Waqar Younis - was he really that good?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by shafiq ali

Any neutral pundit or fan would agree that Waqar was the more talented,more dangerous and more brutal bowler between he and Ambrose regardless of the pcw ratings - remember ratings dont tell full story - like missing matches,injuries,situations etc etc

I'm neutral on this... and agree: ratings don't tell the full story. If you believed the ratings, for instance, you'd thing Boycott and Gus Fraser were very ordinary cricketers... which is nonsense. If you belived the ratings you'd think Sehwag was awesome, that Harmison was incredible and that (for instance) Langer was completely ordinary.

With all that said.. the ratings suited Waqar Younis down to the ground. They could have been made for him. They are skewed quite extraordinarily in favour of the kind of bowling he practiced: as a guy who was wheeled out to do the damage in short bursts with aggressive field placings, with the new ball, with the reverse swinging ball and with everyone else in the team left to do the "pressure" play.. he was the one who was ideally placed to rack up the big points.

If you compare Waqar's treatment in the ratings with Wasim's.. you'll see exactly what I mean: as the bowler charged with plan "B".. Wasim was frequently denied the aggressive field placings.. was often asked to bowl longer, less ambitious spells.. was all too often forced to accept that when the cricket got tough.. you had no option but to be patient, bide your time.. and ensure that you didn't LOSE your side the Test before the batsmen made critical mistakes.

Of course... no one is denying that using Wasim to do what Waqar did.. or vice-versa... would not have had quite the same effect: they were fundamentally different bowlers.

The dispute in this thread strikes me as originating in different ideas of what made for the "ideal" Test bowler. Waqar embodies one extreme ideal... taking aggression to the point of intimidation.. compromising on nothing in the search for the unplayable delivery. Ambrose was perhaps closer to another ideal: the complete bowler, able to adapt to each and every situation, always capable of spells of quite awesome intensity.. but far, far more accomplished at doing what needed doing by the team in any given situation.

I've nothing against Waqar... and given three workhorses like Walsh, Pollock and Fraser who could bowl all day and allow me to do without Waqar when he wasn't firing or when the team needed something different.. I might take him as first choice.. but given three "normal" bowlers who NEED support.. like Kasprowicz, Akhtar and Ntini.. I'd take Ambrose every single time.

[Andy Mellon]

Do you have to be so patronising? I was only using the statistics to prove that what you said:

Originally Posted by Shafiq Ali

yes Waqar was number one bowler from 1992-1996 predominantly in the ratings

was not the true story. You brought rankings into this, so insulting other people's use of them is a little bit rude.

Originally Posted by Shafiq Ali

LOLL to that remark. Dont say this on any main cricket forum, either on the bbc or any mainstream cricekt forum. They will give you a good hiding for it - even if you claim that Ambrose was better than Waqar they will laugh at you - even if you bring in your beloved stats to back this up they will laugh as stats dont tell the full story at all.

Now, what was the point of this? We are having a discussion here, not people on the bbc any other forum. It appears to me that there are at least 4 people on this thread who would have preferred Ambrose to Waqar on their side on most occasions. That does not mean we are in anyway insulting or putting down Waqar - as everyone has said - he is probably the most destructive bowler of the past 25 years. That does not equate to him being as vastly superior to Ambrose (or any other bowler) as you are trying to make out.

Originally Posted by Shafiq Ali

They were differnt tyopes of bowlers - i can remember many occasions when Wasim was made to look ordianry in test matches too. this peak word was not 1990 -1991 1 yr that wasnt his peak - Waqar had barely cut his teeth into international cricket - Waqars peak started from that England tour right down to the last English 1996 tour and after than injury and other things hellped him back but still this Sultan of Swing won us many matche by himself

Now that is fair enough. I don't think there's much dispute in saying that Waqar won you many matches in the early to mid 90s. But to say that he did it on his own? Don't you think that's a little unfair on Wasim Akram and the whole Pakistan batting line-up? Though I'm interested to see if there is a match that you can cite where Waqar won the match by himself. What I am not disputing is that Waqar was a key player in what was a highly destructive and highly exciting Pakistan team which (I hasten to add) I had the fortune of watching on several occasions.

Anyway, as you put it... Are there any posters on cricket forums around the world which would say that Waqar won Pakistan tests in 1990-96 all on his own? What about Aamir Sohail? Javed Miandad? Inzamam? Moin Khan? Mushtaq Ahmed? and of course Wasim Akram? These players were all as important to Pakistan as Waqar in different ways. So saying that Waqar won tests on his own is a little unfair on these guys?

[Shaka]

There's only so far I'm willing to discuss the issue with people who have their minds made up. I can respect the views of anybody that Waqar was a great bowler but to put him on a pedestal above so many other greats is just blinkered. The problem with Waqar-ites is they aren't interested in seeing their hero compared with anyone else and I've come across it before. My own personal view is that even in Pakistan he is behind Imran Khan and Wasim Akram but everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

[Maranello]

Chuck Palumbo made some interesting comments about Waqar in a discussion on the England forum here, my comments below:

I agree that Ambrose and Wasim were both much better bowlers overall than Waqar; not so sure about Walsh though. Yes, he was 'effective' for quite a long period of time, but never as deadly in his long career as Waqar often was, against all types of batting line-ups.

Sure, Waqar's true peak was very short, his brilliance cut short by the stress fracture to his back. Lesser mortals would have given up all sport after that, and opted for a life of disability; it is to Waqar's credit that he re-modelled his action and returned after only a year or so and continued to play international cricket for the next 11 years! In any case, the pre-1992 Waqar was something special, where he was turning in series averages of 18 or 19 against the best opposition. For that alone he deserves to be mentioned alongside other great fast bowlers. He was not the pioneer of reverse swing, or of yorkers, but certainly at his prime the best exponent of both, and he did all this at a pace comparable to the likes of Thomson, Holding, Marshall and Akhtar in their prime.

Waqar did account for a fair number of tail-enders, but he also was deadly against top-order batting, the following stats, showing the batsmen he dismissed most time through his career, should help:

Mark Greatbach (8), Graeme Hick (7), Sanath Jayasurya (7), Russell Arnold (6), Atherton (6), Andy Flower (6), Richie Richardson (5), Atapattu (5), Grant Flower (5), Carl Hooper (5), Heath Streak( 5), Ken Rutherford (5) and Chris Pringle (5)

- hardly any tail-end bunnies there, in fact some very good batsmen even from the "weaker" batting line-ups of Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, New Zealand and England.

Yes, if we analyse his performances by opponent over his while career we will find that he did much better against some teams than others, but as shown above, even agains the weaker teams, he often accounted for the best batsmen regularly.

AUS Waqar: 12 matches, 30 wickets @ 33.80, 62.7 strike rate, 0 five fers, 0 ten-fers.

ENG Waqar: 11 matches 50 wickets @ 27.04, 48.5 strike rate, 3 five-fers, 0 10-fer

IND Waqar: 4 matches, 8 wickets @ 48.75, 80.0 strike rate, 0 five-fer, 0-ten fer

NZ Waqar: 13 matches, 70 wickets @ 19.60, 43.0 strike rate, 5 five-fers, 2 10-fers

South Africa Waqar: 7 matches, 24 wickets @ 28.75, 50.6 strike rate, 1 five-fer, 1 ten-fer

Sri Lanka Waqar: 13 matches, 56 wickets @ 22.73, 38.6 strike rate, 4 five-fers, 1 ten-ffer

West Indies Waqar: 14 matches, 55 wickets @ 23.33, 39.6 strike rate, 3 five-fers, 0 ten-ffer

Zimbabwe Waqar: 12 matches, 62 wickets @ 19.9, 38.4 strike rate, 5 five-fers, 1 ten-ffer


So yes Chuck, he did better against some teams than others, but overall, his stats are hardly shoddy; his career strike rate of 43.5 remains the best ever, this despite the fact that his last few years as a bowler were pretty ordinary. Certainly not a complete Test bowler, and not as good as many others of his era, but at his prime (pre-1992) he was, nevertheless, routinely unplayable by the best of batsmen... not many bowlers you can say that about!

[Chuck Palumbo]

Don't get me wrong Maranello, he still remains the most exciting bowling I have ever seen...there is no better sight than a fast bowler knocking the stumps out with an inswinging yorker. Like Botham was a great all rounder, in the early part of his career before injuries, Waqar was a genuinely great fast bowler before he was hit with injuries...posibbly the best I have ever seen. But because that only lasted for a few years, I would rate him in a league below the likes of Ambrose, Wasim and Mcgrath. He would probably be alongside the likes of Walsh, Donald and Pollock of his era for me.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Chuck Palumbo

I would rate him in a league below the likes of Ambrose, Wasim and Mcgrath.

I would too, for me Ambrose and Wasim were definitely the best fast bowlers of their era, followed by McGrath, Waqar, Walsh, Pollock and Donald, in that order.

[workkey]

i have one opinion that he was bieng kept out of the side for a couple of years by waseem.if that would not had happened he would have been holding all the pakistan bowling records on both forms of the game.i dont know if someone mentioned this but he completed his 200 wickets very quickly ..(dont remember the exact number in which of his test match)

[orapisces]

Its been quite good discussion on waqar younis: what i dont understand, if there are so many renowed experts, who are considering him as the greatest of all time, who are we arguing about waqar greatness.

what is said about waqar, is just for him. Those words, those appluses never been given to anyone else. Would be Cricket itself, so greatful to Waqar for bringing the art of reverse swing to its peak. No one ever seen such things like that, such balls before that, its only when waqar came into lights.

For this Cricket will be proud of it. Something no one new, no one familiar with, waqar gave a birth to something special. Like saqlain Mustaq gave a new defination to off spin bowling( the mystery ball ).

Yes if there is only one bowler has to be choosed, its ofcourse it will be waqar younis. Every team has match winning bowlers and there are all sort of bowlers, who might look good on statistics. But come to the pure quality of bowling.

If the cricket has never seen anything before, it was waqar younis fast bowling.

Bowlers will come and go, and for every generation there will be even better bowlers than what are now. But about waqar younis, he will remain the only and only to have grace the Cricket.

Yes Cricket is proud of it: What he has done for it, no one ever could have done that. Even if he would had played just one Match.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by orapisces

Yes Cricket is proud of it: What he has done for it, no one ever could have done that. Even if he would had played just one Match.

Interesting argument... and I guess that by the same token.. Abdul Qadir should be honoured for keeping the art of legspin bowling going for long enough to see it's revival at the hands of Shane Warne.

Sadly, history will record that at many if not most matches in which Waqar played he stood out only for his apparent indifference and gross lack of either application or control. If it had been one of THOSE matches that were witnessed... history would have less to say about him than they might about Collymore or Sami.

Credit where it's due though.. I do take the general point with regard to reverse swing.. and would add my own praise for his exemplary commitment to pitching balls up at the stumps in an era in which the WI quicks all too often killed the game of cricket with endless, monotonous and mindless barrages of short pitched rubbish.

[orapisces]

i may not be a very huge fan of waqar, but i still remember, at sharja, a match between Pakistan and India bycott said:

There was no one like him and there is no one like him and there will be no one like him. A great salute by one of the great respected critic in the GAME.

May be, it is a testomony by itself to the greatness of the man, that we are talking about him in this forum. I wonder why you choosed waqar, why not embrose ?? I wonder.

There must be something ?

cheers