Is Waqar Younis really an ATG?

[Mainul]

Surely he is an ATG. He is my all time favorite.

Stats don't show everything. It doesn't show how he was underbowled by Wasim Akram the captain.Wasim had personal issues with Waqar i often saw that Waqar was hardly being given acceptable share of overs to bowl.Sometimes it cost Pakistan a match.I remember hobert test in 1999.He was bowling well,picked up 2 important wickets of Mark Waugh and Ponting in first innings.But was given only 12 overs in that innings although Wasim bowled 20 overs for 1 wicket, Shoib was bowled 17 overs for no wicket.In 2nd innings when Australia was chasing a big total and Gilly and Langer were making a big partnership and was winning the match for Australia, Waqar was bowled only 11 overs, although Wasim bowled 18, newbie Shoib bowled 23 for just 1 wicket and Saqlain bowled 44 overs.I believed that if Waqar was bowled in tandem he would have broken the all important partnership.

 

[Justcrazy]

Waqar was lethal in his peak , but overall Wasim had more variations and thus was more difficult to face,

 

[The_Odd_One]

Surely he is an ATG. He is my all time favorite.

Stats don't show everything. It doesn't show how he was underbowled by Wasim Akram the captain.Wasim had personal issues with Waqar i often saw that Waqar was hardly being given acceptable share of overs to bowl.Sometimes it cost Pakistan a match.I remember hobert test in 1999.He was bowling well,picked up 2 important wickets of Mark Waugh and Ponting in first innings.But was given only 12 overs in that innings although Wasim bowled 20 overs for 1 wicket, Shoib was bowled 17 overs for no wicket.In 2nd innings when Australia was chasing a big total and Gilly and Langer were making a big partnership and was winning the match for Australia, Waqar was bowled only 11 overs, although Wasim bowled 18, newbie Shoib bowled 23 for just 1 wicket and Saqlain bowled 44 overs.I believed that if Waqar was bowled in tandem he would have broken the all important partnership.

Do you think had Wasim bowled those last 2 overs in the 1996 WC QF, he would have let Jadeja score those 40 runs?

 

[SL_Fan]

An ATG without a doubt one of the best ever strike bowlers for mine. Especially with the old ball absolutely lethal.

 

[Mainul]

Do you think had Wasim bowled those last 2 overs in the 1996 WC QF, he would have let Jadeja score those 40 runs?

Man, a bad day can come at any day in any bowler's life when a good batsman can dominate on you.Bad day came in Shane Warne's life, bad day came in McGrath's life .And it came in a few occasions. Would you consider them non ATG for this? Jadeja was in phenomenal touch in that match and he was whacking and blasting even good balls of Waqar in that spells.It was not an inferior Waqar, but it was a phenomenal Jadeja at his best.I can't say that Wasim could have escaped that demolition.Wasim is the most lethal, effective, dominating and best bowler in ODI history whom I don't remember to be demolished by opposition batsmen.He is a level above all ODI bowlers born so far. But it doesn't snatch away any supremacy from Waqar.You can't compare like that.

 

[Junaids]

Waqar is ATG all right. I rate him at #2 Asian fast bowler after Imran.

Yeah, so do I.

And I'm a Lancashire member, so Wasim Akram was one of ours.

Wasim was tighter when he was off colour, simply because he was taller and got more bounce.

But Waqar Younis those first four years was the second best bowler that I have ever seen behind the 1982-1985 version of Malcolm Marshall.

 

[Junaids]

Why were the other ATGs still performing in their 30s?

A tall fast bowler can rely upon length and lift after the pace has gone. It's why I'm tearing my hair out about the non-selection of Mohammad Asif.

Short, skiddy bowlers like Waqar Younis can't - which is also why Dale Steyn is such a diminished figure in 20 and 50 overs cricket now.

Waqar had a higher ceiling than the likes of Ambrose or McGrath, but when he lost his pace he wasn't in their class.

 

[Slog]

[MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION]
Your thoughts?

 

[Slog]

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.

that is like someone rating sachin over his last few years stats where even when he made runs he was grafting and looked ugly

 

[Romali_rotti]

that is like someone rating sachin over his last few years stats where even when he made runs he was grafting and looked ugly

SRT statement towards the end of his caree is kind of true, I would say more boring than ugly.............

 

[leg-side-flick]

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.

Agree on his poor work ethic and that's where Imran as captain could have made a difference to him....

Overall I can't laugh enough at some posters here thinking that he was only half the bowler as compared to Waqar.....

 

[Mamoon]

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.



"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.

Actually, it applies perfectly here.

No one debates/discusses Waqar's status as an ATG. Even in this thread, apart from the OP and 1-2 people, everyone has dismissed the idea that Waqar is not an ATG.

If tomorrow, I open a thread and ask if Tendulkar really is an ATG, will that make it debatable? Of course not.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION]
Your thoughts?

He is an ATG without a shadow of a doubt, could have been the undisputed GOAT were it not for that injury he suffered. Just listen to some insight from Alec Stewart who kept to Waqar, he was so quick through the air and could swing the ball both ways at high speeds. I don't think his peak is emphasised enough between 1989-1990 I'd go out to say that is possibly the greatest peak for a fast bowler ever. Between him and Wasim it's a flip of the coin for me

 

[Mamoon]

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?

You cannot look through at career with the same lens. Each career has a different story.

There is no one criteria for achieving greatness. Look at the impact Waqar has had on the game and how the Wasim and Waqar pair is remember as one of the best, if not the best in history.

I remember Allan Donald calling him his idol. Alec Stewart, a fantastic player of pace, said he was afraid of facing him in County.

Waqar is one of the greatest pure strike bowlers in history and has earned the respect of his peers and those who have followed him.

He is not a bigger legend than Imran and Wasim, but he is most definitely an ATG.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Waqar is an ATG.

Anyone questioning his credentials has no clue of fast bowling.

 

[Slog]

Waqar is an ATG.

Anyone questioning his credentials has no clue of fast bowling.

We all know why they are questioning it though

Have only crept up in recent years and generally tend to be fans of Ahmed Shehzad and Umar Akmal

 

[Robert]

But Waqar Younis those first four years was the second best bowler that I have ever seen behind the 1982-1985 version of Malcolm Marshall.

Concur. Maco in 1984 and Waqar in 1992 are burned into my brain.

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

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.

He bullied NZ on flat tracks. Remember he's not a batsman

 

[Wasim_Waqar]

At his peak, Waqar was the best I've seen. Fast and scary with a long run-up. Late swing. He had a mean bouncer and was hostile.

 

[Napa]

1989 to 1994

vs India = 39, in India = N/A

1995 to 2003

vs India = 76, in India = 76

Seems like the Indian batsmen feasted on his bowling. For both periods his highest average was against India.

 

[Zaz]

Seems like the Indian batsmen feasted on his bowling. For both periods his highest average was against India.

hardly Those stats arent in context He only played a handful of tests against them Once at the beginning of his career and another towards the end

A peak waqar wouldve ravaged india Probably why they didnt play pakistan in the early to mid 90s

 

[Romali_rotti]

hardly Those stats arent in context He only played a handful of tests against them Once at the beginning of his career and another towards the end

A peak waqar wouldve ravaged india Probably why they didnt play pakistan in the early to mid 90s

You forgot one thing, Waqar would've locked on against a young SRT of the 90s had that happened.. Waqar would have been tamed quite easily.............

 

[Tusker]

hardly Those stats arent in context He only played a handful of tests against them Once at the beginning of his career and another towards the end

A peak waqar wouldve ravaged india Probably why they didnt play pakistan in the early to mid 90s

Or you would have said that he was not at his peak yet ... just like how you have excluded 1989 series.

But on the subject of India avoiding playing pakistan maybe you can answer my questions in this thread http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...tan-in-Test-cricket-quot-Saurav-Ganguly/page3

 

[Junaids]

Or you would have said that he was not at his peak yet ... just like how you have excluded 1989 series.

But on the subject of India avoiding playing pakistan maybe you can answer my questions in this thread http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...tan-in-Test-cricket-quot-Saurav-Ganguly/page3

Waqar had only debuted in ODI's a month earlier, after Imran Khan had seen him bowling on TV in a 50 overs match.

He had not been fit enough even to complete the 50 overs ODIs in Sharjah on that trip, and was still at an early stage of learning from Imran and Waqar how to bowl.

In fact, his records in that series and the one two months later in Australia were:

Debut series v India 1989-90: 6 wickets @ 39.50
Second series v Australia 8 weeks later: 4 wickets @ 56.00
Third series v New Zealand a further 9 months later: 29 wickets @ 10.86
Fourth series v West Indies another month later: 16 wickets @ 18.50

So I think it's reasonable to accept the debut series as counting as "not at his peak yet"!

We could argue about what changed. There was certainly nefarious conduct around the state of the ball, but he had learned the skills to exploit that which he hadn't had a few months earlier.

 

[Napa]

hardly Those stats arent in context He only played a handful of tests against them Once at the beginning of his career and another towards the end

A peak waqar wouldve ravaged india Probably why they didnt play pakistan in the early to mid 90s

"towards the end of his career"??? He played against India in India in 1998/99 and continued playing till 2002/3. He was very much before the end of his career in 98/99.

There is no world ranking for making excuses or for made up statistics.

[MENTION=134300]Tusker[/MENTION]

 

[The_Odd_One]

You cannot look through at career with the same lens. Each career has a different story.

There is no one criteria for achieving greatness. Look at the impact Waqar has had on the game and how the Wasim and Waqar pair is remember as one of the best, if not the best in history.

I remember Allan Donald calling him his idol. Alec Stewart, a fantastic player of pace, said he was afraid of facing him in County.

Waqar is one of the greatest pure strike bowlers in history and has earned the respect of his peers and those who have followed him.

He is not a bigger legend than Imran and Wasim, but he is most definitely an ATG.

Devilliers gets the same kind of praise from his peers. Will you call him an ATG too?

 

[The_Odd_One]

I am yet to see a proper argument coming from anybody to prove that Waqar was an ATG.

 

[leg-side-flick]

hardly Those stats arent in context He only played a handful of tests against them Once at the beginning of his career and another towards the end

A peak waqar wouldve ravaged india Probably why they didnt play pakistan in the early to mid 90s

India did not cancel tour in 92/93, it was PCB who did that.... by your logic they must have done that to protect Waqar from his own peak

 

[Tusker]

Waqar had only debuted in ODI's a month earlier, after Imran Khan had seen him bowling on TV in a 50 overs match.

He had not been fit enough even to complete the 50 overs ODIs in Sharjah on that trip, and was still at an early stage of learning from Imran and Waqar how to bowl.

In fact, his records in that series and the one two months later in Australia were:

Debut series v India 1989-90: 6 wickets @ 39.50
Second series v Australia 8 weeks later: 4 wickets @ 56.00
Third series v New Zealand a further 9 months later: 29 wickets @ 10.86
Fourth series v West Indies another month later: 16 wickets @ 18.50

So I think it's reasonable to accept the debut series as counting as "not at his peak yet"!

We could argue about what changed. There was certainly nefarious conduct around the state of the ball, but he had learned the skills to exploit that which he hadn't had a few months earlier.

Thanks for proving my point. The thing is people throw around the ATG tag pretty frivolously. The Bar to claim that title should be pretty high once you do that Waqar unfortunately misses out. But he was no doubt an outstanding fast bowler.

 

[ExplicitAI]

Unquestionably an ATG who devastated many batsmen around the world. Wasim and Waqar for me were the best bowling pair in the history of cricket.

 

[Sidilicious]

Clearly an ATG.

But is there a list of terms/categories how we distinguish the greatness of players?

Waqar, even though an ATG, was not as great an ATG as Wasim, Donald or McGrath.
Also, there should be some definition/criteria of these categories.

 

[jeetu]

How he is not an ATG ? Nearly 800 International Wickets at avg less than 24. Waqar has one of the best Strike Rate in the history of cricket both (Tests and ODI).

Test (min 200 wickets)
[table=width: 700, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Player [/td][td]Span [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Wkts [/td][td]Ave [/td][td]SR [/td][td]5W [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]MD Marshall (WI) [/td][td]1978-1991 [/td][td]81 [/td][td]376 [/td][td]20.94 [/td][td]46.7 [/td][td]22 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]J Garner (WI) [/td][td]1977-1987 [/td][td]58 [/td][td]259 [/td][td]20.97 [/td][td]50.8 [/td][td]7 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]CEL Ambrose (WI) [/td][td]1988-2000 [/td][td]98 [/td][td]405 [/td][td]20.99 [/td][td]54.5 [/td][td]22 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]FS Trueman (ENG) [/td][td]1952-1965 [/td][td]67 [/td][td]307 [/td][td]21.57 [/td][td]49.4 [/td][td]17 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]GD McGrath (AUS) [/td][td]1993-2007 [/td][td]124 [/td][td]563 [/td][td]21.64 [/td][td]51.9 [/td][td]29 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]AA Donald (SA) [/td][td]1992-2002 [/td][td]72 [/td][td]330 [/td][td]22.25 [/td][td]47 [/td][td]20 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) [/td][td]1973-1990 [/td][td]86 [/td][td]431 [/td][td]22.29 [/td][td]50.8 [/td][td]36 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]DW Steyn (SA) [/td][td]2004-2016 [/td][td]85 [/td][td]417 [/td][td]22.3 [/td][td]41.4 [/td][td]26 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M Muralitharan (ICC/SL) [/td][td]1992-2010 [/td][td]133 [/td][td]800 [/td][td]22.72 [/td][td]55 [/td][td]67 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Imran Khan (PAK) [/td][td]1971-1992 [/td][td]88 [/td][td]362 [/td][td]22.81 [/td][td]53.7 [/td][td]23 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]RR Lindwall (AUS) [/td][td]1946-1960 [/td][td]61 [/td][td]228 [/td][td]23.03 [/td][td]59.8 [/td][td]12 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]SM Pollock (SA) [/td][td]1995-2008 [/td][td]108 [/td][td]421 [/td][td]23.11 [/td][td]57.8 [/td][td]16 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Waqar Younis (PAK) [/td][td]1989-2003 [/td][td]87 [/td][td]373 [/td][td]23.56 [/td][td]43.4 [/td][td]22 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wasim Akram (PAK) [/td][td]1985-2002 [/td][td]104 [/td][td]414 [/td][td]23.62 [/td][td]54.6 [/td][td]25 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]MA Holding (WI) [/td][td]1975-1987 [/td][td]60 [/td][td]249 [/td][td]23.68 [/td][td]50.9 [/td][td]13 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]DK Lillee (AUS) [/td][td]1971-1984 [/td][td]70 [/td][td]355 [/td][td]23.92 [/td][td]52 [/td][td]23 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]CV Grimmett (AUS) [/td][td]1925-1936 [/td][td]37 [/td][td]216 [/td][td]24.21 [/td][td]67.1 [/td][td]21 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]CA Walsh (WI) [/td][td]1984-2001 [/td][td]132 [/td][td]519 [/td][td]24.44 [/td][td]57.8 [/td][td]22 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]R Ashwin (INDIA) [/td][td]2011-2016 [/td][td]42 [/td][td]235 [/td][td]24.75 [/td][td]50.7 [/td][td]22 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]JB Statham (ENG) [/td][td]1951-1965 [/td][td]70 [/td][td]252 [/td][td]24.84 [/td][td]63.7 [/td][td]9 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]AV Bedser (ENG) [/td][td]1946-1955 [/td][td]51 [/td][td]236 [/td][td]24.89 [/td][td]67.4 [/td][td]15 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

ODI (min 200 wickets)
[table=width: 700, class: grid, align: center]
[tr][td]Player [/td][td]Span [/td][td]Mat [/td][td]Wkts [/td][td]Ave [/td][td]Econ [/td][td]SR [/td][td]4W [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]AA Donald (SA) [/td][td]1991-2003 [/td][td]164 [/td][td]272 [/td][td]21.78 [/td][td]4.15 [/td][td]31.4 [/td][td]11 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saqlain Mushtaq (PAK) [/td][td]1995-2003 [/td][td]169 [/td][td]288 [/td][td]21.78 [/td][td]4.29 [/td][td]30.4 [/td][td]11 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]GD McGrath (AUS/ICC) [/td][td]1993-2007 [/td][td]250 [/td][td]381 [/td][td]22.02 [/td][td]3.88 [/td][td]34 [/td][td]9 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M Muralitharan (Asia/ICC/SL) [/td][td]1993-2011 [/td][td]350 [/td][td]534 [/td][td]23.08 [/td][td]3.93 [/td][td]35.2 [/td][td]15 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]B Lee (AUS) [/td][td]2000-2012 [/td][td]221 [/td][td]380 [/td][td]23.36 [/td][td]4.76 [/td][td]29.4 [/td][td]14 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wasim Akram (PAK) [/td][td]1984-2003 [/td][td]356 [/td][td]502 [/td][td]23.52 [/td][td]3.89 [/td][td]36.2 [/td][td]17 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Waqar Younis (PAK) [/td][td]1989-2003 [/td][td]262 [/td][td]416 [/td][td]23.84 [/td][td]4.68 [/td][td]30.5 [/td][td]14 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]CEL Ambrose (WI) [/td][td]1988-2000 [/td][td]176 [/td][td]225 [/td][td]24.12 [/td][td]3.48 [/td][td]41.5 [/td][td]6 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]SM Pollock (Afr/ICC/SA) [/td][td]1996-2008 [/td][td]303 [/td][td]393 [/td][td]24.5 [/td][td]3.67 [/td][td]39.9 [/td][td]12 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]M Ntini (ICC/SA) [/td][td]1998-2009 [/td][td]173 [/td][td]266 [/td][td]24.65 [/td][td]4.53 [/td][td]32.6 [/td][td]8 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]CJ McDermott (AUS) [/td][td]1985-1996 [/td][td]138 [/td][td]203 [/td][td]24.71 [/td][td]4.03 [/td][td]36.7 [/td][td]4 [/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Shoaib Akhtar (Asia/ICC/PAK) [/td][td]1998-2011 [/td][td]163 [/td][td]247 [/td][td]24.97 [/td][td]4.76 [/td][td]31.4 [/td][td]6 [/td][/tr]
[/table]

 

[Pantani]

I would say for fast bowlers in test cricket, the measures to determine ATG-ness should be average < 25 and SR < 48. These numbers might seem random and arbitrary, but 25 average is generally accepted as the hallmark of a truly world class and legendary bowler, and the 48 SR is particularly important I think because a fast bowler is unlikely to bowl spells longer than 8 overs. So if they have a sub-48 SR then they'll get you one wicket per spell, on average, which is brilliant.

So using those measures of 25 average and 48 SR, I think only four bowlers make the cut: Steyn, Waqar, Trueman and Donald. These four should be accepted as ATGs without question based on the stats.

Other ATG quicks will satisfy one requirement, usually having an average of 25 or better, but not the other. With them it's a matter of debate. Some might not consider Walsh, averaging 24 at 57 SR, an ATG, while others will argue Holding with an average of 24 and SR of 50, is an ATG.

 

[Bilal7]

Clearly an ATG.

But is there a list of terms/categories how we distinguish the greatness of players?

Waqar, even though an ATG, was not as great an ATG as Wasim, Donald or McGrath.
Also, there should be some definition/criteria of these categories.

The difference between these ATG players was very minimal. They were all on the same level and a team would not be worse off if they had Waqar as their spearhead, and not Donald, for example. There are no categories.

I am yet to see a proper argument coming from anybody to prove that Waqar was an ATG.

Have you even looked at his numbers in both formats? You don't need anything else to know that Waqar was a bonafide ATG. Possibly the greatest bowler of all time for the first portion of his career and then transformed himself into an Anderson-level bowler for the remaining time he spent on the cricket field, because his bowling style was very destructive on his own body as well.

If Waqar isn't an ATG, then a lot of other players don't fit the bill either. Namely, Kapil; Dravid; and Sanga

Actually, it applies perfectly here.

No one debates/discusses Waqar's status as an ATG. Even in this thread, apart from the OP and 1-2 people, everyone has dismissed the idea that Waqar is not an ATG.

If tomorrow, I open a thread and ask if Tendulkar really is an ATG, will that make it debatable? Of course not.

Because this is a Pakistani forum. You go to one of the Indian forums out there and there would be quite a few saying he isn't an ATG, although they are completely wrong.

This is why the mob mentality of fans does not decide these things. A player's own performances do.

 

[Bilal7]

 

[The_Odd_One]

The difference between these ATG players was very minimal. They were all on the same level and a team would not be worse off if they had Waqar as their spearhead, and not Donald, for example. There are no categories.



Have you even looked at his numbers in both formats? You don't need anything else to know that Waqar was a bonafide ATG. Possibly the greatest bowler of all time for the first portion of his career and then transformed himself into an Anderson-level bowler for the remaining time he spent on the cricket field, because his bowling style was very destructive on his own body as well.

If Waqar isn't an ATG, then a lot of other players don't fit the bill either. Namely, Kapil; Dravid; and Sanga


Because this is a Pakistani forum. You go to one of the Indian forums out there and there would be quite a few saying he isn't an ATG, although they are completely wrong.

This is why the mob mentality of fans does not decide these things. A player's own performances do.

No, Waqar was not like Anderson in the second half of his career. In more than 40 matches, he has just 1 5-fer against top 6 teams.

 

[Ab Fan]

Pollock was comfortably a better bowler in both formats. Walsh was a better test bowler.

Pollock lacked aura, effectiveness and fearsomeness like Waqar had.Waqar also has bigger peers reputation than Pollock or Walsh.

Waqar at its peak, with what I have heard and read, was one of the best bowler of all time.

However, you could have made a point that he is a little overrated and not really up with the likes of Mcgrath or Wasim or Steyn(in tests).

 

[Mamoon]

Devilliers gets the same kind of praise from his peers. Will you call him an ATG too?

Yes you can, if peer appreciation is your only criteria for all-time greatness. Apart from that, he has had a lesser career than Waqar so far.

 

[Mamoon]

Because this is a Pakistani forum. You go to one of the Indian forums out there and there would be quite a few saying he isn't an ATG, although they are completely wrong.

This is why the mob mentality of fans does not decide these things. A player's own performances do.

Even on an Indian forum, very few people would question Waqar's status as an ATG. Our all ATG bowlers have always received appreciation from all quarters.

The number of Indians doubting the status of our legendary pacers aren't anymore than the number of Pakistanis doubting the status of India's legendary batsmen.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Pollock lacked aura, effectiveness and fearsomeness like Waqar had.Waqar also has bigger peers reputation than Pollock or Walsh.

Waqar at its peak, with what I have heard and read, was one of the best bowler of all time.

However, you could have made a point that he is a little overrated and not really up with the likes of Mcgrath or Wasim or Steyn(in tests).

Even Akhtar had a great fast bowler aura. Do you think he was better than Pollock too?

 

[Ab Fan]

Even Akhtar had a great fast bowler aura. Do you think he was better than Pollock too?

Akhtar doesn't have peer reputation. He had an aura because many saw him as the next big thing after Imran, Wasim and Waqar.

He did well till 2004 but declined later and couldn't had a career anywhere as good as ATGs have.

KP also had the aura but several things went against him.

That is how things go.

Pollock lacks peer reputation and aura but was still an ATG bowler( a lower tier).He did well everywhere except the best team in the world and across both the formats.

 

[Justcrazy]

Waqar is all time great bowler. Problem is that initially Waqar was so good that his latter part does not look good.

 

[Junaids]

No, Waqar was not like Anderson in the second half of his career. In more than 40 matches, he has just 1 5-fer against top 6 teams.

You get that in sport. Just like some superb footballers have a game based on pace, and when the pace goes they are left with very little.

The point about Waqar was that with his pace - and before his dubious age caught up with him - he was better than numerous players he shared a pitch with. Notably, better than Wasim Akram, better than the late-model Imran Khan, better than Curtly Ambrose, better than Courtney Walsh, better than Allan Donald. The only fast bowler in the world in his class at his peak was Ian Bishop.

But when he lost his pace he didn't have the height to remain effective. So he sunk to a lower level than the veteran version of all those players apart from Allan Donald, who was also pretty ineffectual late in his career.

 

[Buffet]

But when he lost his pace he didn't have the height to remain effective. So he sunk to a lower level than the veteran version of all those players apart from Allan Donald, who was also pretty ineffectual late in his career.

Waqar was a bowler who couldn't pick up 5-fer against big teams for his last 7-8 years nor averaged below 25 agasint pretty much any team in that period.

Can you remind me a period for Donald where he was that ineffectual and how long he played with that kind of efficiency?

 

[Junaids]

Waqar was a bowler who couldn't pick up 5-fer against big teams for his last 7-8 years nor averaged below 25 agasint pretty much any team in that period.

Can you remind me a period for Donald where he was that ineffectual and how long he played with that kind of efficiency?

Certainly, yes.

Allan Donald lost his effectiveness in 2000, but South Africa has very few hard series scheduled for the next 18 months, at which point they had home and away series v Australia in which Donald averaged 59.50 and 72.00 and to be honest was flattered by those figures.

But I like Donald because he then did the right thing and retired.

Waqar was different. In 1997-98 he was absolutely magnificent in South Africa, but in 1999 the skipper Wasim Akram kept dropping him when he probably was just about good enough to still have played.

Waqar became angry and aggrieved and started to covet the captaincy. He wasn't a bad skipper but he was a shadow of his former self as a bowler and kept going, I think, in part because he had played 2 years of Test cricket under Imran Khan who barely bowled by then. Waqar fancied himself in a similar vein as a top skipper who could just about offer enough as a player, and kept going during that period in part because he thought that he could pass on to Shoaib Akhtar the professionalism that he had learned from Imran.

It didn't work.

 

[Midwinter13992]

Waqar is undoubtally an All Time Great...Those deadly yorkers were trendsetter..

 

[Buffet]

Certainly, yes.

Allan Donald lost his effectiveness in 2000, but South Africa has very few hard series scheduled for the next 18 months, at which point they had home and away series v Australia in which Donald averaged 59.50 and 72.00 and to be honest was flattered by those figures.

But I like Donald because he then did the right thing and retired.

Apple to orange comparison here.

Waqar averaged 31+ against top 7 with grand total of 1 5-fers in his last 7-8 years.

You are trying to compare that with citing Donald two series against Aus covering 18 months of period. Even starting from 2000, Donald averaged below 25 against non-minnows till he retired. Starting from 00, he played Eng(avg 13), India(avg 19), NZ ( avg 17), SL( avg 22), WI ( avg 25).

Sure, any cricketer retires because they feel that time is up, but putting Waqar and Donald at the same level for being ineffectual is weird. Waqar was pretty much ineffectual for half of his career. One series here and there hardly matters, because even average bowlers tend to have some good series in their long career. Donald only did poor against Aus in his last few years and he shouldn't be compared to Waqar here.

Let's not pick and chose hard series here. Waqar was not playing one after another all hard series for 7-8 years.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Akhtar doesn't have peer reputation. He had an aura because many saw him as the next big thing after Imran, Wasim and Waqar.

He did well till 2004 but declined later and couldn't had a career anywhere as good as ATGs have.

KP also had the aura but several things went against him.

That is how things go.

Pollock lacks peer reputation and aura but was still an ATG bowler( a lower tier).He did well everywhere except the best team in the world and across both the formats.

Pollock averaged 22 against all countries excluding Australia throughout his test career. In ODIs, he was the #1 ranked bowler for a very long time and his economy was under 4 despite retiring in 2007. Some cricketers are overhyped by their peers and that's normal but what matters in the end is your career record. Pollock beats Waqar in every aspect.

 

[The_Odd_One]

You get that in sport. Just like some superb footballers have a game based on pace, and when the pace goes they are left with very little.

The point about Waqar was that with his pace - and before his dubious age caught up with him - he was better than numerous players he shared a pitch with. Notably, better than Wasim Akram, better than the late-model Imran Khan, better than Curtly Ambrose, better than Courtney Walsh, better than Allan Donald. The only fast bowler in the world in his class at his peak was Ian Bishop.

But when he lost his pace he didn't have the height to remain effective. So he sunk to a lower level than the veteran version of all those players apart from Allan Donald, who was also pretty ineffectual late in his career.

Ambrose lost his pace too but he was still effective. Akram was not express either later in his career. These are just excuses. When you pick just 1 5-fer against a top team in over 50 matches, you are nothing special. Even Sohail khan of all people has picked up 2 5-fers.

 

[hailian]

Whenever the world would discuss the genuine fast bowling Waqar will be remembered. He is definitely one of the ATG.

#YorkersFromHell

 

[Ab Fan]

Pollock averaged 22 against all countries excluding Australia throughout his test career. In ODIs, he was the #1 ranked bowler for a very long time and his economy was under 4 despite retiring in 2007. Some cricketers are overhyped by their peers and that's normal but what matters in the end is your career record. Pollock beats Waqar in every aspect.

I think the reason Pollock is underrated is perhaps the lack of aura and peers reputation which Mcgrath has. Even Waqar had that aura which Pollock lacks.

Its still a mystery why Pollock is underrated so much. But its not just PP where he doesn't get rated that high but not many hype him outside.

Rankings has Amla as no.1 odi batsmen for a long time too. It doesn't mean much.

 

[Buffet]

I think the reason Pollock is underrated is perhaps the lack of aura and peers reputation which Mcgrath has.

There is some difference between Pollock and McGrath to be honest. It's not just about lack of aura.

Pollock 3.9 wickets per test with 16 5-fers.
Mcgrath 4.5 wickets per test with 29 5-fers.

Pollock was as good as any bowler in his first half, but in second half he was not the same bowler in running through sides. That's reflected in his number of 5-fers. Both teams didn't play too much against weaker teams so stats give some perspective here.

 

[90MPH]

I honestly believe Waqar Younis was of the main reasons I got into cricket.

Wasim as well but Waqar was just a demon fast bowler in the 90s when I was growing up.

I'm sorry to say but those that criticise Waqar as overrated are totally clueless because they didn't see how lethal Waqar was and the fear he striked especially for the tail who he demolished in no time like no other quick.

Trust me stats are not everything but even then Waqar still has one of the all time greatest strike rates ever.

I see so much BS sometimes and I'm literally shaking my head because just some have no ideal what they are talking about.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I honestly believe Waqar Younis was of the main reasons I got into cricket.

Wasim as well but Waqar was just a demon fast bowler in the 90s when I was growing up.

I'm sorry to say but those that criticise Waqar as overrated are totally clueless because they didn't see how lethal Waqar was and the fear he striked especially for the tail who he demolished in no time like no other quick.

Trust me stats are not everything but even then Waqar still has one of the all time greatest strike rates ever.

I see so much BS sometimes and I'm literally shaking my head because just some have no ideal what they are talking about.

Fear in tailenders? Really? Now the criterion of being an ATG has come to cleaning up the tail?

 

[Ab Fan]

There is some difference between Pollock and McGrath to be honest. It's not just about lack of aura.

Pollock 3.9 wickets per test with 16 5-fers.
Mcgrath 4.5 wickets per test with 29 5-fers.

Pollock was as good as any bowler in his first half, but in second half he was not the same bowler in running through sides. That's reflected in his number of 5-fers. Both teams didn't play too much against weaker teams so stats give some perspective here.

Ofcourse, the difference is there but still you look at Pollock stats and say well this guy by all means is a top tier ATG(as good as Donald/Wasim/Waqar).

But clearly,its not the case. He doesn't have enough 5-fers and that means he hasn't been able to single handedly impact the game as much as other ATGs have, although playing alongside Donald doesn't help with that regard.

He lacks an aura and peers reputation which other ATGs have and hence is underrated even with such perfect stats.

Anderson( a great bowler) has got more 5-fers than him.

 

[Bilal7]

No, Waqar was not like Anderson in the second half of his career. In more than 40 matches, he has just 1 5-fer against top 6 teams.

Because he had to share those wickets with Wasim, Saqlain, Akhtar, Razzaq, etc. Anderson wouldn't have more than one or two fifers if he was part of that bowling attack.

 

[Bilal7]

Fear in tailenders? Really? Now the criterion of being an ATG has come to cleaning up the tail?

"Especially" in the tail. It takes a brave man to admit when he's wrong. You should be brave now, instead of making strawmen arguments.

 

[hk031992]

Yes, because Gillespie performed better than Waqar in the the window in which both played together. Gillespie averages 21 in India.

what complete and utter rubbish

Your are comparing a player in the later stages of his career to a player at his peak. I guess Amla is a better player than Tendulkar because he outplayed Tendulkar in the window in which the played together.

Waqar did not have a single series in India between 1989 until 99. So what if Gillespie averages 21 in India? Waqar NEVER even played their during his prime. This is the most absurd thing i have ever seen.

In no universe is Gillespie even close to being half the bowler Waqar was. How many fifers did Gillespie pick up in his entire career?

As far as weak attacks are concerned, West Indies were the best team in the world in tests until 1995. Yes, the Wi team in the early 90's was not as strong batting wise as they were in the mid 80s but they still had one of the top 3 batting line ups in the world

In fact WI, Aus and England had the best batting line ups in the early 90's and Waqar did well vs them with the exception of Aus.

Why don't you actually name the batting line ups that were stronger than Wi in the early 90's? I don't actually expect a response from you since your arguments are so poor.

Your poor attempts to discredit Waqar are exactly that: poor and without merit. You keep harping on about having one bad game vs Jadeja as if one match disqualifies a player from greatness. I can do the same thing. The "god of cricket" according to Indian fans atleast, was a complete and utter failiure in not one but two world cup finals. Wasim Akram outscored him in WC finals. Using this logic, the god of cricket (Tendulkar) was a grade a choker who should not to mentioned with other all time greats in ODI'S.

 

[hk031992]

I am yet to see a proper argument coming from anybody to prove that Waqar was an ATG.

I am yet to see a proper argument from you on anything. The idea that a bowler with over 350 wickets at an averages less than 24 is not an atg is laughable.

Calling WI a weak line up is also laughable. WI had one of the better batting line ups at the time.

Keep trying.

 

[Sin Nombre]

These are the top test bowlers of all time with a minimum qualification of 150 wickets sorted on their averages against the top 6 historical test playing nations.

Looking at this, it is easy to see where the Gillespie/Broad comparison comes from.

 

[90MPH]

what complete and utter rubbish

Your are comparing a player in the later stages of his career to a player at his peak. I guess Amla is a better player than Tendulkar because he outplayed Tendulkar in the window in which the played together.

Waqar did not have a single series in India between 1989 until 99. So what if Gillespie averages 21 in India? Waqar NEVER even played their during his prime. This is the most absurd thing i have ever seen.

In no universe is Gillespie even close to being half the bowler Waqar was. How many fifers did Gillespie pick up in his entire career?

As far as weak attacks are concerned, West Indies were the best team in the world in tests until 1995. Yes, the Wi team in the early 90's was not as strong batting wise as they were in the mid 80s but they still had one of the top 3 batting line ups in the world

In fact WI, Aus and England had the best batting line ups in the early 90's and Waqar did well vs them with the exception of Aus.

Why don't you actually name the batting line ups that were stronger than Wi in the early 90's? I don't actually expect a response from you since your arguments are so poor.

Your poor attempts to discredit Waqar are exactly that: poor and without merit. You keep harping on about having one bad game vs Jadeja as if one match disqualifies a player from greatness. I can do the same thing. The "god of cricket" according to Indian fans atleast, was a complete and utter failiure in not one but two world cup finals. Wasim Akram outscored him in WC finals. Using this logic, the god of cricket (Tendulkar) was a grade a choker who should not to mentioned with other all time greats in ODI'S.

It's a complete waste of time even debating with him.

When someone has such views and whom is totally reliant on stats and didn't even watch him in his prime then it's futile as it will get nowhere.

He even thinks Ambrose was a better ODI bowler than Waqar which shows he has no idea what he's talking about.

 

[hk031992]

These are the top test bowlers of all time with a minimum qualification of 150 wickets sorted on their averages against the top 6 historical test playing nations.

Looking at this, it is easy to see where the Gillespie/Broad comparison comes from.

the agument is comical. How many people rank Walsh ahead of Akram? Or Garner ahead of most of the all time great bowlers? Or Pollock on the same level as Steyn? Give me a break. Broad and Gillespie are not even close to being as good as Waqar. This list is a joke.

 

[Sin Nombre]

Garner is an ATG bowler.

Akram and Walsh were about the same in tests. Akram was much better in ODIs and a clear ATG over both formats.

Pollock is a criminally underrated player, his record in both formats makes him a clear ATG as well.

The argument which is easily provable is that Waqar is an ODI ATG but not in tests (one level lower).


Same list but now including NZ and SL for ODIs

 

[hk031992]

Yes Garner is an ATG bowler

Akram and Walsh are not on the same level as test bowlers. Walsh was terrific and maintained great stats due to his accurate bowling but pretty much no one rates him as highly as Akram who was on a level higher.

Pollock was fantastic and an ATG as well. If he on the same level as Steyn? No, most people will rank him a notch below Steyn.

Stats aren't proving anything here. Stats help play a part in determining greatness; they are not the sole determinant of greatness. Waqar is an ATG in both formats and that is not even debatable.

Throwing out stats vs certain teams is highly misleading. In the case of both W's, they did not get to bowl to India during their primes and neither had much of an opportunity to bowl in SA in their primes in tests either (The only full series Waqar got vs them anywhere near his prime was in 98, and he averaged 23 in that series). Therefore both men had their stats hurt by the simple fact that they did not get to bowl much to certain teams in their primes, largely due to PCB's incompetence. This is why simply going on cricinfo and posting stats is meaningless. If you are going to throw stats out, a greater analysis is needed than just blindly throwing out statistics.

 

[Buffet]

Wasim was surely a better bowler than Walsh in the test format. I will never pick Walsh over Wasim. I saw plenty from both to say this.

 

[hk031992]

Wasim was surely a better bowler than Walsh in the test format. I will never pick Walsh over Wasim. I saw plenty from both to say this.

Exactly. This entire thread basically consists of OP and a few other Indian fans trying their utmost best to discredit Waqar and Pakistani bowlers in general. Most of them have little understanding of fast bowling or cricket in general. They think that going on cricinfo and posting statistics makes them an expert.

 

[The_Odd_One]

"Especially" in the tail. It takes a brave man to admit when he's wrong. You should be brave now, instead of making strawmen arguments.

What? None had yet answered any of my stats and I should be the one to accept that I was wrong?

Sorry but 1 5-fer in over 50 tests is not ATG material.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Wasim was surely a better bowler than Walsh in the test format. I will never pick Walsh over Wasim. I saw plenty from both to say this.

Wasim is an undisputed ATG in both formats. Walsh was inferior to Wasim but was a better test bowler than Waqar.

 

[hk031992]

What? None had yet answered any of my stats and I should be the one to accept that I was wrong?

Sorry but 1 5-fer in over 50 tests is not ATG material.

your points have already been destryoed especially when you referred to WI as a weak line up. Or claimed Gillespie was a better bowler than Waqar because he outperformed him when they both played together. Oh, and that nonsensical idea that Gillespie averaging 21 in India makes him better than Waqar.

Sorry but its 22 5fers in 87 matches which more than makes someone an ATG. Cherry picking stats is not going to help your case. Your arguments have already been destroyed.

 

[hk031992]

While Waqar clearly lost a step after 94, he had plenty of notable performances afterwards.

Here is a good example of Waqar winning the man of the match award vs england in 96, he took 4 fer in both innings and obviously narrowly missed out on fifers.

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1341

this is another great performance, picking up 3 ouf the top 4 vs Sri Lanka in the first innings and picking up 4 in the second

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/Matches/MatchScorecard.asp?MatchCode=1517

Waqar had a number of notable performances in the later stages of his career, even if he wasn't picking up 5fers, he was getting close and narrowly missing out on them. He clearly was at his best until 94 and declined since but continued to put in great performances. Simply counting 5fers isn't doing that argument any justice.

 

[The_Odd_One]

It's a complete waste of time even debating with him.

When someone has such views and whom is totally reliant on stats and didn't even watch him in his prime then it's futile as it will get nowhere.

He even thinks Ambrose was a better ODI bowler than Waqar which shows he has no idea what he's talking about.

Ambrose was a better ODI bowler than Waqar. Now tell me ICC rankings are also wrong.

 

[Jin Chacha]

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.

Maybe I misunderstood you but are you saying that Shoaib was almost as quick as Waqar at his peak i.e. peak Waqar was faster than Shoaib? I only watched Waqar after his injury so just curious.

 

[hk031992]

Ambrose was a better ODI bowler than Waqar. Now tell me ICC rankings are also wrong.

View attachment 70859

yes, after all your arguments have been discredited and proven wrong, the only thing you have left is to go on stats websites and post them here. Brilliant.

 

[Thivagar]

Screw stats, everyone loved the way he bowled. He is an ATG. We don't need stats for this. We trust our eyes.

 

[The_Odd_One]

<b>Your are comparing a player in the later stages of his career to a player at his peak. I guess Amla is a better player than Tendulkar because he outplayed Tendulkar in the window in which the played together. </b>

Officially, Waqar was born in 1971. He was an average bowler from 1995 onwards. So, in 1995, he was 24? How is it a later stage in the career?

<b>Waqar did not have a single series in India between 1989 until 99. So what if Gillespie averages 21 in India? Waqar NEVER even played their during his prime. This is the most absurd thing i have ever seen. </b>

If Waqar did not play in India during his prime, then why should he get the benefit of doubt when he was nothing special even in ODIs against India? From 1990 to 1997 (peak years), he played 16 ODIs against India and averaged 28 with 4.7 ER.
Gillespie has played 2 series in India and he picked up 33 wickets in 7 tests. This is one hell of a record considering that he bowled to ATG Indian team in India which had Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, and VVS in their peaks.

<b>In no universe is Gillespie even close to being half the bowler Waqar was. How many fifers did Gillespie pick up in his entire career? </b>

15 of Waqar's 22 5-fers came against SL, NZ, Zimbabwe, and Bangladesh. Waqar has 3 5-fers against England so do Gillespie. Waqar has 1 5-fer against SA, so do Gillespie. However, Gillespie has 1-fer against India, Waqar has zero.

<b>As far as weak attacks are concerned, West Indies were the best team in the world in tests until 1995. Yes, the Wi team in the early 90's was not as strong batting wise as they were in the mid 80s but they still had one of the top 3 batting line ups in the world

In fact WI, Aus and England had the best batting line ups in the early 90's and Waqar did well vs them with the exception of Aus. </b>

WI was the best team due to their bowling. Ambrose, Bishop, and Walsh was the best fast bowling attack of the early 90s.

39 years old Greenidge, Richie, Hooper, Best, Simmons, Logie, etc. was hardly a world beater batting line-up. Of these 3 teams, Australia had the strong batting line-up and no wonder Waqar has a poor record against Australia.

<b>Why don't you actually name the batting line ups that were stronger than Wi in the early 90's? I don't actually expect a response from you since your arguments are so poor.</b>

Here is the list of batting averages between 1990 to 1995 end. Lara is the only WI batsman in the top 10. Richie is #11 and the next best is Hayne at #20. So, much for WI being a strong batting line-up in early 90s.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

<b>Your poor attempts to discredit Waqar are exactly that: poor and without merit. You keep harping on about having one bad game vs Jadeja as if one match disqualifies a player from greatness. I can do the same thing. The "god of cricket" according to Indian fans atleast, was a complete and utter failiure in not one but two world cup finals. Wasim Akram outscored him in WC finals. Using this logic, the god of cricket (Tendulkar) was a grade a choker who should not to mentioned with other all time greats in ODI'S.</b>

The comparison with Tendulkar is laughable. Tendulkar is the most successful batsman in world cups, averaged 57 at 89 SR with over 2K+ runs. He single handedly carried his team in 1996 and has never failed in any world cup. Name one world cup in which Waqar performed. It is not just the game vs India in 1996. Against SA, he was poor too. Andrew Hudson took him to cleaners that day.

Next time come back with better argument. Good luck!

 

[The_Odd_One]

yes, after all your arguments have been discredited and proven wrong, the only thing you have left is to go on stats websites and post them here. Brilliant.

I was proven wrong, that's news to me. These are not some random stats. These are ICC rankings. Waqar spent most of his career below 750 mark in ODIs. If you think ICC rankings are also wrong then there is no point in debating with you.

 

[hk031992]

<b>Your are comparing a player in the later stages of his career to a player at his peak. I guess Amla is a better player than Tendulkar because he outplayed Tendulkar in the window in which the played together. </b>

Officially, Waqar was born in 1971. He was an average bowler from 1995 onwards. So, in 1995, he was 24? How is it a later stage in the career?

<b>Waqar did not have a single series in India between 1989 until 99. So what if Gillespie averages 21 in India? Waqar NEVER even played their during his prime. This is the most absurd thing i have ever seen. </b>

If Waqar did not play in India during his prime, then why should he get the benefit of doubt when he was nothing special even in ODIs against India? From 1990 to 1997 (peak years), he played 16 ODIs against India and averaged 28 with 4.7 ER.
Gillespie has played 2 series in India and he picked up 33 wickets in 7 tests. This is one hell of a record considering that he bowled to ATG Indian team in India which had Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag, and VVS in their peaks.

<b>In no universe is Gillespie even close to being half the bowler Waqar was. How many fifers did Gillespie pick up in his entire career? </b>

15 of Waqar's 22 5-fers came against SL, NZ, Zimbabwe, and Bangladesh. Waqar has 3 5-fers against England so do Gillespie. Waqar has 1 5-fer against SA, so do Gillespie. However, Gillespie has 1-fer against India, Waqar has zero.

<b>As far as weak attacks are concerned, West Indies were the best team in the world in tests until 1995. Yes, the Wi team in the early 90's was not as strong batting wise as they were in the mid 80s but they still had one of the top 3 batting line ups in the world

In fact WI, Aus and England had the best batting line ups in the early 90's and Waqar did well vs them with the exception of Aus. </b>

WI was the best team due to their bowling. Ambrose, Bishop, and Walsh was the best fast bowling attack of the early 90s.

39 years old Greenidge, Richie, Hooper, Best, Simmons, Logie, etc. was hardly a world beater batting line-up. Of these 3 teams, Australia had the strong batting line-up and no wonder Waqar has a poor record against Australia.

<b>Why don't you actually name the batting line ups that were stronger than Wi in the early 90's? I don't actually expect a response from you since your arguments are so poor.</b>

Here is the list of batting averages between 1990 to 1995 end. Lara is the only WI batsman in the top 10. Richie is #11 and the next best is Hayne at #20. So, much for WI being a strong batting line-up in early 90s.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

<b>Your poor attempts to discredit Waqar are exactly that: poor and without merit. You keep harping on about having one bad game vs Jadeja as if one match disqualifies a player from greatness. I can do the same thing. The "god of cricket" according to Indian fans atleast, was a complete and utter failiure in not one but two world cup finals. Wasim Akram outscored him in WC finals. Using this logic, the god of cricket (Tendulkar) was a grade a choker who should not to mentioned with other all time greats in ODI'S.</b>

The comparison with Tendulkar is laughable. Tendulkar is the most successful batsman in world cups, averaged 57 at 89 SR with over 2K+ runs. He single handedly carried his team in 1996 and has never failed in any world cup. Name one world cup in which Waqar performed. It is not just the game vs India in 1996. Against SA, he was poor too. Andrew Hudson took him to cleaners that day.

Next time come back with better argument. Good luck!

Waqar had already played for six years by 95. Gillespie was coming into his own by the late 90's when Waqar was past his prime.

WI were a strong batting line up in the 90's. They were one of the top 3 batting line ups around.

Why should he get the benefit of the doubt? No one is giving him the benefit of the doubt. You are the one who is using that nonsensical argument to discredit someone. When one player never even had a chance to bowl in India in his prime vs another player who did, you cannot use that argument to discredit the former player.

So what if 15 of his fifers came against SL or NZ or Zim or Bang? Gillespie is not in the same universe as Waqar as a bowler and if you were to post something like this on a neutral forum, you would get laughed at. You are comparing a bowler with 22 fifers in 87 games to Gillespie. Give me a break. Gillespie was a fantastic support bowler. He wasn't in the same league as Waqar.

Tendulkar was great at padding up his stats in world cups. When the going got tough, we saw how he folded. Posting his average is laughable. I cannot think of another batting great who failed (choked) in two world cup finals.

Anyone can get taken to the cleaners. So he failed in two games and that somehow makes him an average bowler. Got it. Tendulkar is an average batsmen than. No one else choked in two world cup finals

I have already destroyed your arguments. Waqar is an ATG in both formats and is rated as such by most neutral fans. Apart from a few Indian fans, no one argues that he is not an ATG. I am still waiting for you to justify why WI were a weak batting line up in the early 90s. You are the one who needs luck in coming up with good arguments.

 

[hk031992]

I was proven wrong, that's news to me. These are not some random stats. These are ICC rankings. Waqar spent most of his career below 750 mark in ODIs. If you think ICC rankings are also wrong then there is no point in debating with you.

Yes you were proven wrong.

You are proven wrong in calling WI a weak line up.

You were proven wrong in your nonsensical argument of comparing a prime Gillespie to a post prime Waqar and using that as an argument.

You have absolutely no understanding of cricket. All you can do is post stats. Please give up cricket and follow another sport. You will never understand cricket. Its not for you.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Waqar had already played for six years by 95. Gillespie was coming into his own by the late 90's when Waqar was past his prime.

WI were a strong batting line up in the 90's. They were one of the top 3 batting line ups around.

Why should he get the benefit of the doubt? No one is giving him the benefit of the doubt. You are the one who is using that nonsensical argument to discredit someone. When one player never even had a chance to bowl in India in his prime vs another player who did, you cannot use that argument to discredit the former player.

So what if 15 of his fifers came against SL or NZ or Zim or Bang? Gillespie is not in the same universe as Waqar as a bowler and if you were to post something like this on a neutral forum, you would get laughed at. You are comparing a bowler with 22 fifers in 87 games to Gillespie. Give me a break. Gillespie was a fantastic support bowler. He wasn't in the same league as Waqar.

Tendulkar was great at padding up his stats in world cups. When the going got tough, we saw how he folded. Posting his average is laughable. I cannot think of another batting great who failed (choked) in two world cup finals.

Anyone can get taken to the cleaners. So he failed in two games and that somehow makes him an average bowler. Got it. Tendulkar is an average batsmen than. No one else choked in two world cup finals

I have already destroyed your arguments. Waqar is an ATG in both formats and is rated as such by most neutral fans. Apart from a few Indian fans, no one argues that he is not an ATG. I am still waiting for you to justify why WI were a weak batting line up in the early 90s. You are the one who needs luck in coming up with good arguments.

The argument is pretty simple to understand. Waqar failed in whatever chances he got to play against India in tests. In ODIs, 16 matches is a pretty good sample size. He failed in ODIs too. So, it is safe to assume that had he played more tests, he would not have done better.

Tendulkar has 3 50s in 3 world cup semi-finals he played. Has played clutch knocks against Pakistan in 3 world cups (I think he was MOM all 3 times).

And it is not just his world cup failures. Waqar played the game when WI chased 280+ target in Sharjah and Lara smashed 150+. Waqar played the game when Jayasuriya hit the fastest 100. Waqar played the game when Jadeja took him to cleaners. Waqar played the game when Symonds played one of the best ODI knocks in 2003. I can go on and on and on.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Yes you were proven wrong.

You are proven wrong in calling WI a weak line up.

You were proven wrong in your nonsensical argument of comparing a prime Gillespie to a post prime Waqar and using that as an argument.

You have absolutely no understanding of cricket. All you can do is post stats. Please give up cricket and follow another sport. You will never understand cricket. Its not for you.

What does post-prime Waqar even mean? 1995 was post prime when he was 24 officially? I have provided plethora of evidence for every argument I have made. In return, all that has come from you is emotional outburst and nothing more.

You are free to live in your delusion that Waqar was an ATG but career stats, on-field performances, etc. clearly show the opposite.