Wasim or Waqar

[Raymond]

You mean who was the Better Ball Tamperer

NONE, I'd day Sarfaraz Nawaz

 

[JBH001]

Sarfraz invented ball tampering - in case you didn't know.

As for Wasim or Waqar.

At their best Waqar was the superior bowler - especially pre stress fracture.
He lost some crucial pace after the injury and was never the same after that.

But before that, he was phenomenal - especially his strike rate which was around the late 30s/early 40s at a rate of about 5 wkt/test.

Therefore to choose between them purely as bowlers, and if they were at their peak, I would pick Waqar Younis.

I believe Waqar suffered his injury, or began to feel it really around 1995/1996.
Soon after he had taken 200 wickets. (please correct me if I am wrong)

His record upto that time:

Mat O R W BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
38 1288.5 4122 200 7/76 13/135 20.61 3.19 38.6 19 4

 

[nightprowler10]

Based on overall career, Wasim. But at their peak, Waqqar was amazing.

 

[cricketboy29]

If it was one match, I'd pick Waqar, those inswinging torpedoes of his were absolutely outstanding, with the proviso that he's at his best. However, in the long run, I would pick Wasim, that guy oozed class, and could make the ball do anything.

Two brillant fast bowlers. Lucky Pakistani's....I wish India had a bowler like that..

 

[Anil]

akram for me....one of the most versatile bowlers ever...and one of the most consistently brilliant and durable as well...pity his career has been tainted with the match-fixing controversy, hope he was not involved....

 

[marc71178]

For peak you'd take Waqar, for consistency over the career Wasim, for greed you'd take both.

 

[deeps]

Waqar, he seemed more destructive than Wasim when on top form, his unbelievable yorker to Lara & his spells in the 2001 natwest series shows how destructive he can be.

2001? That was nothing. Try going back to 93ish, that's when you will see Waqar at his best


Waqar at his best, was easily better than any other bowler in the world. He was just injured far too often, and fell away. I'd take Waqar at his best.

Wasim if injuries/batting etc. counted

 

[Top_Cat]

2001? That was nothing. Try going back to 93ish, that's when you will see Waqar at his best

That was post back-injury. In 1989, Waqar was simply sensational.

At their peaks, Waqar was more devastating. But since he so overwhelmingly relied on speed alone, he could not match Wasim in the long run.

Speed alone? That makes me wonder whether you even saw him bowl. Seriously, the English players in their 1993 series took to wearing steel-toed boots facing Waqar because they were so worried about the amount of reverse swing he was getting. At pace too; at his peak, Waqar was awfully quick. Not quite in the Brett Lee or Shoaib league (I believe the fastest he was ever timed at was 154km/h but from what I've heard, he may have been a touch quicker in his prime) but quick enough. Combine that with extreme movement and, well, it's not difficult to see why he was the fastest to 200 Test wickets (does his record still stand? Anyone?).

 

[deeps]

154km/hr is seriously quick.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Fastest bowlers to 200 Test Wickets - balls bowled
Waqar Younis 7733
Malcolm Marshall 9279
Allan Donald 9545
Ian Botham 9709
Fred Trueman 10123

He's also quickest to ever other landmark to 350, and only the 19th century stat muppets were quicker to 50, 100 or 150.

 

[silentstriker]

Fastest bowlers to 200 Test Wickets - balls bowled
Waqar Younis 7733
Malcolm Marshall 9279
Allan Donald 9545
Ian Botham 9709
Fred Trueman 10123

He's also quickest to ever other landmark to 350, and only the 19th century stat muppets were quicker to 50, 100 or 150.

Thats one hell of a list.

 

[aussie]

2001? That was nothing. Try going back to 93ish, that's when you will see Waqar at his best

Well you cant under-rated taking 13 wickets in 2 ODI matches that was superb, but if he was better than that well damn..

 

[TT Boy]

In pomp, Waqar, absolutely frightening sight.

 

[Matt79]

Fastest bowlers to 200 Test Wickets - balls bowled
Waqar Younis 7733
Malcolm Marshall 9279
Allan Donald 9545
Ian Botham 9709
Fred Trueman 10123

He's also quickest to ever other landmark to 350, and only the 19th century stat muppets were quicker to 50, 100 or 150.

Does make you wonder though, how quickly Donald would have got there if he'd had bowlings partners the calibre of Waqar and Marshall's.

 

[Top_Cat]

Does make you wonder though, how quickly Donald would have got there if he'd had bowlings partners the calibre of Waqar and Marshall's.

Donald had Pollock, Fanie DeVilliers and Kallis for at least some of his career. Hardly hacks.

But yeah anyway, Waqar was the best. I guess the part I always liked most about him was that as quick as he was, he rarely bowled bouncers. When he did they usually shocked the crap out of who was facing but his tactic was to bowl fast and full, unlike most of the bowlers of his era. That was what really set him apart; the ability to just 'beat' batsmen with swing and pace. Sometimes even the very best had no chance. Case in point; the famous yorker to Lara. There are many more.

 

[marc71178]

A lot of people keep telling us that that SA bowling attack was one of the best ever though...

 

[TT Boy]

A lot of people keep telling us that that SA bowling attack was one of the best ever though...

Richard?

 

[marc71178]

He's one of them, but then he loves all things South African!

 

[Matt79]

Pollock and de villiers hardly equal wasim and imran, or the great windies quartets...

 

[JBH001]

Pollock is a very, very good bowler.
The way he is now is no reflection to the way he was when he began.
He was a genuinely quick bowler for one thing who volountarily chose accuracy and a lesser pace in the interests of longevity.

Fannie De Villiers was a very good under-rated bowler too.
And lets not forget McMillan, Cronje, Snell and Postman Pat.

Donald had a very good supporting cast around him.

I think the reason Waqar's SR is so phenomenally low upto 200 wkts (38 balls per wicket!) is that he bowled fast and full. He was an attacking fast swing bowler (!!!) as evinced by his ER which is over 3 runs an over. He gave away runs but he took a lot of wickets, fast. In fact, it is plausible that if Akram was not around (I shan't count Imran as by the advent of the 2 W's Imran was more a batsman than a bowler) Waqar would have taken a lot more wickets, because in terms of balls bowled per test he didn't bowl as many as some of the other quicks.