Players who were indisputably the best of their time

[viriya]

Oh I know you were considering decades. Just threw up that hypothetical. Murali was ridiculous in the period I selected too. Not trying to downplay him, would rate Murali above Tendulkar any day.

I would still pick Murali for that period you selected but it's not as much of an obvious choice as if you considered the whole 2000s.

 

[Furball]

Wasim just had more to his game overall. The pace, the swing (conventional and reverse) and the ability to take wickets on flat pitches far exceeded Mcgrath and for that matter, far exceeded Waqar, Akhtar, Marshall and everyone else. There's no doubt that McGrath was the less expensive and more accurate of the two.

McGrath bowled on some of the flattest decks there's ever been, and averaged 20 doing so.

 

[GIMH]

GIMH at his peak had a great run.

Never undisputed though, always had the Brumbys, Blockys and Furballs of this world nipping at his heels.

Yeah he was epic for three and a half weeks in about 2012 or so.

Glad I opened this thread now

 

[The Battlers Prince]

you can rattle on about how skillful wasim was for as long as you want, but here are some facts.

mcgrath took more wickets overall and per match, at a better strike rate, at a better average and with a superior economy rate.

I love wasim but he isn't superior to mcgrath, ambrose and marshall.

Here are some other facts not related to how a persons team fields, Akram took over 50% of his wickets bowled or LBW, McGrath less than 35%. I'm not sure how much of the 90's Pakistan fielding people here have seen, but look at how sloppy they are currently and realize that they're an improvement of what they were. Akram could have a lot more wickets with a fielding side like the 80's windies or definitely the great Aussie side.

 

[Black_Warrior]

McGrath bowled on some of the flattest decks there's ever been, and averaged 20 doing so.

Evidence?

And there flatter than the pitches in Pakistan where Lillee and Botham had nightmares? Once again, evidence please.

 

[Black_Warrior]

The thing with the Wasim-McGrath comparisons on CW is that CW only looks at Test cricket for purposes of these discussions. There is nothing wrong with that, it is the superior form of cricket and all of us here love and enjoy the most. I myself only consider tests for purposes of these discussions too unless ODIs or T20s are specifically stated but in this instance, it can become quite reductive. The problem though is that this is not necessarily how the different cricket cultures around the world work, especially in Pakistan. LO/ODIs are given more importance by the fans, and equal importance (if not more) by the players. This is evidenced by Wasim and Waqar's ODI numbers and records. Indeed the 90s Pak team played ODIs far more seriously than tests, having lost most of their test series in the 90s.

This is not to bring ODI's into the conversation, but just to highlight that Wasim vs McGrath over tests has the odds heavily stacked in McGrath's favour, given how many ODIs Wasim would be playing and how that would ultimately effect his ability as a test bowler. Wasim had 300 wickets at 1996, and 114 wickets in the last 7 years of his career. He was definitely on a decline over the last few years in tests mainly due to playing too many games (mainly ODIs)
I mean Wasim played 356 ODIs, compare that to McGrath (250). Ambrose (176), Donald (164). Pakistani players do not prioritize test cricket over all other forms like a lot of other nations, which also means they are not necessarily saving their best in terms of fitness for this form of the cricket and Wasim as a test bowler from 99 onward was disappointing to say the least.

So yeah McGrath vs Wasim (tests) debate is won by McGrath based on the metrics in tests There is no metric for the number of catches Pakistan would be dropping off Wasim every overseas test series and the flatness of Wasim's home pitches where he would be playing most of his cricket.


But this does not mean Wasim was not indisputably a great and he is not second tier. People who call him second tier should be embarrassed to call themselves a cricket fan.

And when I listed him in my original post, I was not necessarily suggesting that in comparison to McGrath so I'm not sure how people automatically assumed that was the debate. McGrath and Wasim were not necessarily contemporaries in terms of their peaks although they are considered contemporaries by everyone. Wasim's peak was around 88-95/96 and he was by a long distance, the best fast bowler in that period and McGrath was just making his mark in test cricket when Wasim's peak was ending in tests. If the cricket schedules were more evenly spread out though, he would have played more games and taken more wickets at his peak but he just didn't play the same number of tests McGrath or an Anderson now would play at their peak. Wasim made his debut in 84, didn't play his first test in Australia until 1990, when he was 26.

 

[honestbharani]

McGrath > Wasim but they are very much both on the top tier of fast bowlers of all time. I understand BW's point about Wasim playing ODIs and I understand someone else pointing out about Pak's catching ability when Wasim was playing but honestly, you cannot compare careers like that. As a test match bowler, AFAIC McGrath was clearly better than Wasim in terms of performances. It does not mean, though, that Wasim is not in the same tier or level as McGrath as a fast bowler, coz he absolutely does.

 

[DriveClub]

Wasim in tier 2 is a bit of a laugh really, Id say mcgrath was simply a better wicket taker in tests while wasim underachieved in tests. But they're both at the very top level.

 

[Burgey]

Here are some other facts not related to how a persons team fields, Akram took over 50% of his wickets bowled or LBW, McGrath less than 35%. I'm not sure how much of the 90's Pakistan fielding people here have seen, but look at how sloppy they are currently and realize that they're an improvement of what they were. Akram could have a lot more wickets with a fielding side like the 80's windies or definitely the great Aussie side.

I didn't realise you get bonus points for getting lbws and bowleds.

 

[Black_Warrior]

A good example of Test/ODI difference in cultures was on Day 1 of this ongoing test when the C9 commentators started talking about Hayden in the break and it was a given that they were talking about Hayden the test player..the the clips were of Hayden in whites and they showed his 380 and then Mark Nicholas turned to Waqar and said

MN: "You would have played a lot against him...how did you find him"
WY: "Oh he was great..Hayden and Gilchrist were two of the most explosive pairs I bowled to..if you don't get them out early, they destroy you"
MN: "Do you mean Hayden and Langer"?
WY: "No Hayden and Gilchrist..they were dangerous"
MN: "Oh you mean ODIs..Hayden and Gilchrist of course part of a succesful ODI pair for Australia"


When Hayden is talked about in Australia, obviously and naturally it is assumed Hayden the test player..whereas the first thing that comes to Waqar's mind when Hayden is mentioned is Hayden the ODI player. That distinction just doesn't exist in Pakistan. Not saying it's better or worse..it's just a different cricket culture.

 

[Zinzan]

I don't get how people can be categorical either way when it comes to debating ATGs like Akram, McGrath & Ambrose.

It's fine to hold an opinion that one of them is better, but as a McGrath fan, to act outraged at someone else thinking Ambrose or Akram are just strange.

Not unlike the Lara, Ponting, Sachin debate really, at that level it comes down to personal preference

Personally I rank those 3, Ambrose, Akram & McGrath in that order, but have no argument about someone suggesting the order is different.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I didn't realise you get bonus points for getting lbws and bowleds.

If your fielders are dropping them then the way to get wickets is by bowled or LBW. My point was the difference in fielding between the Australian side and the Pakistan side in the field.

 

[TNT]

If your fielders are dropping them then the way to get wickets is by bowled or LBW. My point was the difference in fielding between the Australian side and the Pakistan side in the field.

Is it that simple for a bowler to decide to get wickets by bowled or LBW because his fielders are dropping catches, It seems a bit far fetched that a bowler would get batsman caught if he could have just bowled him anyway and conversely maybe McGrath decided to give his mates in the slips a few catches instead of just bowling the batsmen out.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Is it that simple for a bowler to decide to get wickets by bowled or LBW because his fielders are dropping catches, It seems a bit far fetched that a bowler would get batsman caught if he could have just bowled him anyway and conversely maybe McGrath decided to give his mates in the slips a few catches instead of just bowling the batsmen out.

No mate, the catches are dropped, so the bowled/LBW% goes up.

 

[TNT]

No mate, the catches are dropped, so the bowled/LBW% goes up.

Starc has similar bowled/LBW% as Wasim so that can only mean that Starc has a lot of dropped catches if we follow that logic.

 

[Bijed]

Starc has similar bowled/LBW% as Wasim so that can only mean that Starc has a lot of dropped catches if we follow that logic.

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but until the Sri Lanka tour (?) Starc had a bit of a thing for bowling rank wide balls or lethal inswinging yorkers, so you'd expect a lot of his wickets to be bowled/lbw. Or catches off Joe Root.

 

[Victor Ian]

I didn't realise you get bonus points for getting lbws and bowleds.

You should. You can not get a player out caught without a catcher. (well, there is caught and bowled). So that should count as (pulling figures out of my arse) .7 to the bowler and .3 to the catcher. Bowled and lbw would be 1 to the bowler. A bowler who relies on caught (many of which will be behind wicket requires more fielding resources in catching positions to help him. They could be stopping runs, elsewhere!

 

[Victor Ian]

It appears Lindwall was a bowler who just decided to bowl you out. I'd imagine his catchers were fair to reasonable and he has a huge bowled percentage.

 

[Furball]

Evidence?

And there flatter than the pitches in Pakistan where Lillee and Botham had nightmares? Once again, evidence please.

My bad, Australian decks in the 2000s were bowling paradises. That's why a bowler as great as Warne averaged 29 on them.

10 years ago all the chat was how pitches were flatter and you had loads more bats averaging 50 than in the 90s. McGrath for some reason gets no credit for averaging 20 in this era.

 

[Burgey]

Steve Smith in the current era. Miles ahead of the current pack.