• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Wasim Akram vs. Waqar Younis vs. Imran Khan

How would you rate them in terms of bowling?


  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .

BlazeDragon

Banned
I was wondering who people rate as the best Pakistani bowler in here.

The era they played in definitely puts Akram and Younis above Khan for me. So its just the question of weather to rate Wasim or Waqar higher for me. Keep in mind I'm only talking bowling here.
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
Imran > Wasim > Waqar. I have no idea why you would put Imran below Wasim/Waqar because of the era they played in. Imran played in just as many roads as the W's did. He was excellent against the best team of his era (WI) and magnificent against Pakistan's biggest rival India (with a deep batting lineup). In the 80's, Imran was as good a bowler as there was in world cricket, and that includes competition from two guys who have a solid claim to being the best of all-time: Marshall and Hadlee. I really do feel that because of his all-rounder reputation, people seriously underrate how good Imran was as purely a bowler.
 

BlazeDragon

Banned
Imran > Wasim > Waqar. I have no idea why you would put Imran below Wasim/Waqar because of the era they played in. Imran played in just as many roads as the W's did. He was excellent against the best team of his era (WI) and magnificent against Pakistan's biggest rival India (with a deep batting lineup). In the 80's, Imran was as good a bowler as there was in world cricket, and that includes competition from two guys who have a solid claim to being the best of all-time: Marshall and Hadlee. I really do feel that because of his all-rounder reputation, people seriously underrate how good Imran was as purely a bowler.
Well I consider the modern era harder to bowl in and I have done plenty of stats related debates about it as to why. I don't wanna go back and turn it into one of those threads again.

Its okay if you see it a different way.
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
Imran > Wasim > Waqar. I have no idea why you would put Imran below Wasim/Waqar because of the era they played in. Imran played in just as many roads as the W's did. He was excellent against the best team of his era (WI) and magnificent against Pakistan's biggest rival India (with a deep batting lineup). In the 80's, Imran was as good a bowler as there was in world cricket, and that includes competition from two guys who have a solid claim to being the best of all-time: Marshall and Hadlee. I really do feel that because of his all-rounder reputation, people seriously underrate how good Imran was as purely a bowler.
I always thought of Imran as a bowler who also happened to be very handy with the bat tbh.
 

Fusion

Global Moderator
I always thought of Imran as a bowler who also happened to be very handy with the bat tbh.
I'm sure that's how most people think of Imran as well. The "problem" is that most slot him as an all-rounder and usually only compare him with other great AR's. IMO, even if Imran had never picked up a bat, he is still an ATG player simply because of his bowling exploits. I think he has a legitimate argument to be placed in the top 5 to 6 bowlers of all-time. You may rank others above him, but you can't dismiss his name belonging in the discussion.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Yeah that's what I was suggesting. That he's good with the bat too is a handy bonus but really you should think of him as an ATG bowler and leader.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Yeah that's what I was suggesting. That he's good with the bat too is a handy bonus but really you should think of him as an ATG bowler and leader.
Yeah I think it's a case of revisionist history to view Imran as an allrounder before a great bowler, and that comes from someone who probably wouldn't have Imran in his top fifteen bowlers of all time and yet rates him as the greatest cricketer ever. Imran, before anything else, was an all-time great bowler. It was his intrinsic greatness above all others as a cricketer that saw him succeed in other areas too with (dare I say unPakistanlike) team situational awareness and unwavering commitment to maximum application of skill, but bowling was his true gift and he belongs right up there in the debate with the best of all time in this discipline alone.

When analysing his bowling, I think his batting (particularly his late-career batting) clouds the issue somewhat.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Strictly looking at test bowling, it would be Imran > Waqar > Wasim

As overall cricketers, Imran > Wasim > Waqar
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah I think it's a case of revisionist history to view Imran as an allrounder before a great bowler, and that comes from someone who probably wouldn't have Imran in his top fifteen bowlers of all time and yet rates him as the greatest cricketer ever. Imran, before anything else, was an all-time great bowler. It was his intrinsic greatness above all others as a cricketer that saw him succeed in other areas too with (dare I say unPakistanlike) team situational awareness and unwavering commitment to maximum application of skill, but bowling was his true gift and he belongs right up there in the debate with the best of all time in this discipline alone.

When analysing his bowling, I think his batting (particularly his late-career batting) clouds the issue somewhat.
Couldn't agree more with the bolded part. To maintain good to high standards in both departments at international level is very difficult. To do it across both the prevalent formats is unheard of. To do that while being one of the most remarkable leaders in cricket's history is Godly.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
First comes Imran. Imran essentially passed every major milestone expected of a true all-time great fast bowler and his record is not far from Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee as complete. His record against the best team of his era, WI, was better than any of his peers. He averaged overall less than 25 against everyone except NZ. His record against the strong Indian batting lineups on pure roads is very impressive. He improved as his career moved along, and was as successful when he came back at reduced pace in 1986 as he was at his pace peak, showing a new mastery of the leg cutter. His bowling peak was actually rated the best of all post-war bowlers. As a bowler, he was calculating and you can sense he pushed himself to respond to bigger challenges. Unlike Waqar and Wasim, whose best performances were mostly in tandem, he has quite a few performances where he simply single handedly sliced through a world class batting lineup. I don't see much in Wasim and Waqar records to compare to his 12-fer against a strong Aussie lineup in 76, he 7-fer against a strong England lineup in 82, his demolition job of India in 82-83, and his 7-fer in the WI in 88. Those are mighty performances.

Wasim comes next. Obviously, the most talented of the bunch, perhaps of any bunch. But the more you look at his record the more you get a sense that he underachieved. Modest records against England, India, Australia and SA. He was supremely skilled with the ball but himself admits that he was not the best planner and often didnt know what ball he was going to bowl next. During the early 90s, this still meant plenty of wickets, but as the years moved on, he remained crafty, great to watch and hard to play but lost the extra gear in pace, the swerve in his reverse and that penetration that he found in his peak years. Batsmen were content to play him out out of respect and lost their wickets at the other end. He lacks standout performances IMO the way Imran had when he could demolish high quality opposition on his lonesome (just one 7-fer against NZ, for example). You get the sense with Wasim that he could have got 100 more wickets if he applied himself better. Still, my favorite.

Waqar comes last. Devestating peak but short in comparison to his whole career. Without his pace after his back injury in 1994, he never could command the same respect the way Imran and Wasim did once they lost their pace. He was the most inconsistent of the lot and while Imran and Wasim were rarely collared, Waqar was smashed on many occasions as per his blasting out bowling style. Probably the best at reverse swing but really only mastered the new ball very late in his career, so I wouldnt call him the complete bowler like the previous two.At a certain stage in the late 90s, his bowling was so poor he found it hard to get in the team. Also benefited like Wasim from playing against minnows and his record against India, Australia, England, and SA is modest.
 
Last edited:

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
First comes Imran. Imran essentially passed every major milestone expected of a true all-time great fast bowler and his record is not far from Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee as complete. His record against the best team of his era, WI, was better than any of his peers. He averaged overall less than 25 against everyone except NZ. His record against the strong Indian batting lineups on pure roads is very impressive. He improved as his career moved along, and was as successful when he came back at reduced pace in 1986 as he was at his pace peak, showing a new mastery of the leg cutter. His bowling peak was actually rated the best of all post-war bowlers. As a bowler, he was calculating and you can sense he pushed himself to respond to bigger challenges. Unlike Waqar and Wasim, whose best performances were mostly in tandem, he has quite a few performances where he simply single handedly sliced through a world class batting lineup. I don't see much in Wasim and Waqar records to compare to his 12-fer against a strong Aussie lineup in 76, he 7-fer against a strong England lineup in 82, his demolition job of India in 82-83, and his 7-fer in the WI in 88. Those are mighty performances.

Wasim comes next. Obviously, the most talented of the bunch, perhaps of any bunch. But the more you look at his record the more you get a sense that he underachieved. Modest records against England, India, Australia and SA. He was supremely skilled with the ball but himself admits that he was not the best planner and often didnt know what ball he was going to bowl next. During the early 90s, this still meant plenty of wickets, but as the years moved on, he remained crafty, great to watch and hard to play was lost the extra gear in pace, the swerve in his reverse and that penetration that he found in his peak years. Batsmen were content to play him out out of respect and lost their wickets at the other end. He lacks standout performances IMO the way Imran had when he could demolish high quality opposition on his lonesome (just one 7-fer against NZ, for example). You get the sense with Wasim that he could have got 100 more wickets if he applied himself better. Still, my favorite.

Waqar comes last. Devestating peak but short in comparison to his whole career. Without his pace after his back injury in 1994, he never could command the same respect the way Imran and Wasim did once they lost their pace. He was the most inconsistent of the lot and while Imran and Wasim were rarely collared, Waqar was smashed on many occasions as per his blasting out bowling style. Probably the best at reverse swing but really only mastered the new ball very late in his career, so I wouldnt call him the complete bowler like the previous two. Also benefited like Wasim from playing against minnows and his record against India, Australia, England, and SA is modest.
Super post. Agree entirely.
 

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
I recall Wasim saying once to the effect that on some dull pitches he would just resort to bowling looseners outside the off stump.It was an off hand comment but indicative. Maybe its just me, but I thought he lacked that extra yard of willpower that some of the other greats had when they would rarely if ever stop looking for wickets and had a bit more fire in their bellies. Still a fantastic player to watch.
 

Himannv

Hall of Fame Member
First comes Imran. Imran essentially passed every major milestone expected of a true all-time great fast bowler and his record is not far from Marshall, McGrath and Hadlee as complete. His record against the best team of his era, WI, was better than any of his peers. He averaged overall less than 25 against everyone except NZ. His record against the strong Indian batting lineups on pure roads is very impressive. He improved as his career moved along, and was as successful when he came back at reduced pace in 1986 as he was at his pace peak, showing a new mastery of the leg cutter. His bowling peak was actually rated the best of all post-war bowlers. As a bowler, he was calculating and you can sense he pushed himself to respond to bigger challenges. Unlike Waqar and Wasim, whose best performances were mostly in tandem, he has quite a few performances where he simply single handedly sliced through a world class batting lineup. I don't see much in Wasim and Waqar records to compare to his 12-fer against a strong Aussie lineup in 76, he 7-fer against a strong England lineup in 82, his demolition job of India in 82-83, and his 7-fer in the WI in 88. Those are mighty performances.

Wasim comes next. Obviously, the most talented of the bunch, perhaps of any bunch. But the more you look at his record the more you get a sense that he underachieved. Modest records against England, India, Australia and SA. He was supremely skilled with the ball but himself admits that he was not the best planner and often didnt know what ball he was going to bowl next. During the early 90s, this still meant plenty of wickets, but as the years moved on, he remained crafty, great to watch and hard to play but lost the extra gear in pace, the swerve in his reverse and that penetration that he found in his peak years. Batsmen were content to play him out out of respect and lost their wickets at the other end. He lacks standout performances IMO the way Imran had when he could demolish high quality opposition on his lonesome (just one 7-fer against NZ, for example). You get the sense with Wasim that he could have got 100 more wickets if he applied himself better. Still, my favorite.

Waqar comes last. Devestating peak but short in comparison to his whole career. Without his pace after his back injury in 1994, he never could command the same respect the way Imran and Wasim did once they lost their pace. He was the most inconsistent of the lot and while Imran and Wasim were rarely collared, Waqar was smashed on many occasions as per his blasting out bowling style. Probably the best at reverse swing but really only mastered the new ball very late in his career, so I wouldnt call him the complete bowler like the previous two.At a certain stage in the late 90s, his bowling was so poor he found it hard to get in the team. Also benefited like Wasim from playing against minnows and his record against India, Australia, England, and SA is modest.
Fabulous post. Almost makes me want to change my vote.
 

weldone

Hall of Fame Member
I recall Wasim saying once to the effect that on some dull pitches he would just resort to bowling looseners outside the off stump.It was an off hand comment but indicative. Maybe its just me, but I thought he lacked that extra yard of willpower that some of the other greats had when they would rarely if ever stop looking for wickets and had a bit more fire in their bellies. Still a fantastic player to watch.
Absolutely true. You are in gun form in this thread.

For example, he was clearly not giving his 100% in Australia in his worst series down-under (don't remember which year it was, but Gilchrist was involved in a famous chase in that series). I mean anyone who saw Wasim at his best (and understand cricket) would say that he was not bowling at his 50%. He gave in completely to the flat pitches and gun batting lineup, and almost stopped trying...was bowling straight lollypops outside off-stump for a full day as I remember (and similar in the full series). It was not like he was not fully fit or something.

Later on, in an interview with Harsha Bhogle, he admitted that he wasn't enjoying his cricket. But that's not an excuse I'd love to hear from my favorite bowler. That series made it clear in my mind that I would always rate the likes of McGrath or Imran over him (let alone the Hadlees and Marshalls and Barnes of this world). It was not the lack of performance that bothered me (everyone has a pathetic series or two..or more), it was the lack of intent and purpose and commitment from this absolute champion that I didn't quite love.
 
Last edited:

Top