Players who were indisputably the best of their time

[indiaholic]

Tendulkar had 100 Tests 8794 runs Average of 61.49 and 30 centuries
Murali played 88 Tests 521 Wickets Avg of 22.61 and took 44 5fers.

 

[viriya]

Viriya reasonable case for Tendulkar between 1 Jan 1993 to 31 Dec 2004? Or would you give that to Murali?

Only considered actual decade periods. Murali was relatively average before 2000 so Tendulkar def takes the 90s over him but that's not saying much.

 

[indiaholic]

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.

 

[TNT]

That panel is heavily big 3 weighted so it's not surprising. Ponting is aussie and he dominated vs India in Aus during that period. Smaller countries like SL are ignored in panels like that.

OK I get it, if it conflicts with your opinion then its wrong.

 

[Black_Warrior]

haha akram being the best fast bowler of all time is complete and utter ****

he's great but he is second tier great

Only on this forum which looks at McGrath's 560 wickets and Wasim's 414 and makes a judgement. Check any former player or who has played against him or any serious cricket journalist writing about that era or basically any discussion outside of CW. Only CW would call him second tier and that too in a thread where Mitchell Johnson has been listed.

 

[Furball]

McGrath was better than Wasim.

 

[honestbharani]

Wasim had mad skills with the ball but in terms of test match performances, McGrath is much better than him, across conditions as well.

 

[indiaholic]

In what conditions was Wasim not as good as McGrath?

 

[honestbharani]

Define not good. I am talking about performance here.

 

[listento_me]

Only on this forum which looks at McGrath's 560 wickets and Wasim's 414 and makes a judgement. Check any former player or who has played against him or any serious cricket journalist writing about that era or basically any discussion outside of CW. Only CW would call him second tier and that too in a thread where Mitchell Johnson has been listed.

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.

 

[indiaholic]

Say any particular batting attack or country where you think he was not as good as McGrath.. I think apart from England they should stack up well but not sure.

 

[listento_me]

Say any particular batting attack or country where you think he was not as good as McGrath.. I think apart from England they should stack up well but not sure.

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.

 

[indiaholic]

Don't think McGrath was any less of a wicket taker. His bowling style worked everywhere. Wasim was more fun to watch,sure, but McGrath was as effective as anybody else.

 

[WindieWeathers]

Says who? A recent Sky discussion had Akram as best, with Lillee, Marshall and a couple others has runners up.

You could argue he was the best bowler of the 80s but then again, you had Khan, Akram himself and Hadlee around that time. Consequently, two of those names were also pure all rounders and would probably be talked about as the best of the 80s in terms of all round cricket and thus, rank higher than Marshall.

As great as Marshall seems, I don't think he was undisputed.

Well a good section of those who saw the great man, from all walks of life, be it players, us WI fans and fans of other teams, commentators etc hold that opinion of Maco. Two articles HERE and HERE are examples of that.

 

[listento_me]

Don't think McGrath was any less of a wicket taker. His bowling style worked everywhere. Wasim was more fun to watch,sure, but McGrath was as effective as anybody else.

If the pitch was dying and a group of tail enders were hanging around and I needed a bit of magic to win the test or ODI, I'd pick Akram for the ball, without a shadow of a doubt.

Well a good section of those who saw the great man, from all walks of life, be it players, us WI fans and fans of other teams, commentators etc hold that opinion of Maco. Two articles HERE and HERE are examples of that.

If you actually read what I wrote, you will see what I said about Marshall.

 

[smash84]

Having (reasonably) closely followed the careers of both Akram and McGrath, I have to say that McGrath was a better wicket taking bowler.

There is no question that Wasim was more skillful with the ball. arguably the most skillful ever. He could do things that nobody else could but so many times you would just see the ball just miss everything and not get a wicket. He was unlucky too to have a terrible fielding side around him. So many misfields, so many dropped catches. McGrath did have the benefit of having an ATG fielding side around him. And McGrath was just more accurate as well. Wasim could be wayward at times, but McG, you could wake him up at midnight and he would land it on a 6 pence. But the difference is marginal at that level.

 

[Coronis]

Don't think McGrath was any less of a wicket taker. His bowling style worked everywhere. Wasim was more fun to watch,sure, but McGrath was as effective as anybody else.

This is heavily taken into consideration in ATG discussions, more than it should be, sadly.

 

[WindieWeathers]

If you actually read what I wrote, you will see what I said about Marshall.

I did read it. You said "says who"? And I gave you proof. And lastly what has allrounders got to do with it? This is about the greatest fast bowler and it doesn't matter what era you come up with Maco stands tall.

 

[ImpatientLime]

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.

 

[viriya]

OK I get it, if it conflicts with your opinion then its wrong.

It is all opinion. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Why don't you talk about why you think Ponting's 2000s was better than Murali's instead of bringing up a panel.