Jasprit Bumrah vs Waqar Younis

[Randomfan]

Waqar in 1990 vs NZ :-

3 matches 29 wickets

This was the series where Crowe was lone warrior for NZ. Question could be raised how did Waqar actually managed to pick so many wickets in this series on home pitches?

The same way Pringle finished with 11 for 152 after taking 2 for 190 in the first two matches.

As old as the hills

The thorny subject of ball tampering has stalked the game for many years, but it is only in the last couple of decades that it has become something a wider audience has been aware of. Arguably, it has been going on since cricket's earliest days, but invas

www.espncricinfo.com

 

[Randomfan]

We can’t assume anything based on 13 games sample. Include NZ and then compare with his peers because NZ with Crowe is more or less at same level as Eng or India. They would do well vs some teams and not do well vs some.

He was destructive vs NZ and WI at its prime. He was good vs Aus and Eng. He didn’t played SA and India at its prime.

He averages 28 vs SA and he played the SA team from 1997 onwards. He wasn’t at his prime but SA had Donald, Pollock at its prime destroying teams. In batting, SA now had Kallis too. That tells me that if Waqar got to face SA of pre-1995, he would have done a lot better.

Coincidently, Including NZ, he has 13 test sample size against WI and NZ.

Point is , fans say that don't count after 1994. Also say that don't count till mid 1990. You know he is then left with 20 tests against non-minnows and only against 2 teams he averaged sub 25 in that cherrypicked period.

In context of this thread, is it even worth discussing Waqar's peak when he was not even world class for such a long time? He has just 1 5-fer in 43 tests against non-minnows after 94. Peak wasn't all that great to even remotely compensting for him a poor record in stretch of 43 tests later and 5 initial tests, that's total 48 tests. I did not pick these 48 tests myself, it is what left when fans cite his 20 tests peak.

In my oplinion, Waqar's peak and longevity when comparing Waqar with anyone is just plain noise.. He was not even world class for 48 tests against non-minnows outsifde of his prime and his prime was not anyting which will compensate for these 48 tests. Lots of bowlers have better prime than Waqar with a longer periods.

 

[Coronis]

We can’t assume anything based on 13 games sample. Include NZ and then compare with his peers because NZ with Crowe is more or less at same level as Eng or India. They would do well vs some teams and not do well vs some.

He was destructive vs NZ and WI at its prime. He was good vs Aus and Eng. He didn’t played SA and India at its prime.

He averages 28 vs SA and he played the SA team from 1997 onwards. He wasn’t at his prime but SA had Donald, Pollock at its prime destroying teams. In batting, SA now had Kallis too. That tells me that if Waqar got to face SA of pre-1995, he would have done a lot better.

What about a 4 game sample?

 

[Rob Wesley]

Coincidently, Including NZ, he has 13 test sample size against WI and NZ.

Point is , fans say that don't count after 1994. Also say that don't count till mid 1990. You know he is then left with 20 tests against non-minnows and only against 2 teams he averaged sub 25 in that cherrypicked period.

In context of this thread, is it even worth discussing Waqar's peak when he was not even world class for such a long time? He has just 1 5-fer in 43 tests against non-minnows after 94. Peak wasn't all that great to even remotely compensting for him a poor record in stretch of 43 tests later and 5 initial tests, that's total 48 tests. I did not pick these 48 tests myself, it is what left when fans cite his 20 tests peak.

In my oplinion, Waqar's peak and longevity when comparing Waqar with anyone is just plain noise.. He was not even world class for 48 tests against non-minnows outsifde of his prime and his prime was not anyting which will compensate for these 48 tests. Lots of bowlers have better prime than Waqar with a longer periods.

The thing is what your stats are doing is that it is considering 18 tests in his prime(1989-94) vs top 6 ( which excludes NZ, of course SL were minnows) and 43 tests from 1995 onwards vs top 8. So, we have basically considered 61 tests overall out of 87 tests he played. We excluded 26 tests in total.

These 26 tests include 7 vs NZ where he picked 56 wickets at its prime. Now, that includes one series at home(3 tests) where the ball tampering allegations were prominent. That leaves us with 4 tests in NZ during 1993-94 tours when NZ got weakened further. There were 11 vs Zim and 5 vs SL till ‘94 and 3 vs BD. Sometimes though, best performances get ignored due to playing weaker opponents more and Waqar played a fair bit vs NZ, SL and Zim between 1989-1994.

 

[Randomfan]

The thing is what your stats are doing is that it is considering 18 tests in his prime(1989-94) vs top 6 ( which excludes NZ, of course SL were minnows) and 43 tests from 1995 onwards vs top 8. So, we have basically considered 61 tests overall out of 87 tests he played. We excluded 26 tests in total.

I don't hink you need to even get into top teams of his era or anything like that. Waqar level was not close enough with any tier 1 pacer to get into that much details. You can take all his tests vs non-minnows during his prime ( Jul 1990 - end of 94 - that's what posters are citing as his prime)

Waqar's record in prime against non-minnows:

20 tests : 123 wickets : Avg 18.66


Then,

You take all his tests vs non-minnows outside of his prime

Total 47 tests : 461 runs & 10 wickets - 0 5-fers ( debute till June 1990) + 4107 runs & 130 wickets with 1 5-fers ( 95 till retirement) = Avg 32.6 with 1 5-fers.

-----------

This include all non-minnows in all periods for Waqar. No one will say that 1 5-fers in 47 tests outside of prime is remotely close to world class. So you have a bowler who was not world class for 47 tests and had prime of 20 tests against non-minnows. Total career of 67 tests against non-minnows

Given his over all record, does his longevity and prime is really worth mentioning when comparing to any tier 1 pacer? I don't think so. And yet, tons of fans cite his longevity as if it was any worth or prime as if it was a stretch of 35-40 tests against non-minnows.

I personally don't even like so much slicing and dicing but if we are doing that then Anderson has far more impressive record and he helped his team a lot more than Waqar ever did. I bet if you ask folks about Anderson vs Waqar most will say Waqar. But Waqar simply has a poor record outside of 20 tests.

 

[Rob Wesley]

I don't hink you need to even get into top teams of his era or anything like that. Waqar level was not close enough with any tier 1 pacer to get into that much details. You can take all his tests vs non-minnows during his prime ( Jul 1990 - end of 94 - that's what posters are citing as his prime)

Waqar's record against non-minnows in prime against non-minnows:

20 tests : 123 wickets : Avg 18.66


Then,

You take all his tests vs non-minnows outside of his prime

Total 47 tests : 461 runs & 10 wickets - 0 5-fers ( debute till June 1990) + 4107 runs & 130 wickets with 1 5-fers ( 95 till retirement) = Avg 32.6 with 1 5-fers.

-----------

This include all non-minnows in all periods for Waqar. No one will say that 1 5-fers in 47 tests outside of prime is remotely close to world class. So you have a bowler who was not world class for 47 tests and had prime of 20 tests against non-minnows. Total career of 67 tests against non-minnows

Given his over all record, does his longevity and prime is really worth mentioning when comparing to any tier 1 pacer? I don't think so. And yet, tons of fans cite his longevity as if it was any worth or prime as if it was a stretch of 35-40 tests against non-minnows.

I personally don't even like so much slicing and dicing but if we are doing that then Anderson has far more impressive record and he helped his team a lot more than Waqar ever did. I bet if you ask folks about Anderson vs Waqar most will say Waqar. But Waqar simply has a poor record outside of 20 tests.

It’s also down to his white ball success where he picked 400+ ODI wickets so being an all format player, he gets rated as highly. Not many pacers are out there averaging under 25 in both tests and ODIs. Yes,His stats are inflated via minnow bashing. If you remove minnows, his count of wickets and average is lesser than McGrath, Wasim, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock and Walsh from his era.

Talking about Bumrah, the only question against him is his durability. 50-60 more wickets should remove any doubts in mind of any poster.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Re Waqar v NZ in 1990, it was against a weakened side. Re bowling Hadlee had just retired as did John Bracewell.
John Wright and Andrew Jones who were 2 of the best batsmen in the world didn't go on the tour.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Still think 4 or so more World Class years are required??

No. He had (arguably) the best calendar year a pacer has ever had. Even for a longevity believer like me, a historic year like that counts for a lot. Better than Waqar for me and that's even if he retired now, seen enough.

 

[Narayana]

No. He had (arguably) the best calendar year a pacer has ever had. Even for a longevity believer like me, a historic year like that counts for a lot. Better than Waqar for me and that's even if he retired now, seen enough.

Better than Akram as well.