Waqar Younis

[Teja.]

If I had to pick four fast bowlers for a test. I'd pick

1.Waqar Younis/Fred Trueman/Malcom Marshall(Brilliant strike rate/perfect strike bowler)

2.Mcgrath(Since the above bowlers might tend to get a little expensive, I'd have Mcgrath to balance the run rate out and also he's a ruddy brilliant bowler who cannot be replaced, a considerably poorer version would be Vass)

3.Hadlee/Lillee

4.Imran/Wasim(To take advantage of the old ball for reverse swing along with Waqar)

Please note that this has nothing to do with my best bowler list.

 

[Maximus0723]

@ Athlai--Why Waqar ahead of Wasim?

 

[Teja.]

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Mcgrath would come in at 6 or 7. Just my opinion. However If I was selecting a test team he'd be first pick just because he is not replaceable and he does a brilliant job.

 

[Athlai]

@ Athlai--Why Waqar ahead of Wasim?

Waqar was better at his peak - also a fan of the stumps flying.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Waqar is the best Pak bowler ever, Waseem next & Imran third.

 

[Richard]

I remember an instance in which Lara was going great guns and Waqar was introduced into the attack, He bowled three half volleys at about 130 kph, and Brain sent all those to the boundary, then he sent a fast-as-hell banana yorker to send the stumps flying. Genius.

So? Is there any genuine evidence that Waqar was deliberately giving away runs? I doubt it. What is far more likely is that he was aiming for the swinging Yorker he produced fourth-up and got it wrong three times before getting it right.

In the days of Waqar-vs-Lara, there were no speedguns either, so there is no way anyone knows that deliveries were either 130kph or fast-as-hell.

There were more instances too, but he did alot more in ODIs than Test match cricket. The danger also lay, I'll admit, in his approach to bowling in itself.

Personally I rate Waqar to be the best ODI bowler ever and in the top 5 test fast bowlers of the past 50 years.(On the same level as Wasim)

Waqar's ODI bowling was notably a class behind his Test bowling. In ODIs, economy counts, almost regardless of how many wickets you take. In Tests, it doesn't tremendously matter if you can take wickets at such a phenomenal rate as Waqar did 1990/91-1994/95.

There are a large number of ODI bowlers who to my mind are considerably superior to Waqar.

 

[Richard]

Waqar is the best Pak bowler ever, Waseem next & Imran third.

Umm... no, not really.

The majority of spectators who have seen all or most of the careers of all three tend to put Imran notably ahead of either W.

 

[Teja.]

So? Is there any genuine evidence that Waqar was deliberately giving away runs? I doubt it. What is far more likely is that he was aiming for the swinging Yorker he produced fourth-up and got it wrong three times before getting it right.

In the days of Waqar-vs-Lara, there were no speedguns either, so there is no way anyone knows that deliveries were either 130kph or fast-as-hell.

Waqar's ODI bowling was notably a class behind his Test bowling. In ODIs, economy counts, almost regardless of how many wickets you take. In Tests, it doesn't tremendously matter if you can take wickets at such a phenomenal rate as Waqar did 1990/91-1994/95.

There are a large number of ODI bowlers who to my mind are considerably superior to Waqar.

The difference in speed was obvious, you just KNOW when you see a 155+ kmph delivery after seeing plenty of slower ones, for instance there were no speed guns when Mike Holding bowled either. However, I'll concede that there was no way of confirming.

Your opinion, fair enough. In ODIs however, the only competition he gets is from Mcgrath and Wasim, and his economy rate is only about .5 more than other bowlers who have taken a high number of wickets, while his strike rate is comfortably the highest and despite conceding more, his average is in the same league, also he has taken 5-fers right when his team needed it and has always been Pakistan's impact bowler. I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest he was the best ODI bowler ever.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Umm... no, not really.

The majority of spectators who have seen all or most of the careers of all three tend to put Imran notably ahead of either W.

For whatever it is worth, Imran himself accepted that both Wasim and Waqar were better bowlers than him in an interview. Waqar and Wasim have very comparable averages and played in a 'flat pitch era'. Waqar has the best SR of any bowler to have picked more than 200 wickets. The rate at which wickets are picked is the most important criteria in tests as a team has to take 20 wickets as quickly as possible to win a test match.

 

[Richard]

The difference in speed was obvious, you just KNOW when you see a 155+ kmph delivery after seeing plenty of slower ones, for instance there were no speed guns when Mike Holding bowled either. However, I'll concede that there was no way of confirming.

You don't know as well as you might think - the human eye is a very faulty instrument and it's often surprising how much less quick\slow a delivery was than it appeared to be. Often, one which beats the batsman all ends up will look pretty quick, even though we know that top-class batsmen are beaten by lateral movement, not pure speed.

I do not trust the human eye enough to believe anyone who says "that ball was 20kph quicker than previous ones" if there is no speedgun.

Your opinion, fair enough. In ODIs however, the only competition he gets is from Mcgrath and Wasim, and his economy rate is only about .5 more than other bowlers who have taken a high number of wickets, while his strike rate is comfortably the highest and despite conceding more, his average is in the same league, also he has taken 5-fers right when his needed it and has always been Pakistan's impact bowler. I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest he was the best ODI bowler ever.

"Only" about 0.5 more?! That's a collossal difference! Also, economy-rate is by-and-large more important than wickets, unless you literally are taking-out 3 or 4 of the top-order in your opening spell, which Waqar did do more often than most, but still, that's impossible to do consistently.

In modern times (there's no sense comparing ODIs of the '70s and '80s with those of the '90s and '00s[\'10s] IMO) just off the top of my head, ODI bowlers who I'd have a fair way ahead of Waqar, and I'll be nice and limit it to those whose careers were really long rather than just fairly long, and bowled seam rather than spin: Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, McGrath, Fleming, Gillespie, Gough, Vaas. There are probably more if I give it a bit more thought.

 

[Richard]

For whatever it is worth, Imran himself accepted that both Wasim and Waqar were better bowlers than him in an interview.

I don't take such things too seriously. Far more cricketers than not are modest, or else so self-important that it works the other way. I only relatively rarely take a player's opinion of himself relative to others into the equation when summing him up. Very few are capable of eliminating modesty or big-headedness completely, and understandably so, too.

Waqar and Wasim have very comparable averages and played in a 'flat pitch era'.

In broad terms, there was no significant difference in Worldwide decks in Imran's era and Wasim\Waqar's. Not that it remotely matters, as all three were swing bowlers not seam bowlers, and they all took the nature of the deck completely out of the equation.

Waqar has the best SR of any bowler to have picked more than 200 wickets. The rate at which wickets are picked is the most important criteria in tests as a team has to take 20 wickets as quickly as possible to win a test match.

It may be the most important, but it's by a marginal amount. The rate at which wickets are taken relative to the rate at which runs are conceded is also very important, because a team also has to concede fewer runs than their opposition to win a Test match.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

How on earth anyone has Wasim as a top 5 bowler of the last 50 years is beyond me.

I'd have him in the top 5 bowlers of alltime and in my alltime XI. The guy was a genius with the ball and had a small runup that generated great pace.

Waqar wouldn't of been anywhere near as good as what he was without Wasim and Imran's bowling is a tad overrated by most, due to the fact that he was the total package as a cricketer and could do everything, much like Gary Sobers.

 

[Teja.]

You don't know as well as you might think - the human eye is a very faulty instrument and it's often surprising how much less quick\slow a delivery was than it appeared to be. Often, one which beats the batsman all ends up will look pretty quick, even though we know that top-class batsmen are beaten by lateral movement, not pure speed.

I do not trust the human eye enough to believe anyone who says "that ball was 20kph quicker than previous ones" if there is no speedgun.

"Only" about 0.5 more?! That's a collossal difference! Also, economy-rate is by-and-large more important than wickets, unless you literally are taking-out 3 or 4 of the top-order in your opening spell, which Waqar did do more often than most, but still, that's impossible to do consistently.

In modern times (there's no sense comparing ODIs of the '70s and '80s with those of the '90s and '00s[\'10s] IMO) just off the top of my head, ODI bowlers who I'd have a fair way ahead of Waqar, and I'll be nice and limit it to those whose careers were really long rather than just fairly long, and bowled seam rather than spin: Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Wasim, McGrath, Fleming , Gillespie, Gough, Vaas. There are probably more if I give it a bit more thought.

A guy who played 88 games and took 134 wickets at an economy rate almost identical to Waqar is better than Waqar who played 266 games and took 416 wickets? Wow, I won't even continue this argument. Just read Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Uppercut]

I'm a huge Waqar fan too. When you throw the ball to Waqar he's 20% more likely to get you a breakthrough than even someone of the class of, say, Curtly Ambrose. Not that this makes him better than Curtly (who is?). But I think it demonstrates his immense value to an attack quite nicely.

 

[Sanz]

A guy who played 88 games and took 134 wickets at an economy rate almost identical to Waqar is better than Waqar who played 266 games and took 416 wickets? Wow, I won't even continue this argument. Just read Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Welcome to the forum. He would also have Nasser Hussein Ahead of Mathew Hayden in test cricket and perhaps Alec Stewart ahead of Adam Gilchrist.

 

[Richard]

A guy who played 88 games and took 134 wickets at an economy rate almost identical to Waqar is better than Waqar who played 266 games and took 416 wickets? Wow, I won't even continue this argument. Just read Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

As I say - you place too much importance on wickets, IMO. One-day cricket is about economy first, wickets a fairly distant second.

 

[Richard]

Waqar wouldn't of been anywhere near as good as what he was without Wasim

That's a very naive view and one that could only be formed by someone who has little knowledge of what made Waqar of 1990/91-1994/95 so deadly. Or someone who thought the cricket World revolved around Australia, actually.

and Imran's bowling is a tad overrated by most, due to the fact that he was the total package as a cricketer and could do everything, much like Gary Sobers.

Thank you Amateur Psychologist Par Excellence. Unfortunately your evidence is far too flimsy for anyone to take seriously, but you can believe what you want.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

That's a very naive view and one that could only be formed by someone who has little knowledge of what made Waqar of 1990/91-1994/95 so deadly. Or someone who thought the cricket World revolved around Australia, actually.

Like Shane Warne, who said the exact thing as I did.

Thank you Amateur Psychologist Par Excellence. Unfortunately your evidence is far too flimsy for anyone to take seriously, but you can believe what you want.

So, how do you explain Imran Khan lessening his workload with the ball towards the latter half of his career? That statement is pretty rich coming from someone who rates Nasser Hussain & Michael Athurton over Matthew Hayden. Very flimsy indeed.

 

[Richard]

Like Shane Warne, who said the exact thing as I did.

Warne was unlikely to have seen much of Waqar at the time in question either. Warne too, as was noted when he brought-out that list of the 50 best cricketers he'd played with or against, is very susceptible to placing too much importance on what happened in games involving him.

So, how do you explain Imran Khan lessening his workload with the ball towards the latter half of his career?

I explain it that he recognised he was no longer fit to bowl, but was a good enough batsman to remain in the side. Nothing to do with the observations of any spectator about, well, anything really.

That statement is pretty rich coming from someone who rates Nasser Hussain & Michael Athurton over Matthew Hayden. Very flimsy indeed.

I don't claim to have insights into the minds of people who think Hayden was better than Atherton.

 

[Teja.]

As I say - you place too much importance on wickets, IMO. One-day cricket is about economy first, wickets a fairly distant second.

1.It is about a balance.
2.Waqar and Fleming had very similar economy rates.

Rating Fleming and Waqar on the same level even though the former played a grand total of 88 games even when both players are of the same era is a ludicrous statement, one I won't bother proving wrong, and Hayden and Hussain? Whatajoke.