-
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.
Ambrose-Walsh or Wasim Akram-Waqar Younis
- Thread starter PhoenixFire
- Start date
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Wasim
- Wasim has a relatively modest (prolonged) early career (inspite of two good years at the outset) over seven years,
- then has his peak over over six years (1992 - 1997). 191 in 38 at 20.7
- Then he fades away with modest results over four and a half years. 80 in 27 games at 29 each
Again he could have retired in 1998 but contimued into 2002.
IMRAN
- A poor to modest start over eight years (71-78) 98 wkts in 25 tests at 32 each
- A brilliant peak over the next six years - 184 in 29 at 16 each
- A modest end over four years : 80 in 31 tests at 27+ .
How do these figures vary from those of Waqar whose three phases gave him..
WAQAR
1. 190 in 33 games at 19 each
2. 85 in 22 games at almost 27 each and
3. 98 in 32 games at 29.1 each
The peak periods are so similar in length for all three.
Player....Years....Tests....Wkts....Avg....St Rate....Wkts/test
Imran........6..........29.........184....15.9......42.3..........6.3
Waqar.......6...........33........190.....19.1.....36.1.........5.8
Wasim......6..........38.........191.....20.7.....46.8..........5.0
The similarity is clear. Why Waqars spell at the top appears shorter is because it came early in his career and his modest and average spells came later. This gives a feeling as if he was at his peak for a very short time. This is not true.
(to be continued)
- Wasim has a relatively modest (prolonged) early career (inspite of two good years at the outset) over seven years,
- then has his peak over over six years (1992 - 1997). 191 in 38 at 20.7
- Then he fades away with modest results over four and a half years. 80 in 27 games at 29 each
Again he could have retired in 1998 but contimued into 2002.
IMRAN
- A poor to modest start over eight years (71-78) 98 wkts in 25 tests at 32 each
- A brilliant peak over the next six years - 184 in 29 at 16 each
- A modest end over four years : 80 in 31 tests at 27+ .
How do these figures vary from those of Waqar whose three phases gave him..
WAQAR
1. 190 in 33 games at 19 each
2. 85 in 22 games at almost 27 each and
3. 98 in 32 games at 29.1 each
The peak periods are so similar in length for all three.
Player....Years....Tests....Wkts....Avg....St Rate....Wkts/test
Imran........6..........29.........184....15.9......42.3..........6.3
Waqar.......6...........33........190.....19.1.....36.1.........5.8
Wasim......6..........38.........191.....20.7.....46.8..........5.0
The similarity is clear. Why Waqars spell at the top appears shorter is because it came early in his career and his modest and average spells came later. This gives a feeling as if he was at his peak for a very short time. This is not true.
(to be continued)
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Nah, I don't agree with you. Firsly, Waqar should be considered at 5 and not 6 years as one year had just a couple of test as you said.SJS said:
More importantly, when we break Waqar's career from your analysis, he has had above 27 average in 54 of 87 games he has played (when we break the career in periods). That is a 60% career in a period of above 27 average.
It will be interesting how many bowlers from the top notch have had 60% of their careers above the given criteria. Also, when we are breaking the careers periods has to be seen closely.
Last edited:
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
Never thought I'd say this, but Wasim was the worst of the lot. 
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
QWell thats not accurate. He was not as devastating at his peak as Waqar and Imran were at theirs.nightprowler10 said:Never thought I'd say this, but Wasim was the worst of the lot.
But then there is another difference.
Wasim started nas a tear away fast bowler but later settled doen to be a fast medium bowler who could slip[ in a real snorter. As his career got longer he made a very successful transition to a crafty bowler who used tricks other than sheer pace to get batsmen out.
Waqar is a fast bowler's fast bowler. His whole demeanour is of a fast bowler. He used his speed (and of course the great movement in the air) to get his wickets. A waiting game did not appeal to him.
He did try to adapt when he became the captain and prolong his career by trying to be a line and length bowler but he struggled.
Wasim learnt other tricks mainly a great use of the bowling crease and used it to great effect.
But yes, at their peak, for me Pakistan's two greatest bowlers have to be Imran and Waqar. But Wasim was a much craftier bowler.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
If we look at Waqar's career here..
He had 26 tests from New Zealand in Pakistan 1990/91 to Pakistan in Sri Lanka 1994 (you can take the next series too if you want) where he was tremendous. Except that period, he was not able to produce the brilliant performances over a length of time because of injuries which hampered him.
The peak period is low for Waqar also given the length of 15 years or so most top notch fast bowlers would have and they would peak more than Waqar did over his career.
He had 26 tests from New Zealand in Pakistan 1990/91 to Pakistan in Sri Lanka 1994 (you can take the next series too if you want) where he was tremendous. Except that period, he was not able to produce the brilliant performances over a length of time because of injuries which hampered him.
The peak period is low for Waqar also given the length of 15 years or so most top notch fast bowlers would have and they would peak more than Waqar did over his career.
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
It would appear that the career of a top fast bowler would be of approximately 10-12 years duration. With a peak of, say six-seven years, he could have a couple of modest years at the beginning and 2-3 at the end, ideally.
Most bowlers prolonging their careers beyond that would need to make an early transiton to a fast medium, line and length bowler a la Richard Hadlee or Gle McGrath. Otherwise they are likely to have a longer period of mediocrity in their careers and, as Gavaskar would say, people will ask not "why is he retiring" but rather "why isnt he retiring"
I intend to study some more bowlers to see who timed their retirement better.
But first the West Indians.
Here are four top West Indians. As I said before West indians dont fit the pattern when they come in batches of half a dozen a time
Seriously, they make a very intersting study in contrast.
GARNER :
and he decides to quit.
HOLDING :
and he quits. Almost perfect.
Of course, no one knows, FOR CERTAIN, how he would fare if he continued but a bowler's body as well as his performance shows and the signals are strongest to the individual himself. Of course it helps a lot if your country has a million fast bowlers waiting to replace you as Windies had those days.
and finally the two guys pitted against Waqar and Wasim in this thread. Amazing careers both
WALSH A very long (18 years) career of medium intensity
- 2 moderate years
- 5 years of first peak (include one below average year right down the middle)
- 7 years of modest returns but the old warrior fights on
- 4 years of brilliance. Walsh now a completely changed medium pacer bowled length nagging and accurate enough to do a spinner proud and then quit when it looked as of he could go on for another 18 years.
A fascinating career, showing how a pacer could make a transition to a medium pacer of fantastic control and then go on for almost as long as the body allows. Old English pros like Derk Shackleton belonged to this type. Hadlee and now McGrath seem to be showing us how this can be done. ut Walsh was an unlikely candidate for this when he started.
AMBROSE
One of those rare bowlers whose entire career (almost) appears like one peak. Malcolm Marshall is another who comes to mind. I need to look at his figures.
After a poor 1989, from 1990 to 2000, this tall West Indian showed no signs of any reduction in his effectiveness.
To understand Ambrose's phenomenon (also Walsh's for that matter) we need to look closely at his figures.
Throughout this long 11 year 'peak' Ambrose maintained a stike rate in the low fifties. Just thrice did his strike rate dip below 50 and never for two consecutive years. His peak period avg strike rate is in the mid fifties , Wasim and Imran are in mid forties and Waqar in higher thirties.
Same is true for Walsh.
Clearly these two bowlers were working at keeping the run rate down, pegging the batsmen down and then getting them to make mistakes. A spinner's mentality really but also something which helped prolong their careers and with success.
The high strike rate bowlers bowl and expend a lot of energy. This finally takes its toll with so much of cricket played. Not just physical but, I beleive, the high strike rate bowler also suffers more by way of mental exhaustion since he puts much more emotion into his bowling.
(to be continued)
Most bowlers prolonging their careers beyond that would need to make an early transiton to a fast medium, line and length bowler a la Richard Hadlee or Gle McGrath. Otherwise they are likely to have a longer period of mediocrity in their careers and, as Gavaskar would say, people will ask not "why is he retiring" but rather "why isnt he retiring"
I intend to study some more bowlers to see who timed their retirement better.
But first the West Indians.
Here are four top West Indians. As I said before West indians dont fit the pattern when they come in batches of half a dozen a time
Seriously, they make a very intersting study in contrast.
GARNER :
- Three great years
- Five moderate years
- Two great years
- Five moderate years
- Two great years
and he decides to quit.
HOLDING :
- 4 modest years and then
- 6 great years.
- 6 great years.
and he quits. Almost perfect.
Of course, no one knows, FOR CERTAIN, how he would fare if he continued but a bowler's body as well as his performance shows and the signals are strongest to the individual himself. Of course it helps a lot if your country has a million fast bowlers waiting to replace you as Windies had those days.
and finally the two guys pitted against Waqar and Wasim in this thread. Amazing careers both
WALSH A very long (18 years) career of medium intensity
- 2 moderate years
- 5 years of first peak (include one below average year right down the middle)
- 7 years of modest returns but the old warrior fights on
- 4 years of brilliance. Walsh now a completely changed medium pacer bowled length nagging and accurate enough to do a spinner proud and then quit when it looked as of he could go on for another 18 years.
A fascinating career, showing how a pacer could make a transition to a medium pacer of fantastic control and then go on for almost as long as the body allows. Old English pros like Derk Shackleton belonged to this type. Hadlee and now McGrath seem to be showing us how this can be done. ut Walsh was an unlikely candidate for this when he started.
AMBROSE
One of those rare bowlers whose entire career (almost) appears like one peak. Malcolm Marshall is another who comes to mind. I need to look at his figures.
After a poor 1989, from 1990 to 2000, this tall West Indian showed no signs of any reduction in his effectiveness.
To understand Ambrose's phenomenon (also Walsh's for that matter) we need to look closely at his figures.
Throughout this long 11 year 'peak' Ambrose maintained a stike rate in the low fifties. Just thrice did his strike rate dip below 50 and never for two consecutive years. His peak period avg strike rate is in the mid fifties , Wasim and Imran are in mid forties and Waqar in higher thirties.
Same is true for Walsh.
Clearly these two bowlers were working at keeping the run rate down, pegging the batsmen down and then getting them to make mistakes. A spinner's mentality really but also something which helped prolong their careers and with success.
The high strike rate bowlers bowl and expend a lot of energy. This finally takes its toll with so much of cricket played. Not just physical but, I beleive, the high strike rate bowler also suffers more by way of mental exhaustion since he puts much more emotion into his bowling.
(to be continued)
Attachments
JBH001
International Regular
Some great work there SJS - absolutely fantastic.
Just one more point regarding topics like these - unless stipulated otherwise, I always give the players the benefit of the doubt and assume them to be at their best.
Therefore, for instance in my top 10 list in the other thread, I assumed the players concerned to be playing at their very best, and the same applies here.
When I first started watching cricket in the late 80s/early 90s Waqar and Wasim were absolutely breathtaking to watch. Waqar's long powerful charging run up, that big bound, that huge action and the long follow through with bowling arm almost touching the ground was to me evocative of what fast bowling really was. The same applied in a sense to Wasim at the other end, especially as at that time he predominantly bowled off his 12 step run up, who would saunter back, run his hand through his hair, and then just turn quickly and suddenly charge in. Both were and are big and physical men and to a young boy like me at the time (also from the subcontinent) they cut quasi-romantic figures.
I appreciate the point SJS makes appoint the different ways of bowling these pairs had. Amrose and Walsh seem a far more efficient partnership than Wasim and Waqar who had a tendency to sometimes blow hot and cold especially later in their careers - and btw both of them made the mistake of extending their careers to the 2003 WC when they should have retired in 1999 (though Wasim wanted the 500 ODI wickets, I guess).
From a personal point of view, SR has a lot to do with judging fast bowlers. A SR in the low 50's is nearly essential for any fast bowlers to be truly considered great, below that in the high 40s is exceptional and anything under 45, let alone 40, is almost unprecedented in the modern age. It is for that reason, and for the fact that I have judged the pairs of bowlers as being at their best, that I have chosen Waqar and Wasim.
Just one more point regarding topics like these - unless stipulated otherwise, I always give the players the benefit of the doubt and assume them to be at their best.
Therefore, for instance in my top 10 list in the other thread, I assumed the players concerned to be playing at their very best, and the same applies here.
When I first started watching cricket in the late 80s/early 90s Waqar and Wasim were absolutely breathtaking to watch. Waqar's long powerful charging run up, that big bound, that huge action and the long follow through with bowling arm almost touching the ground was to me evocative of what fast bowling really was. The same applied in a sense to Wasim at the other end, especially as at that time he predominantly bowled off his 12 step run up, who would saunter back, run his hand through his hair, and then just turn quickly and suddenly charge in. Both were and are big and physical men and to a young boy like me at the time (also from the subcontinent) they cut quasi-romantic figures.
I appreciate the point SJS makes appoint the different ways of bowling these pairs had. Amrose and Walsh seem a far more efficient partnership than Wasim and Waqar who had a tendency to sometimes blow hot and cold especially later in their careers - and btw both of them made the mistake of extending their careers to the 2003 WC when they should have retired in 1999 (though Wasim wanted the 500 ODI wickets, I guess).
From a personal point of view, SR has a lot to do with judging fast bowlers. A SR in the low 50's is nearly essential for any fast bowlers to be truly considered great, below that in the high 40s is exceptional and anything under 45, let alone 40, is almost unprecedented in the modern age. It is for that reason, and for the fact that I have judged the pairs of bowlers as being at their best, that I have chosen Waqar and Wasim.
nightprowler10
Global Moderator
How about Imran's shattered shin?Arrow said:
Matt79
Hall of Fame Member
SJS - how did you select those four as the best Windies bowlers? I'm not saying your wrong, certainly not about Marshall and Ambrose. I would mentally have Andy Roberts and Wes Hall in the mix there as well, probably ahead of Holding, although I admit I've never looked into it in any detail.
Craig
World Traveller
What about Dean Jones who took objection with Ambrose's sweetband, and Ambrose fuming with rage just smashed through the Aussie line-up.Matt79 said:I think Marshall/Ambrose, while perhaps not as together as long was an even better pair. Of course, having Walsh as first change, and Bishop in the team as well probably helped somewhat with their success.
I was looking at Ambrose's stats again the other day and was, not quite surprised, but once again appreciative of just how good he was. 400 wickets at less than 21. An all-time great. Has there ever been a more fearsome sight loping in, and then glaring down (like a foot down) at a batsman. Steve Waugh must have been insane to pick a fight with him!
Craig
World Traveller
Slightly irrelevant but it reminds me of a quote of an interview I read of David Boon when on Test debut he was really giving it to Malcolm Marshall when Marshall said: "Looky Boony I know this your Test debut, but could you do the right thing and get out or I will have to come around the wicket and kill you".
Welcome to Test cricket
