WASIM AKRAM v GLENN MCGRATH
I hate comparing these two guys. Akram was definitely the more exciting player. He could swing the ball both ways. It's said he was a bit like Keith Miller in that he only needed a few steps to generate 140km. Wasim had the whippy actions. The thing about Wasim is that if he didn't strike early, then he'd be taken off, because he didn't bowl long spells. Viv Richards once said Wasim was the best he ever faced. Stephen Fleming did too, but his opinion doesn't count. McGrath was the opposite. He'd wear you down with longer spells. He was more about accuracy and working off a length, then pitching it up and swinging it. They're impossible to compare to me.
GEORGE HEADLEY v WALLY HAMMOND
The obvious reason it's impossible to compare these guys is because nobody at CW would have seen them play. Richie Benaud once said that if Bradman never played, he doesn't know who would be the best number three of all time. Hammond scored 905 in one Ashes Series, which is second only to Bradman's 1930 Series (Bradman made 60 more runs or so, but with two fewer innings). Bill O'Reilly ranked Headley as the best non-Australia player he bowled to, I think, and found it impossible to bowl him out during one tour.
SHANE WARNE v MURALI
This is very difficult. I always go with Warne, but I never care when people say Murali. This has been done to death. Warne bowled with McGrath which gives him an advantage because of the pressure McGrath provided. But Murali had less competition for wickets. Which way do we go? Murali played easier competition like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe more, but Warne didn't perform well in one Test against Bangladesh, and Warne didn't perform well against India. Murali bowled in dust-bowls, and outside of Sri Lanka his bowling average is 27 (worse than Warne), whereas Australia isn't generally a spin-friendly country, so Warne's bowling is generally better abroad.
We all know the arguments in the Warne/Murali debate. There have been threads here that have been shut-down because they've been overdone.
ALAN BORDER v STEVE WAUGH
Both were tough competitors. Both were more the type of player you'd want to bat for your life. Border's stats are interesting. Border went three years without making a century in a Test, and yet his batting average never dipped below 50, because his batting was so consistent. He therefore made more runs than Waugh. Waugh, however, made more centuries, and because of that probably won more Tests for Australia. And while it's not like standing up to Curtley Ambrose isn't tough enough, the images of the bowling Border had to face when he made 100 and 99* in the West Indies are incredible - all around him falling, he's trying to save a Test, and he pulls off a miracle. I can't separate them.
If you wanted someone to consistently make good but not great scores, you'd go with Border. If you wanted a larger score, you'd go with Waugh. Both were tougher than woodpecker lips!
I hate comparing these two guys. Akram was definitely the more exciting player. He could swing the ball both ways. It's said he was a bit like Keith Miller in that he only needed a few steps to generate 140km. Wasim had the whippy actions. The thing about Wasim is that if he didn't strike early, then he'd be taken off, because he didn't bowl long spells. Viv Richards once said Wasim was the best he ever faced. Stephen Fleming did too, but his opinion doesn't count. McGrath was the opposite. He'd wear you down with longer spells. He was more about accuracy and working off a length, then pitching it up and swinging it. They're impossible to compare to me.
GEORGE HEADLEY v WALLY HAMMOND
The obvious reason it's impossible to compare these guys is because nobody at CW would have seen them play. Richie Benaud once said that if Bradman never played, he doesn't know who would be the best number three of all time. Hammond scored 905 in one Ashes Series, which is second only to Bradman's 1930 Series (Bradman made 60 more runs or so, but with two fewer innings). Bill O'Reilly ranked Headley as the best non-Australia player he bowled to, I think, and found it impossible to bowl him out during one tour.
SHANE WARNE v MURALI
This is very difficult. I always go with Warne, but I never care when people say Murali. This has been done to death. Warne bowled with McGrath which gives him an advantage because of the pressure McGrath provided. But Murali had less competition for wickets. Which way do we go? Murali played easier competition like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe more, but Warne didn't perform well in one Test against Bangladesh, and Warne didn't perform well against India. Murali bowled in dust-bowls, and outside of Sri Lanka his bowling average is 27 (worse than Warne), whereas Australia isn't generally a spin-friendly country, so Warne's bowling is generally better abroad.
We all know the arguments in the Warne/Murali debate. There have been threads here that have been shut-down because they've been overdone.
ALAN BORDER v STEVE WAUGH
Both were tough competitors. Both were more the type of player you'd want to bat for your life. Border's stats are interesting. Border went three years without making a century in a Test, and yet his batting average never dipped below 50, because his batting was so consistent. He therefore made more runs than Waugh. Waugh, however, made more centuries, and because of that probably won more Tests for Australia. And while it's not like standing up to Curtley Ambrose isn't tough enough, the images of the bowling Border had to face when he made 100 and 99* in the West Indies are incredible - all around him falling, he's trying to save a Test, and he pulls off a miracle. I can't separate them.
If you wanted someone to consistently make good but not great scores, you'd go with Border. If you wanted a larger score, you'd go with Waugh. Both were tougher than woodpecker lips!