'm definately sure of is the emense effort he puts in, I remember the series he had versus Sri Lanka, what was it just under two years ago, he got all fired up and his bouncer actually dent Attapattu's helmet and sent him straggering...in the same test he was furious when an lbw decision went against him and the next ball he surprised everybody as he came up with a 138 kph bouncer to get Vaas out after bowling mid to high 120s in the spell. Wasim is well and truly a great...Sampras got back with a bang...don't be surprised if Wasim Does the same...hope he rediscovers his form for what i hope to be a fitting finale to his career at the World Cup next year. 8D

 

[lord_of_darkness]

Or he could go for over 8 an over and help other teams to reach victories and Bowl 90 kmph left arm slow

He could do that too to end his career in a Bang ! ppl would remember him for that lol :P too

 

[Paid The Umpire]

McGrath is a great bowler, and so was Wasim in his prime. But he is too old to keep going. He should of retired years ago.

 

[Gotchya]

McGrath is a great bowler, and so was Wasim in his prime

Wrong choice of words, successful would be more appropriate

I dont think that a reasonable comparison can be made between the two.
Both are unsurpassed at what they do best.

Mcgrath has this relentless and precise length and consistency, as opposed to Wasim's fiery swing and movement of the pitch. Both will be remebered for their greatness in the above said skills.

[Edited on 9/13/02 by Gotchya]

 

[Anil]

McGrath is a right arm medium fast bowler while Akram started out as a left arm fast and is currently a left arm medium fast.

Akram in 104 matches has 414 wickets at 23.62, 5 wickets 25 times, 10 wickets 5 times.

McGrath in 84 matches has 389 wickets at 21.91, 5 wickets 23 times, 10 wickets 3 times.

Both impressive averages, but for Akram, the strike rate has diminished significantly over the years while McGrath is still going strong.

Akram is a more versatile bowler while McGrath is the more consistent and dependable.

Given a choice between a young Akram and a young McGrath, I think most captains would prefer Akram, but at this point in their careers, McGrath clearly comes out in front.

 

[royGilchrist]

Thanks for giving some stats finally, Anil. Pretty silly really all the discussion without even quoting the numbers. If u will be kind enough, it will be even more interesting to find out their stats after 84 tests (so Akram's numbers after his 84th test), will be a more accurate comparison I think.

I think in his prime Akram was more destructive than McGrath in his prime, he had the intimidation factor, and could produce that unplayable delivery frequently to get the best player out (e.g. Lamb bowled in WC92 SF), but if I were the captain (in tests) I think I would choose McGrath, he consistenly pitches the ball up, keeps immaculate line and length, and in tests bowls according to a plan, has done well in most conditions, Akram has bowled too short for a large part of his career. In ODi I think my choice will definetely be Akram, in his peak Akram was unbelieveably stingy, maybe just second to Garner (too lazy to look up stats now).

Although if the purpose was to compare similar bowlers, a more intriguing choice will be between McGrath and Ambrose. They had similar styles, just short of length and slightly seaming (leg cutters) off the wicket. I will probably go for Ambrose in both tests and ODI. Once again the numbers might be to quote, will pull them off statsguru sometime.

 

[marc71178]

Thanks for giving some stats finally, Anil. Pretty silly really all the discussion without even quoting the numbers. If u will be kind enough, it will be even more interesting to find out their stats after 84 tests (so Akram's numbers after his 84th test), will be a more accurate comparison I think.

McGrath in 84 matches has 389 wickets at 21.91, 5 wickets 23 times, 10 wickets 3 times.

Akram in 84 matches had 359 wickets at 22.93, 5 wickets 22 times, 10 wickets 4 times.

He was on the decline by then I fear. 55 in the 20 games since then, and none in 2 against Bangladesh!

As I said before he's only taken 7 wickets in 24 months (5 Matches) so that suggests to me that it's time to retire him before the Aussies arrive.

 

[aussie_beater]

The question is "Is McGrath better then Wasim ?" As that refers to the present day, my answer would be an emphatic Yes.

But in the overall comparison for their whole career, I would say Wasim is the better bowler.Wasim in his prime was a terror for batsman and had so much variety to his bowling, which is not there in McGrath's wares.

 

[warrioryohannan]

Evan Vaas,Akhter,Hoggard,Bond etc are better than Akram right now, coz Akram is only a shadow of the bowler he once was which is understandable coz of his age.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think the question that needs to be asked here is whether McGrath IS only a line-and-length bowler. I hear all sorts of things about how McGrath bowls a consistent line-and-length to bore you out etc. because lets face it, that's what he does do.

But CAN he bowl the unplayable deliveries? Of course he can. I've seen him do it in matches and in person. Believe me, Glenn McGrath can bowl quicker than we've seen and bowl those unplayable inswinging yorkers. I've personally seen him clocked at 148km/h.

But the issue here is that what he does in 'boring the batsman out' works as in batsmen DO get frustrated out by him (and mostly top-order batsmen too) so why should he try bowling a big in-swinging yorker at 145km/h which might go wrong and get hit for four when a line-and length ball at 130km/h gets the batsman out? The object isn't HOW you get a batsman out (although I readily concede that clean-bowling a batsman beaten by pace is an awesome feeling ) but HOW MANY of them you get out. Glenn McGrath just simply hasn't been forced yet (except in exceptional circumstances) to bring out the knock-out deliveries because he hasn't needed to.

If his style wasn't working for him, he'd try something else because as I said, I've seen him do it. Aussie_beater, how would you know whether Glenn McGrath doesn't have the same tools as Akram? Have you seen him bowl in the nets when he can relax and actually bowl what he wants to? Have you considered the idea that maybe Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor insisted he bowl a certain way so that even if all the other bowlers fail, at least SOMEONE is bowling straight?

Think about it; what was the one constant during the periods when Gillespie was injured, Australia was looking for a decent third seamer or when Warnie had one injury/personal crisis after another? What was the one constant whenever ANY team managed to get the better of Australia's batting line-up?

That's right, Glenn McGrath was bowling well. If anything is to be taken as a constant during the 90's, it's that no matter what, you could always count on Glenn because if things looked bleak, he'd hold back a little or sometimes a lot and just do the boring stuff which no-one else wants to do. I know most firey fast-bowlers love to destroy batsmen's stumps with that unplayable in-cutter or whatever but Glenn McGrath is smart enough to realise that it's not always in the team's best interests to search for deliveries like that.

Now I'm not trying to compare the two because they are such different bowlers but to say that Glenn McGrath is only able to bowl on a line and nothing else is nothing short of ludicrous. Remember, what he CAN do is is far separate from what he DOES do. And anyway, if you could pick up 5 wickets in an innings holding back a little compared to busting your gut and and going for more runs, what would you do?

One final point; take a poll of batsmen who've faced them and ask them who the toughest bowlers they've faced are and most today would say Glenn McGrath. And most a few years ago would say Curtly Ambrose too. Why? Because they were quite prepared to kick-back and do the boring stuff if it meant getting a wicket. This is why they are respected totally by batsmen yet not by spectators and commentators. It was Curtly's consistency and immaculate line-and-length which got him wickets too yet how many comentators/spectators rate him as the best bowler they've seen? Very few. How many batsmen? Almost all of them. I've seen countless interviews with players from all countries and Curtly's name comes up a lot, as does Glenn McGrath these days. They may be boring bowlers but as I said, don't mistake what they do for what they can do.

Remember; not HOW but HOW MANY.

[Edited on 9/14/02 by Top_Cat]

 

[aussie_beater]

Aussie_beater, how would you know whether Glenn McGrath doesn't have the same tools as Akram? Have you seen him bowl in the nets when he can relax and actually bowl what he wants to? Have you considered the idea that maybe Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor insisted he bowl a certain way so that even if all the other bowlers fail, at least SOMEONE is bowling straight?

T_C: Well you may have seen McGrath in the nets, which I haven't for sure, but what I and so many other cricket fans have seen is McGrath bowl in international matches(tests and ODIs) over the years.And that's what counts.I don't really care if he has shown his mettle in the nets.My judgement as well as everybody else's including history's will be based on what he has chosen to show in matches that count and not on some net practice that some of his buddies were lucky enough to see.My point is that the world cannot judge him based on what he does at home in front of a select few.What he does in the stage is all important and the other things do not matter at all.

Yes, he is a great bowler, one of the all time greatest.There's no way he can be denied that.And you are wrong to assume that he doesn't command respect from spectators.He sure does.No discerning cricket fan can deny him that.The same goes for Curtly Ambrose, and IMO a little more then McGrath although they are strikingly similar in their styles and exceptionally successful at what they do.

And there is no way you can deny the fact as well, that Akram had the edge when it came to variety over these two.Yes, he was not as consistent but displayed the wares to devastate the opposition with unplayable stuff.And the fact that McGrath did not display that kind of variety, puts him at a level in my estimation below Akram in the list of the all time greatest quicks.But you are right about them being very different type of bowlers, and I would say that any attempt at comparison between the two is at best an opinion like so many other attempts at listing the greatest and the best in all departments of cricket across ages.

 

[Gotchya]

Well said A_B, i agree with that view point.
T_C, your arguement seems to suggest that the 'line and length' stuff is a compromise deal which Mcgrath has had to adopt, i most certainly dont think so. With so many outstanding performers around him, why would he need to do that ?

One final point; take a poll of batsmen who've faced them and ask them who the toughest bowlers they've faced are and most today would say Glenn McGrath

Thats a biased question isn't it ?

You could have said which of them was more dangerous/likely to get you out, and i guess most would have said Wasim, because you never know whats coming at you next.

 

[full_length]

Well, I think T_C convinced me some.

BTW, I've seen McGrath do other-than-line-length stuff in international matches too. Rarely, but yes he can be aggressive, bounce the batsmen consistently etc.

I still don't think he has the armoury that Wasim has. Moreover, I think Wasim probably knows the game better than most. He can plan a batsman out in the course of an over. McGrath's idea of a plan is (usually) more like "bowl in that spot a few times, wait for the batsman to screw up," or bounce him with a square leg in place, or something on those lines. Wasim sets up batsmen beautifully. He can search and find weaknesses in a batsman like no other. Most importantly, once he finds a weakness, he has the armoury to bowl the perfect delivery to get rid of the batsman. Name it, and he can bowl it better than anyone else! One terrific example would be VVS Laxman. Laxman was in very good form in his earlier stint with the team as well... but Wasim found him out. Soon all Pak bowlers were getting him to play around the ball, and exploited a small chink in his technique- the bat-pad gap to the ball pitched up around middle-off.

Still, like T_C says, Wasim plays a different role to McGrath. Since the latter does do his particular role to perfection, and that fits in with Australia's plans, it is very difficult to say that he couldn't possibly do anything else!

I must admit that I'm still very biased towards Wasim due to his amazing repertoire, and utter dominance over most good batsmen. McGrath also probably has that dominance in thesense that the batsman cannot tonk him easily consistently..

very difficult choice indeed!!

 

[Gotchya]

I must admit that I'm still very biased towards Wasim due to his amazing repertoire, and utter dominance over most good batsmen. McGrath also probably has that dominance in thesense that the batsman cannot tonk him easily consistently..

very difficult choice indeed!!

In the end i think that the it solely depends upon who the question is asked to (as if it wasn't anyway), A conservative captain would probably opt for Mcgrath
(and in all sincerity i think he would be getting a better deal than he thinks) a more adventurous captain on the other hand will most certainly go for Wasim(mind you his econ. rate is not that bad).

It would be very interesting to know how both bowlers are held in the English cricketing circles.

 

[marc71178]

This could be a difficult thing to gauge as well, because Wasim spent many years over here with Lancashire, so people are more likely to know about him than McGrath.

 

[Top_Cat]

T_C: Well you may have seen McGrath in the nets, which I haven't for sure, but what I and so many other cricket fans have seen is McGrath bowl in international matches(tests and ODIs) over the years.And that's what counts.I don't really care if he has shown his mettle in the nets.My judgement as well as everybody else's including history's will be based on what he has chosen to show in matches that count and not on some net practice that some of his buddies were lucky enough to see.My point is that the world cannot judge him based on what he does at home in front of a select few.What he does in the stage is all important and the other things do not matter at all.

Absolutely. No argument there. Performance on the international stage is what counts.

And there is no way you can deny the fact as well, that Akram had the edge when it came to variety over these two.Yes, he was not as consistent but displayed the wares to devastate the opposition with unplayable stuff.And the fact that McGrath did not display that kind of variety, puts him at a level in my estimation below Akram in the list of the all time greatest quicks

Why? Why is variety a permium in cricket circles? It's the whole variety argument which people still use against Shane Warne with regards to Mushtaq Ahmed. So what if Warnie doesn't have a decent wrong 'un? It hasn't stopped him from getting wickets.

Same with Glenn McGrath. There's no doubt that he doesn't have the same variety in deliveries as Wasim Akram. But as you said, it's performance that counts and pure talent counts for little if you don't perform. Mark Waugh should be averaging 10 runs more than Steve Waugh yet that's not the case.

But you are right about them being very different type of bowlers, and I would say that any attempt at comparison between the two is at best an opinion like so many other attempts at listing the greatest and the best in all departments of cricket across ages.

Yep exactly. I'm not trying to say that Glenn is better than Wasim because what makes a 'better' bowler? I'm just saying that guys like Curtly and McGrath can actually do all the stuff that many people say they can't. Those guys never get the respect from fans they deserve but then I guess if the batsmen you play against respect your abilities, Why would you need to convince anyone else?

I must admit that I'm still very biased towards Wasim due to his amazing repertoire

And that says it all.

Seriously, what you described (finding a small weakness in a batsman's armour) is what McGrath has been doing (and in fact any decent bowler must) for years. That of Laxman's was a small weakness but so was Brian Lara's weakness outside off-stump. When Lara was in premium form in the early 90's, no-one could bowl at him with having their averages dented. hen Glenn McGrath came along and exploited his weakness outside off-stump, something even Wasim couldn't do at the time.

And then Wasim has proven to still have the wood on Steve Waugh and Glenn McGrath knows just how to get out Sanath Jayasuriya etc. etc. it goes on. The ability to exploit a batsman's weakness consistently is the hallmark of any great bowler or they wouldn't survive.

As I said, I'm not trying to compare them. Just to point out that what they do is different and they both do it better than anyone else.

This could be a difficult thing to gauge as well, because Wasim spent many years over here with Lancashire, so people are more likely to know about him than McGrath.

Good point but the few Aussies I've talked to who played over there have said that in the one season Glenn McGrath played over there, he was held in pretty high regard. Apparently no-one played him with any real authority when he wasn't just destroying batting line-ups.

As for Wasim, well he's a seasoned performer there. The respect is immense I would imagine.

 

[royGilchrist]

This could be a difficult thing to gauge as well, because Wasim spent many years over here with Lancashire, so people are more likely to know about him than McGrath.

There are people living outside engalnd as well.

AB has good points, and TC I dont think the line and length stuff is all that boring. Windies quicks have made it their staple over the years, none of them had huge swings, Roberts, Holding, Corft, Walsh, Amborse, Garner etc but they were all incredibly effective and got batsmen out by just pitching short of length and with a hint of seam, and thats what counts. Marshall was the only one who could do more with the ball.