Waqar Younis

[The Sean]

Waqar for those few years in the early 90s was an absolute phenomenon, and it's a real shame that due to injuries and tour schedules we in Australia didn't ever get to see him at his very best - because, as has been noted by several posters already, Waqar at his very best was just about as good as anyone has ever been.

And when the left arm of God was operating at the other end, it was pure fast bowling heaven.

 

[Manee]

Waqar for those few years in the early 90s was an absolute phenomenon, and it's a real shame that due to injuries and tour schedules we in Australia didn't ever get to see him at his very best - because, as has been noted by several posters already, Waqar at his very best was just about as good as anyone has ever been.

And when the left arm of God was operating at the other end, it was pure fast bowling heaven.

And even post injury, as shown by his seven wicket haul against England, he could still occasionally turn it on.

 

[Richard]

Pot call the kettle black.

Given that since I've taken my location out quite a few people have struggled to work-out which team I support (and that I've been accused of bias in favour of and against almost every Test side going around down the years) then I think it's a fairly safe thing to say that I have as little hometown bias as anyone.

 

[Furball]

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.

More career 5 fors than any bowler in ODIs, and fastest to all the milestones in terms of wickets - Waqar was a seriously good ODI bowler.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Given that since I've taken my location out quite a few people have struggled to work-out which team I support (and that I've been accused of bias in favour of and against almost every Test side going around down the years) then I think it's a fairly safe thing to say that I have as little hometown bias as anyone.

 

[Teja.]

More career 5 fors than any bowler in ODIs, and fastest to all the milestones in terms of wickets - Waqar was a seriously good ODI bowler.

This.

 

[Manee]

More career 5 fors than any bowler in ODIs, and fastest to all the milestones in terms of wickets - Waqar was a seriously good ODI bowler.

Yes but he was expensive, etc, etc - I was merely trying to acknowledge both sides of the argument.

 

[Richard]

More career 5 fors than any bowler in ODIs, and fastest to all the milestones in terms of wickets - Waqar was a seriously good ODI bowler.

Only, in my view, if you give wicket-taking an overstated priority. As I've said before, wickets taken in the middle and at the end of a ODI innings are not often of any great use to the team, they just improve your bowling average, and such wickets tend to make-up the majority in bowlers who bowl at such stages, given that opening spells are rarely very long things.

As I say, Waqar certainly took-out top-orders in ODIs more regularly than most, but the nature of a ODI is that it's not something which is possible to do with all that much regularity. Bowling 10 economical overs is. Hence a bowler who can consistently deliver economical spells and only rarely gets more than the odd wicket is more useful than one who can take-out top-orders once in a while and more often than not goes the distance.

 

[Faisal1985]

Only, in my view, if you give wicket-taking an overstated priority. As I've said before, wickets taken in the middle and at the end of a ODI innings are not often of any great use to the team, they just improve your bowling average, and such wickets tend to make-up the majority in bowlers who bowl at such stages, given that opening spells are rarely very long things.

As I say, Waqar certainly took-out top-orders in ODIs more regularly than most, but the nature of a ODI is that it's not something which is possible to do with all that much regularity. Bowling 10 economical overs is. Hence a bowler who can consistently deliver economical spells and only rarely gets more than the odd wicket is more useful than one who can take-out top-orders once in a while and more often than not goes the distance.

So, what do you say is the impact on the game overall, of cleaning up the tail or getting some important middle over wickets?

As far as my understanding is, wicket taking is the key to stop runs regardless of top order or middle or even the tail. A new batsman will certainly give some dot balls before he gets going and dot balls in ODI is of darn big importance.

"if you give wicket-taking an overstated priority" Such statements only seem like you just want to win every argument....by making up illogical underlying assumptions.

 

[Furball]

Only, in my view, if you give wicket-taking an overstated priority. As I've said before, wickets taken in the middle and at the end of a ODI innings are not often of any great use to the team, they just improve your bowling average, and such wickets tend to make-up the majority in bowlers who bowl at such stages, given that opening spells are rarely very long things.

As I say, Waqar certainly took-out top-orders in ODIs more regularly than most, but the nature of a ODI is that it's not something which is possible to do with all that much regularity. Bowling 10 economical overs is. Hence a bowler who can consistently deliver economical spells and only rarely gets more than the odd wicket is more useful than one who can take-out top-orders once in a while and more often than not goes the distance.

In my view, you don't give wicket taking enough priority. We're always going to disagree on this.

edit: Basically what you're saying is that you'd the opposition were 150/1 going into the last 10 than 220/6. I reckong that 9 times out of 10, the first scenario would result in a higher team total. Wicket taking is always important.

 

[Richard]

So, what do you say is the impact on the game overall, of cleaning up the tail or getting some important middle over wickets?

As far as my understanding is, wicket taking is the key to stop runs regardless of top order or middle or even the tail. A new batsman will certainly give some dot balls before he gets going and dot balls in ODI is of darn big importance.

Wicket-taking can certainly help accurate bowling be really economical instead of fairly economical. However, wickets falling - either taking them yourself or with someone else taking them - will not help inaccurate bowling, that'll get smashed regardless. The notion that a batsman being new to the crease means you're guaranteed a few dot-balls is a major fallacy.

Wickets in the middle of the innings are a) very hard to take (that's take as distinct from be gifted) due to the typical condition of the ball and b) only rarely cause that much of a slow-up in the run-rate even when they do fall. Getting tailenders or top-order batsmen out at the end of the innings will almost never slow the run-rate, because at the death everyone goes for everything regardless. At the death, the only way you'll keep the rate down is by bowling consistently in the blockhole.

The key to a good economy-rate is accuracy. Wickets falling are a helpful complimentary factor, but accuracy is by far the most important thing.

"if you give wicket-taking an overstated priority" Such statements only seem like you just want to win every argument....by making up illogical underlying assumptions.

Nope, I've held that perception since long before I ever begun getting into arguments on the merits and demerits of players, online or anywhere else.

 

[Sanz]

Yes but he was expensive, etc, etc - I was merely trying to acknowledge both sides of the argument.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Waqar's ER is very good. Does it make him any less as an ODI bowler, IMO NO.

He can't be compared to guys who played 50 matches in his era. It is also unfair to compare his ER with guys like Garner who played in a completely different era of ODI.

Waqar's record should be looked into the context and compared with those in his era and Someone like Mcgrath has an economy rate of 3.88, Lee 4.7, Bond 4.28, Donald 4.18, Akhtar 4.69. All excellent ODI bowlers.

 

[Richard]

In my view, you don't give wicket taking enough priority. We're always going to disagree on this.

edit: Basically what you're saying is that you'd the opposition were 150/1 going into the last 10 than 220/6. I reckong that 9 times out of 10, the first scenario would result in a higher team total. Wicket taking is always important.

It (the eventual total) would depend on the quality of the bowling in the last 10 overs. If the bowling was good, consistent blockhole bowling in both scenarios there'd be a difference of perhaps 20 runs at best. If it was poor, I'd back both scenarios to result in substantial carnage in the last 10, with the former scenario maybe gaining 10-15 runs more. That's what my experience of watching ODIs has led me to believe; there can be no certain answer because each scenario is to some extent different.

If, of course, the bowling was better under one set of circumstances and worse under the other then there'd be wildly differing outcomes but that's hardly important to the question of whether wickets in hand in the last 10 overs can cause batsmen to score more quickly in that time.

The only time in my book where bowling wicket-taking deliveries can lead to a significantly lower score is if you take 4-5 wickets at the start of the innings. Because then not only are you going to improve the chances of economy for those who come on afterwards - if they can bowl accurately - then you're going to give a good chance of knocking the oppo over inside 50 overs.

 

[Richard]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Waqar's ER is very good. Does it make him any less as an ODI bowler, IMO NO.

He can't be compared to guys who played 50 matches in his era. It is also unfair to compare his ER with guys like Garner who played in a completely different era of ODI.

Waqar's record should be looked into the context and compared with those in his era and Someone like Mcgrath has an economy rate of 3.88, Lee 4.7, Bond 4.28, Donald 4.18, Akhtar 4.69. All excellent ODI bowlers.

Shoaib Akhtar certainly wasn't an excellent ODI bowler either, nor was Lee, in my book. Why? Same reason as Waqar.

Shoaib and Lee however unlike Waqar tend(ed) to be the type who bowl(ed) either economically and penetratively or neither. It was quite unusual to see them take (as distinct from be gifted) wickets and still go around the park - ie, get for instance 6-33-3 in their opening spell. Waqar is one of very few ODI bowlers ever to do that. Shoaib and Lee tended to get either 4-27-0 or 5-18-3.

 

[Sanz]

Shoaib Akhtar certainly wasn't an excellent ODI bowler either, nor was Lee, in my book. Why? Same reason as Waqar.

Well You have a right to have your opinion but It is highly unlikely that at many would agree with you on this.

Shoaib and Lee however unlike Waqar tend(ed) to be the type who bowl(ed) either economically and penetratively or neither. It was quite unusual to see them take (as distinct from be gifted) wickets and still go around the park - ie, get for instance 6-33-3 in their opening spell. Waqar is one of very few ODI bowlers ever to do that. Shoaib and Lee tended to get either 4-27-0 or 5-18-3.

That is again a perception and not really true.

 

[Richard]

It is true, and if you look at the matches which the bowlers in question have played, you'll see such a thing.

That's as much a fact as that the Moon orbits Earth.

 

[Furball]

It (the eventual total) would depend on the quality of the bowling in the last 10 overs. If the bowling was good, consistent blockhole bowling in both scenarios there'd be a difference of perhaps 20 runs at best. If it was poor, I'd back both scenarios to result in substantial carnage in the last 10, with the former scenario maybe gaining 10-15 runs more. That's what my experience of watching ODIs has led me to believe; there can be no certain answer because each scenario is to some extent different.

If, of course, the bowling was better under one set of circumstances and worse under the other then there'd be wildly differing outcomes but that's hardly important to the question of whether wickets in hand in the last 10 overs can cause batsmen to score more quickly in that time.

The only time in my book where bowling wicket-taking deliveries can lead to a significantly lower score is if you take 4-5 wickets at the start of the innings. Because then not only are you going to improve the chances of economy for those who come on afterwards - if they can bowl accurately - then you're going to give a good chance of knocking the oppo over inside 50 overs.

The second scenario wouldn't lead to "substantial carnage" because there's too few wickets left to play with. The recognised batsman in that scenario's priority has to be batting through the innings. Wreckless batting might see you push the total to 270 after the 45th over, but if you then get yourself out you increase the likelihood of being bowled out.

Wickets in hand lead to faster scoring in the last 10 because there's more of an opportunity to take risks.

 

[Sanz]

It is true, and if you look at the matches which the bowlers in question have played, you'll see such a thing.

That's as much a fact as that the Moon orbits Earth.

Lee

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Shoaib

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Mcgrath
Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Faisal1985]

Wicket-taking can certainly help accurate bowling be really economical instead of fairly economical. However, wickets falling - either taking them yourself or with someone else taking them - will not help inaccurate bowling, that'll get smashed regardless. The notion that a batsman being new to the crease means you're guaranteed a few dot-balls is a major fallacy.

Accurate bowling increases the chances for you to get wickets, bad bowling and getting a couple of wickets is called a fluke... and 400 odd wickets in case of Waqar is no fluke...his accurate bowling got him wickets, that is why he has majority of his wickets in LBWs or bowleds.

You are never guaranteed anything in cricket, its a game of odds, and a new batsman facing a fast bowler who can swing the ball at a fair speed does take his time to set his eye in. Its more like common knowledge for cricket lovers.

Wickets in the middle of the innings are a) very hard to take (that's take as distinct from be gifted) due to the typical condition of the ball and b) only rarely cause that much of a slow-up in the run-rate even when they do fall. Getting tailenders or top-order batsmen out at the end of the innings will almost never slow the run-rate, because at the death everyone goes for everything regardless. At the death, the only way you'll keep the rate down is by bowling consistently in the blockhole.

The key to a good economy-rate is accuracy. Wickets falling are a helpful complimentary factor, but accuracy is by far the most important thing.

You are contradicting yourself here....if you are not then i guess you want to say in more simple language that Waqar was not accurate and his wickets didn't help him get accurate either.

Then please explain to me how is it that Waqar got all those wickets by ways of LBW or Bowled and yet wasn't accurate?

And if he was accurate, as per your logic, his economy rate should have been better...

Moreover, what do you consider accurate? Is a blockhole bowling accurate, line and length (McGrath type)....what is accurate?

 

[Richard]

The second scenario wouldn't lead to "substantial carnage" because there's too few wickets left to play with. The recognised batsman in that scenario's priority has to be batting through the innings. Wreckless batting might see you push the total to 270 after the 45th over, but if you then get yourself out you increase the likelihood of being bowled out.

Wickets in hand lead to faster scoring in the last 10 because there's more of an opportunity to take risks.

If the bowling's of poor quality you don't need to take any particularly grand risks. With ODI field restrictions it's fairly straightforward to score 7-8-an-over over ~10 overs while probably losing no more than 2-3 wickets.

That's aside from the fact that playing accoring to the percentages is always the best way to bat regardless of how many wickets you can lose before you're bowled-out. There's no point trying to score boundaries off deliveries you have zero realistic chance of scoring them off, you might as well just dig them out and see if it goes into a gap (it's as likely as not to) to try and get a single\two. You only want to be having a swing at deliveries which you can get hold of, and you always want to be concentrating on placement as much as how hard you're trying to hit it.