Players who were indisputably the best of their time

[Victor Ian]

Was just looking through some great bowlers trying to find any with more bowled wickets than Lindwall. Wasim just shaded him 102 to 98 but from 147 innings compared to 84. Lindwall bowled his victims 43% of the time. Does anyone in all of cricket even get near to that?

I wasn't even a sperm when Lindwall played. Why did he get so many out bowled? Can anyone offer some theories?

 

[Coronis]

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.

Never saw Wasim bowl a yorker.

 

[Migara]

Sachin in 90's was freakishly good when both formats are combined, easily ahead of Lara and Waugh - the other two top bats of that time. If only tests are considered then Lara wins comprehensively.

In late 90s Aravinda de Silva averaged 50 or close to that with the bat, and we all know how destructive he was in the ODI game. Don't think Sachin is peerless.

The issue we have here is that, there are many players who had been brilliant as SRT or rivalling him when 3-4 seasons are considered.

 

[Migara]

In all this, how many tests did Tendulkar play against Pakistan? Can't be too many?

We missed Akram in full cry against Tendulkar, the 89 - 94 period, before Akram got diabetes.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Akram was getting close to his peak by the end of the 89 series where Tendulkar and Sidhu saved the test at Sialkot. Wasim took 7 in the game and took 11 vs Australia in Melbourne a few weeks later.

 

[Starfighter]

Was just looking through some great bowlers trying to find any with more bowled wickets than Lindwall. Wasim just shaded him 102 to 98 but from 147 innings compared to 84. Lindwall bowled his victims 43% of the time. Does anyone in all of cricket even get near to that?

I wasn't even a sperm when Lindwall played. Why did he get so many out bowled? Can anyone offer some theories?

There are players from before WWI who pass Lindwall, including Lohmann at 45.5% (51 of 112) and Spofforth with a remarkable 53% (50 of 94). AFAIK the reason why there were more bowled dismissals in that era is mainly due to uncovered pitches having greater sideways movement but lower bounce and the use of the off-cutter as a stock delivery by most bowlers. Most bowlers used to aim to bowl the batsmen but increasingly good wickets (and balls) since 1900 or so mean that caught behind the wicket became the main mode of dismissal.

As for Lindwall he bowled to some fairly weak lineups but I can imagine his very round-arm action would be quite difficult to pick and be conducive to bowled dismissals in the same way Malinga's is. And the post-war English wickets were also considerably worse than those of the thirties as far as I can tell.

 

[Bijed]

Never saw Wasim bowl a yorker.

I know Wasim also got a lot of his wickets that way (I'm assuming your post was not serious, sorry if it was) - but I was merely responding to the assertion that lots of catches must be dropped off Starc because he has a similar % of bowleds/lbws to someone who did have catches dropped off them - i,e Wasim's % is as it is largely because of dropped catches whereas Starc's is more so due to him bowling fewer deliveries likely to create catching opportunities.

 

[Victor Ian]

There are players from before WWI who pass Lindwall, including Lohmann at 45.5% (51 of 112) and Spofforth with a remarkable 53% (50 of 94). AFAIK the reason why there were more bowled dismissals in that era is mainly due to uncovered pitches having greater sideways movement but lower bounce and the use of the off-cutter as a stock delivery by most bowlers. Most bowlers used to aim to bowl the batsmen but increasingly good wickets (and balls) since 1900 or so mean that caught behind the wicket became the main mode of dismissal.

As for Lindwall he bowled to some fairly weak lineups but I can imagine his very round-arm action would be quite difficult to pick and be conducive to bowled dismissals in the same way Malinga's is. And the post-war English wickets were also considerably worse than those of the thirties as far as I can tell.

That's a good answer. Thanks!

 

[Zinzan]

Steve Smith in the current Australian Test side. Miles ahead of the current pack.

Fixed

 

[Victor Ian]

If one wanted to be revisionist just for the sake of it, how many wickets might Wasim have lost due to poor fielding - 20%, 30%, 40%? Looking at Wasim, Waqar, Shoab and Khan, they all have the same pattern of +50% bowled lbw. Looking at McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Johnson they seem to hover about 25-40%. It is something worth bearing in mind. In an all time great team, with great fielders, Wasim could very well increase his output, whereas most other greats should just hold steady. Hmmmmm.

 

[TNT]

If one wanted to be revisionist just for the sake of it, how many wickets might Wasim have lost due to poor fielding - 20%, 30%, 40%? Looking at Wasim, Waqar, Shoab and Khan, they all have the same pattern of +50% bowled lbw. Looking at McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Johnson they seem to hover about 25-40%. It is something worth bearing in mind. In an all time great team, with great fielders, Wasim could very well increase his output, whereas most other greats should just hold steady. Hmmmmm.

Asian bowlers play on decks that keep low whereas Australian bowlers bowl on decks that bounce. In Asia a bowler is more likely to have the ball stay low and get the LBW/bowled and in Austrlaia the bowler is likely to get the ball to explode off the pitch and get the batsman caught.

 

[CapeTown Guy]

In late 90s Aravinda de Silva averaged 50 or close to that with the bat, and we all know how destructive he was in the ODI game. Don't think Sachin is peerless.

The issue we have here is that, there are many players who had been brilliant as SRT or rivalling him when 3-4 seasons are considered.

Kallis might not be the most popular player, but as a run maker he was Sachin's match for a long time. There's a time period, from about the start of 2001 to the start of 2011, 10 years, where JK averaged more, scored more runs with more centuries than either Sachin or Ponting. And took 200 odd wickets.

Coupled with being a fine slipper too, you can certainly argue Kallis was absolutely peerless for most of his career.

 

[WindieWeathers]

lol exactly

some people on here got pissed at me for stating the odd world, alt view of the skewed cw forum posters but it's kinda sad.

Real world, just about everyone, from former players to umpires to journalists et al, especially those from Wasim's gen have him as THE TOP GUY. Of course, very good arguments can be made for Marshall, Lille, Holding, Ambrose, Waqar, McGrath but more often than not, Wasim gets the nod.

Can you show some of those people who have said this please? Because I'd be surprised if it was more than two or three folks tbh.

 

[Slifer]

Can you show some of those people who have said this please? Because I'd be surprised if it was more than two or three folks tbh.

Me too, because even Wasim himself has sir Malcolm as the best.

 

[listento_me]

Can you show some of those people who have said this please? Because I'd be surprised if it was more than two or three folks tbh.

Are you serious? The entire skysports panels voted him at the best, so thats hussain, atherton, bumble and a couple others, I think Gower was there too. Then there's all sorts of literature on Akram.

I'm not saying its unanimous and Marshall has a shout for sure but you're talking like you've never heard Akram being the best is a load of bs, excuse my french.

 

[smash84]

Can you show some of those people who have said this please? Because I'd be surprised if it was more than two or three folks tbh.

A few that I remembered and can easily post

'The most complete fast bowler I've seen' . Allan Donald

My XI : Wasim Akram | 'The most complete fast bowler I've seen' | Cricket videos, MP3, podcasts, cricket audio | ESPN Cricinfo

"Skill-wise I don’t think there has been a better fast bowler." Glenn McGrath

McGrath?s favourite speed merchants - The Hindu

“There was no better fast bowler in the world with a new ball or an old ball,” Lara said of Akram." Brian Lara

Home | Live Scores & Latest News | Fox Sports

“In my opinion Wasim Akram of Pakistan was the best pace bowler that I ever faced." Jacques Kallis

Wasim Akram was the best I ever faced, says Kallis - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah.. but smiley, when we discuss the greatest of all time, surely performances trump skills. Performance is usually backed by facts while skills are usually backed by perception. That is why it is tough to rate fast bowlers sometimes. No one stands out like Bradman but yes, Marshall seems like a bit of an unanimous choice amongst those who have played with or watched him as well as the subsequent great ones. Wasim is definitely regarded as amongst the best, if not the best, skillswise by many in the cricketing community but I really do not see how you can say he was better than McGrath on the basis of test match performances, which is how we usually rate players here in CW. Coz doing it any other way basically is just opinion vs opinion and hardly any real room for any kind of consensus then.

 

[honestbharani]

And FWIW, I repeat, the way I will rank the fast bowlers I have seen:


Ambrose
Steyn
McGrath
Wasim


in that order. But all of them very much belong in the same tier of greatness.

 

[smash84]

Yeah.. but smiley, when we discuss the greatest of all time, surely performances trump skills. Performance is usually backed by facts while skills are usually backed by perception. That is why it is tough to rate fast bowlers sometimes. No one stands out like Bradman but yes, Marshall seems like a bit of an unanimous choice amongst those who have played with or watched him as well as the subsequent great ones. Wasim is definitely regarded as amongst the best, if not the best, skillswise by many in the cricketing community but I really do not see how you can say he was better than McGrath on the basis of test match performances, which is how we usually rate players here in CW. Coz doing it any other way basically is just opinion vs opinion and hardly any real room for any kind of consensus then.

I never said that Wasim > McG. In fact I said quite the opposite a few posts back. I was just posting in response to windie weathers where he said

"Can you show some of those people who have said this please? Because I'd be surprised if it was more than two or three folks tbh"

I just put 3 people off the top of my head and another with a quick google search to answer WW's question.

 

[honestbharani]

yeah, that was silly to think people dont rate Wasim, esp. his peer batsmen.