Waqar Younis - was he really that good?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Don't get carried away with the reverse swing, Ernest: it's only a factor where grounds have abrasive outfield.. and only then for a few overs a day... and it's basically a delivery of last resort for situations truly hostile to seam bowling: hugely important in Pakistan, but not in England!

I'd not get carried away with the Yorker either: great delivery for ODI cricket.. and useful in Test cricket.. but a delivery that's only really useful for 2-3-4 deliveries in a 6 over spell.

Waqar Younis was the most successful bowler of his time (1990-1995); in fact, had he retired circa 1995, he would have ended up with much better statistics than any of Ambrose, Donald, Lillee or Marshall. As it is, despite the hammerings he got in the latter stages of his career, he has the best career strike rate of all fast bowlers of note (ie those with over 300 wickets), and a significantly better one than most of his contemporaries! He did not do that by bowling just 3 or 4 yorkers every 6 overs, or using reverse swing for only five overs a day; he did that by consistently, over after over, ball after ball, testing the batsman by unplayable or near unplayable deliveries. Not for him containment or trundling defence; he believed in all-out attack at all times, and in his prime, more often than not, his tactics worked to perfection.

Waqar was also supremely successful in England, both for Surrey and for Glamorgan, by his inswinging yorkers. He was the most successful bowler in county cricket for many a season. He was also supremely effective against England in Tests, whenever Pakistan toured here, especially in the five thrilling Tests of 1992. Abrasive outfield or not, Waqar was very effective in English conditions. I can dig up the statistics if someone disagrees, but I do not think many would.

However, the Waqar analogy is not relevant to the Flintoff v McGrath discussion. Waqar was a once in a generation phenemonen, a true fast-bowling great and an artist at what he did. Sure, some of us may find inswining, toe-crushing yorkers at 100mph aesthetically unappealing; many others do not, including me and for me there are few sights more exhilirating than your bowler sending stumps cartwheeling whenever the opposition batsmen look to get some runs! But the point is, even if they were aesthetically unsightly, the yorkers were consistently very effective as wicket taking deliveries in four day and Test cricket. Waqar in his prime was the most lethal bowler around, and probably the only one in history to get so many of his wickets simply by aiming at the stumps. Hence, there is something to be said for reverse swing at pace, and for yorkers. As a batsman, those were the only deliveries I found consistently difficult (maybe because I was mainly a back foot player), and no one bowled at me at anything remotely close to this pace!

[Rachael]

There is much that rings true in what you say, Maranello: whatever detractors said of Waqar.. they all hailed him as a very, very welcome change from boring WI fast bowlers who just whistled the ball through to the keeper without showing any serious interest in making the batsmen play.

That said.. Waqar is the ONLY major bowler in the history of Test cricket with a truly disgraceful economy rate: the rest, almost without exception, are in the 2.5 to 2.8 range.. and Waqar (from memory) is something like 3.13 (and that didn't really change from his best days to his worst days: he was always a damn liability).

Where we agree is in seeing Waqar as a one off: Wasim serves as a far more meaningful example of a quality Test bowler... and my impression was that he used the yorker effectively.. but sparingly... and made far, far more use of his ability to move the ball either way from a virtually identical delivery.

ps... do you think it would be fair to say that Waqar was in many ways born a generation too late: strikes me that he was the sort of aggressive bowler than would have fitted in well at any time up to the 80s.. but that he looks increasingly anomalous today - an oddity in a sport than now prety much eshews the hunt for the unplayable delivery in favour of the systematic pressuring of batsmen in the hope of inducing errors of judgement.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Rachael

That said.. Waqar is the ONLY major bowler in the history of Test cricket with a truly disgraceful economy rate: the rest, almost without exception, are in the 2.5 to 2.8 range.. and Waqar (from memory) is something like 3.13 (and that didn't really change from his best days to his worst days: he was always a damn liability).

Interesting comments Rachael; I will definitely check out what Waqar's economy rate was for the first few years of his career, and revert back. I am not sure how a rate only 10% worse than some other great pacers can be a "damn liability"? 3.13 is still fairly decent; if every bowler concedes at that, the batting side only gets 280 odd in a full day, which is fairly pedestrian by the standards set by most teams recently! Also, if a bowler is conceding at 3.13 and picking up wickets every 6 overs, I submit the captain would not be too worried about the extra 0.5 runs every over. He came always put on a medium pacer from the other end with a brief to dry up runs.

I don't recall any batsman, at any level thinking "now only if I could face Waqar instead of this Pollock/ Srinath/ Vaas/ Walsh/ insert any other trundler 'xyz', I would be happy and get loads of easy runs". When Waqar came on to bowl in Tests in his prime, batsmen thought, "oh, no, danger time, better make sure I stick around through his spell"... never: "oh yes, some easy runs coming up".

An RPO of 3.13 might be bad from a guy like Pollock whose job is containment, or a part-timer such as Jayasuriya, or a fifth bowler eg Flintoff or Kallis. These guys are in there to contain and support the strike bowlers (the Donalds, harmisons, Muralis and Ntinis etc) From the main strike bowler, this is not a concen, as long as he is taking wickets. I have never seen any Wisden report or other cricket analysis that assesses great strike bowlers or even mediocre strike bowlers on their RPO; this is a purely one-day measure and a new-fangled invention. All quality analysts would assess bowlers on their average. The RPO does not work since the aim of a Test match strike bowler is to take wickets, not contain. The strike rate is more useful for a strike bowler, since it does measure wickets per ball, but not ideal since it ignores how many runs are scored in between those wicket taking balls.

Hence, the average is statistically much more meaningul, and has always been. It combines the two weaker measures, the RPO (measures runs only) and the strike rate (measures wickets only), by giving runs per wicket. In Waqar's case, the only other relevant measure is the strike rate since as a strike bowler his brief was to take wickets; no Pakistani captain or coach ever complained of Waqar giving away too many runs in Tests; they only began complaining when his wicket-taking deliveries dried up. Trundlers who go at 2.6 per over are ten-a-penny. Strike bowlers who bowl a genuine wicket-taking delivery every over are the rarest commodity in cricket.

We are in agreement about many other points though, as usual. Waqar was a one-off, and Wasim was definitely a much more complete Test bowler, and the better bowler overall. An attack of three Wasims would be the ideal attack due to the guy's variety. An attack of three Waqar's would be far too risky. But a Waqar backed up by some trundlers is the ideal combination, as both Surrey and Glamorgan can attest to.

Finally, a very interesting comment that Waqar was in the wrong era; I had not thought of that, but I agree now that you have brought it up. Though the fact that batsmen were looking to score in the 1990s, and did not always have the best defensive techniques helped him get some wickets too. Not sure how effective he would have been against a Gavaskar or a Boycott, technically correct and obdurate openers of the old school.

[shafiq ali]

Hi.

Make no mistake about it Waqar was something special. A ferocious bowler who I believe was the number one fast bowler in the world for 5-6 years, no mean feat. At his best - the best fast bowler ever seen - few will argue this. 3.13 is a poor economy rate? Thats harsh. He more than made up for it with his strike rate, also look at the percentage of clean kills (clean bowled,lbw) that he had - phenomenal

Yes Waqar was a quality test bowler too. Injuries and player politics reduced his turn outs (widely akcnowledged in Pakistan) but nevertheless he knocked out many a great batsman in tests - and nobody cleaned up a tail better than Waqar - thats an art in itself. To achieve reverse swing at 90+mph and to be so precise commands respect alone. Give me a Waqar in his pomp (1990-1996) anyday.

Dont read too much into averages etc - they dont tell the full story - i.e. opposition,conditions,strength of teams not taken intp account etc etc I notice that some of you live and die by the averages - dont waste your time- players from Crowe to Atherton to Lara hold Waqar in high regard also a testament to Waqar was the fact that Holding said that he (Waqar) would be the only non-west indian bowler to get into the 1980s great West Indian Side.

[Rachael]

Take a look at Waqar's PWC rating history some time.. and then compare it with Wasim's: Waqar's meteoric rise is evident.. and his brief period at the top of his game is evident.. but in truth he rapidly settled down into mediocrity. Unsurprisingly, in terms of match by match ratings through a career, Wasim (rightly) emerges as by far and away the stronger contender.

ps. compare either W with Hadlee, Ambrose, McGrath or Pollock and you also get some interesting results.

[shafiq ali]

do you call 5 years at the top a brief period? far from it.

Its difficult to explain to you as you are not Pakistani etc as to what really went on behind the scenes which made Waqar seem somehwat of an underachiever. Our great Imran Khan also labelled Waqar as one of the greatest ever and so too do the likes of Boycott and co - this status wasnt given to him due to his "brief stint at top" like you call it but the fact that even when he lost his pace he was ever so dangerous - his 7/36 in 2001 is evident to that and he was instrumental in many test match victories for Pakistan in the late 90s.

You ask any great player about what he thinks of Waqar and they will all say one of the all time greats.

Take a rest from your stats/player average comparison etc obsession for a while please - one(fans and former greats) isnt a fool, one can see who was the better bowler beteen Waqar,Pollock,Ambrose and co - and that bowler was Waqar.

Stop looking at stats/comparisons for a second and buy some tapes of Waqar from 1990 - 1996.

[Rachael]

LOL - I know the guy was devastating as a strike bowler. IF I had to pick one bowler I've ever seen to come in for a short spell and try and break a partnership it would be Waqar. No question.

Thing is... that's such a small part of Test bowling. It's called for just now and then, as something different.

Unless he had the new ball.. and the old ball was reverse swinging... and you had runs to play with.. Waqar could lose you a Test pretty quickly. With a ball that was 40 overs old, bowling to a pair of top batsmen who are well set and batting well... would I rather have Waqar each end.. or would I rather have someone who was a more complete bowler like Hadlee, Ambrose, McGrath or Pollock? No contest: anyone but Waqar.

Any captain would like a Waqar at their disposal... but they'd prefer 2-3 bowlers like Ambrose, Hadlee, McGrath or Pollock: there are far, far more occasions, in Test cricket, where the control of the latter is called for than there are when the aggression and hostility of Waqar are called for.

[shafiq ali]

good points there Rachael

but do u call breaking partnerships in a test match a small thing? thats news to me

but Waqar was as affective (if not more so) than any of the current test bowlers in the world (barring mcgrath) with the new ball during the end stages of his career - he developed a beautiful away swinger and regarding getting the ball to reverse after 40 overs - no i disagree- waqar was so skilled that he could do damage with his inswingers and even good reverse swing when the ball was only 20 overs old - he could make the half new ball swing like a banana - that is why he is regarded as the greatest reverse swing bowler ever - swing of sultan

Waqar was a great test bowler also - his records may not suggest it as he missed so many matches due to player jealousy (mainly wasim) and injuries but nevertheless i would still pick him over ambrose and co in a test side as Waqar on his own was capable of grabbing victories from the jaws of defeat on his own in test matchs - yes test matches - you are the first person whi ive seen say that Waqar wasnt worth his salt in test matches

Waqar didnt mess around with the batsmen- he went straight for the kill - he was the ultimate strike bowler so naturally he went for runs but he had the excellence of excecution which Ambrose and co didnt have - in no way shape or form are they better than Waqar - waqar was much more talented, its a testament that millions took up cricket (including darren gough) just because of Waqar.

Also to note his demolitions in England 1992,1996(96 mph destruction of Hick in a test match) live long in the memory

yes he was a very good test bowler - no doubt

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by shafiq ali

but do u call breaking partnerships in a test match a small thing? thats news to me

LOL.. very big thing when it works.. but let's face it.. going all out to break partnerships can cost Test matches.. and if it isn't working there comes a point at which any captain has to accept that they need to set more defensive fields and just settle back and be patient: there's only SO long you can go on letting a player like Tendulkar, Lara or Inzi take the game away from you.

Originally Posted by shafiq ali

Waqar was a great test bowler also [...] i would still pick him over ambrose and co in a test side as Waqar on his own was capable of grabbing victories from the jaws of defeat on his own in test matchs [...] he was a very good test bowler - no doubt

We're in agreement that Waqar was sensational at what he did best... but I hope we'd also be in agreement that an ideal attack would only have one bowler like Waqar: great strike bowlers rarely make the best work horses.. and when the strike bowling isn't having the desired effect you need to have others who can implement plan B.

Actually.. I'd hail Wasim as an exemplary instance of a bowler who was excellent when it came to plan 'B': if the all out attack wasn't working.. he would do the workhorse job very, very well indeed.. and like McGrath and Ambrose, he'd do it AND look for wickets.

Can I put it this way: a team of out and out strike bowlers than read Waqar, Shoaib, Lee and Ntini would be a quite frightening prospect for ANY team to face... whereas a team that read Wasim, McGrath, Pollock and Walsh would seem (by comparison) quite tame.... but the ideal pace quartet would take just one from the first 4 and 3 from the last 4.

Can we agree on that?

[shafiq ali]

good post

and if it isn't working there comes a point at which any captain has to accept that they need to set more defensive fields and just settle back and be patient: there's only SO long you can go on letting a player like Tendulkar, Lara or Inzi take the game away from you.

Youl find that Waqar has one of the greatest strike rates ever - indicating that more often than not he was succesful in breaking a top order partnership early - yes with the new ball too.

but I hope we'd also be in agreement that an ideal attack would only have one bowler like Waqar: great strike bowlers rarely make the best work horses.. and when the strike bowling isn't having the desired effect you need to have others who can implement plan B.

yes i agree with you, but Plan A i.e. straight blast out more often than not worked for Waqar and very rarely was there a need for plan B. But having said that i do agree, Wasim was more of the workhorse bowler and even if Plan A didnt work Wasim would implement plab b ever so well and yes he was a wicket taker too so it helped - but my point is unlike other teams and bowlers there was little need for plan B when Waqar was around (strike rate is evident to this) he would get out a top order (even if it was the only thing he did in the day) and then Wasim would get a few and Waqar wud come back for the tail but the important thing was Waqar was the initiator. I guess you could say the Wasim/Waqar partnersip was a good one.

Can I put it this way: a team of out and out strike bowlers than read Waqar, Shoaib, Lee and Ntini would be a quite frightening prospect for ANY team to face... whereas a team that read Wasim, McGrath, Pollock and Walsh would seem (by comparison) quite tame.... but the ideal pace quartet would take just one from the first 4 and 3 from the last 4.

good point yes i agree, regarding the first strike bowlers list Im sure wel agree also that Shoaib ,Lee and Ntini are nowhere near as good strike bowlers as Waqar was and not even as skilled(Waqar is their father when it comes to epitomising the ultimate strike bowler) so im sure wel agree the ideal pace quartet would be Waqar and the 3 of Wasim,McGrath adn Pollock?