Waqar Younis - was he really that good?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by shafiq ali

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.

Quite agree: the strike rate is in the record books and is truly impressive.

One thing to bear in mind is surely that Test wickets tend to come in batches: get one man down and with a strike bowler like Waqar bowling you could routinely expect that to become at least two.. and if the tail was exposed maybe 3 or more (I lost track of the number of times Waqar wiped out the last 5 wickets in no time flat: helps boost your strike rate nicely :-) ).

The flip side is surely that between the flurry of wickets... Test batsmen can (as Viv Richards put it) make a bowler cry: when well set, and seeing the ball well, and particularly when there's nothing in the pitch and conditions to help the bowler.. there's no way on earth that ANY bowler is going to get a batsman out - the best you can hope is that the batsman will get himself out.

In short.. in my experience at least.. plan A has tended to be the main plan with the new ball.. during exceptionally helpful conditions... when a wicket has just fallen... against the tail... and in desperation. All told.. for maybe 20 overs in any given day of cricket - leaving some 70 when that's not the case!

Originally Posted by shafiq ali

im sure wel agree the ideal pace quartet would be Waqar and the 3 of Wasim,McGrath adn Pollock?

Absolutely!

[Milo]

I'd take many over Waqar anyday. Two such strike bowlers (and I really hate the word strike) are Donald and Marshall. There is too much chat about strike bowlers. The difference between a strike rate of 44 and 50 is aonly one over after all.

To be honest, if I was to list the top 10 seam/swing bowlers I've watched over the last 30 years, Waqar Yonis would not get anyway near the list.

[shafiq ali]

Milo its obvious what type of fast bowler u have watched over the last 30 years : )

That post alone has been really exposing, when Holding himself said that Waqar was the only non west indian fast bowler who would get into the great west indian team - then thats sayng alot. Donald and co need assisting pitches whereas Waqar made a name for himself on dead pitches.

I really doubt that u have watched fast bowling for 30 yrs - it seems u haev watched it for the last 5 yrs : )

anybody who has been watching fast bowling for the last 30 yrs wouldnt rarely make a comment like yours - and trust me ive spoken to many people and read posts of many who have watched fast bowling for the last 30 yrs

[Milo]

It is particularly sad that because someone has the audacity to have a different opinon to you that you come back with such a patronising response. I have seen Waqar bowl very well on a number of occasions but I have also seen him bowl awfully on pitches that have truly assisted fast bowlers - in addition, I have also seen Donald bowl well on pitches that nobody else could pick up a wicket. I have no axe to grind with Waqar Younis, he just failed to impress me on many occasions I have watched him bowl - including the 1992 tour to England when he was highly inconsistent. His 5-120 odd at Headingley was hailed as a great piece of fast reverse swing bowling to clean up the middle order and tail of England. Pity he did this at 290-2 when England had already near enough secured victory.

Furthermore, I couldn't care less what Holding has to say. His opinion is no more valid than mine or yours. Dennis Lillee said that Gavaskar was only an average batsman. Does this mean this is the truth?

[shafiq ali]

astonishing

How many times has Waqar initiated a collapse of Engalnd when they were 130-2 and then 200 odd all out? The whole 1992 and 1996 tours of England were Waqar demolitions - very few will argue that - you are still hurting from it

LOLLLLLL @ Waqar being inconsistent in 1992! He was the chief destroyer and that term "Waqared" was given by the English press then. 1992 tour is what won Waqar so many fans and admirers - it was fast bowling at its highest form - it was murder adn torture by Waqar. I haev no problem with your opinions but your comment on that 1992 tour is one of the mos bemusing ever and you leave me (and many others i assume)with no choice but to not take your opinions on great fast bowlers too seriously

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Milo

I have seen Waqar bowl very well on a number of occasions but I have also seen him bowl awfully on pitches that have truly assisted fast bowlers - in addition, I have also seen Donald bowl well on pitches that nobody else could pick up a wicket.

I made this point on a discussion about whther Imran Khan was a better bowler that Waqar on another board (he was IMO) and the Waqar lobby just wouldn't have it. I also thought Waqar could bowl truly awful spells among the inspired ones. waqar was only truly an outstanding bowler before his back injury for a short period when he was as good a bowler as I've ever seen. He had to re-model his action when he came back and bowled lower and more slingy deliveries which took away a lot of his variety.

He was still a great bowler but a lot of his fans seem blinkered to the extent they think he's better than bowlers like Imran Khan who rarely bowled a bad spell throughout their career.

[Milo]

Of course he was inconsistent. The only full innings that he bowled well on was the second innings at the Oval - where he took early wickets with the the new ball. Up to that moment he had been awful with the ball in its first fifty overs in every test match. The two devastating pieces of reverse swing he got in the entire series were at Lords and Leeds. The Leeds 'demolition' as I said came too late as he had already given away 100 runs with useless short pitch rubbish before the ball started to swing violently.

At Lords, his swing also came late - a match which Pakistan would have once again lost had it not been for his and Akram's batting.

As a Surrey fan, I saw Waqar bowl for Surrey in 1991 and take over 100 wickets. He was the most continually destructive bowler I had seen in county cricket. He missed the world cup with his stress facture and when he came over to England, his action had changed and his slingy action made his control of where he was spraying the ball almost impossible. It disappointed me immensely - he was no longer the bowler that I had seen the year before, he was nothing special (he was merely good) -as his 1-96 at Edgbaston and his 1-96 and Manchester showed.

You are entitled to your opinion, but please do not tell me I am still hurting from what he did to me. I supported Pakistan during that series.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by Shaka

I made this point on a discussion about whther Imran Khan was a better bowler that Waqar on another board (he was IMO) and the Waqar lobby just wouldn't have it. I also thought Waqar could bowl truly awful spells among the inspired ones. waqar was only truly an outstanding bowler before his back injury for a short period when he was as good a bowler as I've ever seen. He had to re-model his action when he came back and bowled lower and more slingy deliveries which took away a lot of his variety.

He was still a great bowler but a lot of his fans seem blinkered to the extent they think he's better than bowlers like Imran Khan who rarely bowled a bad spell throughout their career.

Just seen it Shaka. I was busy writing my response. I could not agree more - in fact, it looks like I repeated much of what you said.

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Milo

Just seen it Shaka. I was busy writing my response. I could not agree more - in fact, it looks like I repeated much of what you said.

Milo I was in Pakistan during a triangular series against Australia and that was when Waqar had just come onto the scene. He was taking 5/6 wickets in every spell in those days and was truly a sight to behold. The high side on action, the speed and bounce which were never the same when he came back made him a different animal altogether. When he returned he had to rely on reverse swing much more, and it's testament to his competitiveness that he still remained a fine bowler.

But no way could he compare any more with the Ambroses or Hadlees in my book.

[shafiq ali]

comparing Ambrose to Waqar is like comparing the spice girls to the beetles

Yes Ambrose was a good bolwer but he didnt rule the fast bowling world of the 90s the way in which waqar did - post injury - Waqar remained the number one bowler for 5 years - that says alot - he was still bowling 90mph + and ruling the roost - Waqar was much more talented than Ambrose even post injury - Waqar at his 5 year peak was much better than Hadlee adn much more dangerous - its mainly people living in England who have this prespective that Ambrose adn hadlee were better than Waqar- Imran i believe said that Waqar was the most dangerous bowler the world had seen in those 5-6 years - I dont need to add more to that as Khan Sahib has summed it up.