Kemar Roach vs Shoaib Akhtar - Who is the better Test bowler?

[Ab Fan]

Let's look at their stats.

Shoaib Akhtar

Matches - 46
Wickets - 178
Avg - 25.7

Kemar Roach

Matches - 80
Wickets - 267
Avg - 27.7

At its best, Akhtar was not only a better bowler but undoubtedly one of the best test bowlers for his time but overall considering several factors such as consistency, longevity, fitness, fear factor, who do you think ended up with a better test career?

 

[Rightarmfast]

Shoaib's stats don't mean much to me. The fear factor that he carried, I hardly remember any other bowler to possess that. His persona is beyond stats. The kind of impact he had on cricket has been phenomenal. I mean, I remember as a young boy, kids on the streets of delhi trying to copy his action, and trying to bowl fast like him. Even though we hated Pakistan team then.

 

[Sher Khan]

Weird comparison. Roach is a line and length medium Pacer these days whilst Akhtar was always a menacing fast bowler.

Akhtar bowled to some of the best batsmen in the world and also had Wasim, Waqar, Razzaq, etc. in his bowling lineup. So understandably has less wickets then Roach and has played less matches.

I consider Shoaib Akhtar amongst the top ten greatest ever fast bowlers in world cricket. So in my view, Akhtar is a lot better.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

No comparison between them, Akhtar despite his issues was a superstar. He made people want to bowl fast. Also his stats are skewed by playing in some of the worst pitches in history. He would defo have had a better average had he played around 10 games in England at his peak.
He inspired kids, even across the border. One of the most beloved pakistani cricketers in India

 

[Rana]

Roach started off as express but lost pace with time.

Akhtar was express even in the last few days of his International career.

Akhtar gave up his test career to prolong his white ball career, don’t think Roach has that luxury

 

[happydavy]

The only relevant intelligence out of this thread is that Roach has very good test record, he should be proud of himself.

 

[NishanKonar]

Shoaib Akhtar is overrated test bowler. Barring 1 series against England in 2006 he had little impact. Rest was mostly one off performances like 1999 Eden test against India or 2002 Karachi test vs NZ. All that exciting pace & fear factor produced very few wickets and match winning performances - just some Ooohs & Aaahs !

For example Zaheer Khan won more test matches & Series for India than Shoaib Akhtar although he was nowhere as fast or thrilling !

Pakistani fans often confuse pace & speed with quality of the bowler !

 

[Maliq_Mudasir]

When players like Ponting, Hayden, Sehwag and Sachin were asked about the dangerous bowler they have ever faced, there answer was Shoaib Akhtar.

There will be no one like Akhtar in cricket, keep those stats aside when discussing about Akhtar.

 

[Maliq_Mudasir]

Shoaib Akhtar is overrated test bowler. Barring 1 series against England in 2006 he had little impact. Rest was mostly one off performances like 1999 Eden test against India or 2002 Karachi test vs NZ. All that exciting pace & fear factor produced very few wickets and match winning performances - just some Ooohs & Aaahs !

For example Zaheer Khan won more test matches & Series for India than Shoaib Akhtar although he was nowhere as fast or thrilling !

Pakistani fans often confuse pace & speed with quality of the bowler !

It's not about his performance, it's about his 'Jalwa' on the ground. Just like Salman who doesn't know ABC of acting still rules the bollywood industry.

 

[NishanKonar]

It's not about his performance, it's about his 'Jalwa' on the ground. Just like Salman who doesn't know ABC of acting still rules the bollywood industry.

Legacy of a player depends on actual performances NOT jalwa or popularity. Else Shahid Afridi wud be greatest player in Pakistan cricket history - bigger than Inzamam or Wasim Akram or Javed Miandad

ps : Nobody considers Salman Khan anything but a braindead actor. He is nowhere close to the league of Dilip Kumar, Amitabh Bachchan or Raj Kapoor !

 

[Maliq_Mudasir]

Legacy of a player depends on actual performances NOT jalwa or popularity. Else Shahid Afridi wud be greatest player in Pakistan cricket history - bigger than Inzamam or Wasim Akram or Javed Miandad

ps : Nobody considers Salman Khan anything but a braindead actor. He is nowhere close to the league of Dilip Kumar, Amitabh Bachchan or Raj Kapoor !

You are comparing Salman with actors of his father's age ? Different era, different audience. Not sure if you know anything about bollywood if you thibk people consider salman a braindead actor. So chill and enjoy the thread!

 

[pakistani pride]

Weird comparison.

 

[NishanKonar]

You are comparing Salman with actors of his father's age ? Different era, different audience. Not sure if you know anything about bollywood if you thibk people consider salman a braindead actor. So chill and enjoy the thread!

bhai I am Indian who grew up watching Bollywood. Nobody considers Salman Khan as some cinematic genius. everyone knows his movies are braindead stuff but still people watch. Of the 3 Khans - Aamir Khan is seen as cinematic legend bcoz his body of work is truly impressive - comparable to likes of Big B & Dilip Kumar & Raj Kapoor

 

[sweep_shot]

Shoaib Akthar without a doubt.

Roach might have taken more wickets but he is quite benign compared to Shoaib. Shoaib was an impact bowler and a matchwinner.

 

[pakistani pride]

Shoaib Akhtar is overrated test bowler. Barring 1 series against England in 2006 he had little impact. Rest was mostly one off performances like 1999 Eden test against India or 2002 Karachi test vs NZ. All that exciting pace & fear factor produced very few wickets and match winning performances - just some Ooohs & Aaahs !

For example Zaheer Khan won more test matches & Series for India than Shoaib Akhtar although he was nowhere as fast or thrilling !

Pakistani fans often confuse pace & speed with quality of the bowler !

Shoaib was more then ooh and aah. He was the kind of player why people loved to watch the game. The sight of him steaming is is still the best i have seen on a cricket field. His pace was awsome, you dont see that often, its very rare actually.

 

[NishanKonar]

Shoaib was more then ooh and aah. He was the kind of player why people loved to watch the game. The sight of him steaming is is still the best i have seen on a cricket field. His pace was awsome, you dont see that often, its very rare actually.

Like I said a player's legacy is determined by actual performances not by popularity

Shahid Afridi had bigger fan following than Inzy, Younis , Yousuf. Does that mean he was better than them ?

 

[Markhor]

Very different bowlers. Funnily enough Kemar started as a tearaway before evolving into a canny medium pace swing bowler, and think he's maximised his ability more than Shoaib did.

But on their respective days, Shoaib wins against him and most bowlers. He could be unplayable.

 

[sweep_shot]

Like I said a player's legacy is determined by actual performances not by popularity

Shahid Afridi had bigger fan following than Inzy, Younis , Yousuf. Does that mean he was better than them ?

How many match winning performances did Roach have in Test?

Shoaib has had multiple impactful performances in Test. 1998 Durban and 2005 Multan would be two examples. He has had more such performances.

 

[Major]

Kemar Roach. The longevity and how he carried the WI pace attack

 

[NishanKonar]

How many match winning performances did Roach have in Test?

Shoaib has had multiple impactful performances in Test. 1998 Durban and 2005 Multan would be two examples. He has had more such performances.

You will struggle to mention more than 5-6 impactful bowling performances by Shoaib Akhtar over his entire career. I mean real match winning performances - not the Ooohs & Aaahs

 

[sweep_shot]

You will struggle to mention more than 5-6 impactful bowling performances by Shoaib Akhtar over his entire career. I mean real match winning performances - not the Ooohs & Aaahs

Thread is about Roach vs Akthar.

Akthar clearly wins.

 

[sweep_shot]

Kemar Roach. The longevity and how he carried the WI pace attack

What did he win for Windies? Windies rarely win any Test.

He is just a good bowler. Nothing more. Very little impact. Akthar was more impactful.

 

[Rana]

Kemar Roach. The longevity and how he carried the WI pace attack

Do you think Mohammad Abbas and Hassan Ali are better Test match bowlers than Shoaib Akhtar also?

 

[Swashbuckler]

Thanks for reminding how underrated Roach is. Shoaib edges this contest but not by much, I consider Shoaib a truly great ODI bowler and good test bowler.

Wonder how Roach would have fared in a better WI team. His record would have read different had he been in the Ambrose-Walsh XI.

 

[sweep_shot]

Thanks for reminding how underrated Roach is. Shoaib edges this contest but not by much, I consider Shoaib a truly great ODI bowler and good test bowler.

Wonder how Roach would have fared in a better WI team. His record would have read different had he been in the Ambrose-Walsh XI.

I don't think Roach would've gotten an opportunity during Ambrose-Walsh era.

Competition was stiff then. Reon King, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Pedro Collins, Cameron Cuffy, Dillon etc.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I don't think Roach would've gotten an opportunity during Ambrose-Walsh era.

Competition was stiff then. Reon King, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Pedro Collins, Cameron Cuffy, Dillon etc.

I am talking about the post Bishop era, late 90s and early 00s. I feel Roach is better than Dillon and the others you have named.

 

[Markhor]

I don't think Roach would've gotten an opportunity during Ambrose-Walsh era.

Competition was stiff then. Reon King, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Pedro Collins, Cameron Cuffy, Dillon etc.

Only Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop are better than Roach in that list.

WI's pace bowling standards drastically slipped in the 2000s.

 

[Swashbuckler]

Roach vs Southee or Boult is a better comparison, same age group, contemporaries. The NZers are beasts on green tops but I back the Barbadian to do better than them in most places like Aus, Ind, Pak, UAE etc.

 

[sweep_shot]

I am talking about the post Bishop era, late 90s and early 00s. I feel Roach is better than Dillon and the others you have named.

I have seen Reon King, Cameron Cuffy, and Pedro Collins live. I think they were better than Roach.

Check Cuffy's height. Roach is a short guy.

 

[Swashbuckler]

I have seen Reon King, Cameron Cuffy, and Pedro Collins live. I think they were better than Roach.

Check Cuffy's height. Roach is a short guy.

I am going by stats.

Reon King 53 wickets, Pedro Collins 106 wickets, Cuffy 43 wickets. And they all averaged in 33-35 range. So neither longevity nor impact. Even Dillon 130 wickets at average 33.5.

Roach is short but very canny.

 

[sweep_shot]

I am going by stats.

Reon King 53 wickets, Pedro Collins 106 wickets, Cuffy 43 wickets. And they all averaged in 33-35 range. So neither longevity nor impact. Even Dillon 130 wickets at average 33.5.

Roach is short but very canny.

Stats aren't always everything. You probably haven't seen those guys bowl. I saw them bowl live.

Roach didn't have much competition. He was like an automatic selection.

Stats show many batters have more runs than Bradman. But, are they all better than Bradman?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Roach as a Test bowler.

You can't have just 178 wickets to your name no matter what excuse anyone comes up with.

Did he have more devastating spells ? Sure.

But he went missing a lot more too.

 

[moghul]

I'm not a fan of Shaoib Akhtar the person but comparing Shoaib with an ordinary bowler like Roach is an insult to Shoaib.

 

[volcyz]

Roach ever since his shoulder injury has lost like 15kph

 

[sweep_shot]

Roach as a Test bowler.

You can't have just 178 wickets to your name no matter what excuse anyone comes up with.

Did he have more devastating spells ? Sure.

But he went missing a lot more too.

Shoaib Akhtar played 46 Tests and got 178 Test wickets. Average of 25.69.

Kemar Roach played 80 Tests and got 267 Test wickets. Average of 27.77.

Akhtar wins easily. He was also far more impactful.

 

[sweep_shot]

Shoaib Akhtar played 46 Tests and got 178 Test wickets. Average of 25.69.

Kemar Roach played 80 Tests and got 267 Test wickets. Average of 27.77.

Akhtar wins easily. He was also far more impactful.

Another thing I want to add. Shoaib had a strike rate of around 45. Roach has a strike rate of around 53. So, Shoaib used to strike more.

 

[Hitman]

Shoaib Akhtar, of course! He could hurt his shoulder/ribs/knee, collapse a lung, and pull a hamstring during his playing days all from just warming up to bowl.

In between he took an extremely impressive 178 Test wickets.

 

[Devadwal]

Shoaib Akhtar and it's not even a close comparison

 

[BouncerGuy]

Shoaib retired in 2011 and Kemar Roach made his debut in 2008 in a t20 game is still playing and it is 2024.This comparison is not worth it. But really if you have to compare, Akhtar was a beast, impactful and scary to face. Roach has also done well but akhtar edges above him.

 

[Devadwal]

Akhtar was something else even batsman were feared before he came to bowl . He was fast and furious.
Fitness runied akhtar career .

 

[BouncerGuy]

Akhtar was something else even batsman were feared before he came to bowl . He was fast and furious.
Fitness runied akhtar career .

That Kamran Akmal comedy WK ruined his career. He could have played for 2 or 3 more years.
But yes he was scary when he ran towards the batter.

 

[Ab Fan]

No doubt, Shoaib at its peak was a fearsome fast bowler. But pace does go down with time and so does that fearsome factor. Most international batters won't be afraid of Shoaib's pace post 2003. He was scary between 1999-2002 but effectiveness is what matters beyond that.

Put Roach in a strong Windies bowling attack and the output would have been better for him.

 

[greatest]

Shoaib by a mile was the better bowler but Roach is more fitter and in better shape than Akhtar.

 

[FearlessRoar]

In terms of consistency and the number of Test matches, I rate Kemar Roach higher than Shoaib Akhtar in Tests.

 

[NishanKonar]

I have seen Reon King, Cameron Cuffy, and Pedro Collins live. I think they were better than Roach.

Check Cuffy's height. Roach is a short guy.

Cameron Cuffy was like Shaheen Shah - very tall but incapable of bowling good bouncer unlike Walsh / Ambrose

Pedro Collins was a routine 135 kph trundler

Roen King was also 135 kph trundler

Kemar Roach had that extra pace - he could make even players like Ricky Ponting struggle due to his pace

 

[sweep_shot]

Shoaib Akthar could want into many World XIs. Not the same case with Roach.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Shoaib Akthar could want into many World XIs. Not the same case with Roach.

Shoaib Akhtar won't walk into a single World XI

 

[sweep_shot]

Shoaib Akhtar won't walk into a single World XI

He used to be a regular in World XIs.

For example, he played for the World XI that faced Australia in 2005. Official Test.

If you were a professional batter, who would you rather face? Shoaib Akthar or Kemar Roach?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

He used to be a regular in World XI.

For example, he played for the World XI that faced Australia in 2005. Official Test.

I meant an all time World XI. Shoaib does not have the body of work to make it to a an all time World XI

 

[Nikhil_cric]

He used to be a regular in World XIs.

For example, he played for the World XI that faced Australia in 2005. Official Test.

If you were a professional batter, who would you rather face? Shoaib Akthar or Kemar Roach?

Also, he wasnt part of Test World XI even in 2005

 

[shah_1]

Classic case of stats don't tell a real story without dissecting stats

Roach has a boosted low average due to low quality duke balls used in home.

Average of 22.53(home), and 38.92(away). These stats just kill the whole comparison

 

[sweep_shot]

Classic case of stats don't tell a real story without dissecting stats

Roach has a boosted low average due to low quality duke balls used in home.

Average of 22.53(home), and 38.92(away). These stats just kill the whole comparison

Roach also got to play against many below-par teams.

Akthar was facing legends (Aussie ATG team, Tendulkar, Dravid, Jayasuriya, Sanga, Mahela etc.).

 

[RidiculousMan]

Comparing Roach and Akhtar is just like comparing any two fast bowlers. The only thing relevance among both these are that these two were right arm pacers.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Kemar is a solid bowler.

It's not an unfair comparison at all.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Comparing Roach and Akhtar is just like comparing any two fast bowlers. The only thing relevance among both these are that these two were right arm pacers.

There is not even a comparison in pace between the two... Shoaib was way faster than Kemar Roach.

 

[sweep_shot]

Two types of people are rating Roach higher than Akhtar:

Type 1: Certain Indians who don't like Pakistan and Pakistani players. They are rating Roach higher for obvious reason.

Type 2: Some of the Generation Z posters. They probably didn't watch Akhtar and other legends live. They are giving their verdicts based on statistics. Akhtar had an aura/impact; Roach is pretty vanilla in comparison (with all due respect).

 

[Savak]

Lol who is Kemar Roach? A casual fan will not even know.

 

[AMSS]

For a tearing quick, Shoaib kept losing the plot throughout his career when the conditions didn't aid him even slightly.

Whether it was getting beat up by Viru or AUS onslaught against him on bouncy AUS tracks, he just kept showing his limitations.

 

[Buffet]

One of the bowler is bowling a gun spell in Aus right now.

 

[Mamoon]

One of the bowler is bowling a gun spell in Aus right now.

Two of the three wickets were gifts though.

 

[WengerOut]

Career wise, maybe Roach. But if both of them are in similar physical conditions, then Shoaib by a long distance. Batsmen never felt in while facing him.

 

[NishanKonar]

Shoaib Akhtar is like Shahid Afridi. Massively popular & overhyped in Pakistan - bcoz of their persona & character

But outside Pakistan the are not so highly rated bcoz they don't have that body of work. A bowler with 178 test wickets is never going to be so highly rated. All those Ooohs & Aaahs dont increase ur legacy

Its like Dhoni is massively hyped by Indians & Pakistanis but cricket fans in England / Australia / South Africa don't rate him so highly bcoz he generally failed to perform in SENA

 

[NishanKonar]

Two types of people are rating Roach higher than Akhtar:

Type 1: Certain Indians who don't like Pakistan and Pakistani players. They are rating Roach higher for obvious reason.

Type 2: Some of the Generation Z posters. They probably didn't watch Akhtar and other legends live. They are giving their verdicts based on statistics. Akhtar had an aura/impact; Roach is pretty vanilla in comparison (with all due respect).

There are 2 kinds of Pakistani cricket fans

1. Knowledgeable fans who understand the game & can take opinions sportingly

2. Delusional fans who think every Pakistani cricketer is as good as Bradman / Sobers & if you don't agree its bcoz you are anti Pakistan

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

There are 2 kinds of Pakistani cricket fans

1. Knowledgeable fans who understand the game & can take opinions sportingly

2. Delusional fans who think every Pakistani cricketer is as good as Bradman / Sobers & if you don't agree its bcoz you are anti Pakistan

And same can be said about my fellow Indian fans also. Infact some Indian fans stoop so low to prove their point on social media.

 

[big_gamer007]

Come on man, what’s the point of such a thread? The comparison is absurd, they are not even the same kind of bowler.

Pure longevity doesn’t let you become comparable bowler to someone way more skilled/talented than you.

Shoaib is couple of leagues above Kemar.
Shoaib doesn’t have longevity so he can’t be compared to great bowlers but his 46 tests are enough to put him above mediocre bowlers who are nowhere near his skill level.