Wasim or McGrath?

[C_C]

I honestly dont see how Donald gets ahead of Wasim.
Wasim was easily a better ODI bowler - just as potent in taking wickets but significantly more economical. Bettered Donald's performance against top teams like West Indies or Australia. In the last 15 years, there are only three bowlers who can genuinely stake claim to being the #1 bowler overall - Ambrose, McGrath and Akram.

 

[Pothas]

My top 10 since 1990 would be:

1. Ambrose
2. McGrath
3. Donald
4. Akram
5. Waqar
6. Gillespie
7. Pollock
8. Walsh
9. Vaas
10. Akhtar

Id have Walsh and Pollock ahead of Gillespie. Walsh somewhat lives in the shadow of Amborse and the other great West Indies pacers but his longevity and his consitancy really were remarkable.

 

[Matt79]

Gillespie-Pollock was real line ball, I agree, as was Donald-Akram.

 

[C_C]

Gillespie-Pollock was real line ball, I agree, as was Donald-Akram.

I dont see how Gillespie-Pollock is a real line ball.
Real line-ball is Gillespie and Vaas IMO.

 

[Matt79]

Yes, you've made your point several times now. I guess that's why you had him next to Vaas on your list, and I had him next to Pollock on my list!

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Its really hard to separate between these two but I've picked Wasim Akram for being more quick & dangerous than McGrath.

 

[Johnners]

I'm finding the argument that Wasim was more devastating with the ball etc. in odi's quite amusing. McGrath has a superior Strike-Rate (35 to Wasim's 36.2) and at the 230 match mark (The amount of matches McGrath has currently played) He has 10 more wickets, 2 more Five-fers, and four less 4-fers.

Wasim more devastating?? Not according to the Stats.

 

[C_C]

I'm finding the argument that Wasim was more devastating with the ball etc. in odi's quite amusing. McGrath has a superior Strike-Rate (35 to Wasim's 36.2) and at the 230 match mark (The amount of matches McGrath has currently played) He has 10 more wickets, 2 more Five-fers, and four less 4-fers.

Wasim more devastating?? Not according to the Stats.

Stats dont tell you the full story.
For starters, both's entire careers should be considered. Not an arbitary 'after this stage' factor. They arnt noobies.
For two, Wasim was more devastating simply because he mixed the job of wicket-taking in one match and being ecnomical in the other perfectly.
McGrath is typically a 35-1, 40-2, 30-1, 35-2 kinda dood while Akram is more of a 35-0,45-3, 30-0, 40-3 kinda guy.
Ie, he tended to take his wickets far more in bunches than Pidge and i prefer the latter spread over the former simply because it adds an extra dimension to the bowling.
Not only that, Wasim's basic wicket-taking pattern was quite different from McGrath.
McGrath bowls very consitent spells and even in the longer version, he takes a wicket or two every spell. Akram on the other hand was far more given into not taking a wicket for a whole session and then promptly bag 4-5 inside of the next 3-4 overs.
In ODIs, he is the perfect bowler to suck the wind out of a team because of his this same reason. I value the ability of being economical in one spell and utterly destructive in another than being very economical and picking up a wicket or two consistently in a bowler as it adds an extra dimension.

 

[Poker Boy]

Akram - because he's left-arm and there is fewer of them. He can definately claim to be the greatest ever of his type - I'm not so sure about McGrath.

 

[godofcricket]

Mcgrath wins it for test matches and wasim for ODI's. i personally always enjoyed watching wasim than any other bowler becuase of his variation and the ability to do soo much with the ball, he always kept the batsman guessing every delivery. He wasnt dull or boring either on the field. on the other hand mcgrath is a perfect test match bowler, hes a bowler u could always rely on specially in a test match becuase it suits his style of bowling and becuase of his defensive approach hes boring to watch, he relies more on batsman to make a mistake than anything else, thats where i think wasim was an artist, he always did soo much in his spell that u could always enjoy watching him even in a dead match.

 

[Slifer]

Mcgrath a slightly better pacer than Wasim IMO. I think a more interesting comparison would be : Hadlee vs Marshall or Ambrose vs Mcgrath or even Wasin vs Waqar (perhaps Garner vs Holding??)

 

[magsi23]

Wasim, any day anywhere against anyone

 

[Jono]

Holding and Ambrose are the finest Windies pacemen IMO.

Why do you believe Holding is better than Marshall?

 

[Burgey]

McGrath just for his consistency.

Akram is one of my favourite cricketers of all time though.

The Waqar/ Dizzy argument is interesting. Waqar was great to watch, but I just can't rate him as highly as many do because his average v Australia isn't all that flash. Not saying he can't bowl because he was a fine exponent, but obviously my opinion is influenced by the matches I've seen him play. He never really carved up out here like he did elsewhere.

Dizzy is/ was a fine bowler. His average really suffered once he started having his injuries, which is probably why he's bowling like a 35-36 year old when he's much younger than that. A very fine player, rather than a great one, impo.

Overall, I'd take Waqar over him as a bowler, provided the test isn't being played out here.

 

[Beleg]

My top ten bowlers since 1990:

1. Ambrose
2. Wasim
3. McGrath
4. Donald
5. Waqar
6. Pollock
7. Shoaib
8. Walsh
9. Gellispie
10. Gough

Gilly was a much better bowler then Vaas.

 

[Xuhaib]

McGrath just for his consistency.

Akram is one of my favourite cricketers of all time though.

The Waqar/ Dizzy argument is interesting. Waqar was great to watch, but I just can't rate him as highly as many do because his average v Australia isn't all that flash. Not saying he can't bowl because he was a fine exponent, but obviously my opinion is influenced by the matches I've seen him play. He never really carved up out here like he did elsewhere.

Dizzy is/ was a fine bowler. His average really suffered once he started having his injuries, which is probably why he's bowling like a 35-36 year old when he's much younger than that. A very fine player, rather than a great one, impo.

Overall, I'd take Waqar over him as a bowler, provided the test isn't being played out here.

Waqar only played Aussie twice during his peak, his record against WI is quite good actually considering WI was at par with Aus during most of Waqar's peak time.

 

[bagapath]

link?? to the thread

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18642

this was my post

I prefer McGrath over Akram.

But first, I do believe Akram is one of the greatest bowling artists of all time. He had charisma, style, big match temperament and the ability to produce new tricks all the time. Some of those tricks have been rumored to be illegal (1993 England). I am willing to ignore the rumors since they have not been proved. Watching him bowl in full form was a great delight.

But McGrath is something else. His accuracy, patience, ability to plan for each batsman and execute it without flaw, aggression, ability to rise to the occasion and supreme self-belief, make him stand tall above all his contemporaries including Akram and Ambrose. His sledging can be taken as a blot in his character but that doesnt amount to cheating as ball-tempering or match-fixing would.

But my arguments in favor of either of them is, as you may have realized, subjective. Both of them possessed all the good qualities i've listed above. Only one possessed more of certain traits than the other.

To separate them I have to turn towards their numbers. Looking at their stats McGrath comes out on top on all counts. average (21+ Vs 23+), strike rate (51+ Vs 53+), wkts per test (4.5 Vs 3.9), economy rate, performance against tougher opponents, more frequent dismissals of quality batsmen and performace in winning causes. I can always bring in other elements such as their bowling partners. But whatever influence Waqar, Imran, Saqlain, Akhthar and Mushtaq had on Akram's career, it can be compared to what Warne, McDermott, Gillespie, and Lee have had on McGrath's. If I need to back one of them under most circumstances I will choose McGrath without a moment of hesitation since I am unable to build such a comprehensive case statistically for Akram.

 

[Xuhaib]

Both are Legends, now can we finish this argument.

 

[Laurrz]

wonderfully written... i wish i could write that well one day haha :P

 

[Burgey]

Waqar only played Aussie twice during his peak, his record against WI is quite good actually considering WI was at par with Aus during most of Waqar's peak time.

Fair enough. I always enjoyed watching him bowl.

I should have used that point in the recent "Dennis Lillee was trash on the subcontinent" argument because he was over the hill when he played all of his 4 tests there.

This is why stats don't always tell the full story about players.