I thought it was presumably pretty straightforward; just couldn't be arsed making the effort to work it out myself.
not true at all. dont know where you got that idea from. out of 181 bowling innings in the 104 tests akram played in, he took the new ball 177 times. imran 131 out of 142 innings and waqar 141 out of 154 innings. also, waqar is the third after akram and imran in terms of wickets taken while opening the attack. he has taken 12 wickets less than imran in 11 more innings. if someone was an old ball - reverse swing specialist it was, waqar. wasim and imran are more suited to take the new ball.
And also that the first two were able to maintain reasonable form till the end. Waqar dropped off considerably
Well, yes, I would agree with the fact that Holding and Lillee are better, but in these cases the overall stats are misleading.
By "Wasim didn't use the new-ball" I mean "he did not make use of it", not "he did not take it". When Wasim bowled with the new-ball, he mostly bowled short, trying to rough the ball (and batsman) up as quickly as possible so as to attain reverse-swing. Waqar, on the other hand, pitched it up as he did the old ball and swung it no less than he did the old ball.
Where on Earth are you getting these stats from? There are no stats which show figures in new-ball spell, are there? Not pre-CricInfo-BBB.
No, the reason Waqar is not a bonafide legend is because of his lack of longevity and that his two periods of success (the first phenomenal, the second very good) saw him play 1 Test against Australia and 0 against India. And when he did play these two teams, outside his periods of success, he did poorly against them, as he did against other opposition at that time.
well, you cant prove this. and i cant disprove it. all i can get from statsguru is how often a bowler takes the new ball. actually it doesnt matter if akram roughed up the ball or not. he was the first choice in almost all the tests he played in to take the new ball. if imran and akram were available for selection they would any day any time of the year get to bowl before waqar. that was my point.
If I was in charge, they wouldn't. Imran and Waqar would take the new-ball, Wasim would be first-change. There was, however, no point where all three played and bowled well together (Imran's last-hurrah came in 1988/89, Waqar's first in 1990/91) so we'll never know what others would've done.
I don't disagree with you that almost all the best bowlers have had economy-rates below 3-an-over. However, it isn't completely impossible for a bowler to be outstanding for a long period of time (though maybe not for the 7-8 years that's required for a "proper career" in my book) while conceding runs in excess of 3-an-over. It is very unlikely, however. Precious few have ever done it.
No, on the whole I'd take Lillee. Waqar had a few absolutely incredible spells where he was arguably as good as any bowler has ever been, but I'm going with Lillee's consistency, the fact that he lost a chunk of his career to Packer, and the fact that his inferior strike rate is to some extent offset by the general slower scoring in the era in which he played. There's also the fact that Lillee is generally more well-thought-of (something I do take into account but to a lesser extent than some) and, as ever, pure personal preference.
-
This is a rather strange comment TBH. It was Lillee's fault he lost a chuck of his career. Packer didn't force him to play, he elected to put money over country. Given the relative paucity of pay at the time it wasn't an unreasonable choice he (and so many others) made. But he didn't lose it in the sense that he lost the chunk he lost to his spinal injury.
I only ever watched the two of them against England, of course, but Waqar always attacked and looked for wickets with the new ball, Wasim generally preferred to try to bash the batsmen and intimidate. Of course bowling short and quick makes you exceptionally difficult to attack but it also massively reduces your chances of taking wickets compared to bowling fast and full. I virtually never saw Waqar bowl a sustained spell of short-pitched stuff all career - he always, always looked for wickets.
I missed precious little of the 2000/01 series and I barely remember Wasim pitching a single delivery up with new-ball. I don't remember the 1996 series anywhere near so clearly and the 1992 one less so still, but I've read plenty from Michael Atherton and what he's written seems to tally with what vague memories I do have, which again feature Wasim mostly pitching short with new ball and Waqar full. As I say, Waqar always bowled full, whenever I watched him, whatever the condition of the ball.
this thread is about SR and my opinion is SR should be seen along with ER in judging a player's greatness. what you hve written is very similar to what I feel.
It's strange how you view bouncers as defensive bowling, it's an established way of attacking a batsman and a vital part of any bowler's arsenal. I have a different view of new ball bowlers. For me, a new ball bowler's job is to put the batsman under pressure immediately, keep him on the backfoot, choke his runs, and set the tempo for the rest of innings (and obviously, to take wickets in this process). Keeping a tight line is essential even if you are attacking. Bowlers like Wasim and McGrath excelled at that. If you tried to blast the batsman's wickets out like its the last 10 overs of a one day match, you run the risk of letting the swing get the better of you or being thrashed if the pitch is unresponsive, removing all pressure and letting the opener dictate terms.
Yes, Waqar's policy of constantly attacking the stumps is both literally and figuratively hit and miss. It works great against batsman who have just come to the wicket, but against settled batsman you can be worked out quickly as you will inevitably stray off the legs or be overpitched. This may be why his strikerate so impressive along with a high ER, he would likely go for a few runs every innings but would carve into the middle and lower order once the settled batsman is out. Though it should be pointed out that his SR against India, Australia, South Africa, and England is well above his career SR. It should also be pointed out that Waqar did develop into a more traditional new ball bowler later in his career when he lost his sting with the old ball.
I've always said that in my experience bowling short, sustainedly, is just about never a good idea. The odd short delivery is fine to mix things up, but more than one every couple of overs or so is just a waste of deliveries - good batsmen almost never get out to them (except on super-fast pitches like the old WACA, old Kensington Oval and old Kennington Oval) and even moderate ones only relatively rarely do.
As I say - for me, the new ball is useful because it swings (conventionally), properly, more than at any other stage in the innings. If you cannot swing or seam the ball, or choose not to, you have no right bowling with the new cherry IMO as you're wasting it while others could be doing what a new-ball bowler should be.
I don't disagree with this at all, defence and attack are not two polar-opposite things where bowling is concerned. A good line is essential to both. I'm talking purely about length.
If the swing is getting the better of you, you've got options to reduce it (use a slightly different grip or wrist position) or to make more use of what swing there is (eg, use the crease, go wider and closer, aim for a slightly straighter or wider line). A good swing-bowler should always be happy to see the batsman (opener or otherwise) playing shots, as if the ball is swinging your chances as a batsman are always reduced the harder you go at the ball. In any case, swing isn't all about swinging it onto the stumps - you're aiming as much if not more for the edge of the bat.
He certainly had more success with old ball than new but he did try to use the new ball and succeeded on no shortage of occasions. I can't remember Wasim ever taking that many wickets in his opening spell because he rarely even seemed to try, he was just interested in bouncing the batsmen.