Waqar Younis

[wfdu_ben91]

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.

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.

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

Mohammad Sami could've potentially been as destructive as Waqar Younis had he had better influence and was partnered by someone like Wasim Akram earlier on in his career. Look how Sami ended up.

 

[Richard]

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

Similar? There's a difference of almost 0.3-an-over! Accross a career, that's huge - at least, when it goes from a not-too-bad 4.4-an-over to an unacceptably high 4.7-an-over.

And that is purely on the basis of careers as a whole, which as I've mentioned before are relatively meaningless sets of stats.

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.

You can't prove it wrong, there is no proof on the matter to be offered. 88 games is easily enough to offer an assessment of a player, same way 260-odd is, AFAIC. If you consider differently, that's your prerogative, but there's no proof either way.

 

[Pothas]

mohammad sami could've potentially been as destructive as waqar younis had he had better influence and was partnered by someone like wasim akram earlier on in his career. Look how sami ended up.

:-o

 

[Richard]

Mohammad Sami could've potentially been as destructive as Waqar Younis had he had better influence and was partnered by someone like Wasim Akram earlier on in his career. Look how Sami ended up.

There's no evidence at all to suggest that - Sami never, ever demonstrated the ability to do what Waqar did. Not once. Sami was a talentless hack who struggled to swing the ball and could barely even work-out what to do on the occasions he did. Waqar swung it miles and knew exactly what he was doing. There has never been a bowler to make better use of the swing he can get than Waqar.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

There's no evidence at all to suggest that - Sami never, ever demonstrated the ability to do what Waqar did. Not once. Sami was a talentless hack who struggled to swing the ball and could barely even work-out what to do on the occasions he did. Waqar swung it miles and knew exactly what he was doing. There has never been a bowler to make better use of the swing he can get than Waqar.

Yes, because swinging the ball late and being able to bowl 150kph+ is the definition of a talentless hack.

 

[Teja.]

Similar? There's a difference of almost 0.3-an-over! Accross a career, that's huge - at least, when it goes from a not-too-bad 4.4-an-over to an unacceptably high 4.7-an-over.

And that is purely on the basis of careers as a whole, which as I've mentioned before are relatively meaningless sets of stats.

You can't prove it wrong, there is no proof on the matter to be offered. 88 games is easily enough to offer an assessment of a player, same way 260-odd is, AFAIC. If you consider differently, that's your prerogative, but there's no proof either way.

Case 1 -Fleming 88 matches, 133 wickets @ 4.4 rpo.

Case 2 -Younis 88 matches, 149 wickets @ 4.3 rpo.

So Waqar took MORE wickets than Fleming @ a BETTER economy rate as far as 88 matches is concerned, It is also to Waqar's credit that he bowled for roughly 180 more matches and even though he deteriorated a fair bit maintained a good level of performance. Thank you very much.

 

[Richard]

Yes, because swinging the ball late and being able to bowl 150kph+ is the definition of a talentless hack.

Sami was only extremely rarely able to do the former. Waqar did it abundantly.

 

[Richard]

Case 1 -Fleming 88 matches, 133 wickets @ 4.4 rpo.

Case 2 -Younis 88 matches, 149 wickets @ 4.3 rpo.

So Waqar took MORE wickets than Fleming @ a BETTER economy rate as far as 88 matches is concerned, It is also to Waqar's credit that he bowled for roughly 180 more matches and even though he deteriorated a fair bit maintained a good level of performance. Thank you very much.

I presume you just picked Waqar's first 88 matches there? If so, fairly meaningless comparison. Comparing part of one player's career with all of another's only rarely has much use.

 

[R_D]

I presume you just picked Waqar's first 88 matches there? If so, fairly meaningless comparison. Comparing part of one player's career with all of another's only rarely has much use.

Clearly Fleming better because of his superior economy rate because in ODI's wickets don't matter.

 

[Teja.]

I presume you just picked Waqar's first 88 matches there? If so, fairly meaningless comparison. Comparing part of one player's career with all of another's only rarely has much use.

I picked both players first 88 matches, It was in the same decade in largely the same conditions, Waqar was more successful. Waqar is better even if we only consider his first 88 matches. The fact that he went on to bowl 180-odd more matches and was successful is to Waqar's credit.

 

[Teja.]

Clearly Fleming better because of his superior economy rate because in ODI's wickets don't matter.

Interesting part is Waqar's economy rate is also better than Fleming's if we compare Waqar's first 88 matches to Fleming's 88 matches(His entire career)

 

[Manee]

There's no evidence at all to suggest that - Sami never, ever demonstrated the ability to do what Waqar did. Not once. Sami was a talentless hack who struggled to swing the ball and could barely even work-out what to do on the occasions he did. Waqar swung it miles and knew exactly what he was doing. There has never been a bowler to make better use of the swing he can get than Waqar.

Love the conversation that Mushtaq Ahmed recites about "but why do you aim at fifth and sixth stump" on Waqar's Legends of Cricket, always cracks me up.

 

[Sir Alex]

Waqar and Fleming And we have guys suggesting the latter is actually better.. :ohmy:

BTW Waqar is right up there with Marshall, McGrath, Imran, Donald in my list of best fast bowlers. It is such a shame he had to retire at a young age. Fact was that he could be expected to take wickets regardless of how dead the pitch was or how good the batsman was. I think in modern times, only Steyn has come closer to emulating him by performing on otherwise unbowlable pitches.

 

[Teja.]

Waqar and Fleming And we have guys suggesting the latter is actually better.. :ohmy:

BTW Waqar is right up there with Marshall, McGrath, Imran, Donald in my list of best fast bowlers. It is such a shame he had to retire at a young age. Fact was that he could be expected to take wickets regardless of how dead the pitch was or how good the batsman was. I think in modern times, only Steyn has come closer to emulating him by performing on otherwise unbowlable pitches.

Very true, their initial records are darn similar too.

 

[Furball]

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.

Sanz, please refrain from baiting posters in this manner. It isn't constructive and does nothing for forum atmosphere.

 

[Furball]

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.

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.

Richard, you can disagree with anyone's point of view, there's no need to be so condescending about it though.

As with Sanz's baiting of you earlier in the thread, it does the forum atmosphere no favours.

 

[Sanz]

In all fairness though Fleming was a very good bowler and if not for injuries he would have played a lot more.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz, please refrain from baiting posters in this manner. It isn't constructive and does nothing for forum atmosphere.

What baiting ? Richard holds such views and everytime he makes another one of those comparisons people are going to bring up.

 

[Richard]

Clearly Fleming better because of his superior economy rate because in ODI's wickets don't matter.

It's not a case of them not mattering, merely that economy-rate is more important.

 

[Richard]

I picked both players first 88 matches, It was in the same decade in largely the same conditions, Waqar was more successful. Waqar is better even if we only consider his first 88 matches. The fact that he went on to bowl 180-odd more matches and was successful is to Waqar's credit.

Fleming's career was a stop-start one. If I randomly cherry-picked 88 games from Waqar's career with roughly Fleming-esque intervals between appearances I could easily make it look like Fleming's figures were more impressive.

As I say, comparing one player's whole career to part of another's is only exceedingly rarely apt, and this is certainly not one of those occasions.