What's new

Is Waqar Younis really an ATG?

Is Waqar Younis really an ATG?

  • Total voters
    30
The_Odd_One

The_Odd_One

ODI Debutant
Joined
Dec 27, 2015
Runs
8,950
1989 to 1994
-----------------
Matches = 33
Wickets = 190
Average = 19
SR = 36
5-fers = 19

vs Australia = 34, in Australia = 56
vs England = 25, in England = 25
vs India = 39, in India = N/A
vs NZ = 14, in NZ = 18
vs SL = 17, in SL = 16
vs WI = 19, in WI = 20
vs Zimbabwe = 14, in Zimbabwe = N/A


1995 to 2003
-----------------
Matches = 54
Wickets = 183
Average = 28
SR = 51
5-fers = 3 (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, SA)

vs Australia = 33, in Australia = 34
vs England = 28, in England = 29
vs India = 76, in India = 76
vs NZ = 40, in NZ = 62
vs SL = 29, in SL = 27
vs WI = 30, in WI = 42
vs Zimbabwe = 24, in Zimbabwe = 21
vs SA = 29, in SA = 28


Averages of other bowlers from 1995 to 2003:

Akram = 24
Ambrose = 20
McGrath = 20
Pollock = 20
Walsh = 23
Donald = 21
Gillespi = 25
Reiffel = 24
Fleming = 26
Streak = 28
Vaas = 30
Cairns = 27
Kallis = 29
Ntini = 28
Lee = 30
Akhtar = 23
Caddick = 28
Gough = 28
Srinath = 29

So, it seems like Waqar was a third tier bowler for almost half of his career.

Tier 1 had Akram, McGrath, Pollock, Donald, Ambrose, and Walsh.
Tier 2 had Gillespi, Fleming, Reiffel, and Akhtar
Tier 3 had Waqar, Vaas, Streak, Ntini, Srinath, Gough, etc.

Even in his peak years, he bullied these batting attacks:

1. WI (Greenidge and Haynes were like Younis and Misbah, Lara was the only world class batsman)
2. NZ (had the worst batting line-up of all teams, Crowe was the only world class batsman who averaged 50+ against Waqar).
3. SL (was a minnow team)
4. Zimbabwe (was a minnow team)

The question is should Waqar be considered an ATG just because for like 3-4 years, he bullied minnows and weak batting line-ups?
 
So the odd one you are saying he is tim southee level bowler with 188 wickets in 54 tests
 
Never rated those 95mph inswinging yorkers, made no discernible impression at county or international level
 
ali ray said:
So the odd one you are saying he is tim southee level bowler with 188 wickets in 54 tests
Click to expand...

I am not saying anything. You can look at the statistics and decide for yourself.

In my opinion after 1994, he was better than Southee but lesser than Stuart Broad.
 
this is the problem with stats.

They never show the whole story, you need to watch the game to actually understand it
 
Even yasir shah won us two games in england with 35 average, so average doesnot gave the whole story, think about it the odd one
 
This is why cricket isn't a game of stats. Waqar is a bonafide ATG. It's not debatable.
 
He is a Hall of Famer and is rated amongst the very best by those who played against him.

Stats can go to hell when batsmen of the caliber of Lara, Sachin, Kallis etc. rate you highly.
 
The_Odd_One said:
Nope, it is not. I have been consistent in my criticism of Waqar in my past posts. I do not think he was in the same league as other great fast bowlers of his time.
Click to expand...

A comparison in isolation means pretty much nothing.
 
ali ray said:
Mamoon how do you rate Waqar, A 3rd class bowler?
Click to expand...

Arguably the most destructive bowler ever in his peak, but with the way he bowled, it was impossible for him to have prolonged greatness. In the second half of his career, when he reinvented himself as a swing bowler, he was still very good but not as good as some of the best bowlers of his time.

Overall, he's Pakistan's third best pacer and surely an ATG.
 
Not sure whether to take thread where grenidge and Haynes are considered misbah level seriously
 
Waqar is a notch below Wasim & Donald, but I will surely call him an ATG based on his over all performance over entire career in both formats. His peak is overrated in PP and he hardly picked any 5-fers after 1994 against big teams, but he did enough in his career to get an ATG for me.
 
Mamoon said:
Arguably the most destructive bowler ever in his peak, but with the way he bowled, it was impossible for him to have prolonged greatness. In the second half of his career, when he reinvented himself as a swing bowler, he was still very good but not as good as some of the best bowlers of his time.

Overall, he's Pakistan's third best pacer and surely an ATG.
Click to expand...

Who are your top two?
 
If Waqar is not ATG then no one ever was. I will select him ahead of Wasim Akram at his peak.
 
a bonadide atg though not top tier atg like imran and wasim. averaging 23 is not an esy task.
 
Greenidge and Haynes were fearsome batsmen, a league of their own and once I read your comment about the two I found it waste of time to read the whole post. A failed try to undermine the achievements of one of the greatest bowlers world has ever seen and the best exponent of reverse swing.
 
I will rate him as people rate Sangakkara.A great of the game but not at the level of the Akrams Mcgaths Donalds etc.At his peak Waqar Younis was a sight to watch,those who drool over Akhtar would have died over Waqar.
 
petercat said:
I will rate him as people rate Sangakkara.A great of the game but not at the level of the Akrams Mcgaths Donalds etc.At his peak Waqar Younis was a sight to watch,those who drool over Akhtar would have died over Waqar.
Click to expand...

I have watched both, Akhthar on his peak was more deadly....

Don't forget Akhthar had gazillion cameras watching over the ball which Waqar did not have....

I won't even go on the effect that Imran's captaincy would have had although Waqar was hardly his favourite but its still better than playing under Inzi, Afridi, Younis etc....

On topic though Waqar was the most lethal bowler from 1991 to 93/94..... he became manageable for batsman after his injuries....

He did not play against India in those 2/3 years and when he did later he was walloped (96 QF by Jadeja or 99 test series) and thats why Indians never really thought much of him especially with Akram around but England batsman n fans surely will have nightmares of Waqar
 
ali ray said:
So the odd one please tell me some wasim stats in same period???
Click to expand...

Wasim Akram was an awesome bowler throughout his career. He performed consistently well and never had a so-called 3-4 years peak to prove his greatness.
 
Mamoon said:
This is why cricket isn't a game of stats. Waqar is a bonafide ATG. It's not debatable.
Click to expand...

What is the reason behind Waqar's bonafide ATG status?

A world cup win or any clutch performances?

Any memorable test series win in Australia, India, etc. in which Waqar played a key role?
 
leg-side-flick said:
I have watched both, Akhthar on his peak was more deadly....

Don't forget Akhthar had gazillion cameras watching over the ball which Waqar did not have....

I won't even go on the effect that Imran's captaincy would have had although Waqar was hardly his favourite but its still better than playing under Inzi, Afridi, Younis etc....

On topic though Waqar was the most lethal bowler from 1991 to 93/94..... he became manageable for batsman after his injuries....

He did not play against India in those 2/3 years and when he did later he was walloped (96 QF by Jadeja or 99 test series) and thats why Indians never really thought much of him especially with Akram around but England batsman n fans surely will have nightmares of Waqar
Click to expand...

Akhtar at his peak wasnt half the bowler Waqar was.Waqar at his peak was the best bowler in the world,Akhtar never was.

Akhtar had his share of walloping from different countries,so lets not go there.

If you are talking about the "camera" thing let me tell you that if Waqar had the same medical help Akhtar had during his injuries Waqar would have had a even more lethal career.
 
Pete Rose said:
Not sure whether to take thread where grenidge and Haynes are considered misbah level seriously
Click to expand...

Greenidge was almost 40 years old in his last series in Pakistan in which Waqar Younis averaged 18. He retired after playing just 1 more series. So, I do not know how is his comparison with Misbah incorrect.
 
Cricket-passion said:
Greenidge and Haynes were fearsome batsmen, a league of their own and once I read your comment about the two I found it waste of time to read the whole post. A failed try to undermine the achievements of one of the greatest bowlers world has ever seen and the best exponent of reverse swing.
Click to expand...

Greenidge was touching 40 when he faced Waqar in 1991. Not my problem if you fail to understand this basic concept.
 
The_Odd_One said:
Wasim Akram was an awesome bowler throughout his career. He performed consistently well and never had a so-called 3-4 years peak to prove his greatness.
Click to expand...

No he didn't. He had a stretch of 50 Tests in the middle of his career where he averaged around 19-20 but the Test spans on either side of this peak were higher than his career average, particularly his last 20-30 Tests where he averaged 30 IIRC.

He was bonafide ATG but not up there with McGrath who was ATG for almost his entire career.
 
Major said:
this is the problem with stats.

They never show the whole story, you need to watch the game to actually understand it
Click to expand...

Have watched his clueless bowling in India, Sharjah final in which Lara smashed 153, match in which Jayasuriya smashed the fastest 100, and the match in which Jadeja took him to cleaners.

Indeed, just a career average of 23 does not tell you the whole story.
 
Haroon786 said:
No he didn't. He had a stretch of 50 Tests in the middle of his career where he averaged around 19-20 but the Test spans on either side of this peak were higher than his career average, particularly his last 20-30 Tests where he averaged 30 IIRC.

He was bonafide ATG but not up there with McGrath who was ATG for almost his entire career.
Click to expand...

Wasim did poorly in last few years of his test career but he was still an excellent ODI bowler. Also, Wasim started in 1985. He had a record of over 15 years behind him rather than a 3-4 years peak.
 
petercat said:
Akhtar at his peak wasnt half the bowler Waqar was.Waqar at his peak was the best bowler in the world,Akhtar never was.

Akhtar had his share of walloping from different countries,so lets not go there.

If you are talking about the "camera" thing let me tell you that if Waqar had the same medical help Akhtar had during his injuries Waqar would have had a even more lethal career.
Click to expand...

I don't know why but this forum seriously underrates Akhtar...

Tendulkar was at his prime in 1999 and this guy went through his gates just after clean bowling Dravid... Incidentally he replaced Waqar who was dropped after being hit around in first two test matches....

Waqar was skidy and had awesome toe crushing yorkers but if he had debuted a decade later then the ball would not have swung so much because cameras would be watching....

Akhthar was not a one trick pony though, he bowled better in a batsman friendly era...

Fitness wise both were poor but the former had Imran to guide, I think Akhthar would have gained a lot more playing under him....
 
leg-side-flick said:
I don't know why but this forum seriously underrates Akhtar...

Tendulkar was at his prime in 1999 and this guy went through his gates just after clean bowling Dravid... Incidentally he replaced Waqar who was dropped after being hit around in first two test matches....

Waqar was skidy and had awesome toe crushing yorkers but if he had debuted a decade later then the ball would not have swung so much because cameras would be watching....

Akhthar was not a one trick pony though, he bowled better in a batsman friendly era...

Fitness wise both were poor but the former had Imran to guide, I think Akhthar would have gained a lot more playing under him....
Click to expand...

Also, Akhtar had poor work ethics. Had he invested himself more as a cricketer, he would have ended up with much better stats.
 
leg-side-flick said:
I don't know why but this forum seriously underrates Akhtar...

Tendulkar was at his prime in 1999 and this guy went through his gates just after clean bowling Dravid... Incidentally he replaced Waqar who was dropped after being hit around in first two test matches....

Waqar was skidy and had awesome toe crushing yorkers but if he had debuted a decade later then the ball would not have swung so much because cameras would be watching....

Akhthar was not a one trick pony though, he bowled better in a batsman friendly era...

Fitness wise both were poor but the former had Imran to guide, I think Akhthar would have gained a lot more playing under him....
Click to expand...

Ponting was in his peak in 2008 and Ishant Sharma made him look like a joker. There are many such spells were good bowlers have bowled exceedingly well to a ATG batsman and vice versa.

Akhtar is rated as he should be.As a good bowler.He was not a ATG not even close.

Now regarding the cameras watching,well Waqar and Wasim were still reversing the ball in early 2000s but post 1996 Waqar lost his speed and hence was not as effective as he was in his early days,same case as Ian Bishop.In those days a Back Injury meant slow down your pace.

Waqar in 1999 was nowhere near his peak,he was a shadow of the bowler he was.Waqar was still a good bowler when he lost his pace,as he deveoped himself as a pure swing bowler.

There is no comparision between the two.

This guidance thing is overrated.
 
Last edited:
Major said:
this is the problem with stats.

They never show the whole story, you need to watch the game to actually understand it
Click to expand...

In Waqar's case , stats captures his story pretty well. He was a gun bowler for 4-5 years, then he was a good bowler, but not among the top bowlers.
 
is this a joke thread?? every pundit rates him as an ATG. One of the top 10 players pakistan ever produced. I have never seen our bowling run through a whole lineup like he and wasim would. Bowling partnerships are as important as batting partnerships. Wasim and Waqar made each other better because of the pressure they put on the batsmen from both ends.
 
Major said:
this is the problem with stats.

They never show the whole story, you need to watch the game to actually understand it
Click to expand...

1000% agree some people here are kids they never watch cricket in 80s and 90s so they don't have any idea just put nonsense on this page
 
Waqar & Bond were two of the most devastating bowlers in recent history, but very rarely get remembered for just how devastating they both were at their peak.

It depends on how one defines ATGs. If it's limited to the top 20 or so cricketers in history, then he wasn't. If it's limited to the best bowlers in their respective eras, then 100% both Bond and Waqar fit that criteria.
 
he was silly scary b4 his back went , he was still great when he came back after the injury poss not as quick but his yorkers were always as dominant !!
 
Waqar is ATG all right. I rate him at #2 Asian fast bowler after Imran.
 
Robert said:
Waqar is ATG all right. I rate him at #2 Asian fast bowler after Imran.
Click to expand...

Sorry Wasim was better than Waqar.

In my humble opinion, Wasim was a slightly greatest bowler than Imran.

Imran obviously the better cricketer.
 
ATG and I put him ahead of Walsh and Pollock who are borderline ATGs.
 
Waqar is an ATG and will always remain the most feared fast bowler in history of cricket
 
Speedster777 said:
Waqar is an ATG and will always remain the most feared fast bowler in history of cricket
Click to expand...

According to who?

And when you say 'feared', do you mean fear of getting hit, or fear of being dismissed?

It's one thing to say you might think he's the most fearful bowler you've seen, but it's quite another to talk for everyone else on the matter.

Ask any of the English Batsmen from the 2013/14 Ashes series in Australia, and you can bet they'll say Johnson was.

Ask New Zealand batsmen who toured South Africa in 2006/07 and they'll probably say Steyn.

Ask Brain Close who faced that famous spell from Holding in the 70s

Ask batsmen who faced Thomson in the 70s.

If what you mean by fear, you mean in terms of dismissing batsmen, ask the Aussies from the mid 80s about Richard Hadlee who decimated them in their own backyard. Saying nothing about Murali.

There's no doubt Waqar is one of the most devastating bowlers at his peak, but let's not make these absolute statements that just aren't true & are entirely subjective.
 
The_Odd_One said:
Yes, because Gillespie performed better than Waqar in the the window in which both played together. Gillespie averages 21 in India.
Click to expand...

You are not comparing apples with apples, for a reason you don't seem to have thought of.

Waqar Younis was supposedly born in 1971, so you think you are comparing like for like, but you are not.

If you instead consider that he might have been born in 1966, then you see that his peak was the period 1989-1996, in which he performed exceptionally well. But by extending your span to 2003 you have included his thirties, when his pace was gone.

I can assure you that he was an ATG, but that his shortness meant that at times he could be scored off quite quickly.

But this thread basically comes down to age cheating. Did you never wonder why Aaqib Javed was finished by the age of "23"?
 
leg-side-flick said:
I don't know why but this forum seriously underrates Akhtar...

Tendulkar was at his prime in 1999 and this guy went through his gates just after clean bowling Dravid... Incidentally he replaced Waqar who was dropped after being hit around in first two test matches....

Waqar was skidy and had awesome toe crushing yorkers but if he had debuted a decade later then the ball would not have swung so much because cameras would be watching....

Akhthar was not a one trick pony though, he bowled better in a batsman friendly era...

Fitness wise both were poor but the former had Imran to guide, I think Akhthar would have gained a lot more playing under him....
Click to expand...

Shoaib was just too lazy to hone his talent.

Waqar Younis took 373 Test wickets while Shoaib took 178.

Yet Shoaib was blessed with more height - whatever the numbers say, I've seen them side by side - and was arguably almost as quick as Waqar at his peak.

But Shoaib bulked up his upper body ridiculously in his pursuit of pace, and made it too heavy for his legs to bear. He also refused to shorten his run or learn how to bowl cutters or an away swinger.
 
Last edited:
Waqar Younis is a bonafide ATG bowler. He has the best peak of all time in terms of SR and after a crippling injury, he still managed to become an Anderson, Ntini, Broad-level bowler by reinventing himself.

That whole reinvention is a mark of an ATG player. Otherwise Waqar's career could have been just as short as Akhtar or Bond's.

Mamoon said:
This is why cricket isn't a game of stats. Waqar is a bonafide ATG. It's not debatable.
Click to expand...

"If you're debating whether a player is an ATG or not, chances are they are not"

This shows you why this idea might sound pretty but it's actually quite wrong.
 
Huh, I always thought Shoaib & Younis were both about the same height... 5'11 to 6 foot.
 
Bilal7 said:
Waqar Younis is a bonafide ATG bowler. He has the best peak of all time in terms of SR and after a crippling injury, he still managed to become an Anderson, Ntini, Broad-level bowler by reinventing himself.
Click to expand...

I think Bond had a better peak than Younis, only he had too many injuries.

Pretty sure Steyn, Marshall, Imran & Hadlee had better peaks too, but I could be wrong on that.
 
Snatch said:
Waqar & Bond were two of the most devastating bowlers in recent history, but very rarely get remembered for just how devastating they both were at their peak.

It depends on how one defines ATGs. If it's limited to the top 20 or so cricketers in history, then he wasn't. If it's limited to the best bowlers in their respective eras, then 100% both Bond and Waqar fit that criteria.
Click to expand...

Bond? He's in the Asif category of "ATG if only...".
 
Snatch said:
I think Bond had a better peak than Younis, only he had too many injuries.

Pretty sure Steyn, Marshall, Imran & Hadlee had better peaks too, but I could be wrong on that.
Click to expand...

You are wrong on that. There was a great article on cricinfo which ranked all bowlers on their respective peaks and Waqar was #1 if ranked according to SR. Imran was #1 in terms of average.
 
Bilal7 said:
You are wrong on that. There was a great article on cricinfo which ranked all bowlers on their respective peaks and Waqar was #1 if ranked according to SR. Imran was #1 in terms of average.
Click to expand...

Don't be so naive to believe every statistical analyst you ever read as being fact. I'm sure it's just of of methodologies in order to analyse this.

This is statistics 101 my friend. Statistics can easily be used to tell the story to statistician intended.

So please post that analysis if you can find it because I'll be interested in what the publisher deemed as the appropriate time-frame to be considered their 'peak'. Was it 1-2 months? was it 1-2 years? was it 5 years?
 
Snatch said:
Don't be so naive to believe every statistical analyst you ever read as being fact. I'm sure it's just of of methodologies in order to analyse this.

This is statistics 101 my friend. Statistics can easily be used to tell the story to statistician intended.

So please post that analysis if you can find it because I'll be interested in what the publisher deemed as the appropriate time-frame to be considered their 'peak'. Was it 1-2 months? was it 1-2 years? was it 5 years?
Click to expand...

27 matches. The same number of tests that the "Bradman of bowling", Sydney Barnes played.

There is no story here. The statistician picked the best 27 period of all the top bowler's careers and ranked them according to SR. I do intent to post it in this thread when I get on my laptop, unless someone else beats me to it. It's called "The Barnes Standard", IIRC.
 
Bilal7 said:
27 matches. The same number of tests that the "Bradman of bowling", Sydney Barnes played.

There is no story here. The statistician picked the best 27 period of all the top bowler's careers and ranked them according to SR. I do intent to post it in this thread when I get on my laptop, unless someone else beats me to it. It's called "The Barnes Standard", IIRC.
Click to expand...

Great, so you agree, this is just one interpretation of assessing a players 'peak', which was precisely my point. One mans interpretation only.

Someone else might consider one's peak a lot less than that, and someone else more.

Lots of vagueness & subjectively involved. I'm sure I could do an analysis than could have a different interpretation of 'peak' bowling that wouldn't have Waqar as no.1, and that wouldn't settle the argument either.
 
Bilal7 said:
Waqar Younis is a bonafide ATG bowler. He has the best peak of all time in terms of SR and after a crippling injury, he still managed to become an Anderson, Ntini, Broad-level bowler by reinventing himself.
Click to expand...

Ntini has 18 5-fers & Anderson has 21 5-fers. You underselling them a bit here, because they ran through sides many times to win games.

Waqar struggled to run through sides after 1994. He has 1 5-fer after 1994 against non-minnows. Imagine a equivalent of batsman playing for 7-8 years with only one ton against non-minnow. Waqar was a good support bowler after 1994 and it took him some time to start using new ball , but he never got to Anderson or Ntini level.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, Waqar was devastating against very weak batting line-ups like New Zealand's in the 1990s which really helped his numbers.

The bowling version of a flat-track bully.
 
Buffet said:
Ntini has 18 5-fers & Anderson has 21 5-fers. You underselling them a bit here, because they ran through sides many times to win games.

Waqar struggled to run through sides after 1994. He has 1 5-fer after 1994 against non-minnows. Imagine a equivalent of batsman playing for 7-8 years with only one ton against non-minnow. Waqar was a good support bowler after 1994 and it took him some time to start using new ball , but he never got to Anderson or Ntini level.
Click to expand...

False analogy. Waqar could only pick wickets from a pie which he had to share with Wasim, Saqlain, Akhtar, Razzaq, etc. It's clear why he didn't have more fifers and it isn't because he didn't have the quality to "run through sides".

Snatch said:
Great, so you agree, this is just one interpretation of assessing a players 'peak', which was precisely my point. One mans interpretation only.

Someone else might consider one's peak a lot less than that, and someone else more.

Lots of vagueness & subjectively involved. I'm sure I could do an analysis than could have a different interpretation of 'peak' bowling that wouldn't have Waqar as no.1, and that wouldn't settle the argument either.
Click to expand...

An interpretation that most people on this forum agree with and an interpretation that is pretty darn good because it simply consists of using the best 27 match span of every bowler's career, because that is how many matches Sydney Barnes played.

This isn't cherry-picking any random number of years or matches and therefore is highly respected. Respected enough to feature on cricinfo unlike your opinion.
 
Bilal7 said:
An interpretation that most people on this forum agree with and an interpretation that is pretty darn good because it simply consists of using the best 27 match span of every bowler's career, because that is how many matches Sydney Barnes played.

This isn't cherry-picking any random number of years or matches and therefore is highly respected. Respected enough to feature on cricinfo unlike your opinion.
Click to expand...

Haha, are you serious? Of course it's cherry-picking using an arbitrary number of matches that someone decided deemed 'peak performance' just because Barnes played that number of games.

Sorry, but you just can't be serious about this. It's completely & utterly arbitrary.
 
Firstly it needs to be defined what an ATG is. It is someone who might be indomitable for a short span of time but may be less potent during other times or someone who is consistently great over a prolonged period?

A batsman can be great over a prolonged period but a bowler will have limitations. The likes of Shane Bond, Allan Donald - to some extent even Dale Steyn/Mitchell Johnson, were very destructive for a few years and may have been less effective during other years, but does that make them less great?

Waqar was as good a fast bowler as you can imagine in his peak- aggressive, fast, lethal, who could change the game in one over. An indication of his greatness is that despite changing his action and losing pace later in his career, he still had wicket taking ability. But it his legacy which is what perhaps makes him an ATG- he defined the art of bowling late, quick yorkers, made it seem acceptable that it didn't matter if you got hit for runs as long as you were intimidating the batsmen and taking wickets, and took reverse swing to a new level.
 
Bilal7 said:
False analogy. Waqar could only pick wickets from a pie which he had to share with Wasim, Saqlain, Akhtar, Razzaq, etc. It's clear why he didn't have more fifers and it isn't because he didn't have the quality to "run through sides".
Click to expand...

His team mates shared the same pie and they taken together got 25-30 5-fers. Simply said, they were good enough to run though sides and Waqar was not good enough to run through sides. Bowler who can run though sides will pick up more than 1 5-fers in 7-8 years no matter what kind of pie sharing is going on.
 
cricketfan11 said:
Firstly it needs to be defined what an ATG is. It is someone who might be indomitable for a short span of time but may be less potent during other times or someone who is consistently great over a prolonged period?

A batsman can be great over a prolonged period but a bowler will have limitations. The likes of Shane Bond, Allan Donald - to some extent even Dale Steyn/Mitchell Johnson, were very destructive for a few years and may have been less effective during other years, but does that make them less great?
Click to expand...

Only Johnson fits the bill here and no one calls him ATG. Steyn and Donald had a long period of gun performance. Bond didn't play much to see ups or down, but he was mostly up in his short career. I don't take him as an ATG as well. Too short a career for me.
 
He could be ATG and had all the potentials but could not reach there and there is a hand of wasim akram for wakar's failure.
 
Snatch said:
According to who?

And when you say 'feared', do you mean fear of getting hit, or fear of being dismissed?
.
Click to expand...

According to people who've grown up watching Waqar , Donald, Marshal, and who've also watched current crop of fast bowlers. No offence but if you don't know why he was feared by batsmen then pretty pointless to write paras on him. Can't comment on Thomson honestly since I've not watched much of his bowling. About Steyn, it's debatable whether he can be put in the ATG bracket with Waqar or not but Waqar's inwinging yorker at express pace flooring batsmen were absolutely deadly. Steyn cannot produce anything like that.
 
every athlete in the history of the world had peak years, and down years

Waqar is no different. If you compare him worst years to the best years of other bowlers, of course it'll look bad

there is no doubt whatsoever that Waqar was an ATG. Your argument is beyond comical, its borderline offensive to cricket fans
 
Speedster777 said:
According to people who've grown up watching Waqar , Donald, Marshal, and who've also watched current crop of fast bowlers. No offence but if you don't know why he was feared by batsmen then pretty pointless to write paras on him. Can't comment on Thomson honestly since I've not watched much of his bowling. About Steyn, it's debatable whether he can be put in the ATG bracket with Waqar or not but Waqar's inwinging yorker at express pace flooring batsmen were absolutely deadly. Steyn cannot produce anything like that.
Click to expand...

No offence taken, because nowhere in cricketing circles is it categorical that Waqar is The most feared bowler ever in his peak.

He's certainly one of them & I think there's a reasonable case to be made for him, just as I do with many others, even in the last 25 years.

To make the statement that he 'is' regarded the most feared as an objective statement does make you look a little foolish, & perhaps biased - No offence.

Meanwhile, I don't know if you're just kidding when you say you're not sure Steyn is in the Wasim/Wagar level. That's laughable.
 
Last edited:
Good thread.

There is both over and underrating of Waqar on this thread.

Based on just using his peak, he was an ATG.

Based on his entire career, he is one tier lower.

Just one 10-wicket haul against a non-minnow is not overall ATG material.
 
As the the ATG question, It depends on how many players make ATG status in your own opinion.

I'd have to think about it for a while to decide if he'd make my ATG top 10 bowlers list. But he is no where near my top 5 of

Marshall
Hadlee
Ambrose
Steyn
Wasim
 
Speedster777 said:
According to people who've grown up watching Waqar , Donald, Marshal, and who've also watched current crop of fast bowlers. No offence but if you don't know why he was feared by batsmen then pretty pointless to write paras on him. Can't comment on Thomson honestly since I've not watched much of his bowling. About Steyn, it's debatable whether he can be put in the ATG bracket with Waqar or not but Waqar's inwinging yorker at express pace flooring batsmen were absolutely deadly. Steyn cannot produce anything like that.
Click to expand...

You serious bro?:msd
 
Top 12 ATG fast bowlers list (not including pre-war players and not in order)

Marshall
Garner
McGrath
Ambrose
Trueman
Holding
Donald
Hadlee
Imran
Lillee
Steyn
Akram
 
Most criminally underrated of the above lot is McGrath. There is not a single metric where he is not a clear top 5 bowler imo.
 
Never rated Waqar as a threat ever since I started following Cricket. It was only after joining PP that I came to know about his performances in the early 90s. He had an insane peak, but OP is right. I wouldn't call him an ATG either, he is a little below that.
 
Pakistani fans then should not have any problem in calling Joe Root and Steven Smith ATGs if they are willing to call Waqar an ATG on the basis of 33 tests only. The former have in fact played around 50 tests each.
 
Bilal7 said:
False analogy. Waqar could only pick wickets from a pie which he had to share with Wasim, Saqlain, Akhtar, Razzaq, etc. It's clear why he didn't have more fifers and it isn't because he didn't have the quality to "run through sides".



An interpretation that most people on this forum agree with and an interpretation that is pretty darn good because it simply consists of using the best 27 match span of every bowler's career, because that is how many matches Sydney Barnes played.

This isn't cherry-picking any random number of years or matches and therefore is highly respected. Respected enough to feature on cricinfo unlike your opinion.
Click to expand...

And Ntini played in a weaker attack? How did he manage to pick 5-fers?

Other Pakistani bowlers picked several 5-fers. Why did only Waqar fail?
 
Junaids said:
You are not comparing apples with apples, for a reason you don't seem to have thought of.

Waqar Younis was supposedly born in 1971, so you think you are comparing like for like, but you are not.

If you instead consider that he might have been born in 1966, then you see that his peak was the period 1989-1996, in which he performed exceptionally well. But by extending your span to 2003 you have included his thirties, when his pace was gone.

I can assure you that he was an ATG, but that his shortness meant that at times he could be scored off quite quickly.

But this thread basically comes down to age cheating. Did you never wonder why Aaqib Javed was finished by the age of "23"?
Click to expand...

Why were the other ATGs still performing in their 30s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BouncerGuy
ICC U19 Men's Cricket World Cup 2026 - Discussion thread [From January 15 - February 06]
Replies
31
Views
508
Human786
H
N
Why Steve Smith is still the undisputed second greatest Test batter of all time?
2 3 4
Replies
276
Views
5K
sweep_shot
sweep_shot
BouncerGuy
Who's the best young men's cricketer in the world?
Replies
15
Views
646
giri26
G
Ball Blazer
Kevin Pietersen undermines Joe Root's record, says batting is easier today than before
2
Replies
107
Views
3K
zarak
Z
N
World Test Championship - The era of doctored pitches & technique-less batters?
Replies
2
Views
400
jnaveen1980
J
Back
Top