What's new

[VIDEO] Where does Wasim Akram rank as a fast bowler?

Sam99 said:
Very good but i would like to know how he would have done in this era where tampering isn't allowed and ball don't swing an inch on most pitches.
Click to expand...

Tampering has never been allowed, and pitches have nothing to do with orthodox swing (though abrasive ones have something to do with reverse swing).
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Wasim Akram and Curtly Ambrose were easily the best fast bowlers I've ever faced. Shoaib Akhtar clearly the quickest but Harbhajan Singh got me out more than anybody <a href="https://t.co/17bIbPD6H3">https://t.co/17bIbPD6H3</a></p>— Ricky Ponting AO (@RickyPonting) <a href="https://twitter.com/RickyPonting/status/1216230330505424896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Sam99 said:
Very good but i would like to know how he would have done in this era where tampering isn't allowed and ball don't swing an inch on most pitches.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say bowlers in that era were guilty of ball tampering
 
Sam99 said:
Very good but i would like to know how he would have done in this era where tampering isn't allowed and ball don't swing an inch on most pitches.
Click to expand...

He was considered a genius of the game, the most skilled bowler the cricketing history has ever seen. No matter in whatever era, he would have retained his greatness.
 
for me he is only behind mcgrath in test and steyn. Actually equal to steyn.
he is top 2/3 all time in tests.

in odi top 3 as well. starc has the stats but he is a nobody next to wasim.
 
tyron_woodley said:
for me he is only behind mcgrath in test and steyn. Actually equal to steyn.
he is top 2/3 all time in tests.
Click to expand...

I'd say Lindwall, Trueman, Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose, McGrath and Steyn are all ahead of him.

Then there are some other guys such as Miller, Davidson (stylistically very similar to Wasim), Roberts, Holding, Garner, Donald, Pollock and Waqar who were as good as Wasim.

So IMO he was a great of the game but not absolute top tier.
 
Robert said:
I'd say Lindwall, Trueman, Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose, McGrath and Steyn are all ahead of him.

Then there are some other guys such as Miller, Davidson (stylistically very similar to Wasim), Roberts, Holding, Garner, Donald, Pollock and Waqar who were as good as Wasim.

So IMO he was a great of the game but not absolute top tier.
Click to expand...

agreed except for waqar and pollock part. no way those 2 are in the league of wasim surely.
 
Lindwall, Trueman, miller, Davidson are not even close to Wasim. Holding, Roberts and garner were very good but they are not among the top 10 test bowlers of all time. Pollock? Lol.

Marshall
Steyn
McGrath
Amby
Wasim
Waqar
Imran
Lillee
Hadlee
Donald

These are the top 10 test bowlers of all time. They all have 300 + wickets , sub 55 strike rate and averages below 24. The rest don't have any of that it didn't play in an era that was competitive enough.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Lindwall, Trueman, miller, Davidson are not even close to Wasim. Holding, Roberts and garner were very good but they are not among the top 10 test bowlers of all time. Pollock? Lol.

Marshall
Steyn
McGrath
Amby
Wasim
Waqar
Imran
Lillee
Hadlee
Donald

These are the top 10 test bowlers of all time. They all have 300 + wickets , sub 55 strike rate and averages below 24. The rest don't have any of that it didn't play in an era that was competitive enough.
Click to expand...

I concur with this.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Lindwall, Trueman, miller, Davidson are not even close to Wasim. Holding, Roberts and garner were very good but they are not among the top 10 test bowlers of all time. Pollock? Lol.

Marshall
Steyn
McGrath
Amby
Wasim
Waqar
Imran
Lillee
Hadlee
Donald

These are the top 10 test bowlers of all time. They all have 300 + wickets , sub 55 strike rate and averages below 24. The rest don't have any of that it didn't play in an era that was competitive enough.
Click to expand...

Why do they have as good or even better figures than Wasim?
 
Like Alan Lamb once said, you can give any bowler in the world a ball and an abrasive surface and most of them would not even know what to do with it. Tampering does not magically make the ball swing, it speeds up the process but the skill element is still needed. Therefore even with the cloud of tampering and we know it is difficult to prove either way Wasim was probably still in the top 5 most skillful bolwers of all time.
 
Trueman is perhaps the most underrated bowler ever. Incredibly low SR and average in an era defined by large totals scored slowly

For me:
Test:
Marshall: record strong everywhere, easily best WI fast bowler of a generation of great WI fast bowlers
McGrath: got wickets without being sexy or particularly interesting. Brilliant record everywhere
Hadlee: carried a weak side. Good average everywhere
Steyn: low average, SR in a batting era. Bowled brilliant spells. Good in most places (not as universal as McGrath and Marshall)

Ambrose: metronome, low average. Didn't perform much in subcontinent so a teir below those ranked above for me
Trueman: brilliant record, only mark is record against the strong WI batting line up(W's, Kanhai, Sobers)
Imran: brilliant peak, did great at home but not as well away

Then a large group. In order:

Donald
Lillee
Garner
Holding
Wasim
Pollock
Waqar
etc

ODI:
McGrath: brilliant statistically in hard era, did well in world cups
Wasim: match winner, top record
Starc: dominated two world cups, unparalleled stats in best era for batting. By end of career could be considered the best with more matches
Garner: brilliant stats, but in bowling era

then Donald, Waqar, Pollock, Hadlee etc

Conclusion:
Wasim overrated in test cricket because of his brilliant skills. Didn't perform as well as some others
 
Robert said:
Why do they have as good or even better figures than Wasim?
Click to expand...

I consider bowling in that era to be easier than the 90's. I know you will disagree but it is what it is. Not that holding and garner weren't excellent bowlers but they didn't play anything close to the amount of cricket that Wasim did, especially for a fast bowler. They could bowl unlimited bouncers and no balls weren't given as runs in the 80's even . You adjust for those factors and the helmets and the flatter pitches and there is no question as to why Wasim is better.
 
therealAB said:
What accomplishments does he have in test cricket that are better than Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee etc. Also, who do you put as No. 1
Click to expand...

Marshall is number one in tests.

Most of the greats of 90s, put Wasim as the toughest bowler they faced. His skills with the ball were and are unmatched.
 
silentkiller187 said:
Like Alan Lamb once said, you can give any bowler in the world a ball and an abrasive surface and most of them would not even know what to do with it. Tampering does not magically make the ball swing, it speeds up the process but the skill element is still needed. Therefore even with the cloud of tampering and we know it is difficult to prove either way Wasim was probably still in the top 5 most skillful bolwers of all time.
Click to expand...

then why did wasim and imran bowl better in pakistan than they did in south africa and england?
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Lindwall, Trueman, miller, Davidson are not even close to Wasim. Holding, Roberts and garner were very good but they are not among the top 10 test bowlers of all time. Pollock? Lol.

Marshall
Steyn
McGrath
Amby
Wasim
Waqar
Imran
Lillee
Hadlee
Donald

These are the top 10 test bowlers of all time. They all have 300 + wickets , sub 55 strike rate and averages below 24. The rest don't have any of that it didn't play in an era that was competitive enough.
Click to expand...

michael holding said andy roberts was the best windies fast bowler of all time
 
Robert said:
Why do they have as good or even better figures than Wasim?
Click to expand...

because they played in an era where lot of the modern restrictions weren't implemented like 2 bouncers per over etc.

so in truth current bowlers who average under 25 post 90s are actually greater than any from the past era's. To be that good in a batting friendly era is incredible. steyn and mcgrath are the 2 greatest test bowlers of all time.

or split it up.

post rule change greats

pre rule change greats.

none of the bowlers pre 90s should be Included in the first category. if that's the case wasim' s career should be analyzed based on his perfromances from 90 to about 2003. easily top 5. maybe top 3.
 
Last edited:
cricketjoshila said:
Marshall is number one in tests.

Most of the greats of 90s, put Wasim as the toughest bowler they faced. His skills with the ball were and are unmatched.
Click to expand...

But these skills didn't manifest in taking wickets at a low average. Please don't refer back to skills, as that is the only argument for Wasim and I am looking for others.
 
sindhiboy said:
michael holding said andy roberts was the best windies fast bowler of all time
Click to expand...

And Bradman put Tallon in his AT XI, ahead of Knott and Evans and many other great keepers. Do we take Tallon as the greatest keeper ever due to that
 
tyron_woodley said:
because they played in an era where lot of the modern restrictions weren't implemented like 2 bouncers per over etc.

so in truth current bowlers who average under 25 post 90s are actually greater than any from the past era's. To be that good in a batting friendly era is incredible. steyn and mcgrath are the 2 greatest test bowlers of all time.

or split it up.

post rule change greats

pre rule change greats.

none of the bowlers pre 90s should be Included in the first category. if that's the case wasim' s career should be analyzed based on his perfromances from 90 to about 2003. easily top 5. maybe top 3.
Click to expand...

By the way, 90's was a very bowling friendly decade, but 2000's was not.

If we say bowlers had it easier back then, do we say batsmen had it harder and rate Compton > Dravid, Harvey > Inzi and Chappell > Sachin
 
therealAB said:
By the way, 90's was a very bowling friendly decade, but 2000's was not.

If we say bowlers had it easier back then, do we say batsmen had it harder and rate Compton > Dravid, Harvey > Inzi and Chappell > Sachin
Click to expand...

fair point. that's why I said split it up.

pre restrictions era greats

post restriction greats which is the modern ones.
 
tyron_woodley said:
fair point. that's why I said split it up.

pre restrictions era greats

post restriction greats which is the modern ones.
Click to expand...

Do you consider pre-restriction greats lesser than post-restriction greats. As many of those pre 1990 ish had difficult uncovered pitches, small bats etc
 
therealAB said:
Do you consider pre-restriction greats lesser than post-restriction greats. As many of those pre 1990 ish had difficult uncovered pitches, small bats etc
Click to expand...

absolutely not. They are all greats in their own way. pre 90s batsmen must have been exceptionally talented from a technical perspective as they faced bowlers without proper gear, rules that favoured fast bowlers, no drs, no run out umpires, thin bats, different game-break systems, no no ball umpires*, less advanced strength and conditioning programs etc.

honestly it appears to me that modern bowlers are greater than the pre 90s. pre 90s batsmen conversely greater than post 90s batsmen.

but it's so difficult to quantify.
 
I didn't get to watch him alot, but from the few youtube clips and 99 wc memory I think he is probably the best in odi and top 5 in tests. Alot of people basing it off of cricinfo stats but I think if you ask the best batsmen of the era then they will say Wasim Akram was the toughest they faced.
 
Also personally I think Asif was more skilled than Wasim. I remember watching him in Australia, England and SA and everytime he bowled it felt like a wicket was around the corner, so subtle and deceptive. God I wish he hadn't blown it all away.
 
therealAB said:
But these skills didn't manifest in taking wickets at a low average. Please don't refer back to skills, as that is the only argument for Wasim and I am looking for others.
Click to expand...

Avg is not everything. Else Younis Khan abd MoYo avg higher than Viv. Sanga avgs higher than Ponting Lara Tendulkar. And there are many such examples.

Wasim bowled mainly on unhelpful wickets with a poor fielding team and a avg batting team.
 
sjahmed23 said:
Also personally I think Asif was more skilled than Wasim. I remember watching him in Australia, England and SA and everytime he bowled it felt like a wicket was around the corner, so subtle and deceptive. God I wish he hadn't blown it all away.
Click to expand...

Asif was not fit to tie Wasims shoelaces.

Just like Amir is no Wasim.

Those who watched Wasim in 90s know how far ahead he was of almost everyone.

Wasim
Imran
Waqar
Akhtar

These are the top 4 fast bowlers from Pakistan.

Lol Asif.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Asif was not fit to tie Wasims shoelaces.

Just like Amir is no Wasim.

Those who watched Wasim in 90s know how far ahead he was of almost everyone.

Wasim
Imran
Waqar
Akhtar

These are the top 4 fast bowlers from Pakistan.

Lol Asif.
Click to expand...

Asif certainly belongs in the conversation. His bowling in tests was impeccable, in the 10-12 years I've followed Pak cricket I haven't seen any bowler match his shrewdness and skills. The man literally got the ball to do whatever he wanted and the greats of his time attest to that. Amla, AB, KP, Anderson and more say he was just a beast.

Wasim used to make tailenders dumbfounded Asif did that to premier batsmen, I don't think I've seen another bowler do that to 3/4/5 what Asif did in his prime.
 
sjahmed23 said:
Asif certainly belongs in the conversation. His bowling in tests was impeccable, in the 10-12 years I've followed Pak cricket I haven't seen any bowler match his shrewdness and skills. The man literally got the ball to do whatever he wanted and the greats of his time attest to that. Amla, AB, KP, Anderson and more say he was just a beast.

Wasim used to make tailenders dumbfounded Asif did that to premier batsmen, I don't think I've seen another bowler do that to 3/4/5 what Asif did in his prime.
Click to expand...

What is Asif's avg in Pakistan?
 
tyron_woodley said:
absolutely not. They are all greats in their own way. pre 90s batsmen must have been exceptionally talented from a technical perspective as they faced bowlers without proper gear, rules that favoured fast bowlers, no drs, no run out umpires, thin bats, different game-break systems, no no ball umpires*, less advanced strength and conditioning programs etc.

honestly it appears to me that modern bowlers are greater than the pre 90s. pre 90s batsmen conversely greater than post 90s batsmen.

but it's so difficult to quantify.
Click to expand...

Yeah ok, kind of understand what you mean. Don't necessarily agree, but understand.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Avg is not everything. Else Younis Khan abd MoYo avg higher than Viv. Sanga avgs higher than Ponting Lara Tendulkar. And there are many such examples.

Wasim bowled mainly on unhelpful wickets with a poor fielding team and a avg batting team.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was unclear what i meant by average. I refer to standardised averages, and looking how a player has performed all over the world. Akram only averaged under 24 in one other country (SL), whereas McGrath averaged under 24 in all countries except Pak, SL (averaged 7.4 in UAE though so averages 22 ish away vs Pak)
 
Continuation of above

Sanga on the other hand has some flaws (Compared to other mentioned players) in his record, averaging 36 in SA, 36 in Ind and 40 in Eng. 3 of the 4 hardest overseas conditions during his playing career.

Era adjusted averages give Viv a higher average than Yousuf, Inzi, ABdV
 
i am waiting for a certain individual to come and cry how even Abey Kuruvella and Allan Mulallay were better bowlers than Wasim Akram ... and then going gaga on how no1 understands anything and he has been shown the light from far and beyond lol


Arguably the best bowler produced by the subcontinent .... my bias will always be for Imran, for reasons Imran being my mentor, friend, teacher and no doubt he was a great great greatttttt bowler, but Wasim was a magician .... just abs beauty
 
therealAB said:
Continuation of above

Sanga on the other hand has some flaws (Compared to other mentioned players) in his record, averaging 36 in SA, 36 in Ind and 40 in Eng. 3 of the 4 hardest overseas conditions during his playing career.

Era adjusted averages give Viv a higher average than Yousuf, Inzi, ABdV
Click to expand...

Its overall that means he played few matches as a wicketkeeper batsman but if you are looking Sangas stats as a pure batsman,
He averages 48 in India,37 in SA,52 in England.
 
Rellu_Katta said:
i am waiting for a certain individual to come and cry how even Abey Kuruvella and Allan Mulallay were better bowlers than Wasim Akram ... and then going gaga on how no1 understands anything and he has been shown the light from far and beyond lol


Arguably the best bowler produced by the subcontinent .... my bias will always be for Imran, for reasons Imran being my mentor, friend, teacher and no doubt he was a great great greatttttt bowler, but Wasim was a magician .... just abs beauty
Click to expand...

How many matches did he win for Pakistan?
 
andy0204 said:
Its overall that means he played few matches as a wicketkeeper batsman but if you are looking Sangas stats as a pure batsman,
He averages 48 in India,37 in SA,52 in England.
Click to expand...

You miss out that the initial days of a batsman are the hardest for him. Once he has played a few years and got hold of international cricket and settled, it becomes easier. Comparatively.

You are discounting this very period of Sanga.
 
cricketjoshila said:
You miss out that the initial days of a batsman are the hardest for him. Once he has played a few years and got hold of international cricket and settled, it becomes easier. Comparatively.

You are discounting this very period of Sanga.
Click to expand...

What discounting he played as a wicketkeeper batsman in his initial days at no 3 in test matches,Can you imagine a wicketkeeper keeping all day and comes to bat at no 3,Even Gilchrist batted at lower order in tests.
 
Last edited:
andy0204 said:
What discounting he played as a wicketkeeper batsman in his initial days at no 3 in test matches,Can you imagine a wicketkeeper keeping all day and comes to bat at no 3,Even Gilchrist batted at lower order in tests.
Click to expand...

Doesnt matter. You cannot discount a players initial days.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
I consider bowling in that era to be easier than the 90's. I know you will disagree but it is what it is. Not that holding and garner weren't excellent bowlers but they didn't play anything close to the amount of cricket that Wasim did, especially for a fast bowler. They could bowl unlimited bouncers and no balls weren't given as runs in the 80's even . You adjust for those factors and the helmets and the flatter pitches and there is no question as to why Wasim is better.
Click to expand...

That's not correct for several reasons.

I can remember Marshall being warned for excessive short stuff in 1984. The bouncer wasn't the problem, batters could sway and duck. The lifter off a good length was the problem, that gloved the batsman or hit his arm or chest.

And yeah, no balls were always given as runs. The Windies were famous for giving away sometimes fifty runs per innings as no balls.

Everyone wore helmets to Holding and Garner.

Pitches didn't really flatten out until after Wasim retired. Certainly there were better fast bowling decks in the eighties and nineties than the Australian roads poor old Lillee slogged away on. But now the wickets are usually quite slow again.

So, I don't believe that Wasim was better than Holding and Garner.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Asif was not fit to tie Wasims shoelaces.

Just like Amir is no Wasim.

Those who watched Wasim in 90s know how far ahead he was of almost everyone.

Wasim
Imran
Waqar
Akhtar

These are the top 4 fast bowlers from Pakistan.

Lol Asif.
Click to expand...

I did, and Imran was #1, not Wasim. Waqar was certainly better in the first half of his career too.
 
Robert said:
That's not correct for several reasons.

I can remember Marshall being warned for excessive short stuff in 1984. The bouncer wasn't the problem, batters could sway and duck. The lifter off a good length was the problem, that gloved the batsman or hit his arm or chest.

And yeah, no balls were always given as runs. The Windies were famous for giving away sometimes fifty runs per innings as no balls.

Everyone wore helmets to Holding and Garner.

Pitches didn't really flatten out until after Wasim retired. Certainly there were better fast bowling decks in the eighties and nineties than the Australian roads poor old Lillee slogged away on. But now the wickets are usually quite slow again.

So, I don't believe that Wasim was better than Holding and Garner.
Click to expand...

Like I said, there's no convincing you when it comes to this. Let's just agree to disagree.
 
Robert said:
That's not correct for several reasons.

I can remember Marshall being warned for excessive short stuff in 1984. The bouncer wasn't the problem, batters could sway and duck. The lifter off a good length was the problem, that gloved the batsman or hit his arm or chest.

And yeah, no balls were always given as runs. The Windies were famous for giving away sometimes fifty runs per innings as no balls.

Everyone wore helmets to Holding and Garner.

Pitches didn't really flatten out until after Wasim retired. Certainly there were better fast bowling decks in the eighties and nineties than the Australian roads poor old Lillee slogged away on. But now the wickets are usually quite slow again.

So, I don't believe that Wasim was better than Holding and Garner.
Click to expand...

Also no balls were given as runs but bowlers weren't penalised in the runs given until after 1983 . Even then it seems to have become a consistent practice only after 1987. Basically, after the careers of Roberts ,holding and garner were over.
 
tyron_woodley said:
for me he is only behind mcgrath in test and steyn. Actually equal to steyn.
he is top 2/3 all time in tests.

in odi top 3 as well. starc has the stats but he is a nobody next to wasim.
Click to expand...

Can't agree with that, for me wasim was a genius but he underachieved in test cricket, id say he just scrapes top 10, definitely not top5 and definitely imran was a better test quick
 
cricketjoshila said:
Most players struggle initially.
Click to expand...

Not in sangas case he was in and out for wicketkeeper position for Kallu(kaluwitharana) and Prasana Jayawardene (when he was not choosen as a permanent wicketkeeper) was playing or not, whenever he played as a pure batsman he scored runs.
 
If Waqar wasn't injured frequently, he would have a rival in the subcontinent. (No, Imran as a bowler is also a notch below)

As for out side the subcontinent, only Lillie, Marshall can rival.

McGrath had a long carrier with lots of support from the other side. He was very good. Not as good as Wasim though. Switch the country. Wasim would be in 7th heaven with 4 World cups.
 
"Wasim is the greatest and the toughest fast bowlers of all-time."

Who all has said this?

Brian Lara
Viv Richards
Ricky Ponting
Kumar Sangakkara
Jacques Kallis

That's four of the biggest legends from his own era and one from the previous era. No cricketer has received peer reputation as much as Wasim did and that's what makes him if not the greatest then surely among the top 5 greatest fast bowlers of all-time.

In ODIs, he is the greatest ever, ahead of McGrath IMO. Absolute genius of the game. Cricket is not only about taking wickets and winning games but also creating a legacy that will be remembered for ages and Wasim has.
 
Last edited:
BD-fan said:
If Waqar wasn't injured frequently, he would have a rival in the subcontinent. (No, Imran as a bowler is also a notch below)

As for out side the subcontinent, only Lillie, Marshall can rival.

McGrath had a long carrier with lots of support from the other side. He was very good. Not as good as Wasim though. Switch the country. Wasim would be in 7th heaven with 4 World cups.
Click to expand...

Odd then Imran has a better average and strike rate than Wasim. "A notch below" seems to mean "less successful".
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Like I said, there's no convincing you when it comes to this. Let's just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

I just like winding up Wasim fans. I think a lof of them have an almost religious awe, due to two balls in a WC Final they never saw.
 
Robert said:
I just like winding up Wasim fans. I think a lof of them have an almost religious awe, due to two balls in a WC Final they never saw.
Click to expand...

The truth of the matter is as someone has pointed out, many of Wasims peers said he was the hardest bowler they faced and was definitely top 3, forget about the people that talk about two balls they never saw, these are people that played against wasim at the highest level so their opinion does hold slightly more weight then the usual armchair observer. These kinds of lists are always down to perception anyway so im not going to say he was the GOAT etc, im just glad he was Pakistani and i had the pleasure of watching him play.
 
Robert said:
Odd then Imran has a better average and strike rate than Wasim. "A notch below" seems to mean "less successful".
Click to expand...

Well big Robby, Tendulkar has better average, more runs and more tons than Lara and Ponting, who do you rate the best?
 
Wasim is the best fast bowler of the modern age behind only Marshall.

McGrath played on easier wickets with better fielders and scoreboard pressure.
 
The most skillful pacer I have ever seen. Some might have had slightly better average or few more wickets but nobody ever had so much variety of skills; ability to do everything possible with the ball from out swing, in swing, seam movement, pace, quick arm action, reverse swing, bouncers, yorkers, cutters, using the width of the crease, using the angles from both around the wicket and over the wicket, setting up a batsmen and doing everything with tremendous control.

He had everything one can think of in a pacer.
 
he took 900 international wickets at 23.5, unfortunately it is very difficult to contextualise these numbers without running into extremely dodgy territory of hear say and accusations and rumour, the only thing one can say is was he playing for a non Asian country his figures would have arguably have been far better.
 
Ab Fan said:
Well big Robby, Tendulkar has better average, more runs and more tons than Lara and Ponting, who do you rate the best?
Click to expand...

Probably Lara by a nose. Tendulkar had a slight tendency to disappear under pressure and hide behind his Wall, or behind his VVS.

Ponting only turned into a run machine after Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar and Donald all retired around 2002, though he was still very good when they played.

All three of them went on too long which reduced their figures. They could have quit while they were ahead like Greg Chappell.
 
Robert said:
Probably Lara by a nose. Tendulkar had a slight tendency to disappear under pressure and hide behind his Wall, or behind his VVS.

Ponting only turned into a run machine after Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar and Donald all retired around 2002, though he was still very good when they played.

All three of them went on too long which reduced their figures. They could have quit while they were ahead like Greg Chappell.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps their retirement coincided with his peak years as a batsman.

28-32 are usually the peak years of a batsman, and Ponting was imperious at that age. Between 2002 and 2006, he was clearly the best batsman in the world.

The evidence that he struggled against the great bowlers of the 90s generation is not strong when you consider that he faced them before he hit his prime.
 
Robert said:
<B>Probably Lara by a nose.</B> Tendulkar had a slight tendency to disappear under pressure and hide behind his Wall, or behind his VVS.

Ponting only turned into a run machine after Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar and Donald all retired around 2002, though he was still very good when they played.

All three of them went on too long which reduced their figures. They could have quit while they were ahead like Greg Chappell.
Click to expand...

Alright, which means while stats are important, it's not the be all and end all of anything.

On Wasim, I feel he was an absolute genius who had all the tools in the arsenal and unlike Waqar, he maintained his performance for a longer period of his career. He has all the stats with him and he rose up on the biggest stage taking his country to their biggest ever win they have till now.
 
Mamoon said:
Or perhaps their retirement coincided with his peak years as a batsman.

28-32 are usually the peak years of a batsman, and Ponting was imperious at that age. Between 2002 and 2006, he was clearly the best batsman in the world.

The evidence that he struggled against the great bowlers of the 90s generation is not strong when you consider that he faced them before he hit his prime.
Click to expand...

Didn't say he struggled, said he turned into a run machine after they retired. He was able to reach his peak because the bowling got easier.
 
Ab Fan said:
Alright, which means while stats are important, it's not the be all and end all of anything.

On Wasim, I feel he was an absolute genius who had all the tools in the arsenal and unlike Waqar, he maintained his performance for a longer period of his career. He has all the stats with him and he rose up on the biggest stage taking his country to their biggest ever win they have till now.
Click to expand...

As I keep saying, stats are the beginning of wisdom not the end.

Perhaps my view is altered by Wasim's moderate record against England. The real hard man in England in 1987 was Imran, and then Waqar in 1992 and 1996. Though in 1992 it was close and Stewart said he found Wasim 1% harder to face than Waqar - he had seem the latter a lot at Surrey, and Wasim had that awkward habit of popping out from behind the ump when he came round the wicket.

As for the biggest stage, this criterion would make Stokes the best ever England player, but he isn't. Was he a better pressure player than Lamb, who failed to get England over the line in a WC final? Or did Stokes play his final with a better team against weaker bowling?
 
Robert said:
As I keep saying, stats are the beginning of wisdom not the end.

Perhaps my view is altered by Wasim's moderate record against England. The real hard man in England in 1987 was Imran, and then Waqar in 1992 and 1996. Though in 1992 it was close and Stewart said he found Wasim 1% harder to face than Waqar - he had seem the latter a lot at Surrey, and Wasim had that awkward habit of popping out from behind the ump when he came round the wicket.

As for the biggest stage, this criterion would make Stokes the best ever England player, but he isn't. Was he a better pressure player than Lamb, who failed to get England over the line in a WC final? Or did Stokes play his final with a better team against weaker bowling?
Click to expand...

Stokes is a better pressure player than Lamb and probably the most impactful LOI player England ever had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bhaijaan
Where does Virat Kohli rank among the most influential Cricketers ever?
Replies
9
Views
500
Mamoon
Mamoon
T
Imran Khan vs Curtly Ambrose vs Dale Steyn vs Wasim Akram – Who is the better Test bowler?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Fanboy375
Fanboy375
MenInG
How does the present-day Jasprit Bumrah compare with the likes of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis?
19 20 21
Replies
2K
Views
51K
kron
K
BouncerGuy
POTW: DeadlyVenom
Replies
29
Views
796
IMMY69
IMMY69
T
Mitchell Starc versus Wasim Akram in ODIs/LOIs: Who is better?
Replies
30
Views
2K
Ab Fan
Ab Fan
Back
Top