Glenn McGrath vs Wasim Akram in ODIs

[Joseph Gomes]

As I am posting this on PP, I expect a lot of bias towards Akram for obvious reasons. With that being said, who do you think was better?

Filtering out the minnows (ie Ban, Zim and associates)

Wasim Akram

General stats

Inns - 310
Wkts - 439
Avg - 24.39
Econ - 3.95
SR - 36.9
5 wkts - 4

Home avg - 32.45
Away avg - 24.56
Neutral avg - 22.24

World Cup stats

Inns - 28
Wkts - 38
Avg - 29.00
Econ - 4.30
SR - 40.4

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling

Glenn Mcgrath

General stats

Inns - 216
Wkts - 333
Avg - 22.80
Econ - 3.98
SR - 34.3
5 wkts - 6

Home avg - 20.43
Away avg - 27.55
Neutral avg - 21.40

World Cup stats

Inns - 26
Wkts - 45
Avg - 21.46
Econ - 4.31
SR - 29.8

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling

 

[hk031992]

This is not about me being biased as a Pakistani. Numbers only tell part of a story.

Akram took a ton of 4 wicket hauls in ODI's. Its hard to consistently get 5fers in ODI's, but a 4fer is usually considered the odi equivalent of a test 5fer.

The reason i rank Akram higher is simply:

Akram could win you a game if you were in trouble. The 1992 world cup final is the finest example. He came up with two outstanding wickets at precisely the right time. Other examples would be defending a low total vs SA.

McGrath's WC stats are outstanding. But he never had that ability to single handedly turn things around when Aus were in trouble. Case in point:

1996 wc final- Aus post 241, McGrath is 0/28. Economical but could not get a wicket

1999 wc semi final- Aus post 213, McGrath is 1/51, couldn't turn things around

McGrath was not the type of bowler who could take the bull by the horns when Aus were behind in a game. He was economical and could pick up wickets, but thats about it. He was still an ATG odi bowler but very limited when things were going wrong.

Yes, he won three WC's. And he had at least 4-5 great odi batsmen in every one of those tournaments and a great fielding team.

Akram is simply a better odi bowler. I don't see how its debatable. Stats only show part of a story. I don't think many people are picking McGrath over Akram in ODI's

 

[Hasan123]

In ODIs Akram.

 

[Hitman]

Nobody produced high class results better and more consistently than McGrath, in either form of the game. McGrath was a machine who would always, always deliver.

 

[gani999]

Hmmm, difficult one that.

I'd pick both if possible. Maybe Akram was a wee bit better.

Wasim Akram

General stats

Inns - 310
Wkts - 439
Avg - 24.39
Econ - 3.95
SR - 36.9
5 wkts - 4

Home avg - 32.45
Away avg - 24.56
Neutral avg - 22.24

Quite surprised to see Akram's (rather unimpressive) home average, given that he played all his 'home' games in Pakistan. I do remember that he used to be a handful on English and Aussie pitches though.

 

[cr7great]

McGrath
Not even a debate.

 

[Protea Fan]

Though it's very close you don't need to be biased to pick akram here

Overall mcgrath was easily a superior bowler nevertheless

 

[AMSS]

McGrath was always a level above Akram, in both formats.

 

[RainMan_]

Mcgrarh for me.

Look at his world cup record.

 

[BlackShadow]

McGrath was the best ODI bowler I have seen. McGrath was the best Test bowler I have seen. Simply the GOAT.

 

[hk031992]

McGrath
Not even a debate.

How is it not a debate?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

lol at this not being a debate.

Look at the home and away average of both.

Akram had to bowl in far harder home conditions.

McGrath was more clutch (also helped by the fact that he was in a superior team) but Wasim is widely regarded as the best ODI bowler ever.

In today's era, I can see McGrath getting thrashed more than Wasim.

It's a good debate but Wasim for me shades it.

I think Donald is the one who is terribly under-rated. Don't know why he never is part of these debates. He has a better WC record than both. McGrath and Wasim averaged in 40s in 1996 WC while Donald ended with great stats.

 

[Hitman]

Just have a look at their WC numbers. McGrath would have probably made the likes of even Sobers and Viv clueless.

 

[hk031992]

Just have a look at their WC numbers. McGrath would have probably made the likes of even Sobers and Viv clueless.

WC numbers are misleading. McGrath played for a much better team with better batters and fielders. The scoreboard pressure and the pressure that the opposition felt in playing such a great team contributed to this.

As i have said before, Wasim could do something McGrath could not in odi. When Aus posted a low total in WC's, McGrath usually could not have a big impact. WC final 1996, Wc semi final 1999, and WC semi final 2003 (where Lee won the match for Aus) are classic examples.

McGrath could not do what Akram did in the 1992 final.

Made Viv look clueless? No. Yes, he could get Viv out. But Viv was a masterful attacking batsmen who could rip anyone apart on his day. Any great batter can dominate a great bowler on his day and vice versa.

Akram is easily a greater odi bowler.

 

[BlackShadow]

lol at this not being a debate.

Look at the home and away average of both.

Akram had to bowl in far harder home conditions.

McGrath was more clutch (also helped by the fact that he was in a superior team) but Wasim is widely regarded as the best ODI bowler ever.

In today's era, I can see McGrath getting thrashed more than Wasim.

It's a good debate but Wasim for me shades it.

I think Donald is the one who is terribly under-rated. Don't know why he never is part of these debates. He has a better WC record than both. McGrath and Wasim averaged in 40s in 1996 WC while Donald ended with great stats.

Akram averaged 31 in Pakistan. McGrath averaged 19.

McGrath did better in India too.

 

[hk031992]

lol at this not being a debate.

Look at the home and away average of both.

Akram had to bowl in far harder home conditions.

McGrath was more clutch (also helped by the fact that he was in a superior team) but Wasim is widely regarded as the best ODI bowler ever.

In today's era, I can see McGrath getting thrashed more than Wasim.

It's a good debate but Wasim for me shades it.

I think Donald is the one who is terribly under-rated. Don't know why he never is part of these debates. He has a better WC record than both. McGrath and Wasim averaged in 40s in 1996 WC while Donald ended with great stats.

good points but McGrath was not more clutch. Akram being able to turn things around and defend low totals from time to time is something McGrath couldn't do nearly as well.

 

[hk031992]

Akram averaged 31 in Pakistan. McGrath averaged 19.

McGrath did better in India too.

This is so misleading. He bowled a handful of matches in Pakistan, largely to fragile Pakistani batting which can collapse any day. There is a huge difference between that and bowling in hundreds of games in tough conditions.

 

[ethan hunt]

Akram was the GOAT ODI cricketer .
The best .
Mcgrath was great but he was hittable especially at the death . Akram was not . Even Mcgrath would want to be Akram if given a choice.

 

[WengerOut]

Akram was the GOAT ODI cricketer .
The best .
Mcgrath was great but he was hittable especially at the death . Akram was not . Even Mcgrath would want to be Akram if given a choice.

If anything McGrath had a slightly superior economy rate.

 

[AMSS]

McGrath always troubled the two best batsmen of all time in Sachin and Lara. He loved to take on the best and often got the better of them. My suspicion is that a LARGE percentage of Akram's wicket were of tailenders. Sachin, for example, used to toy with Akram in the few matches they played.

 

[babajee]

McGrath always troubled the two best batsmen of all time in Sachin and Lara. He loved to take on the best and often got the better of them. My suspicion is that a LARGE percentage of Akram's wicket were of tailenders. Sachin, for example, used to toy with Akram in the few matches they played.

45.6% of his wickets were batsmen from 1-4 in the batting order.

 

[WengerOut]

Tangible things McGrath was better. But intangible things ofcourse Wasim will be better.

 

[Savage]

It's a very close call.

Those people who are too obsessed with World cup performance should rate Mcgrath>Akram.Several Posters here were calling Smith quality(not ATG) or world class ODI batsmen mainly because of his world cup performance.

Their bilateral/tri series performance were comparable.(Akram just edges it IMO).

But make no mistake,Mcgrath was much better bowler than Akram in WCs(even though Akram was MOM in 92 WC final)

 

[Godhelpma]

Akram in Odis is better bowler to McGrath and any other bowler . World Cup stats alone can not make a bowler best of lot . McGrath always has the support of bowling pitches and better supporting bowlers , plus fielders .

 

[hk031992]

McGrath always troubled the two best batsmen of all time in Sachin and Lara. He loved to take on the best and often got the better of them. My suspicion is that a LARGE percentage of Akram's wicket were of tailenders. Sachin, for example, used to toy with Akram in the few matches they played.

Sachin played some good innings vs Pak but he did not "toy" with Akram. That is a joke. And Lara rated Akram as the very best bowler he ever faced.

 

[ethan hunt]

If anything McGrath had a slightly superior economy rate.

I know about the stats but i have seen hitters like afridi and razzaq take him apart albeit rarely . Honestly dont remember akram being hit around like that . Ever . Maybe i dont remember .
I would not exchange akram for any other cricketer in ODI cricket ever . Too me he is the best ever in this format . Never seen a better , more watchable genius in limited overs.

 

[WengerOut]

I know about the stats but i have seen hitters like afridi and razzaq take him apart albeit rarely . Honestly dont remember akram being hit around like that . Ever . Maybe i dont remember .
I would not exchange akram for any other cricketer in ODI cricket ever . Too me he is the best ever in this format . Never seen a better , more watchable genius in limited overs.

If we are nitpicking things , then I have seen Jayasuriya , Philo Wallace etc beating the pulp out of Akram. Make no mistake Akram is a legend but in my view McGrath is better.

 

[AMSS]

45.6% of his wickets were batsmen from 1-4 in the batting order.

LMAO, read this and understand how Akram was a tailender bully who often went missing against real batsmen like Sachin. Dismissed him 3 times in 24 ODI innings. Got owned most of the time.

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2003/dec/06guest.htm

 

[Anuj25]

Although Akram was more skilled and charismatic, McGrath win this by a tiny margin.
The consistency /discipline /accuracy is /was unmatched.

 

[hk031992]

LMAO, read this and understand how Akram was a tailender bully who often went missing against real batsmen like Sachin. Dismissed him 3 times in 24 ODI innings. Got owned most of the time.

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2003/dec/06guest.htm

where exactly did he get owned? Pakistan had plenty of other bowlers who dismissed Sachin. Aaqib, Saqlain, Razzaq etc. Even in 03, a past his prime Akram had Sachin if it weren;t for a dropped catch.

Akram is rated by almost all the great batsmen of his time as the best or among the very best they ever faced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8C4zy12KbI

yeah what a tailander bully.

I can guarantee you that almost no one outside of India is going to rank McGrath as a better odi bowler than Akram. Indian fans go out of their way to ignore McGrath's limitations in tough situations and elevate him to this mythical status.

 

[big_gamer007]

Akram has more skills and variations but McGrath was more consistent..

End of the day it’s like Wasim could have done this and done that however performance wise McGrath did outperform him..

Having said that I will still choose Wasim because he was just great to watch in full flow.. Even though I thin McGrath had a better career than him and was thus a better performer but not a better bowler.

 

[WildSwing]

Mcgrath is GOAT in both formats so mcgrath wins this but akram is a close second in odis

 

[AMSS]

where exactly did he get owned? Pakistan had plenty of other bowlers who dismissed Sachin. Aaqib, Saqlain, Razzaq etc. Even in 03, a past his prime Akram had Sachin if it weren;t for a dropped catch.

Akram is rated by almost all the great batsmen of his time as the best or among the very best they ever faced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8C4zy12KbI

yeah what a tailander bully.

I can guarantee you that almost no one outside of India is going to rank McGrath as a better odi bowler than Akram. Indian fans go out of their way to ignore McGrath's limitations in tough situations and elevate him to this mythical status.

Given that you are an anonymous poster on a forum like all of us, you are in no position to guarantee anything so save yourself the bombast. The stats I presented I clear. Mcgrath dismissed better batsmen at a better average and better economy rate. Wasim got more tailenders wickets than his peers. The same holds in tests as well. Readers can draw their conclusion from this.

 

[cr7great]

i will choose macgrath anyday over any bowler in worldcups

 

[Sam99]

Mcgrath most of the time. I won't care even if sachin and lara are batting together. Wasim is pure entertainer and i loved watching him more than mcgrath though.

 

[ethan hunt]

If we are nitpicking things , then I have seen Jayasuriya , Philo Wallace etc beating the pulp out of Akram. Make no mistake Akram is a legend but in my view McGrath is better.

I would like to see videos of Akram being taken apart like that . I have always believed he was unhittable . Share these links.

 

[hk031992]

Given that you are an anonymous poster on a forum like all of us, you are in no position to guarantee anything so save yourself the bombast. The stats I presented I clear. Mcgrath dismissed better batsmen at a better average and better economy rate. Wasim got more tailenders wickets than his peers. The same holds in tests as well. Readers can draw their conclusion from this.

you are simply wrong. Wasim dismissed Lara plenty of times in ODI's. You are blinded by anti Pak bias. That is why you referred to Akram as a tail end bully. Given that he had a wonderful fast bowling partner, he dismissed slightly lesser number of top order batsmen (47% vs 45, barely a difference). On the other hands, he did things McGrath could not in a million years (1992 WC finals) which you conveniently ignore.

Then you come up with absurd arguments stating that Akram was owned by Tendulkar, ignoring that there were plenty of other Pakistani bowlers who bowled well vs Tendulkar, hence Akram only dismissing him a few times. You are simply wrong.

 

[ethan hunt]

Slightly off topic but why do People remove Zimbabwe from the stats when they are talking about cricketers of the 90s ??
Zimbabwe at the time were as good if not better than India especially away from home .
Any reason OP ??

 

[BreadPakoda]

I would like to see videos of Akram being taken apart like that . I have always believed he was unhittable . Share these links.

Remember watching a video of Ganguly taking him apart in an ODI in England. Akram was clueless against the onslaught.
McGrath has been at the receiving end of a few phainties himself, many of them administered by SRT.

I’d take Akram. Same reason I’d take a Starc over Hazlewood.

 

[Hitman]

A swing bowler is always, always more entertaining to watch than a line and length metronome genius. Would you prefer watching Michael Holding or Richard Hadlee? Who has better numbers?

Wasim is the best swing bowler in history, marginally ahead of the great Imran Khan. But results wise, neither him nor anyone else can touch McGrath. Having said that, I loved watching both of them. Both will be remembered as true legends of the beautiful game we all love.

I just wish Wasim didn't disgrace himself with his corrupt activities. He was too much of a great player to soil his name deliberately. McGrath on the other hand was a despicable character on the field. Never seen a worse behaved high profile player.

 

[WildSwing]

Zimbabwe at the time were as good if not better than India especially away from home .

Can you back that statement with stats?

 

[Hitman]

And instead of debating on who was better, we need to be thankful that we 90's fans got to see such amazing bowlers. I doubt fans of the game after those times will ever see such bowlers again.

 

[ethan hunt]

Can you back that statement with stats?

Yes . India's away stats from the 90s
Zimbabwe won a test series in Pakistan .
India were pretty shambolic . Losing everything tbh. In ODi cricket Zimbabwe were pretty decent and not minnowesque at all .

 

[Hitman]

Yes . India's away stats from the 90s
Zimbabwe won a test series in Pakistan .
India were pretty shambolic . Losing everything tbh. In ODi cricket Zimbabwe were pretty decent and not minnowesque at all .

Absolutely, they were a very very decent team from the mid 90's till the 2003 WC. I won't say they were better than India though, they weren't. Back then there wasn't even the concept of them being minnows. They were much like New Zealand of today.

 

[WildSwing]

Yes . India's away stats from the 90s
Zimbabwe won a test series in Pakistan .
India were pretty shambolic . Losing everything tbh. In ODi cricket Zimbabwe were pretty decent and not minnowesque at all .

So you can't back it up with stats, you mouth off without looking up stats and when asked to back up your statement you come back with one two incidents lol

 

[AMSS]

you are simply wrong. Wasim dismissed Lara plenty of times in ODI's. You are blinded by anti Pak bias. That is why you referred to Akram as a tail end bully. Given that he had a wonderful fast bowling partner, he dismissed slightly lesser number of top order batsmen (47% vs 45, barely a difference). On the other hands, he did things McGrath could not in a million years (1992 WC finals) which you conveniently ignore.

Then you come up with absurd arguments stating that Akram was owned by Tendulkar, ignoring that there were plenty of other Pakistani bowlers who bowled well vs Tendulkar, hence Akram only dismissing him a few times. You are simply wrong.

Australia were not short of good bowlers either and yet McGrath dismissed Sachin 7 times in 23 innings. McGrath simply has a consistently better record against top order batsmen. This is not a matter of opinion but fact. Mcgrath was also responsible for more WC wins and his record, once again, speaks for itself.

There's a reason why I keep saying Sachin consistently owned Akram because aside from ODIs, he also dominated him in tests - dismissed only once in 7 or so tests he played against him.

 

[ethan hunt]

So you can't back it up with stats, you mouth off without looking up stats and when asked to back up your statement you come back with one two incidents lol

I just gave you the stats einstein .
Why dont you go look up Indias away record in the 90s and compare .
I am sure you are good with stats unlike me.

 

[WildSwing]

I just gave you the stats einstein .
Why dont you go look up Indias away record in the 90s and compare .
I am sure you are good with stats unlike me.

You didn't post any stats "genius", you made the claim, you should post the stats

 

[ethan hunt]

Absolutely, they were a very very decent team from the mid 90's till the 2003 WC. I won't say they were better than India though, they weren't. Back then there wasn't even the concept of them being minnows. They were much like New Zealand of today.

Yup they had some very decent cricketers . They beat major sides in the 99 worldcup too
I dont know why people bracket them with likes of Bangladesh of the 90s.

 

[hk031992]

Australia were not short of good bowlers either and yet McGrath dismissed Sachin 7 times in 23 innings. McGrath simply has a consistently better record against top order batsmen. This is not a matter of opinion but fact. Mcgrath was also responsible for more WC wins and his record, once again, speaks for itself.

There's a reason why I keep saying Sachin consistently owned Akram because aside from ODIs, he also dominated him in tests - dismissed only once in 7 or so tests he played against him.

This makes no sense what so ever. Sachin scored a grand total of one century vs Pakistan in all the tests they played vs each other. One century and his average vs Pakistan in these matches was 33. Saqlain dismissed him multiple times. How is that domination? Just because other guys got him does not make it domination.

Australia did not have many other bowlers who stylistically troubled Tendulkar. Pakistan had Aaqib Javed and Razzar and even Akhtar (although Tendulkar owned in him 03 wc).

McGrath is not responsible for more WC wins and that is not a fact. McGrath had a far far better team around him. When things got tough, he couldn't bail them out like Wasim did in 92, Warne did in 99 or Lee in 2003.

 

[Hitman]

Yup they had some very decent cricketers . They beat major sides in the 99 worldcup too
I dont know why people bracket them with likes of Bangladesh of the 90s.

Back in 98', there was a tri series in Sharjah involving India, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. The final was played between India and Zimbabwe. They knocked out Sri Lanka who won the WC in 96'.

Such things won't be realized by today's fans. Only fans who watched cricket in the 90's would understand what we both are saying. They weren't a strong team, but it's laughable to call them minnows back then.

And one team they defeated in the 99's WC was India. Sachin's father expired before the match and he had to leave. Make no mistake, I'm not making excuses. I'm merely saying how decent they were back then.

Andy Flower averaged more than 51 back then. Can you imagine? Most decent batsman averaged in low 40's in Test cricket back then. Flower was a genius against spin.

 

[AMSS]

This makes no sense what so ever. Sachin scored a grand total of one century vs Pakistan in all the tests they played vs each other. One century and his average vs Pakistan in these matches was 33. Saqlain dismissed him multiple times. How is that domination? Just because other guys got him does not make it domination.

Australia did not have many other bowlers who stylistically troubled Tendulkar. Pakistan had Aaqib Javed and Razzar and even Akhtar (although Tendulkar owned in him 03 wc).

McGrath is not responsible for more WC wins and that is not a fact. McGrath had a far far better team around him. When things got tough, he couldn't bail them out like Wasim did in 92, Warne did in 99 or Lee in 2003.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you because I see you fan boying hard over Akram. I watched most of the innings Sachin played against Akram, he played him with an ease that simply wasn't there against McGrath. Akram practically never troubled him. But this point is to be read with the fact that Akram took a higher percentage of lower order wickets compared to his peers including McGrath. Go look up howstat.

And do pardon me if I rate McGrath's consistently superior returns in multiple WC triumphs WAY MORE than the one off Akram had in 1992.

 

[ethan hunt]

You didn't post any stats "genius", you made the claim, you should post the stats

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=7;team=8;team=9;template=results;type=team
There you go .Did you really need stats to tell you how bad India were at the time ?

 

[hk031992]

Of course it doesn't make sense to you because I see you fan boying hard over Akram. I watched most of the innings Sachin played against Akram, he played him with an ease that simply wasn't there against McGrath. Akram practically never troubled him. But this point is to be read with the fact that Akram took a higher percentage of lower order wickets compared to his peers including McGrath. Go look up howstat.

And do pardon me if I rate McGrath's consistently superior returns in multiple WC triumphs WAY MORE than the one off Akram had in 1992.

You are clueless. No one is fan boying over anyone. Tendulkar struggled with multiple Pak bowlers so no one guy was going to get him out that often.

I have looked up howstat and the difference is minor, not major.

On the other hand, McGraths failiure to step up when needed is not minor, its major. Winning games with an exceptional team doesn't make you the greatest odi bowler.

One off that Akram had in 92? Lol. McGrath's consistency only matters when his team is doing well. His bowling isn't threatning anyone when Aus's batting fails. So yes, i will gladly take a bowler who can turn a game around in a tough situation vs someone who needs a great team to succeed. Akram is a better odi bowler, no contest.

 

[WildSwing]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...am=7;team=8;team=9;template=results;type=team
There you go .Did you really need stats to tell you how bad India were at the time ?

I thought this thread was discussing odis, did you misread the title?

 

[Rishta Aunty]

If we go by World Cup stats and not bilaterals as seems to be the deciding factor on PP for most other comparison threads, McGrath is better than Akram and is probably the greatest fast bowler of all time

The reality is more nuanced though; in my eyes both McGrath and Akram would get into an all-time ODI XI opening the attack together from each end. Which makes this comparison moot as it's at that rarefied heights in which personal preference becomes the deciding factor.

 

[ethan hunt]

I thought this thread was discussing odis, did you misread the title?

Did you misread my post where i said "slightly offtopic" .
They deserve as much ( or lackof ) respect statistically as India based on their record at the time.

 

[AMSS]

You are clueless. No one is fan boying over anyone. Tendulkar struggled with multiple Pak bowlers so no one guy was going to get him out that often.

I have looked up howstat and the difference is minor, not major.

On the other hand, McGraths failiure to step up when needed is not minor, its major. Winning games with an exceptional team doesn't make you the greatest odi bowler.

One off that Akram had in 92? Lol. McGrath's consistency only matters when his team is doing well. His bowling isn't threatning anyone when Aus's batting fails. So yes, i will gladly take a bowler who can turn a game around in a tough situation vs someone who needs a great team to succeed. Akram is a better odi bowler, no contest.

Yes yes. A bowler who averages less, bowled with a better economy, took more top order wickets, and bowled FAR better across multiple WCs is through some contorted logic inferior to Akram. LMAO!

 

[WildSwing]

You are clueless. No one is fan boying over anyone. Tendulkar struggled with multiple Pak bowlers so no one guy was going to get him out that often.

I have looked up howstat and the difference is minor, not major.

On the other hand, McGraths failiure to step up when needed is not minor, its major. Winning games with an exceptional team doesn't make you the greatest odi bowler.

One off that Akram had in 92? Lol. McGrath's consistency only matters when his team is doing well. His bowling isn't threatning anyone when Aus's batting fails. So yes, i will gladly take a bowler who can turn a game around in a tough situation vs someone who needs a great team to succeed. Akram is a better odi bowler, no contest.

This is the most delusional post I have read in a while, you can pick akram over mcgrath no issues but to say mcgrath was a failure when when needed is the most ridiculous trash ever posted anywhere on the internet

 

[Pakpak]

Hmmm, difficult one that.

I'd pick both if possible. Maybe Akram was a wee bit better.



Quite surprised to see Akram's (rather unimpressive) home average, given that he played all his 'home' games in Pakistan. I do remember that he used to be a handful on English and Aussie pitches though.

Why is it surprising? Pakistani decks were flat roads.

 

[WildSwing]

Did you misread my post where i said "slightly offtopic" .
They deserve as much ( or lackof ) respect statistically as India based on their record at the time.

Slightly offtopic would be talking about zimboks odi record, talking about test cricket in a odi thread is not slightly offtopic it is majorly off topic. Zimboks were a decent team in the 90s but comfortably behind India in Test cricket, but I am not interested in debating tests in this thread so I ignored your post, zimboks were way behind India in the odi format and were minnowesque away from home in odis so they do deserve to removed from stats if some one wants to

 

[ethan hunt]

Slightly offtopic would be talking about zimboks odi record, talking about test cricket in a odi thread is not slightly offtopic it is majorly off topic. Zimboks were a decent team in the 90s but comfortably behind India in Test cricket, but I am not interested in debating tests in this thread so I ignored your post, zimboks were way behind India in the odi format and were minnowesque away from home in odis so they do deserve to removed from stats if some one wants to

Lol @comfortably behind India .
We are talking about a whole decade and they were the worst touring side ever .
Zimbabwe deserve to be removed from the stats just as much as India .

 

[WildSwing]

Why is it surprising? Pakistani decks were flat roads.

Waqar played on those same wickets and average 23

 

[ethan hunt]

Slightly offtopic would be talking about zimboks odi record, talking about test cricket in a odi thread is not slightly offtopic it is majorly off topic. Zimboks were a decent team in the 90s but comfortably behind India in Test cricket, but I am not interested in debating tests in this thread so I ignored your post, zimboks were way behind India in the odi format and were minnowesque away from home in odis so they do deserve to removed from stats if some one wants to

My post wasnt even about test or Odi cricket .
It was about this strange habit of viewing Zimbabwe as minnows when there were bigger minnows playing at the time.

 

[Savage]

Lol @comfortably behind India .
We are talking about a whole decade and they were the worst touring side ever .
Zimbabwe deserve to be removed from the stats just as much as India .

We are talking about ODIs and ODIs only.Plz don't bring Test stats.

 

[WildSwing]

Lol @comfortably behind India .
We are talking about a whole decade and they were the worst touring side ever .
Zimbabwe deserve to be removed from the stats just as much as India .

Yeah because the 23 draws India produced count for nothing? But I won't defend India's away record in 90s much because it was a pathetic record but it was still better than zimboks, but anyways that's not the point, just away record doesn't decide a team's strength, India was a beast at home even in the 90s and that alone put India comfortably ahead of zimboks, but again this thread is discussing odis so let's stick to odis

 

[Savage]

Yeah because the 23 draws India produced count for nothing? But I won't defend India's away record in 90s much because it was a pathetic record but it was still better than zimboks, but anyways that's not the point, just away record doesn't decide a team's strength, India was a beast at home even in the 90s and that alone put India comfortably ahead of zimboks, but again this thread is discussing odis so let's stick to odis

Bringing Test stats in ODI thread to insinuate Zimbabwe was good/decent or Poor ODI side makes no sense at all.

 

[ethan hunt]

Bringing Test stats in ODI thread to insinuate Zimbabwe was good/decent or Poor ODI side makes no sense at all.

Zimbabwe were certainly not "minnows" in ODi cricket at the time by any means .

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

good points but McGrath was not more clutch. Akram being able to turn things around and defend low totals from time to time is something McGrath couldn't do nearly as well.

Yes, that's true but here I am talking in terms of taking important wickets.

McGrath's fear factor > Wasim's fear factor

Wasim was clutch too.

Akram averaged 31 in Pakistan. McGrath averaged 19.

McGrath did better in India too.

While that stat must be considered, there is more to it (low sample set, opposition, etc).

If you compare Asia, Wasim has better average and economy than Mcgrath anyway (SR is similar with Mcgrath narrowly edging it) inspite of averaging 31 in Pakistan (he averaged 19 in UAE which made up for it).

If you take Aus, Wasim averaged 24.96 and McGrath averaged 20.

However dig deep and you will see, Wasim got to play mostly strong Aussies and WI (of 90s) in Aus while McGrath got to play all teams (cos it's his home).

If you check Wasim's numbers against WI in Aus it's 21.54 vs McGrath's 26.83.

In tournaments in Aus, Mcgrath averages 19 vs Wasim's 22. Comparable.

All in all.....stats need to be analyzed deeply.

 

[Savage]

Zimbabwe were certainly not "minnows" in ODi cricket at the time by any means .

Well! You did a very poor job if you were trying to prove Zimbabwe =/=minnows.

 

[barah_admi]

I think most who actually watched them play would pick Akram. Sky did a panel a while back and Akram was the unanimous choice for best ever fast bowler, I think Marshal came second and McGrath 3rd.

It doesn't matter what format you pick, Akram was the better bowler, had more to his game, good out pace a batsman, could out swing him and could reverse it. He could also dig deeper in his prime than any fast bowler I have ever seen and do it consistently.

 

[big_gamer007]

I think most who actually watched them play would pick Akram. Sky did a panel a while back and Akram was the unanimous choice for best ever fast bowler, I think Marshal came second and McGrath 3rd.

It doesn't matter what format you pick, Akram was the better bowler, had more to his game, good out pace a batsman, could out swing him and could reverse it. He could also dig deeper in his prime than any fast bowler I have ever seen and do it consistently.

No doubt Akram was the better bowler however McGrath was the better performer.. Wasim had more skills and versatility than Mcgrath but for all the talent he had he underachieved compared to what McGrath achieved..

Wasim’s case is somewhat similar to Sachin who both underachieved slightly compared to the talent they had.. In both cases injury/diabetes and pressure of dealing with massive fan base played a crucial role..

 

[barah_admi]

No doubt Akram was the better bowler however McGrath was the better performer.. Wasim had more skills and versatility than Mcgrath but for all the talent he had he underachieved compared to what McGrath achieved..

Wasim’s case is somewhat similar to Sachin who both underachieved slightly compared to the talent they had.. In both cases injury/diabetes and pressure of dealing with massive fan base played a crucial role..

In what way did Akram underachieve?

 

[big_gamer007]

In what way did Akram underachieve?

For all the talent he had he should have been unanimously agreed as the best bowler ever in any format...

 

[Srtfan]

McGrat goat bowler of cricket

 

[barah_admi]

For all the talent he had he should have been unanimously agreed as the best bowler ever in any format...

But he is regarded as that by most. Go beyond an internet forum and just about everyone who played against him says "the best I faced was Akram".

What more should he do?

 

[big_gamer007]

But he is regarded as that by most. Go beyond an internet forum and just about everyone who played against him says "the best I faced was Akram".

What more should he do?

Skill wise he is the best I already said.. Batsmen who faced him would never have had faced anything like him before however he wasn’t as consistent as McGrath or Marshall or even Ambrose and Steyn.. But he was a better bowler than all of them..

Anyways he can’t do anything now, he will always be remembered as one of the best however my point is he had the potential of being remembered by everyone as The Best.

 

[big_gamer007]

But he is regarded as that by most. Go beyond an internet forum and just about everyone who played against him says "the best I faced was Akram".

What more should he do?

Skill wise he is the best I already said.. Batsmen who faced him would never have had faced anything like him before however he wasn’t as consistent as McGrath or Marshall or even Ambrose and Steyn.. But he was a better bowler than all of them..

Anyways he can’t do anything now, he will always be remembered as one of the best however my point is he had the potential of being remembered by everyone as The Best.

 

[Srtfan]

McGrath is more consistent then akram,his sr average economy everything better than akram in entire career even he played until 2007.

 

[Mercurial]

Glenn McGrath is the best fast bowler of all time.