Waqar Younis

[thierry henry]

And ftr, I can at least claim to have watched Wasim, at least from 1991/1992 onwards. Pakistan actually played NZ A LOT through the mid-1990s, and Wasim and Waqar had it all over us, so it's not like I never saw him bowl, or bowl well.

I always remember Waqar being my favourite, and the more feared, at the time. Waqar was scary and Wasim was sort of the exotic left-handed complement with the short run.

Biggest thing for me is I truly don't believe he was as quick as people make out. He never was when I watched him anyway (had this whole discussion here before tbh). Distinctly recall him being a 130s operator and maybe he was 140s, but I think he was deceptive rather than true express.

 

[Xuhaib]

And ftr, I can at least claim to have watched Wasim, at least from 1991/1992 onwards. Pakistan actually played NZ A LOT through the mid-1990s, and Wasim and Waqar had it all over us, so it's not like I never saw him bowl, or bowl well.

I always remember Waqar being my favourite, and the more feared, at the time. Waqar was scary and Wasim was sort of the exotic left-handed complement with the short run.

Biggest thing for me is I truly don't believe he was as quick as people make out. He never was when I watched him anyway (had this whole discussion here before tbh). Distinctly recall him being a 130s operator and maybe he was 140s, but I think he was deceptive rather than true express.

Sounds about right.Infact Wasim few weeks back said that even at this age Amir bowls quicker then he ever bowled,Always have nice words for the young quickie.

 

[Ikki]

At the risk of being shouted down for stats-obsession, Wasim's test record appears to me to be a rung below the other contenders. What's also interesting is that he is referred to as such an utterly devastating wicket-taking bowler, yet compared to other great or supposedly great quicks has a fairly middling strike-rate and probably the lowest wickets-per-match.

I also don't see, prima facie, what would make Wasim so clearly superior to a McGrath or a Pollock (so so underrated) as an ODI bowler.

It depends what you look at. Wasim is renown for being 'destructive' and the mere look at SR, for example, is not enough to prove either way.

McGrath, for example, has an SR of 51.9 and Wasim 54.6. Yet if you look at their 4fers, 5fers and 10fers with respect to the amount of test matches they played; Wasim is very strong.

                [B]4fer[/B]         [B]5fer[/B]        [B]10fer[/B]    [B]Matches[/B]
[B]McGrath[/B]:       28 (23%)     29 (23%)     3 (2%)    124
[B]Wasim[/B]:         20 (19%)     25 (24%)     5 (5%)    104

I guess it may rest on what people are referring to exactly when they give superlatives. If you mean consistently 'destructive' I guess McGrath is your man. If you mean 'destructive' in the ability to quickly tear a line-up, Wasim is slightly ahead IMO.

 

[Xuhaib]

In regards to Wasim I thing his test match performances suffered once he became diabatic.He did not become a lesser bowler but many a times after a good first spell he would look out of steam for the rest of the innings.But when he was lethal he looked as good as he looked in his hay days.

 

[The Sean]

The end of Wasim's career hurt him statistically as well - his last 8 Tests produced just 10 wickets at an average of 55.8 and a S/R of 136.6. TBF he's hardly the only bowler to have suffered a late-career decline, but his figures after 96 Tests rather than 104 are considerably better.

For all that, he's not statistically in the Marshall/McGrath class and Thierry is right that he's a notch or two below in that respect - his reputation, as others have noted, is based as much on what he was capable of doing when he was "on" as what he did match after match over a whole career.

 

[Migara]

And ftr, I can at least claim to have watched Wasim, at least from 1991/1992 onwards. Pakistan actually played NZ A LOT through the mid-1990s, and Wasim and Waqar had it all over us, so it's not like I never saw him bowl, or bowl well.

I always remember Waqar being my favourite, and the more feared, at the time. Waqar was scary and Wasim was sort of the exotic left-handed complement with the short run.

Biggest thing for me is I truly don't believe he was as quick as people make out. He never was when I watched him anyway (had this whole discussion here before tbh). Distinctly recall him being a 130s operator and maybe he was 140s, but I think he was deceptive rather than true express.

I think he was clocked at 94mph around 1995. Would have pushed to upper 90s in his pomp.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Odd because in any highlights package and on raw ability to do things with the ball you would say that Wasim was-

- Faster than McGrath
- Swung it more
- Had greater variety
- A more potent bouncer

Yet there is no doubt in my mind that McGrath was the better bowler. The best seamer I have ever seen in fact. Look at his average in the 00s. Strike rate, percentage of top order wickets, the wood he held over seemingly all the top batsman etc etc.

 

[The Sean]

my top 10 fast bowlers of the last 30 years

Tests

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee
Imran
Lillee
Ambrose
Donald
Akram
Holding
Waqar

My list wouldn't be massively different to that, though with the last 30 years - as vic pointed out - now being 1980-onwards, I couldn't have Lillee so high as his decline began in 1982 and he retired at the start of '84.

 

[Faisal1985]

You don't seem to understand very well - most every Waqar delivery was aimed at the stumps except when he chucked the odd short one in, but he missed that aim with great regularity, as well as hitting it on plenty of occasions too (which when you bowl several thousand deliveries you will do). Other bowlers hit their aim - whatever that aim might have been - with far more regularity than Waqar.

As I say - there is no such thing as "is accurate" \ "is not accurate" - it's a question of how accurate. No-one's saying Waqar was a hopeless waste of space who couldn't ever hit a barn door in 50 attempts, merely that compared to plenty of bowlers, his accuracy was inferior. That didn't stop him being a damn decent ODI bowler, but it did make him notably inferior to a good few others.

I don't think you know how to express your complicated opinion very well, may be because the opinion itself is so complex that it bears no significance in the end.

So now the whole debate is about how many times a bowler aimed for a certain area on the pitch and how many times the bowler actually got it right where he wanted it. How do you know unless you are a mind reader..

 

[Sanz]

In regards to Wasim I thing his test match performances suffered once he became diabatic.He did not become a lesser bowler but many a times after a good first spell he would look out of steam for the rest of the innings.But when he was lethal he looked as good as he looked in his hay days.

I watched Akram bowl in mid 80s and he was an explosive fast bowler, who could just bowl raw pace , no not as fast as Akhtar, Lee, but he could easily clock 140+ consistently if he wanted/needed to. With his skills Akram didn't really need pace. He could just bowl after taking 2 steps and be as effective.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think he was clocked at 94mph around 1995. Would have pushed to upper 90s in his pomp.

Yeah for sure and was cut down even by then after his back injury in '92. Before then, was lightning. I do admit to being a Waqar fanboy, though.

 

[Richard]

No, it's just what you think is right. Doesn't mean it is, Dickadoo.

My relativist epistemology means nothing is "right", merely consensus of opinion. Therefore, if I say something, it's because I believe it's right, simple as.

Oh, and cut the "Dickadoo"s out.

 

[Richard]

There's also the possibility that those stats show that by not taking wickets, it is more likely that runs are to be scored. It can go both ways.

Having watched many of the games in question, I can fairly confidently say that it was a case of what got Lee economy also got him wickets, not one causing the other.

 

[Richard]

Richard, your posts seem to give the impression that bowling at the stumps consistently over a 266-match ODI career is absolute childplay.

Umm... no. It isn't, and they don't. However, aiming at the stumps consistently is childsplay.

 

[Richard]

My take on Waqar has always been the same.

90-94 Best fast bowler ever.

95-98 World class.

99-03 Barely test class.

Overall, all time great?

For me, there is no "overall" with Waqar. His career, as noted, was split into markedly contrasting phases. Players like that I don't categorise as one thing.

 

[Richard]

No it doesn't matter how you did it.

It does, actually, because your claim was that I'd made the inference then created the stats to back that up - which is wrong, I'd seen what happened, made the inference and then showed how the stats - which are a reflection of what happened - demonstrate that.

The whole process is taking bigger chunk of Lee's good games. 25% compared to Mcgrath's 18.

McGrath is entirely irrelevant. So is what size "chunk of good games" is taken.

It is funny to see adding another Criteria since your last post. Earlier in the thread you said the following :-

Now all at a sudden you have cleverly inserted another criteria (marked in the post above.

And you are still wrong, you do not know what happened in every thread.Here are a some of matches where Lee was economic but not penetrative.

2nd ODI: Australia v Bangladesh at Cairns, Aug 3, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
12th Match: Australia v England at Jaipur, Oct 21, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
4th ODI: India v Australia at Chandigarh, Oct 8, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Err, what happened in every thread matters how precisely? And yes, there are four categories, which are fairly obvious and don't need any "clever insertion" - expensive and penetrative, expensive and innocuous, economical and innocuous, and economical and penetrative. All along I've said that Lee was very rarely either the first or third - he was usually either the second or fourth.

 

[Richard]

I also don't see, prima facie, what would make Wasim so clearly superior to a McGrath or a Pollock (so so underrated) as an ODI bowler.

Wasim's excellence as a death-bowler, plainly and simply. Pollock especially was not a death-bowler, Wasim was as good as either at the start of an innings and much better at the end.

 

[Richard]

In regards to Wasim I thing his test match performances suffered once he became diabatic.

Never knew that was during his career actually - had thought he was diabetic since before he started playing. When did he acquire it?

 

[Richard]

I don't think you know how to express your complicated opinion very well, may be because the opinion itself is so complex that it bears no significance in the end.

So now the whole debate is about how many times a bowler aimed for a certain area on the pitch and how many times the bowler actually got it right where he wanted it. How do you know unless you are a mind reader..

You don't need to be a mind-reader to know, really. No bowler ever deliberately bowls a long-hop, or a half-volley on leg-stump, or any form of "bad" delivery. Or, if he does, he's very stupid.

Accuracy means ability to hit the spot you're attempting to hit. It does not mean percentage of deliveries on a line to hit the stumps.

 

[Xuhaib]

Never knew that was during his career actually - had thought he was diabetic since before he started playing. When did he acquire it?

end 98 i believe.