What's new

Waqar Younis vs Glenn McGrath : Who was the better ODI bowler?

McGrath along with Wasim were by far the best ODI pace bowlers of their generation. Waqar was good but I would say they were slightly better.
 
MacGrath was more consistent, Waqar was was more destructive. Someone who won games on his own.
 
With due respect i feel Mcgrath is the best pace bowler in the world in all conditions. Waqar was phenomenal but Mcgrath was extremely consistent and he was one bowler Sachin had no clue of.
 
spade said:
With due respect i feel Mcgrath is the best pace bowler in the world in all conditions. Waqar was phenomenal but Mcgrath was extremely consistent and he was one bowler Sachin had no clue of.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you've done boy. A legion of Sachinistas are on your way. Brace yourself :yk

On topic: Waqar for me.
 
Magrath is better. Waqar at his peak is one of the greatest bowlers of all time though. Look at his stats during his peak.
 
WhenSultansBowled said:
You have no idea what you've done boy. A legion of Sachinistas are on your way. Brace yourself :yk

On topic: Waqar for me.
Click to expand...

Ha ha... yes, we have quite a few of them, but genuinely in all contests one could think of, mcgrath was ahead of Sachin without a shadow of doubt. Sachin is considered world over, an ideal batsman who had a textbook technique, to be able to dominate arguably the best batsman is some feat and that's why it has to be Mcgrath for me.
 
McGrath

no question

McGrath vs Wasim is a proper debate
 
Waqar at his peak was better than Wasim, McGrath and anybody else. Over a full career, Waqar loses out.
 
Justcrazy said:
One bowler does not win WC , its all round contribution
Click to expand...

True winning is team effort, but individual contribution plays a big part in winning. I won't go by wins, but look at the contribution at the biggest stage of ODI format.



McGrath has 71 wickets at avg of 18 and Economy of 3.9 in WCs

Waqar has 22 wickets at avg of 21 and Economy of 5 in WCs.



McGrath is probably the best performer in WCs and Waqar won't be even among the top 50 performers in WC. Performance gap is too huge between them in the WC.
 
Actually some ridiculous comments.

It's fair to say McGrath was a better Test bowler but exactly on what basis he's a better one day bowler ? That too "comfortably " ?? No he wasn't.

Waqar is one of the best all time death bowlers so became extremely effective at crunch moments.

The stats are actually very similar and if anything it's slightly in Waqars Favour

I will say even Steven in ODIs, Mcfgrath better with new ball or bouncier tracks while Waqar was better at the death coupled with his pace.
 
Last edited:
To put the gap between these two in perspective,

Rating trend over their career,
waqar_rating.jpg
.
.

Ranking trend over their career,
waqar_ranking.jpg

Waqar was never ranked in the top 3 after 1992. McGrath was ranked among the top 3 for pretty much his entire career.. Waqar spent majority of his career outside of the top 10 rank. Rankings are not always perfect, but gap is too huge here.

As far as peak Waqar goes, folks are mixing formats here. He didn't have any gun peak rating in the ODI format. Peak rating for 778 and highest rank is 2 for Waqar in ODI format. Then add the WC performances and comparison become a lopsided one. This comparison reminds me about PPers trying to compare Pollock and Akhtar in ODI format.
 
Last edited:
Buffet said:
To put the gap between these two in perspective,

Rating trend over their career,
View attachment 70614
.
.

Ranking trend over their career,
View attachment 70615

Waqar was never ranked in the top 3 after 1992. McGrath was ranked among the top 3 for pretty much his entire career.. Waqar spent majority of his career outside of the top 10 rank. Rankings are not always perfect, but gap is too huge here.

As far as peak Waqar goes, folks are mixing formats here. He didn't have any gun peak rating in the ODI format. Peak rating for 778 and highest rank is 2 for Waqar in ODI format. Then add the WC performances and comparison become a lopsided one. This comparison reminds me about PPers trying to compare Pollock and Akhtar in ODI format.
Click to expand...
Where do you get these charts

Can you share exact link for let's say Waqars chart
 
Slog said:
Where do you get these charts

Can you share exact link for let's say Waqars chart
Click to expand...

You click on ESPN ranking for bowlers and then you will get this link.

http://www.lgiccrankings.com/ranking/odi/bowling/

Then search Waqar here.



Alternatively, Go to ICC ranking site and you get the same data. It looks a bit different, but it's the same thing. This one I can give you direct link for Waqar and you don't have to search it. You can change the tab to show rankings or ratings in various formats for Waqar.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/player-rankings/profile/waqar-younis

There are few more sources , but all of them pull the same data.
 
McGrath vs Akram and Waqar vs Akhtar are valid comparisons.

There is no comparison between McGrath and Waqar. McGrath was like Tendulkar of batting and Waqar was like Jayasuriya. McGrath, Akram, Donald, Pollock, and Ambrose were comfortably better ODI bowlers.
 
The_Odd_One said:
McGrath vs Akram and Waqar vs Akhtar are valid comparisons.

There is no comparison between McGrath and Waqar. McGrath was like Tendulkar of batting and Waqar was like Jayasuriya. McGrath, Akram, Donald, Pollock, and Ambrose were comfortably better ODI bowlers.
Click to expand...

How were Ambrose, Pollock and Donald better ODI bowlers ??

Ambrose only got 220 wickets in 175 matches, nothing to shout about.

And what was so good about Pollocks bowling ? He wasn't even close to Waqar in ODIs ! Waqar beats him easily, he's even got more wickets by playing 40 less matches.

I will wait to hear comments from the older generation who saw all these bowlers like me because some here have no clue what they are taking about.
 
Wasim, Donald, Ambrose and Mcgrath pretty much have similar overall ODI stats, with Donald having the best strike rate, average and economy.
 
TestMatch said:
Wasim, Donald, Ambrose and Mcgrath pretty much have similar overall ODI stats, with Donald having the best strike rate, average and economy.
Click to expand...

Not Ambi - most people misses this & don't bother to check the stats. Apart from his early years (when WI played 4 WSC in 6 years + WC in AUS), Ambi's ODI career is not like his Test career. A wonderful economical bowler, but not in the same rank of other 3, not even with WY.
 
Glen Mcgrath for sure.....bilaterals don't mean much.....McGrath was one of the best bowlers in 4 WC's where his team won 3 and was finalist in 1.....He was man of the series in one of those.

McGrath all the way.

Waqar great bowler in his own right...fantastic record and loads of skill but will always be a notch below Mcgrath,Akram etc for a reason.
 
man, some people have way too much time on their hands. how can you compare two bowlers in isolation? you have to look at the support cast they were playing with. how often did they save/win games for their teams in losing situations? what about their strike partners, how much pressure did they put on the opposition? these player comparison threads are just silly, and to see people pulling out graphs to make their point is just comical
 
Pre injury - the wicket feared that it would be broken in to pieces. Batsmens' toe worried to smashed and ending up in Nurse's table.

Of Course McGrath was more consistent, willy, and better wicket taker.

I'd take raw Waqar any day everyday.
 
90MPH said:
How were Ambrose, Pollock and Donald better ODI bowlers ??

Ambrose only got 220 wickets in 175 matches, nothing to shout about.

And what was so good about Pollocks bowling ? He wasn't even close to Waqar in ODIs ! Waqar beats him easily, he's even got more wickets by playing 40 less matches.

I will wait to hear comments from the older generation who saw all these bowlers like me because some here have no clue what they are taking about.
Click to expand...

I think some cricket lessons are needed here which I will gladly provide to you free of cost.

Look at the career ratings of Waqar, Ambrose, Pollock, and Donald. Waqar was below all 3 of them.







Waqar's economy rate was 4.68 which meant he gave almost 47 runs in his 10 overs.
Ambrose's economy rate was 3.48 which meant he gave almost 35 runs in his 10 overs.
Pollock's economy rate was 3.67 which meant he gave almost 37 runs in his 10 overs.

Waqar took 416 wickets in 258 innings which is 1.6 wickets (less than 2 wickets) per match.
Ambrose took 225 wickets in 175 inning which is 1.3 wickets (less than 2 wickets) per match.
Pollock took 416 wickets in 258 innings which is 1.3 wickets (less than 2 wickets) per match.

If you have 5 Waqars bowling in an inning, the opposition team will score 235 runs at the loss of 8 wickets.
If you have 5 Ambroses/Pollocks bowling in an inning, the opposition team will score 180 runs at the loss of 7 wickets.

Which target do you think is easier to chase?

I will gladly take Ambrose and Pollock type any day over Waqar.

I have watched Waqar's entire career and the moments I remember the most are the following:

1993 - Pepsi Cup Final vs WI
WI chasing 285
Waqar's figures were 8-65-0
Pakistan lost

1996 WC QF vs India
Waqar's figures were 10-67-2
Jadeja hit 40 runs of Waqar's last 2 overs.
Pakistan lost

1998 Singer Cup vs Sri Lanka
Waqar's figures were 10-62-4
Jayasuriya hit the fastest ODI century
Pakistan lost

2003 World cup match vs India
Waqar's figures were 8.4-71-2
Waqar was captain
Pakistan lost
 
The_Odd_One said:
I think some cricket lessons are needed here which I will gladly provide to you free of cost.

Look at the career ratings of Waqar, Ambrose, Pollock, and Donald. Waqar was below all 3 of them.







Waqar's economy rate was 4.68 which meant he gave almost 47 runs in his 10 overs.
Ambrose's economy rate was 3.48 which meant he gave almost 35 runs in his 10 overs.
Pollock's economy rate was 3.67 which meant he gave almost 37 runs in his 10 overs.

Waqar took 416 wickets in 258 innings which is 1.6 wickets (less than 2 wickets) per match.
Ambrose took 225 wickets in 175 inning which is 1.3 wickets (less than 2 wickets) per match.
Pollock took 416 wickets in 258 innings which is 1.3 wickets (less than 2 wickets) per match.

If you have 5 Waqars bowling in an inning, the opposition team will score 235 runs at the loss of 8 wickets.
If you have 5 Ambroses/Pollocks bowling in an inning, the opposition team will score 180 runs at the loss of 7 wickets.

Which target do you think is easier to chase?

I will gladly take Ambrose and Pollock type any day over Waqar.

I have watched Waqar's entire career and the moments I remember the most are the following:

1993 - Pepsi Cup Final vs WI
WI chasing 285
Waqar's figures were 8-65-0
Pakistan lost

1996 WC QF vs India
Waqar's figures were 10-67-2
Jadeja hit 40 runs of Waqar's last 2 overs.
Pakistan lost

1998 Singer Cup vs Sri Lanka
Waqar's figures were 10-62-4
Jayasuriya hit the fastest ODI century
Pakistan lost

2003 World cup match vs India
Waqar's figures were 8.4-71-2
Waqar was captain
Pakistan lost
Click to expand...

Yeah right, don't believe you for a second that you watched Waqars entire career.
Otherwise you wouldn't try giving me a lesson on stats nonsense even though he had a significant better per wicket ratio in any case.

Wickets win you matches in case you didnt know - keeping runs in check is good for containing but doesn't win you matches.

Waqar was a gamble bowler who was willing to take the risk to bowl fuller than most other decent bowlers because he was looking for wickets - sure this philposhy didn't always work but I know it did many times as I saw some wrecking many batting line ups.

It's a joke to say Ambrose and Pollock were better ODI bowlers. Better at containing only.
 
Since career graphs, career peaks, and random match stats are being used to make one look much better than the other, let's see how their stats look like:

Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI Ave Econ SR 4 5
overall 1989-2003 262 258 2116.2 143 9919 416 7/36 23.84 4.68 30.5 14 13


Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI Ave Econ SR 4 5
overall 1993-2007 250 248 2161.4 279 8391 381 7/15 22.02 3.88 34.0 9 7

Yep, McGrath's numbers look much better, unless he is the one in the bottom:yk2
 
Waqar was top quality but McGrath was a cut above. Economy rate is just as important in LOIs as average and SR, McGrath had a brilliant economy rate.
 
Any player that has the ability to take the pitch out of the occasion is going to be better than the one that does not possess that extra gift. Waqar.
 
90MPH said:
Yeah right, don't believe you for a second that you watched Waqars entire career.
Otherwise you wouldn't try giving me a lesson on stats nonsense even though he had a significant better per wicket ratio in any case.

Wickets win you matches in case you didnt know - keeping runs in check is good for containing but doesn't win you matches.

Waqar was a gamble bowler who was willing to take the risk to bowl fuller than most other decent bowlers because he was looking for wickets - sure this philposhy didn't always work but I know it did many times as I saw some wrecking many batting line ups.

It's a joke to say Ambrose and Pollock were better ODI bowlers. Better at containing only.
Click to expand...

Is that the best you can come up with? I don't really have to prove to you that I have watched the entire career of all these bowlers. Can you answer me just one question? Why was Waqar not even a permanent member of the team after 1995? He played just one game in the 1999 WC.

ICC bowlers ranking is the most accurate way of measuring a bowler's caliber. If you think they mean nothing then I really have nothing else to say.

Just one last thing, Waqar's economy rate was very poor compared to other bowlers of his time and he was taken to cleaners several times by even mediocre to average batsmen like Ajay Jadeja and Andrew Hudson.
 
The_Odd_One said:
Is that the best you can come up with? I don't really have to prove to you that I have watched the entire career of all these bowlers. Can you answer me just one question? Why was Waqar not even a permanent member of the team after 1995? He played just one game in the 1999 WC.

ICC bowlers ranking is the most accurate way of measuring a bowler's caliber. If you think they mean nothing then I really have nothing else to say.

Just one last thing, Waqar's economy rate was very poor compared to other bowlers of his time and he was taken to cleaners several times by even mediocre to average batsmen like Ajay Jadeja and Andrew Hudson.
Click to expand...

You have zero idea of what you are talking about. If you only remember the poor games that a player played in, then it shows your bias. Nothing else.

Taken to the cleaners several times? Jadeja had one good game against him, one, and its not something that ever happened again. McGrath was taken to the cleaners by Razzaq, he gave away 67 runs in 4 overs, which is far worse.

Tendulkar was a miserable failiure in both the world cup finals he played in, i guess using your logic it would be fair to remember him by those failiures.

As far as Waqar in odi's is concerned, i remember him as the guy who took more fifers in odis than anything, for giving perhaps the greatest odi back to back performances vs England and Aus, and as someone who had a knack for defending low totals.

Waqar only played one game in 99 because of his own disputes with the captain (Akram) and because Pakistan were using a flawed strategy of using too many all rounders. That is why. Reducing an all time career to a handful of games shows your bias and utter lack of knowledge of the sport.

Pollock and Ambrose are not as good odi bowlers as Waqar. And no sane person is going to put Walsh and Pollock ahead of Waqar in tests either.
 
The_Odd_One said:
I think some cricket lessons are needed here which I will gladly provide to you free of cost...
Click to expand...
Thank you for the lesson. A thing for you to ponder though. WHERE THE GAMES WERE PLAYED. Getting assistance from the bouncy pitches and taking advantage of that was great for McGrath. Yet playing docile pitches of Karachi and other places and ending up with more wickets....Conclusion: YOU HAVE'NT SEEN HIM PLAY.
 
Not surprising to see the same biased posters choosing waqar over mcgrath.

McGrath is comfortably the second best bowler of all time.

First is wasim, who suffered from dropped catches, didnt get to feast on the unstable pak batting line up.

Compare this to McGrath who's fielders were the safest pair of hands in the game, and whose team possessed ATG batters like Gilchrist, Ponting, Hayden, Bevan who he didnt get to bowl to in the international arena.
 
CricFan2012 said:
Not surprising to see the same biased posters choosing waqar over mcgrath.

McGrath is comfortably the second best bowler of all time.

First is wasim, who suffered from dropped catches, didnt get to feast on the unstable pak batting line up.

Compare this to McGrath who's fielders were the safest pair of hands in the game, and whose team possessed ATG batters like Gilchrist, Ponting, Hayden, Bevan who he didnt get to bowl to in the international arena.
Click to expand...


Those points alone make Waqar better than McGrath as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ab Fan
Joel Garner vs Waqar Younis - Better Test bowler?
Replies
49
Views
892
Justcrazy
Justcrazy
mominsaigol
Were Waqar Younis and Misbah-ul-Haq wrongfully sacked?
Replies
17
Views
426
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
K
Dale Steyn vs Waqar Younis: Who’s the better Test bowler?
2
Replies
84
Views
3K
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
L
  • Poll
Wasim Akram vs Waqar Younis: Who is better for the role in PCB?
Replies
28
Views
822
LordJames
L
C
[EXCLUSIVE] "Waqar Younis had prior chances and could not deliver:" Atiq-uz-Zaman
Replies
16
Views
955
from_da_lost_dim3nsion
F
Back
Top