BhupinderSingh
Banned
No,this bowler is the best ever,not only in terms of peak but overall career also.Would you say that Waqar at his peak/prime would be the best pace bowler of all-time?
Last edited:
No,this bowler is the best ever,not only in terms of peak but overall career also.Would you say that Waqar at his peak/prime would be the best pace bowler of all-time?
Mohammad Sami?No,this bowler is the best ever,not only in terms of peak but overall career also.
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.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.
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.No,this bowler is the best ever,not only in terms of peak but overall career also.
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.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.
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?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?
Because it doesn't suit the agenda of people who want to "prove" that their particular favourite bowler was better than McGrath.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?
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.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.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?
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.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.
We know.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!
That's just guessing though; that's not really analysing what they did.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.
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.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.
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.That's just guessing though; that's not really analysing what they did.
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: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.
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.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.
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:quote said: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].
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.quote said: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.
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.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.