• 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: 17 41.5%
  • Fred Trueman

    Votes: 24 58.5%

  • Total voters
    41

Pap Finn Keighl

International 12th Man
If they combine ODI and tests of course Akram would come out better than pretty much any other bowl except McG.

Ambrose wasn't very good in ODIs, a little better than Marshall, but nobody is counting ODIs here.

So....nah
Ambrose
98 tests, 179 innings, 405 wickets
Avg 20.99, ER 2.30, SR 54.5
22 x 5 wickets, 3 x 10

During the same period
Akram
76 tests, 135 innings, 342 wickets
Avg 22.15, ER 2.62, SR 50.7
21 x 5, 4 x 10

Ambrose - slight advantage in Avg and ER, but he played in more favorable conditions with better fielders.

Akram - better WPM, better SR, better 10 wickets ratio, better 5fers ratio

+ remained relevant for another 5 years.
 

smash84

The Tiger King
WI pitches were placid as **** during Ambrose's career. What favorable conditions are we talking about ?

Don't just look at the last innings mayhem. That is because of his special ability to run through the side when he was in mood.
Exactly, its not like Ambrose was playing at the 90s wanderers or WACA like pitches all his career.
 

kyear2

International Captain
Ambrose
98 tests, 179 innings, 405 wickets
Avg 20.99, ER 2.30, SR 54.5
22 x 5 wickets, 3 x 10

During the same period
Akram
76 tests, 135 innings, 342 wickets
Avg 22.15, ER 2.62, SR 50.7
21 x 5, 4 x 10

Ambrose - slight advantage in Avg and ER, but he played in more favorable conditions with better fielders.

Akram - better WPM, better SR, better 10 wickets ratio, better 5fers ratio

+ remained relevant for another 5 years.
Your cherry picking is ridiculous.

Anyways, the pitches in the Caribbean weren't more favorable to fast bowling. Bourda, ARG, Queens Park and even Kensington (in that order) were flat or relatively flat during the time he played. Additionally, and I may be wrong, but don't recall Bourda or the ARG ever being a paradise for fast bowling.
 

Pap Finn Keighl

International 12th Man
Your cherry picking is ridiculous.

Anyways, the pitches in the Caribbean weren't more favorable to fast bowling. Bourda, ARG, Queens Park and even Kensington (in that order) were flat or relatively flat during the time he played. Additionally, and I may be wrong, but don't recall Bourda or the ARG ever being a paradise for fast bowling.
Cherry picking is comparing a 13 year peak to a whole career of 18 years.

Visiting bowlers performed better in West Indies than in Pakistan. And I dont think Pakistan had a vastly superior batting compared to WI.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
I mean, if Wasim's thing was reverse, wont playing in Pak qualify as playing in "more favorable conditions" ??
Nope. If he played in SL he would easily average two or three runs less. He we have both kinds in plenty, and good fast bowlers thrive in SL.
 

Starfighter

Hall of Fame Member
Historic averages for pace bowlers: SL 33.99, Pak 31.08. During Wasim's career: SL 32.06 (13.8 wickets/match), Pak 28.04 (18.65 wickets/match)

And considering that pace bowling in Pakistan would have been dominated by Imran, Wasim and Waqar, suffice to say @honestbharani might have a good point and @Migara is clueless as usual.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
need to apply an opposite weighting for his ball tampering and home umpires.
Yeah because this is never brought up when talking about Akram and Imran is it? 8-)

@kyear2 is a bloke who spends half his time here crying about how Imran is overrated because of ball tampering. When poor catching is brought up it's all "B-b-but you can't quantify it :(". Yeah because quantifying the impact of ball tampering is so easy right? Who gives a **** if his fielding support is quantifiable, it clearly was a disadvantage. It is incredible how blatantly inconsistent you guys are on players that aren't your favourites.

No more moronic than the argument that has taken up most of this thread.
If you choose to only choose to focus on the most moronic points (i.e PFK randomly cutting numbers from his average), then sure go ahead. But if you're actually calling the "Wasim was hampered by his poor fielding support" as a moronic point you are biased beyond belief quite frankly.
 

Line and Length

International Captain
Talking of poor fielding, didn't Fred Trueman have the Rev David Sheppard 'fielding' in the slips? I seem to recall an anecdote about the Reverend missing one in slips and standing with empty hands clasped. "It's no good praying Rev," said Fred, "The #@* has long gone."
 

Starfighter

Hall of Fame Member
Talking of poor fielding, didn't Fred Trueman have the Rev David Sheppard 'fielding' in the slips? I seem to recall an anecdote about the Reverend missing one in slips and standing with empty hands clasped. "It's no good praying Rev," said Fred, "The #@* has long gone."
I've posted about this elsewhere, but even though you can usually get only a few minutes' worth of footage for any given test, the number of easy chances I see go down in black and white era footage is quite astounding. Even from guys who were considered good like Cowdrey.
 

gftw

U19 12th Man
Ambrose
98 tests, 179 innings, 405 wickets
Avg 20.99, ER 2.30, SR 54.5
22 x 5 wickets, 3 x 10

During the same period
Akram
76 tests, 135 innings, 342 wickets
Avg 22.15, ER 2.62, SR 50.7
21 x 5, 4 x 10

Ambrose - slight advantage in Avg and ER, but he played in more favorable conditions with better fielders.

Akram - better WPM, better SR, better 10 wickets ratio, better 5fers ratio

+ remained relevant for another 5 years.
I don't really see this method as cherry picking or unfair. Why should Akram's years before Ambrose debuted and years after Ambrose retired be used to compare him to Ambrose? That said, I still have Ambrose slightly ahead of Akram, but the difference isn't as big as people on here like to pretend there is or as big as the overall career stats might suggest. I just don't see why Akram should be punished for being good enough to debut at an earlier age and having the passion to keep playing and retire at a later age. If Tendulkar kept playing for a couple more years until his overall average dipped below 50, would it make him a worse player or change the fact that he averaged 57 over a period of 23 years?
 
Last edited:

Top