Waqar Younis - was he really that good?

[Lemming]

Originally Posted by Rachael

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.

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 would agree that Ambrose was better than Waqar Younis. But when considering how good Waqar Younis was we only have to look at his statistics, he took 4.28 wickets a game (anything over 4 is very good) at an average of 23.56 (everybody knows that less than 30 is good, but less than 25 is great). OK, he may have had a worse economy rate than many top bowlers, but he took wickets, it was his job and he did it bloody well. Given the conditions there are many bowlers who cannot do what Waqar could. As an opening bowler he could swing the ball either way and was an excellent exponent of reverse swing. He played half of his career in Pakistan where pitches are not neccesarily ideal for fast bowling. I'm not going to cricticise a bowler who takes a wicket every 7 overs and has 383 wickets to his name, it's a bit naive to assume that such a huge number of wickets at an amazing strike rate and a low average were more due to the fact he was given helpful "conditions" throughout his career.

He was a strike bowler, his job was to take wickets, fact is he was the best exponent of wicket-taking conditions.

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Lemming

OK, he may have had a worse economy rate than many top bowlers, but he took wickets, it was his job and he did it bloody well.

Absolutley. Who cares what his economy rate was like when he takes a wicket every 23 runs? A captain would love a bowler to take a wicket every 23 runs even if he went at 5 an over. This is test cricket, not ODIs! If everyone took wickets at 23, you would win a lot of test matches. To bring his economy rate into a question of Waqar's greatness as a test bowler is irrelevant. Eevn considering guys like McGrath and Pollock, to look at their economy rates would be wrong. They take wickets at an average of 21-22. That is what makes them great.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Lemming

He was a strike bowler, his job was to take wickets, fact is he was the best exponent of wicket-taking conditions.

You'd do better to concern yourself with Milo's criticisms: they are rather more authoratitive than mine. See for example this post on Waqar in England in the early 1990s....

Originally Posted by Milo 28322

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.

[Mongoose]

We can always find examples of occasions when a player hasn't performed. I'm sure someone could roll out a few examples where Bradman scratched around for a few overs before getting out cheaply. Let's look at Waqar's overall record instead. Lemming has already referred to his test average. If we look at what Waqar did in England (and from the examples shown above, it seems he wasn't so good) he played 10 matches, taking 45 wickets - not bad at all! And those wickets came at an average of 27.49. Again, pretty good going in conditions where reverse swing is not that common. Truth is, Waqar consistently produced the goods, and was the most devastating bolwer in the world at this peak. He could take wickets in conditions where most bowlers would be trying to stop the opposition from putting on 100-0 in 25 overs. I think it doesn't credit him when people focus on a few games where it didn't go quite right. The guy was awesome.

[Rachael]

We all agree that in certain spells, Waqar was awesome. Not even Milo disputes that. Thing is... those who followed his career quite closely do often say that he was the most consistently exasperating player.. that you never knew which Waqar would turn up.. and that when he wasn't "up" for it... he'd be completely anonymous at best and a damn liability at worst.

On a further point.. I suspect Waqar had a higher proportion of tailender wickets to his name than anyone in the history of cricket.. and I'd not be surprised to find that whilst strike bowlers like Ambrose and Walsh had their figures dragged down by applying themselves for long spells when nothing was happening for them... Waqar frequently escaped that fate.

I defer entirely to Milo and other seasoned Waqar-watchers on all of this... but would suggest that if there is one area in which Waqar truly excels it is in building a myth that's greater than the man.

[Seamer]

I think judging Waqar purely in statistical terms does not tell the full story. The guy had an "aura" about him, and from a batsmans point of view, gave a feeling that sudden death could come at any time. He was never the type of bowler that a batsman could feel comfortable against and i have no doubt that he contributed to his bowling partner getting wickets at the other end. I only saw him on tours of Australia and am no Waqar expert, but that is the impression i got of him

[Mongoose]

Absolutely agree, Seamo. As I said, Waqar could take wickets on any surface, and with both new and old ball. He could get any batsman in the world - his late inswinging yorker (90+ mph) is the most effective weapon I have seen from any bowler.

[Rachael]

So if I can show that Jayasuria has destroyed attacks in blistering fashion and with devastating strike rates in either Eng / Nz + in Australia + on the subcontinent will you rate him amongst the greatest ever? Does what a played achieves BETWEEN high points not count for anything?

I, personally, and I don't suppose I'm alone, would rate Walsh over Waqar.... not because Walsh set the world alight as Waqar did... but because he ALWAYS did a job for his captain. Likewise Pollock. Being ABLE to wreak havoc doesn't count for diddly-squat if you only do it when you're in the mood and are a liability at other times!

[Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Rachael

So if I can show that Jayasuria has destroyed attacks in blistering fashion and with devastating strike rates in either Eng / Nz + in Australia + on the subcontinent will you rate him amongst the greatest ever? Does what a played achieves BETWEEN high points not count for anything?

Rachael, you make your point as if Waqar was amazing for one game, then crap for five. He performed brilliantly on many occasions, and consistently enough, to have the BEST strike rate of all bolwers with over 300 wickets, and at an average in the low 20s!

I agree, if we were talking about a bowler who had taken wickets against Aus, Eng, and in Asia, but only once or twice against each opponent, and had been rubbish at all other times, then your view would be fully justified. But Waqar got wickets consistently. He wasn't a flash in the pan. He wasn't a crap bowler who got a stack of wickets once a year.

[orapisces]

May be he would have said that to himself once' ok guys,u dont take catches, no problem and umpire dont give out, thats no problem at all and even if you remove 2 of the 3 stumps, i will still get you out man'.....

this could only be done by waqar.........................

The greatness of the man, is that he totally relied on his natural skills and not on pitches and other factors, whereas all the other top class bowlers will depend upon all those factors which is there in the cricket filed. But waqar, never ever depended upon them. Isnt it enough proof oh his greatness.

Forget what he done or not. But whatever he did, it could be only done his way.
If we look around, when the pitches dried up and the catches start falling and the bastmen is in full flow, all the bowlers will look like club bowlers and only one man can deliver and thats the only man in cricket 'waqar'.....

The great Imran said' In his playing days, waqar was the most destructive bowler ever, and mentally very tough'...