S Waugh Vs Wasim

[Coronis]

Not a fan of Waugh, just have never been. Call me biased, but any cricketer that has to eliminate shots to succeed, it's just a slight down grade for me.

This will get me skewered, but that's my opinion.

Makes sense with a lot of people’s rstings. Flashy = better, even if less efficient.

 

[kyear2]

Makes sense with a lot of people’s rstings. Flashy = better, even if less efficient.

Not about flashy, but if you have to cut out shots and cut down your scoring, are you better?

I know you disagree, and we can just agree to do so.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not about flashy, but if you have to cut out shots and cut down your scoring, are you better?

I know you disagree, and we can just agree to do so.

You mean if I cut down shots and score regularly more runs than a player with all the shots, am I better than him?? Definitely. Like Hutton was to Compton, Barrington was to Cowdrey or Boycott was to whoever the next best English bat of his time was.

 

[kyear2]

You mean if I cut down shots and score regularly more runs than a player with all the shots, am I better than him?? Definitely. Like Hutton was to Compton, Barrington was to Cowdrey or Boycott was to whoever the next best English bat of his time was.

I'm not going to argue about it, guys like Ponting, Barry or Viv Richards, who could come out and change the course of the game in a session and average just as much as the guy batting slower, does have .ore value.

I don't see how that's controversial.

 

[subshakerz]

Not a fan of Waugh, just have never been. Call me biased, but any cricketer that has to eliminate shots to succeed, it's just a slight down grade for me.

This will get me skewered, but that's my opinion.

I disagree. If it works for him and he scores and it doesn't harm the team, all the better. He was one of the toughest bats I saw. Better players adjust their game all the time. It's like penalising Pollock for choosing to be fast medium rather than a speedster.

 

[reyrey]

I'm not going to argue about it, guys like Ponting, Barry or Viv Richards, who could come out and change the course of the game in a session and average just as much as the guy batting slower, does have .ore value.

I don't see how that's controversial.

Getting runs slowly means opposition bowlers need to bowl more. Tired bowlers are less effective bowlers. Also slow scoring gives your own bowlers more rest.

Your points are equally valid, but like most things in Test cricket there is value in both.

 

[kyear2]

Getting runs slowly means opposition bowlers need to bowl more. Tired bowlers are less effective bowlers. Also slow scoring gives your own bowlers more rest.

Your points are equally valid, but like most things in Test cricket there is value in both.

Yes there is. Just wouldn't want too may 35 strike rate guys on my team, not in tandem for sure. Can also allow the bowlers to settle and bowl themselves into form

 

[subshakerz]

Getting runs slowly means opposition bowlers need to bowl more. Tired bowlers are less effective bowlers. Also slow scoring gives your own bowlers more rest.

Getting smacked around is also tiring.

And unless it's express pacers most don't mind long spells against bats that don't move the needle.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes there is. Just wouldn't want too may 35 strike rate guys on my team, not in tandem for sure. Can also allow the bowlers to settle and bowl themselves into form

We'll argue so much and then you say something that we agree 100 percent on.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Unfairly lopsided imo. Waugh post-reinvention was regularly among the top 3 batsmen in the world. Wasim's MO was ***ier and rarer obviously but they meet at a similar juncture in the road, just that they arrive at said place from different points of origin: Wasim an underachiever all said n done considering his talent while Waugh dragged himself up to elite level through sheer bloodymindedness.

 

[ma1978]

Unfairly lopsided imo. Waugh post-reinvention was regularly among the top 3 batsmen in the world. Wasim's MO was ***ier and rarer obviously but they meet at a similar juncture in the road, just that they arrive at said place from different points of origin: Wasim an underachiever all said n done considering his talent while Waugh dragged himself up to elite level through sheer bloodymindedness.

Huh? In what way did Wasim underperform. Was it the 400 wickets? They spate of match winning spells? The reputation as the goat left armer?

 

[Arachnodouche]

Huh? In what way did Wasim underperform. Was it the 400 wickets? They spate of match winning spells? The reputation as the goat left armer?

Should've averaged a couple of points lower with a better SR too * considering * the preternatural talent at his disposal. His magic wickets tend to overshadow the fact that his radar wasn't always as on-point as Ambrose or McGrath. He took time to get warmed up and his opening spells as he grew older looked increasingly stiff-limbed. Anyway, this is a head-to-head and Waugh isn't some low 40s averaging hack. He has all the batting equivalents of Wasim's bowling credentials.

 

[subshakerz]

Should've averaged a couple of points lower with a better SR too * considering * the preternatural talent at his disposal. His magic wickets tend to overshadow the fact that his radar wasn't always as on-point as Ambrose or McGrath. Anyway, this is a head-to-head and Waugh isn't some low 40s averaging hack. He has all the batting equivalents of Wasim's bowling credentials.

I posted this in the other thread but still relevant.

I dont think there was a particular skill issue that accounts for Wasim's lesser impressive numbers.

He has a peak of nearly 50 tests averaging 20 with a WPM of 5, comparably to anything from Ambrose and McGrath.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

There were three issues:

- Debuting very early. Pacers normally debut early 20s and take around 10-15 tests to hit their strides, he debuted 18 and took 30 tests to do so.

- Diabetes around 98. Wasim had achieved a level of skill mastery but diabetes reduced his pace a couple years earlier or so than normal aging, allowing batsmen to play him out of respect without losing their wicket. This became clear to me when Australia toured Pakistan in 98 and Wasim was bowling excellently, yet for some reason the batsmen survived. The Aussies explained later that their strategy towards Wasim was to just limit his damage, and without that extra sting of pace, his swing was enough to keep best batsmen quiet but not to run through a lineup.

Imagine this same spell with an extra 2-3 MPH.

- Slips. Wasim was a fantastic new ball bowler, not far from McGrath and Ambrose, but if your fielders are regularly shelling 1-2 catches, that is bound to impact your numbers.

 

[kyear2]

I posted this in the other thread but still relevant.

I dont think there was a particular skill issue that accounts for Wasim's lesser impressive numbers.

He has a peak of nearly 50 tests averaging 20 with a WPM of 5, comparably to anything from Ambrose and McGrath.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

There were three issues:

- Debuting very early. Pacers normally debut early 20s and take around 10-15 tests to hit their strides, he debuted 18 and took 30 tests to do so.

- Diabetes around 98. Wasim had achieved a level of skill mastery but diabetes reduced his pace a couple years earlier or so than normal aging, allowing batsmen to play him out of respect without losing their wicket. This became clear to me when Australia toured Pakistan in 98 and Wasim was bowling excellently, yet for some reason the batsmen survived. The Aussies explained later that their strategy towards Wasim was to just limit his damage, and without that extra sting of pace, his swing was enough to keep best batsmen quiet but not to run through a lineup.

Imagine this same spell with an extra 2-3 MPH.

- Slips. Wasim was a fantastic new ball bowler, not far from McGrath and Ambrose, but if your fielders are regularly shelling 1-2 catches, that is bound to impact your numbers.

Wasim had a below par performance vs India, England and Australia. I would add SA but small sample size. In all of those countries he had a stroke rate of 60 or higher. His wicket value, as per the referenced study, is abysmal, owing somewhat to his disproportionately high percentage of tail end wickets.

Yes he had a bad start, so did Sobers, he had a compromised tail end, so did Ambrose, Richards, Ponting etc... Sobers too to a slightly lesser extent, and his was due to over load as well.
The slip catching thing was a real issue as well, but does that cover all of it?

His pros are also equally impressive. Arguably the best ever old ball bowler, tied into that, master of reverse swing, getting into go both ways, not just off the charts peer rating, but journalistic as well. The guy's made both the Cricinfo and Wisden's teams, that's crazy.
The players that made both teams are an exclusive bunch.
Hobbs / Bradman / Richards / Tendulkar / Sobers / Marshall / Warne / Wasim

Slip catching probably explains the top end stuff the best, but the rest of it?

As I've said too many times to mention, he really is the hardest player to rate.

 

[subshakerz]

Wasim had a below par performance vs India, England and Australia. I would add SA but small sample size. In all of those countries he had a stroke rate of 60 or higher. His wicket value, as per the referenced study, is abysmal, owing somewhat to his disproportionately high percentage of tail end wickets.

Wasim in Aus isn't below par. He had two worldclass series there and overall good nos. Eng and Ind aren't great but impacted again by playing as a young teen.

Yes he had a bad start, so did Sobers, he had a compromised tail end, so did Ambrose, Richards, Ponting etc... Sobers too to a slightly lesser extent, and his was due to over load as well.

You can't just slide over the impact of a teen trying to be a worldclass pacer and the extra time it takes.

The slip catching thing was a real issue as well, but does that cover all of it?

Depends. How much impact do you think slips had?

As I've said too many times to mention, he really is the hardest player to rate.

I respect that position. He is a hard one to rate. I just gave some context for his career.

 

[Coronis]

Not about flashy, but if you have to cut out shots and cut down your scoring, are you better?

I know you disagree, and we can just agree to do so.

He didn’t cut down his scoring. He cut out more risky shots to increase his scoring and thus increase his scoring output. Its like if you rated Lillee or Hadlee less for reducing their pace and becoming more effective.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

McGrath bowled low 80s so I guess that puts him at the bottom of the ATG list

 

[Coronis]

McGrath bowled low 80s so I guess that puts him at the bottom of the ATG list

I didn’t mention him because my whole point isn’t about the merits of players of different styles, rather me disagreeing that Waugh should be punished for changing his style for something more effective.

 

[subshakerz]

I didn’t mention him because my whole point isn’t about the merits of players of different styles, rather me disagreeing that Waugh should be punished for changing his style for something more effective.

I think @kyear2 is conflating two points.

One is preferring strokemakers generally, which I do also.

The other is modifying your game and removing riskier shots to score more, which is completely fine and part of being a top cricketer.

If late career Ponting said his reflexes were slower and he wouldn't being pulling as much, nothing wrong with that if he still gets runs.

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar gave up his entire offside game in 2003 in Aus so he could score in the last test.

Lara took advice from Sobers to lose his more flamboyant crossbat and others riskier shots away from his body, along with adjusting his high backlift in defense, which led to his resurgence in 2001.