*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[vcs]

I think completeness and versatility is highly valued because if you are facing top-quality opposition, repeatedly, being one-dimensional can have limited shelf-life, and affect your longevity, even if you are as awesome in that dimension as Waqar was. There is a similar trend with Sehwag, when conditions are in his favour, he can win or change matches singlehandedly in half an hour, but his second innings record shows that he may not be the best choice if someone is required to dig in and play patiently. It just isn't his game.

I'm not saying Waqar was a one-dimensional bowler, far from it, but I can see why someone might rate Akram higher because of his all-round success, and the various tricks he had up his sleeve to get set batsmen out. After all, statistically they are comparable and Akram was probably the more versatile bowler.

 

[smash84]

. It depends what your claim is with regards to the injury.

True. So it basically all boils down to subjective criteria and how much you are willing to give leeway with injuries. For you it might be a few series. For others it might be a longer period.

This is a stance I have no problem with. I have a problem with saying there is "objectively" no statistical argument to Warne being superior - which seems ironically subjective in itself.

Thankfully. I had initially thought that you had a problem with this stance something i just didn't agree with.

I am guessing you're Pakistani? I'd imagine if I were Pakistani Imran would be the greatest thing ever too. We are biased by those whom we have watched or heard about, there is nothing really wrong about that IMO until someone tries to make an argument based on pure bias and little logic.

hehe......no marks for guessing.

Although for most Pakistanis Wasim has been the greatest thing (at least in bowling terms) to have graced the game which is because most people in Pakistan don't follow test matches. Ppl usually follow ODI cricket. Wasim for me was definitely the better ODI player.

 

[smash84]

I'm not saying Waqar was a one-dimensional bowler, far from it, but I can see why someone might rate Akram higher because of his all-round success, and the various tricks he had up his sleeve to get set batsmen out. After all, statistically they are comparable and Akram was probably the more versatile bowler.

Waqar has much more top order wickets I think. And waqar could bowl some really good out swingers with the new ball. It is just that his in-swinging yorkers were so good that they came to define them. I still don't think anyone has ever bowled the yorker as well or with more devastating effect than Waqar.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Has to be said, but your grammar makes me want to smash my head into a wall. FACT

Please do the forum a favor and do it

JFI I can read and write 5 languages other than English...urdu,hindi,punjabi,gujrati and pothari.I am sure you only know English.BTW this isnt an eng lang forum...just saying.

 

[Shri]

this isnt an eng lang forum...just saying.

Wrong.

 

[Altaican]

One thing that counts against Waqar (when compared to someone like Marshall) is his lack of success in Australia. Australia arguably had the toughest/best batting line-up against pace in the 90s. Even during Waqar's initial years when he had that insanely high WPM, his performance in Australia was poor. In general, his performance against Australia (whether at home or away) was less than stellar. He never even had a 5W haul against them despite playing 20 innings. This is probably the reason why his name does not immediately come up in the list of ATG fast bowlers.

 

[Burgey]

One thing that counts against Waqar (when compared to someone like Marshall) is his lack of success in Australia. Australia arguably had the toughest/best batting line-up against pace in the 90s. Even during Waqar's initial years when he had that insanely high WPM, his performance in Australia was poor. In general, his performance against Australia (whether at home or away) was less than stellar. He never even had a 5W haul against them despite playing 20 innings. This is probably the reason why his name does not immediately come up in the list of ATG fast bowlers.

Thank you. Spot on.

 

[zaremba]

BTW this isnt an eng lang forum

au contraire

 

[G.I.Joe]

One thing that counts against Waqar (when compared to someone like Marshall) is his lack of success in Australia. Australia arguably had the toughest/best batting line-up against pace in the 90s. Even during Waqar's initial years when he had that insanely high WPM, his performance in Australia was poor. In general, his performance against Australia (whether at home or away) was less than stellar. He never even had a 5W haul against them despite playing 20 innings. This is probably the reason why his name does not immediately come up in the list of ATG fast bowlers.

Was the implication wrt Warne intentional?

 

[Ikki]

One thing that counts against Waqar (when compared to someone like Marshall) is his lack of success in Australia. Australia arguably had the toughest/best batting line-up against pace in the 90s. Even during Waqar's initial years when he had that insanely high WPM, his performance in Australia was poor. In general, his performance against Australia (whether at home or away) was less than stellar. He never even had a 5W haul against them despite playing 20 innings. This is probably the reason why his name does not immediately come up in the list of ATG fast bowlers.

Whilst that may be a factor, I find it hard to believe that this alone is why he is so oft forgotten.

Donald had about a record as average as his against Aus. McGrath had trouble against SA - Wasim similar, and worse against England.

 

[tooextracool]

One thing that counts against Waqar (when compared to someone like Marshall) is his lack of success in Australia. Australia arguably had the toughest/best batting line-up against pace in the 90s. Even during Waqar's initial years when he had that insanely high WPM, his performance in Australia was poor. In general, his performance against Australia (whether at home or away) was less than stellar. He never even had a 5W haul against them despite playing 20 innings. This is probably the reason why his name does not immediately come up in the list of ATG fast bowlers.

To be honest, no one cares. Australia for pretty much that entire period were not even officially the number 1 side and he did pretty well against them at home.

There are 2 things that count against Waqar.
1) he was an ordinary bowler outside of those 5 years or so when he was absolutely stellar.
2) When one looks back at his career, much like with Wasim, there is a bit of a grey area given the match fixing controversies with Pakistani cricket around that time especially with what has now come to light. It's a bit tricky to take as fact that all of his performances were the result of 100% performance.

 

[Altaican]

Whilst that may be a factor, I find it hard to believe that this alone is why he is so oft forgotten.

Donald had about a record as average as his against Aus. McGrath had trouble against SA - Wasim similar, and worse against England.

I am not saying that this was the only reason why Waqar is generally ignored. Donald too has mediocre stats against Aus, but I do recall him having one great series against Aus in Aus (in 97/98). He did give Aussie batsmen a torrid time in that series. One such series, especially away from home, is good enough to imprint one's capabilities on the public psyche. Waqar just does not have any such series against Aus (either at home or away).

 

[Ikki]

I just think his record against others is so good that holding his record v Aus against him misses out on the bigger picture. And TBF avg. 33 and striking at 61 is not terrible by any means. It's probably better than the average pacer would do against Aus. I still think he's underrated, if that is the reason people cite.

Looking at his record he was far poorer against India though.

 

[Altaican]

Was the implication wrt Warne intentional?

I can see where you are heading, but one big difference though, while there have been quite a few great fast bowlers who have at least had some success against Australia in Australia, there haven't been any great spinners who have had success against India in India (unless Saqlain qualifies as great). In that sense Warne would not be an exception, but Waqar would be.

TBH, spinners, unless playing for India in India, actually put me to sleep. After seeing what the Windies acheived for nearly 2 decades without a single spinner worth a name, I really think a specialist spinner is a waste of place . Sadly, astonishing success of Windies for such a long time has brainwashed me to think that way .

However I was impressed by Warne's bowling in the 96 WC match against India. His first over went for 10 runs and the next 6 overs (against Tendulkar and Manjerakar) conceded only 11 runs. Just from memory, Warne seemed close to being unplayable. It was fascinating to watch 2 very good batsmen against spin struggling to score. Wish Rob could post a video of Warne's bowling in that match. Wonder what he (or the Indian batsmen) did differently at that time.

Same thing with Murali's Test performance in England in 1998.

If forced to choose a spinner, I would probably choose Murali because Indian batsmen (no matter what they say to the media) clearly feared Murali a lot more. And his success against rest of the teams (at home or away) is on par with Warne's. Not my intention to disrespect Warne or show him as inferior. Just my choice, that is all.

 

[Altaican]

I just think his record against others is so good that holding his record v Aus against him misses out on the bigger picture. And TBF avg. 33 and striking at 61 is not terrible by any means. It's probably better than the average pacer would do against Aus. I still think he's underrated, if that is the reason people cite.

Looking at his record he was far poorer against India though.

But Waqar never played India at his peak. His first series against India was his debut series (as well as Tendulkar's) in 1989. His next series was in 1999. 10 years later. By which he was well past the "insane" peak period, which was from New Zealand series in 1990 to Sri Lanka series in 1994, during which he took 170 wickets in 26 matches at a SR of 32.7. During this time he played Test series only against these Teams - New Zealand (3 series), Sri Lanka (2 series), West Indies (2 series), England and Zimbabwe (one series each). Amongst the teams, back then, only West Indies and to a lesser extent England, were reputable Test teams. Nearly one-third (56) of his 170 wickets came just against New Zealand. If Waqar had continued to maintain such a similar stellar record against Australia, SA and India, I am sure his reputation would have been greatly enhanced.

 

[ankitj]

2) When one looks back at his career, much like with Wasim, there is a bit of a grey area given the match fixing controversies with Pakistani cricket around that time especially with what has now come to light. It's a bit tricky to take as fact that all of his performances were the result of 100% performance.

How could being involved in fixing improve your performances and stats?

 

[Howe_zat]

How could being involved in fixing improve your performances and stats?

It didn't, that's his point. He's saying Akram's likely involvement in match fixing lowered his stats, and so he's really even better than his stats suggest.

Not that I agree...

 

[tooextracool]

Wasim should really have ended up head and shoulders above any other test match bowler if you ask me. I think he underperformed at the test match level and it wasn't due to his own ability, the guy had the tools to take wickets anywhere in the world. Granted there were other things that came into it, including discipline but it's pretty obvious to me that his overall record doesn't do justice to his ability as a player.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wasim should really have ended up head and shoulders above any other test match bowler if you ask me. I think he underperformed at the test match level and it wasn't due to his own ability, the guy had the tools to take wickets anywhere in the world. Granted there were other things that came into it, including discipline but it's pretty obvious to me that his overall record doesn't do justice to his ability as a player.

I dunno. Don't think he under-achieved, reckon he should be just considered one of the great quicks the world has seen, certainly the best leftie in my view. The difference between averaging what he did (around 23) and, say, 20 is about 30-40 wickets more or about 1 more per series. Doesn't sound like much and that's the point; average less than 25 and you deserve to be considered up there with the very best which Akram was because the difference between averaging 25 and 20 over the course of a career isn't much.

Akram's figures alone put him in with Ambrose, Marshall, McGrath, Donald, etc. and that's fair enough, don't think he was better than them. He had days where he was more destructive but when taking into account all facets of quick bowling, reckon all those blokes should be just put into one big group labelled '****ing Awesome' because any statistical difference are likely to be noise and other facets are more about personal taste than anything.

 

[smash84]

I dunno. Don't think he under-achieved, reckon he should be just considered one of the great quicks the world has seen, certainly the best leftie in my view. The difference between averaging what he did (around 23) and, say, 20 is about 30-40 wickets more or about 1 more per series. Doesn't sound like much and that's the point; average less than 25 and you deserve to be considered up there with the very best which Akram was because the difference between averaging 25 and 20 over the course of a career isn't much.

Akram's figures alone put him in with Ambrose, Marshall, McGrath, Donald, etc. and that's fair enough, don't think he was better than them. He had days where he was more destructive but when taking into account all facets of quick bowling, reckon all those blokes should be just put into one big group labelled '****ing Awesome' because any statistical difference are likely to be noise and other facets are more about personal taste than anything.

I would tend to agree with this. And Wasim, even in matches where he supposedly fixed them (and I am speaking about matches where some of the more informed cricket public in Pakistan claimed that he had probably fixed that match), managed to retain excellent figures. Allegedly it was always the lesser bowlers who were paid the money to under perform.