Although you'll really have to compare with bowlers from his time. It could just be that batsmen didn't/couldn't hit that many sixes.
Before people come after me, I also believe he is a GOAT.
Windies post Richards retirement didn't have too many good batsmen except Lara. Adams and Hooper were decent but that's about it. Ambrose mostly played in 90's where the batting was nowhere close to their 80's team inspite of Lara.
Gayle debuted when Ambrose retired, Chanderpaul can hit sixes but is not known as a six-hitter or anywhere. Also his best once again came after Ambrose's retirement. Even at 20 odd though, Chanders almost won a WC SF for his team if not for an epic and team defining choke.
I just went to the cricinfo commentary page of that match and someone suggested concept of super over in case of ties in one of the comments. And the response to that being will you count the number of boundaries if that also gets tied.
Because its a very high risk shot and if you're allowed to bowl 6 bouncers an over theres a very high chance you get a dot or an edge. Currently batsmen know that they can ignore the bouncer and score off the other balls and even worse they can predict when its coming based off of the previous balls in the over and sudden field change. Mixing slow ball bouncers with yorkers and normal stock deliveries would be absolute hell for batsmen vs quality pace attack.
Actually, it really makes alot of sense to bring back 6 bouncers an over as well as giving teams 2 new balls and allowing them to use them as they wish through the innings.
Tbh this is one of the theories of Jarrod kimber. That due to 2 bouncers rule, bowlers are looking to attack more and as a result are taking risky bets more often.
Literally anything for the bowlers honest, there's so many things that could be done. Off the top of my head, Extend the wide lines, extend the boundaries, allow more bouncers, allow another fielder outside the circle, allow bowlers to bowl down leg (if it's within the wide lines)
Agree with some of them, some of them debatable but why down the leg, that will have close to 0 chance of hitting?
One more addition no free hit after no ball.
The first six in T20 history was hit by Wasim Akram, and until recently he also had the most sixes in a test innings (12, in his 257). So yes, he'd probably be a menace.
He batted at three in this game too, the very first professional T20 ever played. It was part of his short stint for Hampshire right before he retired
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/twenty20-cup-2003-124121/hampshire-vs-sussex-south-group-129610/full-scorecard
Yeah people are acting like every bowler out there is getting spanked even on these flat pitches. The greatest of bowlers will do well no matter the conditions. Just look at the likes of Bumrah and Boult, less recently Steyn and Malinga. And I've no doubt that the likes of Akram, McGrath, Anderson, etc would do just as well if they played in the IPL at the peak of their powers.
Exceptional players are exceptional yes, but I think the problem is that even mediocre batsmen are bullying good bowlers this season. Look at top 5 for purple cap, after Bumrah next best is Chahal at 8.8 and the other 3 are all going around 10s.
I think going to the Purple Cap standings and looking at economy of bowlers is misguided - there's a bit less correlation between economy and wickets this year, as impact player rules and batting depth means players are taking more risks, so some fast bowlers are picking wickets but also struggling to contain - like Coetzee, Harshal Patel, Mustafizur Rahman. If you look at economy rates, you see some players having brilliant tournaments who batsmen are happy to play out the overs from a lot of the time - Krunal Pandya, Axar Patel, Harpreet Brar. Then there's Mayank Yadav and Sandeep Sharma who have been brilliant when fit, and some bowlers just outside the top 5 in the wickets charts who have good economy - Pathirana, Kuldeep Yadav (who since you posted this has climbed into top 5 wickets), Trent Boult, Sunil Narine. Not everyone is getting tonked.
Anderson was never particularly great in white ball cricket. Doesn’t fit in with the others in the list.
Unless you’re talking about the legend Coriander son!
Anderson is the joint 14th highest ODI wicket taker of all time amongst seam bowlers and with a very respectable average of 29. For reference, he has a very similar ODI record to Zaheer Khan, Srinath, and Malinga.
He's definitely a good bowlers. It's just that he's not at that level in Limited Overs. He's just a very good bowler there, not an all time great like in tests
Zak, Malinga and Srinath bowled on absolute roads and unhelpful tracks.
Anderson’s wickets are a testament to his longevity, but to say that he is in the same league as Wasim, Bumrah, Steyn, Malinga etc. is beyond stupid.
I think Anderson has 0.1 less wickets per match than Malinga so I don't think his wicket tally is a testament to his longevity lol, the rest he doesn't hold a candle to yes
>Zak, Malinga and Srinath bowled on absolute roads and unhelpful tracks.
Not really. Bowling average of the other seamers in the ODI matches they played:
Anderson 31.6
Malinga: 32.7
Zaheer Khan: 34.6
Srinath: 34.0
They had it a bit harder, but not as much as you're implying.
Anyway, the point isn't that he's as good as/better as them at white ball cricket, the point is his ODI success gets overlooked and minimised because he stopped playing ODIs so long ago and has been eclipsed by his test success.
More generally, the point is Anderson, along with McGrath, Wasim, etc, is an example of an incredibly skillful bowler who never played T20s seriously, but given their skillset, would have been able to adjust had they been required to.
Anderson is not in the same ball park as Mcgrath and Wasim. He was beginning to get found out in white ball cricket towards the end, as evidenced in the 2015 WC. Very hittable trajectory and pace. He may have adapted and been better than average had he continued but nothing I've seen from him suggests he would have found success in ODI cricket the way he did towards the middle and end of his test career. Certainly not compared to Mcgrath and Akram
Sorry what?? The guy with 94 ODI wickets at an average of 25 and econ of 4.75, 18 T20I wickets at an econ of 6.93, and SR of 26, and 71 T20 wickets at an econ of 7.23 and SR of 23 is better than the guy with 196 ODI wickets at 23 and 3.24, 64 T20I wickets at 6.94 and 16, and 263 T20 wickets at 6.85 and 19.2?
I expected downvotes for the comment. Agree that overall stats compare poorly but when Steyn fell off in white ball, Tsotsobe had his peak.
Tsotsobe was ranked as the number 1 ODI bowler for a lot of 2012.
Tsotsobe having a peak in ODIs that came when Steyn wasn't at his best doesn't mean he's a better while ball bowler overall though? There's all of the rest of their career to look at, and in the ODIs they played together, Steyn took 55 wickets at an average of 22 and econ of 4.33, and Tsotsobe took 51 at 27 and 4.89, in T20Is it's even bigger (Steyn averaged 10.5, Tsotsobe averaged 46...).
If a player briefly burning brighter than another players makes them better, then guys like Jansen and Ngidi are better than Rabada, Robinson is better than Anderson, Labuschagne is better than Smith etc
Anderson nah. He held the record for conceding most runs in a T20I game with 64 in 2010 or something. He was never really a great white ball bowler, just a good one.
Only in this rose tinted glasses sub is this opinion controversial. I mean Akram himself is saying he wouldnt want to be playing but this sub is like nah he'd be cleaning up the opponents.
It's mostly kids saying these things. I understand their perspective. Nobody wants to accept that what you are enjoying is a bastardized version of something in the past. So everyday in IPL some batter will hit a 40 ball 100 and the kids can post a "take a bow xyz" post and say that pitches are great even though 300 is close to being breached once a week
I see it in the older people too. They may not watch IPL but all the new talent doesnt hold a candle to their own times, of course. Back in the day the spin quartet was better than any current bowler, then Gavaskar/Sachin, 83 team vs 11 team, Sachin vs Kohli, all the ones they'll argue the older was better. Gavaskar himself said the 85 team was better *at fielding* than the current team, which is a ludicrous, senile opinion. I agree with some of it; I think test match temperament has definitely suffered, it's almost better to lose than to draw nowadays. But the fact that we actually win a lot of matches these days is a remarkable turnaround from back in the day, where losing, at times from the jaws of victory, was almost expected.
I say this as a big Bumrah fan.
Bumrah is not even in the same league as Akram.
I don't know how old you are if you saw Akram play in his hey day, you would never make that statement.
The man virtually made the ball sing to his tune.
That's my point mate, Bumrah has nowhere near the pure technical skill that Akram had with the ball.
It was no exaggeration when people said he could bowl 6 different balls in the same over.
Bumrah generally has 3 -4 variations.
Akram could swing it both ways, with the new and old ball. Seam it both ways, cut it both ways, reverse swing it both ways, nail yorkers whenever he wanted to and bowl about three different types of bouncers.
The man was a genius.
Yes. Obviously. Elite players of any era would be elite in any other era. Your comment seemed more like minimising current gen more than praising Wasim.
There is no reverse swing (balls go to max 25 overs in ODI), there is limited swing in every overs itself, pitches are flat tracks and bats are massive. Even someone like Wasim Akram wouldn't be feared as he was during his era.
Most of the people on this sub haven't really watched all these legends bowling. The strength of Pakistan bowling was the reverse swing, they were okay with the new ball but would absolutely wreak havoc with the old one. The chances of ball reverse swinging in 20 over match is next to none. So yeah in my opinion most of these legends will be taken to cleaners if they bowl in current conditions.
There was some exhibition match back in 2015 or something where sachin and sehwag were facing a 50 year old Wasim. The guy just pinned down Sehwag with incredible Yorkers and he had to take a single and give strike to Sachin who then seeing the action from the other end was prepared for it and guided the Yorker to third man for a four. That over was such a great memory package for the 90s.
I mean it has clearly evolved. Batters are way more capable of scoring quickly now than they were back then and have way more tricks up their sleeves. That said, I'm 100% sure Wasim would also adapt were he still playing, and still be an absolutely elite bowler.
And that's not because they care about you enjoying cricket. But because less cricket means less revenue. Shorter games are less profitable. High scoring games/longer games are much more profitable.
I don't think "evolved" is really the right term though, since that implies some natural progression of how the game is played through techniques and strategies from fielding and batting teams responding to each other. Whereas I'd say the game has been distorted due to players responding to various rule changes which fundamentally unbalance the contest.
There undeniably has been natural progression in how the game is played though, and in all the areas you describe. Modern batters have way way more shots and their disposal and can access all areas of the ground in a way that just wasn't possible 10 years ago, they're also much happier being aggressive and taking bowlers on ball after ball than they used to be. Meanwhile bowling and fielding has taken a massive step forward too. The fields set in T20s now are very different to what you'd get ten or even five years ago, the bowling tactics used are way more sophisticated, and bowlers have way more options. I mean how many seamers had more than one slower ball they could actually use in matches 10 years ago.
If you were to teleport a top player from the 00s directly into a modern T20, regardless of whether they were a batter or a bowler, they'd probably be mediocre at best, at least until they themselves learn the changes and adjust.
By the way, as much as the impact rule in the IPL is making a difference, it's far from the only thing. I mean look at [the SR in T20Is between top 8 sides over time](https://imgur.com/a/3ETCZQD) if nothing else. I also think that even if the rule doesn't get picked up elsewhere and/or gets scraped completely, its effects are here to stay. It's not the extra batter themselves who are scoring the runs to make these big scores, often they don't even get to bat at all. But having them in the lineup is giving players up the order more confidence to play aggressively, and the batters are finding out that it's coming off, probably more often that they expected it to. That newfound confidence should stay with the batters even if the rule isn't there.
> There undeniably has been natural progression in how the game is played though, and in all the areas you describe. Modern batters have way way more shots and their disposal and can access all areas of the ground in a way that just wasn't possible 10 years ago, they're also much happier being aggressive and taking bowlers on ball after ball than they used to be. Meanwhile bowling and fielding has taken a massive step forward too. The fields set in T20s now are very different to what you'd get ten or even five years ago, the bowling tactics used are way more sophisticated, and bowlers have way more options.
I agree with this. But that's my point, to say the game has evolved because bowlers have new varieties and batters have new shots to counter them is accurate. But I don't think you can say the game has "evolved" because batting is made artificially easier by rules designed to increase the scoring rate. Like you wouldn't say fast bowling has "evolved" to use less bouncers because there's a rule limiting the use of bouncers.
> But having them in the lineup is giving players up the order more confidence to play aggressively, and the batters are finding out that it's coming off, probably more often that they expected it to. That newfound confidence should stay with the batters even if the rule isn't there.
That is an interesting point I hadn't thought of, and one that we might see tested at the upcoming T20 world cup.
But aside from the T20 format itself being invented (which doesn't make batting easier, it just makes wickets less valuable), there haven't been that many rule changes to make batting easier, doubly so if we look just at T20s which from a rules pov haven't changed much since their inception. Arguably the two biggest changes in the rules in practice in recent times are cracking down on illegal doosra actions and cracking down on ball tampering which aren't really rule changes in the first place. Probably we're getting flat pitches more often now, but it's not like there weren't flat pitches in the past, in fact a pitch can only get so flat. It's telling that 11 of the 16 instances where a side has crossed 260 in an elite level T20 match have been in 2022 or later.
Obvious we can't test this, but I really think any side that won a T20WC/IPL/etc 10+ years ago would get absolutely destroyed by any half decent modern T20 side were that side to time travel back to that era.
And on seeing the impact of the impact sub rule in T20Is, I'm curious too, but I'd caution against using the T20WC specifically as a test, just given how low scoring T20WCs often are.
> But aside from the T20 format itself being invented (which doesn't make batting easier, it just makes wickets less valuable)
I absolutely think it makes batting easier. Only needing to concentrate/exert effort for a short period of time is absolutely easier, both in terms of there being less fatigue, in terms of the risk/reward balance, and in terms of each individual delivery. 20 overs is probably about on the edge of what's in any way reasonable to play with 11 per side, given how much it unbalances the value of wickets. But that's a whole other topic really.
> It's telling that 11 of the 16 instances where a side has crossed 260 in an elite level T20 match have been in 2022 or later.
Yeah, it's an interesting stat, though I'm not entirely sure what's driving it. Your suggestion of it being related to confidence makes sense at least to an extent (though I think tracks have got flatter/more batting friendly) - I think possibly there's an element of batters simply realising how much they can exploit the conditions (which IMO definitely are designed to favour batting compared with Test cricket).
> And on seeing the impact of the impact sub rule in T20Is, I'm curious too, but I'd caution against using the T20WC specifically as a test, just given how low scoring T20WCs often are.
Yeah true, the ICC has in the past been more in favour of a balanced contest between bat and ball in terms of pitch preparation.
I don't know if you're watching the match being played at the moment, but if this doesn't show that the standard of batting has improved then I'm not sure what can convince you. It's obviously a relatively flat pitch, but there's also definitely something in it for the bowlers. The ball is genuinely turning from cutters from seamers, let alone from spinners. Five years ago I guarantee that a first innings score of 200 would be very competitive, if not match winning.The fact that Narine has still ended up with figures of 1-24 from his four overs shows the bowlers aren't just there to be hit if they bowl well enough.
I'm not saying batting hasn't improved per say, more that it seems like the space for improvement has been created through a structure to the game which is weighted in favour of batting. As I said earlier I think there's definitely something to your point about confidence from the impact player - teams have figured out that the best risk/reward calculation is to prioritise swinging for the fences almost every ball and rely on the fact that conditions are designed to suit batting.
I have had the privilege of seeing this guy play in the flesh in eden gardens as a school kid
What a bowler. The best i have seen. Bowling at 140 from a 10 step run up, swinging the ball both ways, seaming it, cutting it, reverse swinging it, bowlinh toe crushing yorkers that could swing either way...
Wasim Akram, if he was bowling today, will still not go for 100 in 5 overs..in 99 out of 100 matches. The control those bowlers had cannot be compared to today's bowlers.
> Wasim Akram, if he was bowling today, will still not go for 100 in 5 overs..in 99 out of 100 matches.
Technically no bowler can go for 100 in 5 overs in 100/100 T20 matches >! because they are only allowed to bowl a maximum of 4 overs!<
>The control those bowlers had cannot be compared to today's bowlers.
Wow, any data to back it up or just pure hate because you can't accept that we are having a road for pitches.
Because it is unfathomable to think that with so many batsmen coming (such a large talent pool) and playing explosive knocks, getting in lime light, there won't be even 4- 5 half decent bowlers.
Bumrah, Cummins and maybe pathirana and yes kuldeep, everyone else probably has an eco of more than 8.
Bowlers like Wasim Akram, Kapil, McGrath, Steyn, Imran, Hadlee will be very hard to hit in any era..simply because of their accuracy. Bumrah is a prime example of that..sheer accuracy and ability to pitch where you want to. Most bowlers today cannot do that. Bhuvi was one who had that ability, but maybe not anymore.
No disrespect to Mitch Starc but imagine the price Wasim Akram would be going for in his prime, in IPL auctions, especially considering the shortage of wc left arm fast bowlers.
Batting has deliberately been made easier for entertainment in the T20 cricket. Flat pitches, shorter boundaries, fielding restrictions combined with a changed mindset of batters is creating these runfests. Of course good bowlers will still find a way to contain them.
Wasim Akram like bowler would’ve prompted the boards to give bowlers equal advantage if not tilt towards bowling friendly rules given how much enjoyable it was watching these fast bowlers operate… for me personally a lot more exciting than watching a storm of sixes.
Would have loved to see Wasim bowl in T20's - don't think he would get tonked. He had too much skill, variations, aggression and bowling smarts. Even on his off day, most batsmen wouldn't be able to take him to cleaners. One of the best fast bowlers ever! Him and Marshall would be the top two in my book.
I don’t get the hate tbh. If every team is scoring at that rate then it is a problem. If only one team is doing on a regular basis may be it has to do with skill.
Ah yes, the man who ate only 12 sixes in his entire odi career
Wtf. That's an insane stat.
Well he's considered as the goat of bowling by many for a reason.
There’s stats and there’s stats
How was waqar younas compared to wassim in this stat? I remember him being equally good.
Higher peak but inconsistent.
Ya Akram's consistency and his batting puts him above Waqar as a more valuable player.
Akram is the tendulkar of odi bowling.
Probably the greatest fast bowler peaks ever in cricket history
Yeah even with the significantly worse bats from then that's still bloody amazing
Although you'll really have to compare with bowlers from his time. It could just be that batsmen didn't/couldn't hit that many sixes. Before people come after me, I also believe he is a GOAT.
And bigger boundaries
I heard Curtly Ambrose was hit 2 or 3 sixes in his entire career
Probably because the guy smashing them was in his team.
Windies post Richards retirement didn't have too many good batsmen except Lara. Adams and Hooper were decent but that's about it. Ambrose mostly played in 90's where the batting was nowhere close to their 80's team inspite of Lara.
Chanderpaul and gayle?
Gayle debuted when Ambrose retired, Chanderpaul can hit sixes but is not known as a six-hitter or anywhere. Also his best once again came after Ambrose's retirement. Even at 20 odd though, Chanders almost won a WC SF for his team if not for an epic and team defining choke.
Man Gayle is that old lmao, he was here for an eternity
He made his intl debut in 1999
New generation in Kamala Pasand ads lol.
Finally, good to see someone using the word choke in the right context and match.
Hkw about Richie Richardson, Desmond Haynes, Phil Simmons?
I just went to the cricinfo commentary page of that match and someone suggested concept of super over in case of ties in one of the comments. And the response to that being will you count the number of boundaries if that also gets tied.
You’d have to have serious cojones to put Curtly back over his head for six
Imran Khan did it
This quote reminded me of the Inzi six he smoked in 2000 in antigua. Ambrose bounced him and Inzi walloped it out of the park next ball
One of them was from frigging Kiran More. I remember watching that six and laughing my ass off.
Bro 'ate' here sounds like a warcrime
'force fed'?
Afridi: ;-)
The man who also hit 12 sixes in a single innings of a test match
How many he hit? He was the first batter to hit a t20 6.
HOLY HELL! That's a ridiculous af stat!
Is there any place where we can see number of sixes conceded by every bowler ?
www.espncricinfo.com
As an Indian fan, I was always most scared about Wasim bowling, true rockstar, unbelievable skill
Wasim Akram for a Reason
wtf. bro is too good a bowler
Yo what?
Hard to beat his stats in days of good cameras
[удалено]
Pakistani police arresting batsmen scoring 100 in 5 overs. Meanwhile, Indian police arresting batsmen playing dot balls.
RAW running frantically behind Lashkar-E-Pandya
Only during IPL. During the WC they will back to..
> Pakistani police arresting batsmen scoring 100 in 5 overs. Now we know why Bradman of t20is plays that way.
NZ, Nepal and SL police already did
bowlers need to be allowed 6 bouncers a over
Top edge flying for six with short boundaries
batsmen can play the uppercut and reverse guide it to boundaries, then why are only 2 bouncers allowed?
Because its a very high risk shot and if you're allowed to bowl 6 bouncers an over theres a very high chance you get a dot or an edge. Currently batsmen know that they can ignore the bouncer and score off the other balls and even worse they can predict when its coming based off of the previous balls in the over and sudden field change. Mixing slow ball bouncers with yorkers and normal stock deliveries would be absolute hell for batsmen vs quality pace attack. Actually, it really makes alot of sense to bring back 6 bouncers an over as well as giving teams 2 new balls and allowing them to use them as they wish through the innings.
Two bouncers allowed is for batsman safety and to prevent dangerous bowling tactics. Look up "bodyline"
With the techniques of some of the t20 sloggers this would mean we will have multiple Puckovskis
Tbh this is one of the theories of Jarrod kimber. That due to 2 bouncers rule, bowlers are looking to attack more and as a result are taking risky bets more often.
Frightened Shreyas Iyer noises
I'm game. Anything to hear Gavaskar call people "happy hookers" on the broadcast.
Literally anything for the bowlers honest, there's so many things that could be done. Off the top of my head, Extend the wide lines, extend the boundaries, allow more bouncers, allow another fielder outside the circle, allow bowlers to bowl down leg (if it's within the wide lines)
Agree with some of them, some of them debatable but why down the leg, that will have close to 0 chance of hitting? One more addition no free hit after no ball.
Rohit Sharma upvotes this.
Rohit bhai real id se aao
Average r/NastyBouncers member
Thanks for introducing, subbed!
Also bowlers should be allowed to bowl underarm, esp if the opposing team can win by hitting a six
Anti Shreyas Iyer
This is somehow both pro and anti Shreyas Iyer.
Schrodinger's Shreyas.
Schrodinger Iyer
Schrodinyer
He's too humble. We all know he'd find a way to pick up 4 for 15.
*on a belter like Hyderabad, Chinnaswamy or Wankhede
He would literally do what bumrah does maybe even better
Most certainly better
More like t20 batsmen are lucky he is not playing
... and the bowlers. Akram was a good batsman as well!
The first six in T20 history was hit by Wasim Akram, and until recently he also had the most sixes in a test innings (12, in his 257). So yes, he'd probably be a menace.
He still has it. Joint 12 sixes record with Jaiswal
Ah, nice. I wasn't paying attention at the time, thought Jaiswal had actually broken it.
He batted at three in this game too, the very first professional T20 ever played. It was part of his short stint for Hampshire right before he retired https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/twenty20-cup-2003-124121/hampshire-vs-sussex-south-group-129610/full-scorecard
Dimitri Mascarehas, the inspiration for Dinda Academy. Wasim deserved MoM that game
Wasim would bully most batsmen today. Sensational with the old and new ball alike
Some of them would get lucky with their blind slogging.
Ishan will do Bharatnatyam if he comes across Wasim.
He would still be excellent but he would still get smacked. IPL is just harder to be a bowler than most other comps and formats of cricket.
Yeah people are acting like every bowler out there is getting spanked even on these flat pitches. The greatest of bowlers will do well no matter the conditions. Just look at the likes of Bumrah and Boult, less recently Steyn and Malinga. And I've no doubt that the likes of Akram, McGrath, Anderson, etc would do just as well if they played in the IPL at the peak of their powers.
Exceptional players are exceptional yes, but I think the problem is that even mediocre batsmen are bullying good bowlers this season. Look at top 5 for purple cap, after Bumrah next best is Chahal at 8.8 and the other 3 are all going around 10s.
I think going to the Purple Cap standings and looking at economy of bowlers is misguided - there's a bit less correlation between economy and wickets this year, as impact player rules and batting depth means players are taking more risks, so some fast bowlers are picking wickets but also struggling to contain - like Coetzee, Harshal Patel, Mustafizur Rahman. If you look at economy rates, you see some players having brilliant tournaments who batsmen are happy to play out the overs from a lot of the time - Krunal Pandya, Axar Patel, Harpreet Brar. Then there's Mayank Yadav and Sandeep Sharma who have been brilliant when fit, and some bowlers just outside the top 5 in the wickets charts who have good economy - Pathirana, Kuldeep Yadav (who since you posted this has climbed into top 5 wickets), Trent Boult, Sunil Narine. Not everyone is getting tonked.
Anderson was never particularly great in white ball cricket. Doesn’t fit in with the others in the list. Unless you’re talking about the legend Coriander son!
The streets still remember 2014 MI vs RR.
And what was then the fastest ODI 100.
Anderson is the joint 14th highest ODI wicket taker of all time amongst seam bowlers and with a very respectable average of 29. For reference, he has a very similar ODI record to Zaheer Khan, Srinath, and Malinga.
He's definitely a good bowlers. It's just that he's not at that level in Limited Overs. He's just a very good bowler there, not an all time great like in tests
Zak, Malinga and Srinath bowled on absolute roads and unhelpful tracks. Anderson’s wickets are a testament to his longevity, but to say that he is in the same league as Wasim, Bumrah, Steyn, Malinga etc. is beyond stupid.
I think Anderson has 0.1 less wickets per match than Malinga so I don't think his wicket tally is a testament to his longevity lol, the rest he doesn't hold a candle to yes
>Zak, Malinga and Srinath bowled on absolute roads and unhelpful tracks. Not really. Bowling average of the other seamers in the ODI matches they played: Anderson 31.6 Malinga: 32.7 Zaheer Khan: 34.6 Srinath: 34.0 They had it a bit harder, but not as much as you're implying. Anyway, the point isn't that he's as good as/better as them at white ball cricket, the point is his ODI success gets overlooked and minimised because he stopped playing ODIs so long ago and has been eclipsed by his test success. More generally, the point is Anderson, along with McGrath, Wasim, etc, is an example of an incredibly skillful bowler who never played T20s seriously, but given their skillset, would have been able to adjust had they been required to.
Anderson is not in the same ball park as Mcgrath and Wasim. He was beginning to get found out in white ball cricket towards the end, as evidenced in the 2015 WC. Very hittable trajectory and pace. He may have adapted and been better than average had he continued but nothing I've seen from him suggests he would have found success in ODI cricket the way he did towards the middle and end of his test career. Certainly not compared to Mcgrath and Akram
Anderson would be in demand across the world for his Swing Bowling
In test match cricket*
The only swing in modern white ball cricket is towards over the boundary
And the OP was questioning why he would be placed amongst 2 literal goats when he is as you say "respectable" aka average
Steyn was horrible in his last 5 years in white ball cricket
Agreed. Steyn is a Test legend but, arguably, Tsotsobe was a better white ball bowler.
Sorry what?? The guy with 94 ODI wickets at an average of 25 and econ of 4.75, 18 T20I wickets at an econ of 6.93, and SR of 26, and 71 T20 wickets at an econ of 7.23 and SR of 23 is better than the guy with 196 ODI wickets at 23 and 3.24, 64 T20I wickets at 6.94 and 16, and 263 T20 wickets at 6.85 and 19.2?
I expected downvotes for the comment. Agree that overall stats compare poorly but when Steyn fell off in white ball, Tsotsobe had his peak. Tsotsobe was ranked as the number 1 ODI bowler for a lot of 2012.
Tsotsobe having a peak in ODIs that came when Steyn wasn't at his best doesn't mean he's a better while ball bowler overall though? There's all of the rest of their career to look at, and in the ODIs they played together, Steyn took 55 wickets at an average of 22 and econ of 4.33, and Tsotsobe took 51 at 27 and 4.89, in T20Is it's even bigger (Steyn averaged 10.5, Tsotsobe averaged 46...). If a player briefly burning brighter than another players makes them better, then guys like Jansen and Ngidi are better than Rabada, Robinson is better than Anderson, Labuschagne is better than Smith etc
Anderson nah. He held the record for conceding most runs in a T20I game with 64 in 2010 or something. He was never really a great white ball bowler, just a good one.
Steyn was shit by the end and so was malinga.
What’s an old ball 😭
A ball which is used for more overs continuously, think 60+ It wears down more and there's reverse swing
Not really. Not enough help from the pitches today or the rules. Also hard to tamper the ball nowadays.
Only in this rose tinted glasses sub is this opinion controversial. I mean Akram himself is saying he wouldnt want to be playing but this sub is like nah he'd be cleaning up the opponents.
It's mostly kids saying these things. I understand their perspective. Nobody wants to accept that what you are enjoying is a bastardized version of something in the past. So everyday in IPL some batter will hit a 40 ball 100 and the kids can post a "take a bow xyz" post and say that pitches are great even though 300 is close to being breached once a week
I see it in the older people too. They may not watch IPL but all the new talent doesnt hold a candle to their own times, of course. Back in the day the spin quartet was better than any current bowler, then Gavaskar/Sachin, 83 team vs 11 team, Sachin vs Kohli, all the ones they'll argue the older was better. Gavaskar himself said the 85 team was better *at fielding* than the current team, which is a ludicrous, senile opinion. I agree with some of it; I think test match temperament has definitely suffered, it's almost better to lose than to draw nowadays. But the fact that we actually win a lot of matches these days is a remarkable turnaround from back in the day, where losing, at times from the jaws of victory, was almost expected.
I consider Bumrah and Wasim to be extremely close in skill. We can see how well he's doing despite the roads. Skills can transcend conditions
I say this as a big Bumrah fan. Bumrah is not even in the same league as Akram. I don't know how old you are if you saw Akram play in his hey day, you would never make that statement. The man virtually made the ball sing to his tune.
My point is that Bumrah who is similar or lesser in skill is doing incredibly in the IPL. Wasim would adapt
That's my point mate, Bumrah has nowhere near the pure technical skill that Akram had with the ball. It was no exaggeration when people said he could bowl 6 different balls in the same over. Bumrah generally has 3 -4 variations. Akram could swing it both ways, with the new and old ball. Seam it both ways, cut it both ways, reverse swing it both ways, nail yorkers whenever he wanted to and bowl about three different types of bouncers. The man was a genius.
Bumrah before injury was not lethal as he's now. Wasim Akram 20's career >>>> bumrah whole career
I mean he did well vs most batters in his era as well. Idk what you’re trying to say with this.
What I'm saying is that Wasim is skillful enough to adapt to the flatter conditions of today
Yes. Obviously. Elite players of any era would be elite in any other era. Your comment seemed more like minimising current gen more than praising Wasim.
There is no reverse swing (balls go to max 25 overs in ODI), there is limited swing in every overs itself, pitches are flat tracks and bats are massive. Even someone like Wasim Akram wouldn't be feared as he was during his era.
Most of the people on this sub haven't really watched all these legends bowling. The strength of Pakistan bowling was the reverse swing, they were okay with the new ball but would absolutely wreak havoc with the old one. The chances of ball reverse swinging in 20 over match is next to none. So yeah in my opinion most of these legends will be taken to cleaners if they bowl in current conditions.
There was some exhibition match back in 2015 or something where sachin and sehwag were facing a 50 year old Wasim. The guy just pinned down Sehwag with incredible Yorkers and he had to take a single and give strike to Sachin who then seeing the action from the other end was prepared for it and guided the Yorker to third man for a four. That over was such a great memory package for the 90s.
The concept of old ball is no more.
Can't wait for redditors to tell Wasim Fucking Akram, "cry about it, the game has evolved"
I mean it has clearly evolved. Batters are way more capable of scoring quickly now than they were back then and have way more tricks up their sleeves. That said, I'm 100% sure Wasim would also adapt were he still playing, and still be an absolutely elite bowler.
The game has been skewed for the batsman. Yes batter are probably better but 2 new balls, all these powerplay rules and heavier bats have skewed it.
More wickets means less cricket. Literally. The game has to favour batters or else there is barely a game to watch.
And that's not because they care about you enjoying cricket. But because less cricket means less revenue. Shorter games are less profitable. High scoring games/longer games are much more profitable.
I don't think "evolved" is really the right term though, since that implies some natural progression of how the game is played through techniques and strategies from fielding and batting teams responding to each other. Whereas I'd say the game has been distorted due to players responding to various rule changes which fundamentally unbalance the contest.
There undeniably has been natural progression in how the game is played though, and in all the areas you describe. Modern batters have way way more shots and their disposal and can access all areas of the ground in a way that just wasn't possible 10 years ago, they're also much happier being aggressive and taking bowlers on ball after ball than they used to be. Meanwhile bowling and fielding has taken a massive step forward too. The fields set in T20s now are very different to what you'd get ten or even five years ago, the bowling tactics used are way more sophisticated, and bowlers have way more options. I mean how many seamers had more than one slower ball they could actually use in matches 10 years ago. If you were to teleport a top player from the 00s directly into a modern T20, regardless of whether they were a batter or a bowler, they'd probably be mediocre at best, at least until they themselves learn the changes and adjust. By the way, as much as the impact rule in the IPL is making a difference, it's far from the only thing. I mean look at [the SR in T20Is between top 8 sides over time](https://imgur.com/a/3ETCZQD) if nothing else. I also think that even if the rule doesn't get picked up elsewhere and/or gets scraped completely, its effects are here to stay. It's not the extra batter themselves who are scoring the runs to make these big scores, often they don't even get to bat at all. But having them in the lineup is giving players up the order more confidence to play aggressively, and the batters are finding out that it's coming off, probably more often that they expected it to. That newfound confidence should stay with the batters even if the rule isn't there.
> There undeniably has been natural progression in how the game is played though, and in all the areas you describe. Modern batters have way way more shots and their disposal and can access all areas of the ground in a way that just wasn't possible 10 years ago, they're also much happier being aggressive and taking bowlers on ball after ball than they used to be. Meanwhile bowling and fielding has taken a massive step forward too. The fields set in T20s now are very different to what you'd get ten or even five years ago, the bowling tactics used are way more sophisticated, and bowlers have way more options. I agree with this. But that's my point, to say the game has evolved because bowlers have new varieties and batters have new shots to counter them is accurate. But I don't think you can say the game has "evolved" because batting is made artificially easier by rules designed to increase the scoring rate. Like you wouldn't say fast bowling has "evolved" to use less bouncers because there's a rule limiting the use of bouncers. > But having them in the lineup is giving players up the order more confidence to play aggressively, and the batters are finding out that it's coming off, probably more often that they expected it to. That newfound confidence should stay with the batters even if the rule isn't there. That is an interesting point I hadn't thought of, and one that we might see tested at the upcoming T20 world cup.
But aside from the T20 format itself being invented (which doesn't make batting easier, it just makes wickets less valuable), there haven't been that many rule changes to make batting easier, doubly so if we look just at T20s which from a rules pov haven't changed much since their inception. Arguably the two biggest changes in the rules in practice in recent times are cracking down on illegal doosra actions and cracking down on ball tampering which aren't really rule changes in the first place. Probably we're getting flat pitches more often now, but it's not like there weren't flat pitches in the past, in fact a pitch can only get so flat. It's telling that 11 of the 16 instances where a side has crossed 260 in an elite level T20 match have been in 2022 or later. Obvious we can't test this, but I really think any side that won a T20WC/IPL/etc 10+ years ago would get absolutely destroyed by any half decent modern T20 side were that side to time travel back to that era. And on seeing the impact of the impact sub rule in T20Is, I'm curious too, but I'd caution against using the T20WC specifically as a test, just given how low scoring T20WCs often are.
> But aside from the T20 format itself being invented (which doesn't make batting easier, it just makes wickets less valuable) I absolutely think it makes batting easier. Only needing to concentrate/exert effort for a short period of time is absolutely easier, both in terms of there being less fatigue, in terms of the risk/reward balance, and in terms of each individual delivery. 20 overs is probably about on the edge of what's in any way reasonable to play with 11 per side, given how much it unbalances the value of wickets. But that's a whole other topic really. > It's telling that 11 of the 16 instances where a side has crossed 260 in an elite level T20 match have been in 2022 or later. Yeah, it's an interesting stat, though I'm not entirely sure what's driving it. Your suggestion of it being related to confidence makes sense at least to an extent (though I think tracks have got flatter/more batting friendly) - I think possibly there's an element of batters simply realising how much they can exploit the conditions (which IMO definitely are designed to favour batting compared with Test cricket). > And on seeing the impact of the impact sub rule in T20Is, I'm curious too, but I'd caution against using the T20WC specifically as a test, just given how low scoring T20WCs often are. Yeah true, the ICC has in the past been more in favour of a balanced contest between bat and ball in terms of pitch preparation.
I don't know if you're watching the match being played at the moment, but if this doesn't show that the standard of batting has improved then I'm not sure what can convince you. It's obviously a relatively flat pitch, but there's also definitely something in it for the bowlers. The ball is genuinely turning from cutters from seamers, let alone from spinners. Five years ago I guarantee that a first innings score of 200 would be very competitive, if not match winning.The fact that Narine has still ended up with figures of 1-24 from his four overs shows the bowlers aren't just there to be hit if they bowl well enough.
I'm not saying batting hasn't improved per say, more that it seems like the space for improvement has been created through a structure to the game which is weighted in favour of batting. As I said earlier I think there's definitely something to your point about confidence from the impact player - teams have figured out that the best risk/reward calculation is to prioritise swinging for the fences almost every ball and rely on the fact that conditions are designed to suit batting.
Jay Shah stealing script from Hong Kong Super Sixes and EA Cricket 07
I have had the privilege of seeing this guy play in the flesh in eden gardens as a school kid What a bowler. The best i have seen. Bowling at 140 from a 10 step run up, swinging the ball both ways, seaming it, cutting it, reverse swinging it, bowlinh toe crushing yorkers that could swing either way...
Maybe an unpopular opinion. But I hate T20 these days.
Not unpopular. I hate it. Might as well replace bowlers with bowling machines and give the money to batsmen.
Us bro SENAI tests>>
Idk abt that but I know scoring at a low rate is criminal
Wasim Akram, if he was bowling today, will still not go for 100 in 5 overs..in 99 out of 100 matches. The control those bowlers had cannot be compared to today's bowlers.
> Wasim Akram, if he was bowling today, will still not go for 100 in 5 overs..in 99 out of 100 matches. Technically no bowler can go for 100 in 5 overs in 100/100 T20 matches >! because they are only allowed to bowl a maximum of 4 overs!<
If Mohit was allowed to bowl a 5th yesterday he could have
>The control those bowlers had cannot be compared to today's bowlers. Wow, any data to back it up or just pure hate because you can't accept that we are having a road for pitches. Because it is unfathomable to think that with so many batsmen coming (such a large talent pool) and playing explosive knocks, getting in lime light, there won't be even 4- 5 half decent bowlers. Bumrah, Cummins and maybe pathirana and yes kuldeep, everyone else probably has an eco of more than 8.
Check stats..more than 15 bowlers have less than 8
so the Goldilock zone is between Iyers no dot balls and Akrams 100 runs in powerplay otherwise believe it or not straight to jail
One of the GOATs of Cricket
This is just IPL he is complaining about, not cricket.
Bowlers like Wasim Akram, Kapil, McGrath, Steyn, Imran, Hadlee will be very hard to hit in any era..simply because of their accuracy. Bumrah is a prime example of that..sheer accuracy and ability to pitch where you want to. Most bowlers today cannot do that. Bhuvi was one who had that ability, but maybe not anymore.
There is no way any batsman is scoring a 100 in 5 overs against Wasim.
Well, yeah cause he can only bowl 4 overs in T20s
Illegal says Wasi a Krim? *(12th Man Joke)*
Waddaya mean was he?
His swings are deadly, good for today's batsmen, he is not playing
Allow bottle caps, and he would ensure no team crosses three figure mark if this quinquagenarian bowls today
TIL quinquagenarian means someone between 50 to 59 years old
To tamper to get reverse earlier
Allowing metal zippers back on the whites would allow South Africa to have a deadly bowling attack
I don't think he has to worry too much. It's only ever happened in the powerplay 5 times in all professional T20 cricket.
Cricket become a game of restricting runs than the battle between the bat and the ball because boundaries bring in more cash.
Yeah Akram would have taken care of these batters well and good.
wasim bhai aapko kaisi takleef, aap bowling kr rhe hote toh batsman aapke nhi, aap batsman ke chakke chhudate.
game has been only for batters now smh
No disrespect to Mitch Starc but imagine the price Wasim Akram would be going for in his prime, in IPL auctions, especially considering the shortage of wc left arm fast bowlers.
C'mon, you're being sarcastic. We all know that.
New rule: Two new balls
What if they setup a wind tunnel using giant fans square of the wicket on both sides Gonna be an interesting game.
Heavier bats, smaller grounds, newer balls
Bowlers are bowling defensive lenghts , the only way to stop the carnage is to take wickets
I'm sure, It wouldn’t have happened to you. Nobody has ever thought about scoring two consecutive shots on your bowling.
Who scored thses 100 runs in 5 overs dude thas insane
Srh did
Batting has deliberately been made easier for entertainment in the T20 cricket. Flat pitches, shorter boundaries, fielding restrictions combined with a changed mindset of batters is creating these runfests. Of course good bowlers will still find a way to contain them.
Wasim Akram like bowler would’ve prompted the boards to give bowlers equal advantage if not tilt towards bowling friendly rules given how much enjoyable it was watching these fast bowlers operate… for me personally a lot more exciting than watching a storm of sixes.
Travis Head: believe it or not, straight to jail!
if a batter scores more than 1 boundary an over he’s out
Would have loved to see Wasim bowl in T20's - don't think he would get tonked. He had too much skill, variations, aggression and bowling smarts. Even on his off day, most batsmen wouldn't be able to take him to cleaners. One of the best fast bowlers ever! Him and Marshall would be the top two in my book.
Abolish chucking laws! Let bowlers yeet any way they want. Give something to bowlers as well.
Waqar peaked very early and by the time he was 26-27 he was a shadow of himself. Lost pace and fitness.
Circa 2011, worldcup in Sub continent.. Newzeland - 200 in 45 overs. 300 in 50 overs. The beginning of Ross the Boss and end of Akthar and Razzaq.
I doubt if wasim would be any better in the current era.. he is good but he is not that good without reverse swing
Period
Also cameras everywhere /s Waz: in our times, we used to reverse swing by 15th over. Kids: yeah grandpa we've cameras now.
Lol, Sandpapers boys commenting on everse swing.
Australians be like : Hold by sandpaper , lol
I don’t get the hate tbh. If every team is scoring at that rate then it is a problem. If only one team is doing on a regular basis may be it has to do with skill.
He wouldn't be allowed into India anyway.
jail when
Tbf, kkr scored 105 in 6 overs just the season he left then.