• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Wasim Akram vs Fred Trueman

Who was the greater fast bowler?(Tests)

  • Wasim Akram

    Votes: 32 47.8%
  • Fred Trueman

    Votes: 35 52.2%

  • Total voters
    67

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Wasim wasn't considered best of his time for tests specifically. He played in an era when it was common to conflate test and ODI performances and make comments on "best in the world". If you focus exclusively on test record, it would be hard to argue he was the best in the world. Ambrose dominated #1 ranking in early 90s with Waqar claiming it few times. In late 90s it was Donald and McGrath. Wasim was never ranked #1
 

smash84

The Tiger King
Wasim wasn't considered best of his time for tests specifically. He played in an era when it was common to conflate test and ODI performances and make comments on "best in the world". If you focus exclusively on test record, it would be hard to argue he was the best in the world. Ambrose dominated #1 ranking in early 90s with Waqar claiming it few times. In late 90s it was Donald and McGrath. Wasim was never ranked #1
I am not sure this is such a great point.

Lance Gibbs was considered the best of his time too, but that was more because of a paucity of competition.
 

cricketsavant

U19 12th Man
Wasim wasn't considered best of his time for tests specifically. He played in an era when it was common to conflate test and ODI performances and make comments on "best in the world". If you focus exclusively on test record, it would be hard to argue he was the best in the world. Ambrose dominated #1 ranking in early 90s with Waqar claiming it few times. In late 90s it was Donald and McGrath. Wasim was never ranked #1
OK :laugh: :wacko:
 

Arachnodouche

International Captain
Point's done to death but hard to be ranked #1 when you have a fielding unit like Pak behind you that's guaranteed to drop at least two catches per match off your bowling; for all intents and purposes you may as well shave a point off his career average. Otherwise, is there a legitimate criticism that he couldn't develop spells in the manner of his other contemporary greats? As far as I can recall, he was still bowling consistently threatening spells, diabetes and all, till as late as 2000.
 

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Interested to know having watched him, what you found better in him as a bowler.
Fair comment/question. I guess it boils down to the era (and my age). Trueman seems to have stood out in terms of pace and there were few who were his equal at the time. Perhaps should have said he was more outstanding at the time than Wasim who had many quality quicks operating during his era.
 

kyear2

Cricketer Of The Year
Fair comment/question. I guess it boils down to the era (and my age). Trueman seems to have stood out in terms of pace and there were few who were his equal at the time. Perhaps should have said he was more outstanding at the time than Wasim who had many quality quicks operating during his era.
Sorry if you've addressed this before.

But if you saw Fred, I assume you could have also seen as far back as Sobers?
 

subshakerz

International Coach
Wasim wasn't considered best of his time for tests specifically. He played in an era when it was common to conflate test and ODI performances and make comments on "best in the world". If you focus exclusively on test record, it would be hard to argue he was the best in the world. Ambrose dominated #1 ranking in early 90s with Waqar claiming it few times. In late 90s it was Donald and McGrath. Wasim was never ranked #1
Ranking is one thing but in terms of peer opinion Wasim was always up there. Even during Waqars peak virtually everyone considered Wasim the better bowler. If you ask batamen of the 90s era, it is either Wasim or Ambrose who gets named as the best pacer they faced (mostly Wasim though).

Wasim from 90 - 97 was in his peak and averaged 5 wickets a test. Yet it coincided with the peak of Waqar and Ambrose who got the no. 1 ranking but it was a crowded field.

Of the top of my head, I can think of Slater, Atherton, Ponting, McGrath, Taylor, Ambrose, Fleming, Donald, Border, Langer, Lara, Jimmy Adams, Walsh, Laxman, Ganguly and a few others who put Wasim up there.
 
Last edited:

Line and Length

Cricketer Of The Year
Sorry if you've addressed this before.

But if you saw Fred, I assume you could have also seen as far back as Sobers?
Certainly. I remember the famous tied Test in Brisbane in 60/61. I also saw Sobers making 254 in the RoW v Australia in 1972 at the MCG. Don Bradman described the knock as "probably the greatest exhibition of batting ever seen in Australia".
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Wasim wasn't considered best of his time for tests specifically. He played in an era when it was common to conflate test and ODI performances and make comments on "best in the world". If you focus exclusively on test record, it would be hard to argue he was the best in the world. Ambrose dominated #1 ranking in early 90s with Waqar claiming it few times. In late 90s it was Donald and McGrath. Wasim was never ranked #1
It is no shame to be number two to Mcgrath and Ambrose who are both in the first ATG team or close to it. Akram was a truly awesome bowler and being the best left arm pacer of all time should also count for something.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
It is no shame to be number two to Mcgrath and Ambrose who are both in the first ATG team or close to it. Akram was a truly awesome bowler and being the best left arm pacer of all time should also count for something.
The only thing that Akram suffers from is noticeably less impressive stats compared to Ambrose and McGrath. If his stats were in the same range as theirs, his choice as best bowler of the era would be near unanimous on this forum I think based on his slightly higher peer rating. I think Akram and Lillee and even Trueman justify places in the top 10 pacers ever based largely on their high peer rating.

Someone like Donald misses out though he may have more impressive stats but was not considered as great a bowler by the batsmen who faced him.
 

thierry henry

International Coach
Was Akram really considered better than Waqar during Waqar's peak? Akram obviously was older and had more "runs on the board" when Waqar was crushing it in the early-mid 90s, so there may have been an element of "Wasim is more proven and Waqar can't keep this up".

Nevertheless, Waqar's early test career is one of the greatest eras on record for a bowler in tests. He was a phenomenon, and as a kid in my early days of watching cricket back then, Waqar was like the faster, more explosive, younger, scarier Wasim. Both statistically and from my perception/recollection, during Waqar's gun years no-one was saying Wasim was better.
 

subshakerz

International Coach
Was Akram really considered better than Waqar during Waqar's peak? Akram obviously was older and had more "runs on the board" when Waqar was crushing it in the early-mid 90s, so there may have been an element of "Wasim is more proven and Waqar can't keep this up".

Nevertheless, Waqar's early test career is one of the greatest eras on record for a bowler in tests. He was a phenomenon, and as a kid in my early days of watching cricket back then, Waqar was like the faster, more explosive, younger, scarier Wasim. Both statistically and from my perception/recollection, during Waqar's gun years no-one was saying Wasim was better.
I recall Wasim was seen as better. Especially after his big take off in Australia in 1990, he was rated the next big thing in cricket. And then the 92 World Cup cemented that reputation. Waqar only really captured higher attention after the 1992 England tour though he had built up a reputation in county cricket by then.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
The only thing that Akram suffers from is noticeably less impressive stats compared to Ambrose and McGrath. If his stats were in the same range as theirs, his choice as best bowler of the era would be near unanimous on this forum I think based on his slightly higher peer rating.
Based on eye test it would have surprised no one if Akram averaged 18 picking 5 wickets a match. But he didn't and someone like McGrath with seemingly less exciting bowling style did better (don't @ me on McGrath, you will be preaching to the choir). So you gotta ask what did Akram fail to do. We know cricket is a game of small margins. Akram despite all the tools was giving impression of being hardest to face more than actually getting players out (relative to other greats). It also shows up in his disproportionately large share of tail wickets: 35% wickets of batsmen playing at 8-11. Incidentally, Trueman with 31.6% is middling. For reference McGrath took only 25.2% tail wickets. http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Bowling/BowlingAggregates.asp

Akram is the classic case of why eye test fails in rating players.
 
Last edited:

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
It is no shame to be number two to Mcgrath and Ambrose who are both in the first ATG team or close to it. Akram was a truly awesome bowler and being the best left arm pacer of all time should also count for something.
Even at an absolute, his highest rating was a (relatively) ordinary 830 points. See who all are ahead of him: http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/alltime/test/bowling/

Agree he was an awesome bowler and best left arm pacer. Trueman is ahead for me in this comparison.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Even at an absolute, his highest rating was a (relatively) ordinary 830 points. See who all are ahead of him: http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/alltime/test/bowling/

Agree he was an awesome bowler and best left arm pacer. Trueman is ahead for me in this comparison.
I dont really understand why people put this much stock in the ICC rataing points when we dont even know what methodology they use. Could be whacky nonsense for all we know.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I dont really understand why people put this much stock in the ICC rataing points when we dont even know what methodology they use. Could be whacky nonsense for all we know.
Checks out mostly with what is happening at any given point. E.g. Smith and Imran have highest batting and bowling peaks according to ICC ratings since 1950, completely consistent with their form. I don't see much wrong tbh.
 

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
Checks out mostly with what is happening at any given point. E.g. Smith and Imran have highest batting and bowling peaks according to ICC ratings since 1950, completely consistent with their form. I don't see much wrong tbh.
So you have Southee, Swann, Yasir Shah, Ajmal, Ntini and a whole lot of other average to good players above him in the rankings. Do you agree with that?
 

Top