Waqar Younis

[Richard]

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

The OhMy is posted as :-O on CW. And yes, in ODIs Fleming was better.

 

[Richard]

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

It's completely and totally pointless to bring something up which has zero relevance - unless you're attempting to undermine the credibility of a poster by painting their views as ludicrous. Fortunately, recently there seems to have come realisation that such attempts are no less reprehensive than posts reading "you ****" or similar.

And also, this would do best to be discussed elsewhere, so any further replies by me on this topic will quote the post into another thread.

 

[Richard]

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

I can accept that, but I do feel that when someone is claiming something they cannot possibly have actual knowledge of it needs to be pointed-out. I also feel that when people are biased, especially on a home basis, it needs to be pointed-out.

 

[Furball]

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

So what? They're nothing to do with the thread and have nothing to do with the topic in question.

If you want to disagree with Richard's views on Waqar and Fleming, then by all means do so.

Bringing up Richard's views on Hayden, or speculating about Stewart vs Gilchrist a) has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and b) serves no purpose other than goading Richard into a response. So in future, please don't do it, as it's not necessary.

This is the last I'll say in this thread on the topic, as I don't want to sidetrack the discussion in this thread. If there's an issue with anything I've said, you're more than welcome to start a thread in site discussion, or email me personally or any of the moderating team. Further posts on the subject in this thread will be deleted.

 

[Sir Alex]

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.

The OhMy is posted as :-O on CW. And yes, in ODIs Fleming was better.

You are contradicting yourself. You say Fleming had a stop start career and hence it is not fair to compare any part of Waqar's record with him, and now you say he is better than Waqar.

I won't be responding to your posts on this because what you are posting in favour of Fleming looks ridiculous to me, and to many others here also. So let's agree to disagree.

Thank you for the emoticon help btw

 

[Richard]

You are contradicting yourself. You say Fleming had a stop start career and hence it is not fair to compare any part of Waqar's record with him, and now you say he is better than Waqar.

What I said was any form of comparison based on part of one player's career and all of another's is meaningless. In terms of entire careers, Fleming for me played easily enough, even though substantially less than Waqar, for me to consider him a superior ODI bowler. There is no contradiction there, though I'll admit that was a nice try.

what you are posting in favour of Fleming looks ridiculous to me, and to many others here also

Looks like 1 other person so far, actually.

 

[Furball]

Count me as 2.

 

[G.I.Joe]

3

 

[Fusion]

4. Sorry Rich, you know that I like you as a poster so I hope you don't take this in the wrong way, but I have never heard anyone claim that Fleming is a better ODI bowler than Waqar. I would humbly suggest to you that your view is probably shared by very few on this forum or elsewhere. That doesn't make it wrong, as everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I have certainly not read a convincing argument in Fleming's favor up to now.

 

[Richard]

Not to worry - main reason no-one's ever heard the claim be made is because no-one's ever actually suggested the possibility of a comparison.

All I was pointing-out was that a claim was being made which was untrue. If it'd been made even after these relatively few posts it'd have been true, but it wasn't.

 

[Athlai]

5.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I can accept that, but I do feel that when someone is claiming something they cannot possibly have actual knowledge of it needs to be pointed-out. I also feel that when people are biased, especially on a home basis, it needs to be pointed-out.

Pot call the kettle black.

 

[Pothas]

Pot call the kettle black.

The Irony.

 

[Sanz]

So what? They're nothing to do with the thread and have nothing to do with the topic in question.

If you want to disagree with Richard's views on Waqar and Fleming, then by all means do so.

Bringing up Richard's views on Hayden, or speculating about Stewart vs Gilchrist a) has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and b) serves no purpose other than goading Richard into a response. So in future, please don't do it, as it's not necessary.

This is the last I'll say in this thread on the topic, as I don't want to sidetrack the discussion in this thread. If there's an issue with anything I've said, you're more than welcome to start a thread in site discussion, or email me personally or any of the moderating team. Further posts on the subject in this thread will be deleted.

Look I don't give a **** about you going to respond to this or not. But Richard making ridiculous statements that guys like Fleming and Vaas are way ahead of Waqar is about as much baiting as one can do.

Oh and the thread was about Waqar Younis. But thanks to some outrageous claims by one certain member it has become Waqar and Fleming. Take a look at the thread in all honesty and decide for yourself. From a genuine discussion on Waqar's bowling it is reduced to 1,2,3,4,5... If that is where you want this thread to take then go ahead and do so.

And If my post really was creating trouble or disturbing the forum harmony then you could have simple deleted it.

 

[Sanz]

6. FTR. Fleming was good but not anywhere close to Waqar.

 

[Sanz]

It's completely and totally pointless to bring something up which has zero relevance - unless you're attempting to undermine the credibility of a poster by painting their views as ludicrous.

Richard, I do not need to do anything to undermine your credibility. You undermine your own credibility by saying stuff like Fleming > Waqar in ODIs.

Waqar is an all time Great and Fleming is not even close.

 

[Teja.]

Yeah Richard, Fleming is better than Waqar because his Economy rate is better, and Ganteaume is better than Bradman because his average is better.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah Richard, Fleming is better than Waqar because his Economy rate is better, and Ganteaume is better than Bradman because his average is better.

Sehwag >>>>>>>> Bradboy because his SR.

 

[Faisal1985]

7 for Wicky.

TBH, i just sometimes feel that when someone starts playing stats too much, it distorts the actual picture. Yes its nice to see the stats on very close player matches.....but i would go by this logic first that if you were a selector and had to pick between Waqar and Fleming who would you go for?

I would say majority of the people would pick Waqar over Fleming....if there is an argument and there is a 50/50 split may be only then you can look at stats to see who actually was better....

But thats just me......

Similarly Adam Gilchrist and Hayden would have been picked over the other 2 names mentioned before....

 

[Manee]

I do not think it is fair to deride Richard's viewpoint. He evidently carries out far more rigarous statistical analysis than 99% of members on the forum. Therefore his opinion is not without reason. However, one must consider that the holes within Richard's analysis is where the common perception lies, that Waqar was a high quality bowler who could win a game and who could change a game, or at least, gave captain and fans the peace of mind that he could. It is true that his outstanding Test record may have caused people to view his ODI career with rose tinted specs, but consider the class of the individual and where this could translate into genuine capital for people to take it into account that he was top quality in all forms of the game - is it simple misjudgement or something more complex.

Hmmmm.