Michael Holding vs Waqar Younis

[capt_Luffy]

You earned it

Why a man is running like someone is chasing him with a belt?? I can't see anyone there

 

[kyear2]

You earned it

Personally unless I've at least seen a little of someone it's hard for me to rate them, especially if it's from 1877 or even 1908.

 

[Coronis]

I think there's nothing much separating him and Garner.

A few inches at least.

 

[Coronis]

It's from halfway of his career. He was ahead of everyone by a huge margin in the 1870s, but by the 2nd half of the 80s, Shrewsbury was better/equal. Then ofcourse in the 90s Ranji took the crown. Also, ofcourse his competition was shittier, Daft was no Hammond, Jupp no Headley and Beldham was 6 years older to Grace than he was to Sobers. I find Ranji's quote on Grace's batting to be very own point.

You mean by the time Grace was 40?

 

[capt_Luffy]

You mean by the time Grace was 40?

Yes. Halfway his career. He also, according to Simon Wilde, was World's best batsman between 1895-96

 

[pardus]

Waqar's rise was so meteoric. He made his Test debut in the same Test match that Sachin Tendulkar made his debut. Within an year, he was considered one of the most lethal bowlers in the world.

I have rarely seen another fast bowler consistently swing the ball that much, and that late, as Waqar did at his peak.
If you had watched him live back in the early 90s, it was impossible not to be astonished.
Again, much like peak Patrick Patterson's pace, YouTube replays don't do much justice.

Many times the ball would leave his bowling hand way outside off stump (around sixth stump line), and even be directed slightly away from the batsman (slightly towards the first-slip), you would naturally assume it was going to be an off-side wide - and what made it extremely difficult for the batsman was that, the ball would begin by following that expected 'off-side wide' trajectory as it travelled across the first half of the pitch, before rapidly swinging in to the leg-side and crashing into the middle or leg stump (or the unfortunate batsman's foot/leg). And all this at tremendous pace.

But Waqar couldn't acheive this kind of swing everywhere. He didn't look as lethal in Australia or in the Carribean, as he looked in the subcontinent, England and New Zealand.

At his peak, it was amazing to watch Waqar's battles with Martin Crowe, Carl Hooper and Brian Lara.

Like Steyn, Waqar could be very expensive for a great Test bowler even at his peak. I remember Aravinda De Silva gving him a proper hiding in a 1994 Test match. Phil Simmons and Lara did the same in a Test match in Barbados in 1993.

Waqar's fall was as precepitious as his rise was meteoric. He seemed to have lost his pace almost overnight. The last time in his career where he looked consistently quick was when Pak toured RSA-Zimbabwe in early 1998. He was never the same bowler after that, although he played for nearly 5 more years. Within an year he was dropped from the playing XI in Eden Gardens Test against India in 1999, to make place for Shoaib Akhtar. He still played a lot for Pakistan but he just had one 5 wicket haul in rest of his career after the RSA-Zimbabwe tour in early 1998 (about 60 innings), and that was against Bangladesh.

 

[Van_Sri]

1990-1994 : Waqar Younis took 184 Wickets at 18.49 Average - Best Fast Bowler of First Half of 90s in Cricket

 

[kyear2]

1990-1994 : Waqar Younis took 184 Wickets at 18.49 Average - Best Fast Bowler of First Half of 90s in Cricket

Would still say Ambrose was. From '89 to '94

 

[Van_Sri]

Would still say Ambrose was. From '89 to '94

1990-1994 : Curtly Ambrose took 159 Wickets at 18.72 Average, 1989 was not so good year for Ambrose so just took 90s first five years like Waqar. It can be a good debate who was better among the 2 from 1990 to 1994.

 

[kyear2]

1990-1994 : Curtly Ambrose took 159 Wickets at 18.72 Average, 1989 was not so good year for Ambrose so just took 90s first five years like Waqar. It can be a good debate who was better among the 2 from 1990 to 1994.

Then you look at who they did it against, and it becomes less so.

 

[Van_Sri]

Then you look at who they did it against, and it becomes less so.

Yeah Ambrose wins in terms of quality and Waqar wins in terms of quantity. Waqar took 19 five wickets in this 5 years and Ambrose took 10 five wickets in this 5 years. But Ambrose was also good in Australia where Waqar was a flop.

 

[Van_Sri]

Waqar Younis took 189 Wickets at an average of 28.49 Average (Excluding 1990-1994), Curtly Ambrose took 246 wickets at an average of 22.46 (Excluding 1990-1994)

 

[sayon basak]

Waqar Younis took 189 Wickets at an average of 28.49 Average (Excluding 1990-1994)

Still pretty good tho.

What was his average in that period without weak teams? (avoiding the term minnow).

 

[Van_Sri]

Still pretty good tho.

What was his average in that period without weak teams? (avoiding the term minnow).

He was pretty good against most teams except in Australia , his record against India was also not so good but he did not play much with India , In Pakistan he was a beast for all teams.

 

[Coronis]

He was pretty good against most teams except in Australia , his record against India was also not so good but he did not play much with India , In Pakistan he was a beast for all teams.

The country icons are that unnecessary

 

[sayon basak]

The country icons are that unnecessary

What if someone cannot read? Those icons will be very necessary then.

 

[sayon basak]

W.G. Grace 10,669 runs @ 61.51 with 38 centuries.
Harry Jupp 9,987 runs @ 24.53 with 8 centuries
William Beldham 7,043 runs @ 21.47 with 3 centuries
George Parr 6,626 runs @ 20.20 with 1 century
Richard Daft 6,427 runs @ 29.48 with 6 centuries
Lord Frederick Beauclerk 5,442 runs @ 24.96 with 5 centuries
Bob Carpenter 5,184 runs @ 24.80 with 4 centuries

61.51-29.48 is a 2.08× disparancy while 99.94-58.46 (Hammond) is a 1.70× disparency.

if Grace is to be rated, he should, by all rights, be the GOAT.

Do you just calculate the ratio of average to prepare your all time great list? Do you rate Sangakkara ahead of Sachin as an overall cricketer?

 

[Coronis]

What if someone cannot read? Those icons will be very necessary then.

So they’d just see random country icons with no context? Helpful. The real question is why would they be on a forum if they can’t read?

 

[sayon basak]

So they’d just see random country icons with no context?

Yeah. I see no problem in that.

The real question is why would they be on a forum if they can’t read?

I see no problem in that either.

 

[Prince EWS]

W.G. Grace 10,669 runs @ 61.51 with 38 centuries.
Harry Jupp 9,987 runs @ 24.53 with 8 centuries
William Beldham 7,043 runs @ 21.47 with 3 centuries
George Parr 6,626 runs @ 20.20 with 1 century
Richard Daft 6,427 runs @ 29.48 with 6 centuries
Lord Frederick Beauclerk 5,442 runs @ 24.96 with 5 centuries
Bob Carpenter 5,184 runs @ 24.80 with 4 centuries

61.51-29.48 is a 2.08× disparancy while 99.94-58.46 (Hammond) is a 1.70× disparency.

if Grace is to be rated, he should, by all rights, be the GOAT.

I did look into this a while ago:

I've been having a look at Grace's First Class career with this method.

If you treated the England First Class season (inclusive of all Tests, county games, etc) in the same way I've treated a Test calender year here, Grace's standardised batting average in the 862 matches he played in the English summer would be 72.03. Using the same "value" formula I used here which gave the Don a 12.47 rating, Grace gets a rating of 12.97 for his First Class batting in England.

If that doesn't seem impressive enough, his standardised average dropped off significantly towards the end of his career as he played on well into his late 50s. After 17 years of cricket and 293 matches his standardised average was still sitting pretty at over 102. In his prime - after 10 years of cricket and 143 matches - his standardised average stood at a ridiculous 123.71.

And that's before we even start looking at his bowling - no small matter of 2800 First Class wickets.