What's new

'Bumrah has less threatening performances than Shaheen in all formats' : Aaqib Javed

Buffet said:
Neither Mcgrath won it nor Bumrah won it, it's their teams won it. Both contributed. When comparing players you see what they did and not what teams did.

You should see what they did in limited overs taken together and judge it based on that. For example in WC against non-minnows Bumrah has gone for 4.23 runs per overs and McGrath went for 4.31 runs per overs despite McGrath playing in 225-250 kind of total and Bumrah playing in era with 300-350 runs total.

Then in T20, whcih is premium format in limited overs now, Bumrah is light years ahed of any other bowler in entire history. That's why I will take BYmrah over Mcgrath limited overs cricket. He is siply harder to score and tke wickets at same rate. What else can you ask.

In test, I will take McGrath.


WC ODI games against non-minnows: going for 4.2 runs per over is just ridiculous in 300-350 era.
View attachment 162613
View attachment 162612
View attachment 162611
Click to expand...
Jasprit Bumrah has now bowled in four T20 World Cups. His economy rate is 5.66. Imagine being so good that even conceding a single increases your economy.

:kp
 
Buffet said:
You missed the point. We can't compare bilaterals records directly across era due to reasons you sighted. No team plays ODI bilaterals seriiusly now. But everyone played WC seriously back then and same is true even now. That's direct comaprison where teams were playing with full inetnsity in all eras and to elminate noise, we can get rid of minnows.

Mcgrath is ahead in ODI for me. My point was about Mcgrath likely to getting hit by more runs in T20 based on ODI WC record for McGrath and Bumrah.
Click to expand...


I understand your point now. However, we will never truly know how it might have unfolded.

It will be interesting to revisit this discussion once Bumrah’s career is complete. If he manages to finish his career as strongly as McGrath did, he will almost certainly go down as one of the top three fast bowlers of all time.
 
Pretty much every Australian and England fast bowlers from past concede he is definitely the greatest white ball bowler of all time. T20 is the harshest format for a fast bowler compared to any other format. Ultimate test is in this format. Especially on flat wickets it is insanely difficult to do well.
 
Many Pakistanis were saying about Indian arrogance, but it was them including their ex player who were so arrogant to not accept the greatness of Bumrah the bowler until they are tamed and made to accept the reality..I still remember old posts stating Bumrah won't last long and will fade away in few years, and celebrating his bad phases, making documentaries on a player for hitting sixes against him..etc It's now good to see the same people singing praises on him and ridiculing their own bowlers..
 
sweep_shot said:
Who cares about T20? It is a casual format.

A player's greatness is judged by his Test and ODI performances. Not T20.

Let's just say Bumrah is not anywhere close to McGrath. Only delusional Indians compare him to McGrath. :inti
Click to expand...


The question of whether a tournament is “important” or merely “casual” should not be based on personal opinions alone. A more objective way to evaluate this is by examining measurable indicators from different stakeholders in the sport.

One way to assess the significance of a tournament is through the following factors:

  1. Team Selection and Intent
    If teams consistently field their strongest available XIs in events such as the T20 World Cup, while often experimenting with lineups during bilateral ODI series, it suggests that teams themselves consider the global tournament more important.
  2. Viewership and Audience Engagement
    Comparing television ratings and streaming numbers between the T20 World Cup, bilateral ODI series, and the ODI World Cup provides insight into fan perception. Higher viewership typically reflects greater interest and perceived importance among fans.
  3. Media Coverage and Public Discourse
    The level of media attention, expert analysis, and hype generated around a tournament—particularly from former players and major sports outlets—also indicates its standing within the cricket ecosystem.

If reliable data for these three areas—team selection patterns, viewership metrics, and media coverage—can be presented, we can have a more meaningful discussion about whether the T20 World Cup should be considered an important tournament or dismissed as insignificant.
 
big_gamer007 said:
The question of whether a tournament is “important” or merely “casual” should not be based on personal opinions alone. A more objective way to evaluate this is by examining measurable indicators from different stakeholders in the sport.

One way to assess the significance of a tournament is through the following factors:

  1. Team Selection and Intent
    If teams consistently field their strongest available XIs in events such as the T20 World Cup, while often experimenting with lineups during bilateral ODI series, it suggests that teams themselves consider the global tournament more important.
  2. Viewership and Audience Engagement
    Comparing television ratings and streaming numbers between the T20 World Cup, bilateral ODI series, and the ODI World Cup provides insight into fan perception. Higher viewership typically reflects greater interest and perceived importance among fans.
  3. Media Coverage and Public Discourse
    The level of media attention, expert analysis, and hype generated around a tournament—particularly from former players and major sports outlets—also indicates its standing within the cricket ecosystem.

If reliable data for these three areas—team selection patterns, viewership metrics, and media coverage—can be presented, we can have a more meaningful discussion about whether the T20 World Cup should be considered an important tournament or dismissed as insignificant.
Click to expand...
It will take at least a day for him to understand this lol Too many words.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
Bumrah’s versatility and intelligence make him a more multi‑dimensional LOI bowler than McGrath. He can bowl slow ball like Bravo at the death, hit Malinga‑style yorkers, swing it like Steyn when needed, or settle into a Test‑match length with relentless accuracy. He has out‑thought and out‑foxed many top batsmen, and he executes each skill at a high level. The only phase where McGrath may hold a slight edge is with the brand‑new ball. If you rate both bowlers on a 1–10 scale across all phases, Bumrah would narrowly edge him overall.
Click to expand...

This is precisely why comparing players across different eras is inherently difficult. Bumrah’s versatility is largely a reflection of the demands of the modern game.

During Glenn McGrath’s era, such versatility was not required to the same extent. His primary weapon was relentless consistency, and that alone proved to be more effective than almost any other bowler of his time.

We can speculate about whether McGrath might have developed additional variations if T20 cricket had existed during his playing days. Would he have added more tools to his arsenal? Would he have been equally successful, or perhaps even more successful? The reality is that no one can answer these questions with certainty. That is precisely why players should primarily be evaluated within the context of their own era, their peers, and their performances relative to those peers.

Both McGrath and Bumrah clearly stand out among the bowlers of their respective eras.

McGrath holds the advantage in ODI cricket due to his longevity and sustained dominance over a long period.

In T20 cricket, there is no meaningful comparison since McGrath never played the format.

In Test cricket, McGrath currently remains ahead. However, Bumrah’s career is still ongoing. Once he finishes his career, we will be in a better position to assess where he ultimately stands. It is entirely possible that he may end up surpassing McGrath, or he may finish slightly behind—we will likely have that answer in the next six to seven years.
 
He is better than Shaheen after Shaheen suffered from injury but Shaheen is still a more impactful 1st over bowler.

And calm down, he's not the best ever. Not even Top 10. Wasim, Qaqar, Shabby were different level.
 
big_gamer007 said:
This is precisely why comparing players across different eras is inherently difficult. Bumrah’s versatility is largely a reflection of the demands of the modern game.

During Glenn McGrath’s era, such versatility was not required to the same extent. His primary weapon was relentless consistency, and that alone proved to be more effective than almost any other bowler of his time.

We can speculate about whether McGrath might have developed additional variations if T20 cricket had existed during his playing days. Would he have added more tools to his arsenal? Would he have been equally successful, or perhaps even more successful? The reality is that no one can answer these questions with certainty. That is precisely why players should primarily be evaluated within the context of their own era, their peers, and their performances relative to those peers.

Both McGrath and Bumrah clearly stand out among the bowlers of their respective eras.

McGrath holds the advantage in ODI cricket due to his longevity and sustained dominance over a long period.

In T20 cricket, there is no meaningful comparison since McGrath never played the format.

In Test cricket, McGrath currently remains ahead. However, Bumrah’s career is still ongoing. Once he finishes his career, we will be in a better position to assess where he ultimately stands. It is entirely possible that he may end up surpassing McGrath, or he may finish slightly behind—we will likely have that answer in the next six to seven years.
Click to expand...
But how many have that versatility in this era? We had bowlers as Pollock existed in Mcgrath. If we strictly talk about magic balls, Akram existed even before McGrath. Also the intelligence level of Bumrah is next level. This world cup showed. Two first ball dismissals. He didn't get out some tulla batsmen. Rachin and Brook. Similar dismissal Rickleton who had no clue about . Many bowlers bowled slower ones. How many bamboozled top class batsmen like that.
 
One of the things you have to admire about Bumrah and Sanju Samson in this World Cup is that there was no over-the-top celebration or gesturing after taking a wicket or getting to a 50.

Shaheen Afridi should take note. The flying kiss celebration is not necessary after every wicket. He should instead focus on bowling a more disciplined line and length more consistently. Maybe he can celebrate in that manner after taking a 5-wicket haul or something.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
But how many have that versatility in this era? We had bowlers as Pollock existed in Mcgrath. If we strictly talk about magic balls, Akram existed even before McGrath. Also the intelligence level of Bumrah is next level. This world cup showed. Two first ball dismissals. He didn't get out some tulla batsmen. Rachin and Brook. Similar dismissal Rickleton who had no clue about . Many bowlers bowled slower ones. How many bamboozled top class batsmen like that.
Click to expand...

I think we are mixing a few different things here.

First, no one is denying that Bumrah is the best bowler of this generation, and no one is denying that he is a complete bowler. We have already established that.

Second, people need to understand that Bumrah and McGrath are two very different types of bowlers. Both are fast bowlers, but in simple terms the difference is similar to that between an off-spinner and a leg-spinner — both bowl spin, but they operate in completely different ways.

McGrath’s greatest strength was consistency. No one in cricket history has achieved that level of relentless accuracy over such a long period. The only bowlers who come close are Curtly Ambrose and perhaps Joel Garner. Wasim Akram had a much wider repertoire of skills, but he was not as consistently precise, and the records reflect that.

A good batting comparison would be AB de Villiers. He is arguably the most complete batsman of the modern era because he possesses every shot in the book — many shots that players of the 80s and 90s didn’t even need in order to dominate their era. Yet, despite his completeness, not many would rank ABD above players like Lara, Sachin, Viv Richards, or Kohli. He is probably a top-five batsman of all time, which is still an extraordinary achievement.

In the same way, Bumrah is probably already a top-three ODI fast bowler ever, which is incredibly impressive. By the time his career ends, he may very well become the best. But for now, in my opinion, he still sits slightly behind McGrath.

Third, the current World Cup being discussed is a T20 tournament, while the comparison we are making is in ODI cricket. If we are talking about bowling intelligence, there is no doubt that Bumrah is an extremely intelligent bowler — you have to be in order to be considered the best of your generation.

But that doesn’t mean McGrath was some kind of one-dimensional or unintelligent bowler. Quite the opposite. He understood his strengths perfectly and executed them better than anyone in history. His height, seam position, bounce, and impeccable line and length were enough to dominate batsmen of his era. That was the skill set required to succeed in that period, and he mastered it better than anyone.

If McGrath played in today’s era, would he have developed more variations? Would he have been just as successful? Maybe yes, maybe no — we will never know.

No one is denying that Bumrah is a champion bowler. You don’t need to convince me of that. But when we talk about the greatest ODI fast bowler ever, longevity and career completion matter. Bumrah still has several years left in his career.

He has a very good chance of taking that throne one day. For now, however, I still have McGrath slightly ahead.
 
big_gamer007 said:
We can speculate about whether McGrath might have developed additional variations if T20 cricket had existed during his playing days. Would he have added more tools to his arsenal? Would he have been equally successful, or perhaps even more successful? The reality is that no one can answer these questions with certainty. That is precisely why players should primarily be evaluated within the context of their own era, their peers, and their performances relative to those peers.
Click to expand...


There is one obvious exception to that highlighted bit ... comparing amateur cricket era ( say approximately pre-1970s ) to today's Cricket. One look at the footage of supposedly world beaters from the pre 70s cricketers to today and you just know that there is no chance of them coming close to competing with the best of current era. The only way they compete is thru meaningless stats and romanticism of old fogies who still hold the power of the pen and it is politically incorrect to question them or the cricketers that they swoon over.


here is a very good example of that below ... there is ZERO probability of anyone with that sort of bowling to play 51 tests and take 236 wickets under 25. Just ain't happening today.



​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
big_gamer007 said:
I think we are mixing a few different things here.

First, no one is denying that Bumrah is the best bowler of this generation, and no one is denying that he is a complete bowler. We have already established that.

Second, people need to understand that Bumrah and McGrath are two very different types of bowlers. Both are fast bowlers, but in simple terms the difference is similar to that between an off-spinner and a leg-spinner — both bowl spin, but they operate in completely different ways.

McGrath’s greatest strength was consistency. No one in cricket history has achieved that level of relentless accuracy over such a long period. The only bowlers who come close are Curtly Ambrose and perhaps Joel Garner. Wasim Akram had a much wider repertoire of skills, but he was not as consistently precise, and the records reflect that.

A good batting comparison would be AB de Villiers. He is arguably the most complete batsman of the modern era because he possesses every shot in the book — many shots that players of the 80s and 90s didn’t even need in order to dominate their era. Yet, despite his completeness, not many would rank ABD above players like Lara, Sachin, Viv Richards, or Kohli. He is probably a top-five batsman of all time, which is still an extraordinary achievement.

In the same way, Bumrah is probably already a top-three ODI fast bowler ever, which is incredibly impressive. By the time his career ends, he may very well become the best. But for now, in my opinion, he still sits slightly behind McGrath.

Third, the current World Cup being discussed is a T20 tournament, while the comparison we are making is in ODI cricket. If we are talking about bowling intelligence, there is no doubt that Bumrah is an extremely intelligent bowler — you have to be in order to be considered the best of your generation.

But that doesn’t mean McGrath was some kind of one-dimensional or unintelligent bowler. Quite the opposite. He understood his strengths perfectly and executed them better than anyone in history. His height, seam position, bounce, and impeccable line and length were enough to dominate batsmen of his era. That was the skill set required to succeed in that period, and he mastered it better than anyone.

If McGrath played in today’s era, would he have developed more variations? Would he have been just as successful? Maybe yes, maybe no — we will never know.

No one is denying that Bumrah is a champion bowler. You don’t need to convince me of that. But when we talk about the greatest ODI fast bowler ever, longevity and career completion matter. Bumrah still has several years left in his career.

He has a very good chance of taking that throne one day. For now, however, I still have McGrath slightly ahead.
Click to expand...
Mcgrath had everything except that killer yorker of Bumrah both on pace and slower one.He can develop many things. Not 146k delivery. As a matter of fact there is a discussion on this subject
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sweep_shot said:
Both Shaheen and Arshdeep have legal actions.

Does Bumrah have a legal action? It is not clear yet. :inti
Click to expand...
I suspect a lot of things in life are not very clear to you. It's a miracle you can go about your daily life while constantly being so confused about everything.
 
sweep_shot said:
Are you sure? :inti

View attachment 162625
Click to expand...
That's literally arm bending backwards at the elbow in your own picture. That's not chucking. Normal people cannot bend arms backward like that. Chucking is arm bending forward and then straightening.

By your own picture it's impossible for bumrah to chuck as you cannot bend backwards, straighten, then bend arm forward and straighten in the same action.

However you can continue lying after being corrected like you usually do.
 
Sachin fan said:
That's literally arm bending backwards at the elbow in your own picture. That's not chucking. Normal people cannot bend arms backward like that. Chucking is arm bending forward and then straightening.

By your own picture it's impossible for bumrah to chuck as you cannot bend backwards, straighten, then bend arm forward and straighten in the same action.

However you can continue lying after being corrected like you usually do.
Click to expand...
waste of time explaining to RFG (Resident Forrest Gump)
 
There is no comparison

Bumrah is miles ahead of the trundler we have who get smashed in last over of his spell
 
Bhaijaan said:
He is better than Shaheen after Shaheen suffered from injury but Shaheen is still a more impactful 1st over bowler.

And calm down, he's not the best ever. Not even Top 10. Wasim, Qaqar, Shabby were different level.
Click to expand...
I agree but Qaqar was something truly special

Bumrah can’t compare with qaqar. He was light years ahead of bumrah

Bumrah has bum in his name

He is a bum in ko stages.
 
pakistani pride said:
LOL its not an Indian drama serial. SSA has been pathetic for too long now. And he is still good friends with the people you think betrayed him. Cause they are all the same.

2026 SSA is not even 10% the bowler Bumrah is.
Click to expand...
I don't watch Indian drama serials so have no idea what are you talking about.

Shaheen is a victim of a viscious propaganda. He is a genuine wicket taker and the biggest match winner Pakistan have.
 
big_gamer007 said:
I understand your point now. However, we will never truly know how it might have unfolded.

It will be interesting to revisit this discussion once Bumrah’s career is complete. If he manages to finish his career as strongly as McGrath did, he will almost certainly go down as one of the top three fast bowlers of all time.
Click to expand...
In the test format some way to go to break into top 3-4.

I have earliest memories of Waqar's yorkers, Ambrose spell of 6-7 wickets in 1 run, Wasim's 6 variations in 6 balls, McGrath relenless consitency and Donald hurrying everyone. Then Steyn came and now seeing Bumrah. Hopefully more gun bowlers play in future.
 
chakdeindian said:
Many Pakistanis were saying about Indian arrogance, but it was them including their ex player who were so arrogant to not accept the greatness of Bumrah the bowler until they are tamed and made to accept the reality..I still remember old posts stating Bumrah won't last long and will fade away in few years, and celebrating his bad phases, making documentaries on a player for hitting sixes against him..etc It's now good to see the same people singing praises on him and ridiculing their own bowlers..
Click to expand...
None of the great Pakistani pacers have said that. Wasim has always praised Bumrah. Waqar is on record saying that Bumrah is better than him and Wasim at similar stage. Some ex players will always exist in all countries who will give random statements, but great of the games are quick to rcognize greatness.
 
big_gamer007 said:
That is a flawed argument to make when one player never played T20Is.
Click to expand...
U have to watch 2008 Delhi vs Hyderabad ipl match. Symmonds was happy to move legside and slaughter McGrath's test match fourth wicket length for 3/4 boundaries consecutively. Mcgrath didn’t had much answer and he kept on bowling the same length.Dirk nannes proved to be much better option than mcgrath. Mcgrath can Improve but not at Bumrah's level in t20s for sure.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
Bumrah’s versatility and intelligence make him a more multi‑dimensional LOI bowler than McGrath. He can bowl slow ball like Bravo at the death, hit Malinga‑style yorkers, swing it like Steyn when needed, or settle into a Test‑match length with relentless accuracy. He has out‑thought and out‑foxed many top batsmen, and he executes each skill at a high level. The only phase where McGrath may hold a slight edge is with the brand‑new ball. If you rate both bowlers on a 1–10 scale across all phases, Bumrah would narrowly edge him overall.
Click to expand...
Yes, Bumrah is surely way more multi dimensional but I always rate players based on actual output. If you can use just 3 skills and profuce better output than some one having 6 skills then all power to you. Example, McGrath vs Wasim. Wasim had way more skill set, but McGrath's output was much better. Bumrah is producing great outputs in all formats and has similar skills as Wasim with one advanatge of late release making it harder to face. But not there at Mcgrath level in the test format due to how long McGrath did it. Some way to go for that.

In limited overs, I already said I will take Bumrah over anyone else I have watched. I have not watched Garner. In limited overs I think its fair to club formats together becasue no current era player is going to play lots of ODI due to ODI taking a backseat. T20 is premium limited overs format now. Having said that we can also see how players are doing in ODI WC games. I won't really take outside WC games seriously now. Teams use it for practice and intensity is missing. Taken together, it's not hard to judge players for limited overs. If some fans want to keep ODI separately than T20 then fair enough.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
Two new ball era vs one new ball era, T20 era vs before T20 era, Field restriction era vs pre field restriction era. BOwlers way too restricted than ever.
Click to expand...
Yes, its way more harder for pacers to restrict runs. Total scores simply proves that as well. That's why when you see some one from current era matching ER of the best pacer from 2-3 decades back, it's worthwhile to pay attention. That's the point I was trying to highlight.
 
big_gamer007 said:
I assume you are referring to ODIs, because in Test cricket there is really no contest.

McGrath is arguably the greatest fast bowler to have played the game. He is also one of the most underrated bowlers on many forums, largely because his greatest strength was something people often find “boring”: relentless consistency.
Click to expand...
+1 to bold.

In the longer format, I will rate Marshall as best and McGrath/Hadlee just behind. After combining shorter format and longer format McGrath is the greatest pacer for me.
 
Buffet said:
Yes, Bumrah is surely way more multi dimensional but I always rate players based on actual output. If you can use just 3 skills and profuce better output than some one having 6 skills then all power to you. Example, McGrath vs Wasim. Wasim had way more skill set, but McGrath's output was much better. Bumrah is producing great outputs in all formats and has similar skills as Wasim with one advanatge of late release making it harder to face. But not there at Mcgrath level in the test format due to how long McGrath did it. Some way to go for that.

In limited overs, I already said I will take Bumrah over anyone else I have watched. I have not watched Garner. In limited overs I think its fair to club formats together becasue no current era player is going to play lots of ODI due to ODI taking a backseat. T20 is premium limited overs format now. Having said that we can also see how players are doing in ODI WC games. I won't really take outside WC games seriously now. Teams use it for practice and intensity is missing. Taken together, it's not hard to judge players for limited overs. If some fans want to keep ODI separately than T20 then fair enough.
Click to expand...
I concur if we are talking about delivering magic balls on demand, AKram was ahead of McGrath. McGrath was clinical, setting up batsmen. His biggest strength is that he can land where he wants. But if you play unorthodox cricket as you do these days, such bowlers can be dealt with. Josh is similar in nature. But he is not a perfect all-condition bowler. There are places where he has travelled.
 
AZulfi said:
One of the things you have to admire about Bumrah and Sanju Samson in this World Cup is that there was no over-the-top celebration or gesturing after taking a wicket or getting to a 50.

Shaheen Afridi should take note. The flying kiss celebration is not necessary after every wicket. He should instead focus on bowling a more disciplined line and length more consistently. Maybe he can celebrate in that manner after taking a 5-wicket haul or something.
Click to expand...
I think you are being too harsh. Different players have different personalities and they express themselves differently. It adds to the color for viewers. Everyone does not have to react calmly as Samson and Bumrah.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
I concur if we are talking about delivering magic balls on demand, AKram was ahead of McGrath. McGrath was clinical, setting up batsmen. His biggest strength is that he can land where he wants. But if you play unorthodox cricket as you do these days, such bowlers can be dealt with. Josh is similar in nature. But he is not a perfect all-condition bowler. There are places where he has travelled.
Click to expand...
Yes, I suspect the same. if you rely on landing on the same spot and setting up bastmen then you will travel in T20 even if you are McGrath. Mcgrath wasn't that one dimensional but surly not as versatile as Wasim. I think Wasim would have done much better than McGrath in T20 due to variations, just like Bumrah is doing. Having said that great bowlers evolve based on demands of era so all these comments are simply assuming they kept playing the same way.

All specualtions on my part.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
I concur if we are talking about delivering magic balls on demand, AKram was ahead of McGrath. McGrath was clinical, setting up batsmen. His biggest strength is that he can land where he wants. But if you play unorthodox cricket as you do these days, such bowlers can be dealt with. Josh is similar in nature. But he is not a perfect all-condition bowler. There are places where he has travelled.
Click to expand...
Futile comparing eras. Mcgrath only played very few T20s and that too at the fag end of his career. He could adjust line length whether it is bouncier or SC type pitches better than anyone in that era. He could have adjusted today as well. Bowlers evolve according to the needs of that era.
 
WengerOut said:
Futile comparing eras. Mcgrath only played very few T20s and that too at the fag end of his career. He could adjust line length whether it is bouncier or SC type pitches better than anyone in that era. He could have adjusted today as well. Bowlers evolve according to the needs of that era.
Click to expand...
He can. We have fair share of great bowlers like Josh, Starc who are as good as Mcgrath. But they are still not at the level of Bumrah. When movement is there Josh is as good as anyone due to the awkward bounce he generates on a length. WOuld i say he is all condition bowler? Not quiet.
 
jnaveen1980 said:
He can. We have fair share of great bowlers like Josh, Starc who are as good as Mcgrath. But they are still not at the level of Bumrah. When movement is there Josh is as good as anyone due to the awkward bounce he generates on a length. WOuld i say he is all condition bowler? Not quiet.
Click to expand...
McGrath did have shortcoming in SC conditions. McGrath lacked ability to run through batting sides in Asian conditions and has just 1 5-fer in Asia in his long career. I won't even consider McGrath if I am picking All time XI to play in Asia exclusively. Some one like Steyn is much better in those conditions.

Despite this I rate him among the top 3 pacers in test history.
 
Vikram1989 said:
U have to watch 2008 Delhi vs Hyderabad ipl match. Symmonds was happy to move legside and slaughter McGrath's test match fourth wicket length for 3/4 boundaries consecutively. Mcgrath didn’t had much answer and he kept on bowling the same length.Dirk nannes proved to be much better option than mcgrath. Mcgrath can Improve but not at Bumrah's level in t20s for sure.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t consider Indian Premier League performances from 2008, or the two T20Is Glenn McGrath played, as a meaningful benchmark for judging how he might have performed as a T20 bowler. McGrath had already retired from international cricket when he participated in the IPL, and at that time the tournament itself was brand new. Many players likely treated it more as an enjoyable opportunity to earn money rather than a competition requiring the same level of preparation and intensity seen today.

How his T20 career might have unfolded will always remain a “what if.” Some may believe he could have become one of the best T20 bowlers, others might argue he would have struggled, and most would probably place him somewhere in between. Ultimately, no one truly knows. Any conclusion on this is speculative and largely comes down to personal opinion, which carries little real weight in the broader context.
 
Buffet said:
McGrath did have shortcoming in SC conditions. McGrath lacked ability to run through batting sides in Asian conditions and has just 1 5-fer in Asia in his long career. I won't even consider McGrath if I am picking All time XI to play in Asia exclusively. Some one like Steyn is much better in those conditions.

Despite this I rate him among the top 3 pacers in test history.
Click to expand...
Mcgrath and Steyn have similar SC stats. If anything Mcgrath has a considerably better average.
 
Shaheen needs to flex his elbows like Bumrah and then we shall call him Wasim Akram v2
 
uppercut said:

There is one obvious exception to that highlighted bit ... comparing amateur cricket era ( say approximately pre-1970s ) to today's Cricket. One look at the footage of supposedly world beaters from the pre 70s cricketers to today and you just know that there is no chance of them coming close to competing with the best of current era. The only way they compete is thru meaningless stats and romanticism of old fogies who still hold the power of the pen and it is politically incorrect to question them or the cricketers that they swoon over.


here is a very good example of that below ... there is ZERO probability of anyone with that sort of bowling to play 51 tests and take 236 wickets under 25. Just ain't happening today.



​
Click to expand...


What some people assume is that if you simply plug-and-play any cricketer from the amateur era into the modern game, they would be just as successful as they were in their own time. That isn’t necessarily true. The overall quality of cricket during much of the amateur era was likely below the standard of modern domestic circuits in many countries today.

That said, it’s also reasonable to believe that many great players from that era could have adapted to the modern game if they had access to today’s coaching, training methods, technology, and sports science. At the same time, there’s also a possibility that some players had already reached their natural ceiling against the level of competition they faced. We see similar patterns even today with under-19 or young domestic players who dominate at that level but struggle once the quality of opposition increases. It’s not always about effort or practice—sometimes a player’s potential simply caps out at a certain level of competition.

Another point people often miss is the difference between calling Don Bradman the greatest cricketer and the greatest batsman. That distinction is where much of the disagreement arises. As a cricketer, Bradman can certainly be argued to belong in the very top tier of greatness—alongside players like Garfield Sobers, Viv Richards, Sachin Tendulkar, Shane Warne, and Virat Kohli.

However, if we talk purely about batting and imagine a literal plug-and-play scenario into the modern era, it’s unlikely he would match the technical, athletic, and tactical standards of modern batsmen.

Many of the posters who romanticised the amateur era and strongly believed the plug-and-play argument would work in the modern game have gradually stopped posting. Ironically, many of them were actually excellent contributors. Junaid was probably the best among them, and then there was that bot-like poster Harsh Thakor who used to start random threads but never seemed to read anyone’s replies. Fun times.
 
big_gamer007 said:
How his T20 career might have unfolded will always remain a “what if.”
Click to expand...
I mean to say how he responds in the face of onslaught. As his belief system was consistency around the 4th wicket, he hasn't tried anything different.As Kohli said he never tried t20 glamour shots since it may effect his test match technique. So its all about adaptability at each format .No one knows ,if mcgrath can defy his test match length and use a different strategy in t20s or not?.Even odi matches are extension of t20s now.Earlier a classical batsmen always takes his own sweet time to settle similar to test.
 
Buffet said:
Yes, I suspect the same. if you rely on landing on the same spot and setting up bastmen then you will travel in T20 even if you are McGrath. Mcgrath wasn't that one dimensional but surly not as versatile as Wasim. I think Wasim would have done much better than McGrath in T20 due to variations, just like Bumrah is doing. Having said that great bowlers evolve based on demands of era so all these comments are simply assuming they kept playing the same way.

All specualtions on my part.
Click to expand...
Akram would have been GOAT in t20s.....he was really diffucult to hit....only conceding 12 sixes in whole career....
 
WengerOut said:
Mcgrath and Steyn have similar SC stats. If anything Mcgrath has a considerably better average.
Click to expand...
Ability to run through batting sides is not captured in Average. You got to see if they did it and short cut is number of 5-fers lot of times.
 
We are now praising Bhumrah for defending 255? Is this a joke? Henry Olonga would have defended 250 against those chokers NZ.
 
Katwalindian said:
Akram would have been GOAT in t20s.....he was really diffucult to hit....only conceding 12 sixes in whole career....
Click to expand...
I would have surely loved seeing Wasim bowl in T20 WC. It would have been fun to watch him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Did Shaheen Shah Afridi miraculously recover from his BBL injury to be selected for the Pakistan T20 World Cup squad?
Replies
29
Views
1K
shah9425
shah9425
Cricket Warrior
“We are still in this tournament and anything can happen”: Shaheen Shah Afridi
Replies
19
Views
711
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
Hitman
Waqar Younis's staggering reaction to claim Jasprit Bumrah is 'right-handed Wasim Akram'
Replies
0
Views
468
Hitman
Hitman
BouncerGuy
“This squad is a continuation of the players who have been playing in recent series, not something entirely new”: Aaqib Javed
Replies
36
Views
942
Slim
Slim
Ball Blazer
After fining Haris Rauf, will ICC take action against Jasprit Bumrah for this gesture?
Replies
44
Views
2K
cricketjoshila
cricketjoshila
Back
Top