Is Waqar Younis really an ATG?

[hk031992]

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.

I have destroyed every argument you have made.

If i am delusional in my claim of Waqar being an ATG, then so are most neutral fans. 95 was not post prime, his stats were very good until 98/99 and took a major hit in the last few years of his career.

Go ahead and post your rubbish on a neutral forum about Gillespie being a better bowler than Waqar and you will be laughed at/

Stats and performances show that a player who averaged 23 and took 370 wickets is an all time great.

 

[hk031992]

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.

No, it is not safe to assume that.

You can name a handful of instances when someone went for runs? Great. Lara, Jayasuria and Symonds are some of the best one day batsmen ever at their respective positions. Ocassionally going for runs against these batsmen in an odi game is not indicative of failiures. Please go on and on. Its a completly ridiculous argument. Never mind that he has more fifers in odis than anyone else. Never mind that he has numerous great performances in odis. Lets just take a handful of bad performances and use it to discredit an atg.

Please pick a new sport to follow. If i am delusional, then so are most cricket fans who rank Waqar as an ATG. The only delusional person is you.

 

[The_Odd_One]

I have destroyed every argument you have made.

If i am delusional in my claim of Waqar being an ATG, then so are most neutral fans. 95 was not post prime, his stats were very good until 98/99 and took a major hit in the last few years of his career.

Go ahead and post your rubbish on a neutral forum about Gillespie being a better bowler than Waqar and you will be laughed at/

Stats and performances show that a player who averaged 23 and took 370 wickets is an all time great.

From 1995 to 1998, test bowling average of 27 with 1 5-fer against SA and one against Zimbabwe.

From 1995 to 1998, ODI bowling average of 26 with ER of almost 5!

I am done debating with you. It is not even funny anymore to prove someone wrong again and again.

 

[hk031992]

From 1995 to 1998, test bowling average of 27 with 1 5-fer against SA and one against Zimbabwe.

From 1995 to 1998, ODI bowling average of 26 with ER of almost 5!

I am done debating with you. It is not even funny anymore to prove someone wrong again and again.

You are the one who has been proven wrong over and over again. You were proven wrong in calling Wi a weak line up, you were wrong in claiming Gillespie is better than Waqar, you are wrong at everything.

You will not change the opinion of anyone on this forum or indeed on any neutral forum. You are the definition of someone who is delusional, no matter how many times your argument is destroyed, you keep repeating it over and over again.

 

[The_Odd_One]

No, it is not safe to assume that.

You can name a handful of instances when someone went for runs? Great. Lara, Jayasuria and Symonds are some of the best one day batsmen ever at their respective positions. Ocassionally going for runs against these batsmen in an odi game is not indicative of failiures. Please go on and on. Its a completly ridiculous argument. Never mind that he has more fifers in odis than anyone else. Never mind that he has numerous great performances in odis. Lets just take a handful of bad performances and use it to discredit an atg.

Please pick a new sport to follow. If i am delusional, then so are most cricket fans who rank Waqar as an ATG. The only delusional person is you.

Brett Lee and Lance Klusener have more 5-fers than Waim in ODIs. Does that make them a better ODI bowler?

Botham and Kapil had more 5-fers in test than Waqar. Were they better test bowlers?

 

[hk031992]

Kapil has one more fifer than Waqar while having played 44 more tests. Bothams average is 5 runs higher than Waqar. Another nonsensical argument.

If you want to believe that most cricket fans who rate Waqar as an ATG are delusional, then please continue to do so. You are not changing anyone's minds here. Younis will always be remembered as one of the best quick bowlers in history by cricket fans world wide and apart from a few Indian fans, everyone will continue to rate him as such.

 

[Ab Fan]

Waqar Younis has got great stats and has peer reputation and one of the greatest peaks of all time.Most regard him an ATG across all formats. So, it's not something much of worth discussing.

However, [MENTION=139975]The_Odd_One[/MENTION] has some valid arguments and he is not spouting any rubbish either.

Atleast, he is consistent with his criteria of judging players and doesn't becomes two-faced while judging different players as per his own liking.

 

[Sin Nombre]

There is not much of debating happening anymore on this thread and it has mostly descended into emotional arguments.

Waqar played 47 tests against the other historically relevant test playing nations of his era. He averages 28+ against those teams.

47 tests are a large enough sample size IMO but others can beg to differ.

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

What is your take on Wasim vs McGrath then?

 

[Bilal7]

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 "stats" have been proven to be faulty by the entirety of the forum. That one fifer was because Waqar had reinvented himself into a Ntini, Anderson type of bowler after his crippling injury. In total he has over 20 fifers

 

[hk031992]

There is not much of debating happening anymore on this thread and it has mostly descended into emotional arguments.

Waqar played 47 tests against the other historically relevant test playing nations of his era. He averages 28+ against those teams.

47 tests are a large enough sample size IMO but others can beg to differ.



What is your take on Wasim vs McGrath then?

what historically relevant nations? Historically the WI are relevant, yet we know that they have been a poor test team for the last 15 years. So if somebody performed against Wi in the last 15 years, somehow that means more than performing against a less historically successful country like Sri Lanka or New Zealand?

Rahul Dravid averages 48 vs Sri Lanka and 63 vs the historically important West indies. Yet which is actually relevant? His average vs WI who were a below average test team for most of his career or vs Sri Lanka who actually had a decent team?

I can use the exact same argument that you and the op are using to discredit Waqar. Against the five best test playing nations of his era (namely Australia, South Africa, England, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), Rahul Dravid averages 45 across 110 test matches.

Furthermore, his average against arguably the two best bowling attacks in Australia and SA is lacking at 38.6 and 33.8. Therefore Rahul Dravid is not an all time great. Any arguments?

 

[hk031992]

Since OP and his supporters love using stats so much, lets use them in another context.

Please consider the following argument

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People often talk about Dravid as an all time great, the wall etc but is it really so? I have been thinking about this carefully and i have decided to analyse the stats.

Here are his performances vs the best test teams of his era:

vs Aus, 33 matches, average of 38.68.
vs SA, 21 matches, average of 33.84
vs Pak, 15 matches, average of 63.75
vs Eng, 21 matches, average of 60.84
vs SL, 20 matches, average of 48.85

vs overall: 110 matches, average of 45.31.

Now you might think that is pretty good until you realise how he failed miserably vs arguably the two best bowling line ups of his era in Aus and SA. He played 54 matches against them and averged just 36.75, seriously mediocre for a supposed great.

Furthermore, he benefited heavily from bashing the weaker versions of these attacks. His double hundred vs Aus came in a match where Aus fielded a weak attack without their two best bowlers in Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne.

Against a full strength Australian attack of Warne and McGrath he has one hundred in 10 matches and not a single one in Australia

He has zero hundreds vs Wasim/Waqar

He only has one hundred vs SA when either Donald or Pollock were playing

Despite the fact that he bashed the weaker versions of the Aus and SA attacks, he still ended up with an average below 40 and 35 vs them respectively. He bashed the weaker Pakistani attack of the mid 2000s but averaged a grand total of 27 against them in 1999 with zero hundreds.

On the other hand, he excelled vs weak opposition:

vs WI, average of 63.81 even though WI have had no world class bowlers for most of his career.

vs Zim, average of 97, do i need to say more?

vs Bangladesh, average of 70.

I can therefore statistically conclude that he is no all time great. Dravid's averages are boosted by bashing weak attacks and a closer analysis of the stats shows otherwise. He still only ends up averaging 45 vs the better teams in his era which proves he is not an all time great.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

any counter arguments OP? I can also use stats to discredit pretty much every Indian great barring perhaps one or two.

 

[Sin Nombre]

what historically relevant nations? Historically the WI are relevant, yet we know that they have been a poor test team for the last 15 years. So if somebody performed against Wi in the last 15 years, somehow that means more than performing against a less historically successful country like Sri Lanka or New Zealand?

Waqar is a player from the 90s so you use non-minnow teams from that era. It is not rocket science.

Rahul Dravid averages 48 vs Sri Lanka and 63 vs the historically important West indies. Yet which is actually relevant? His average vs WI who were a below average test team for most of his career or vs Sri Lanka who actually had a decent team?

I can use the exact same argument that you and the op are using to discredit Waqar. Against the five best test playing nations of his era (namely Australia, South Africa, England, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), Rahul Dravid averages 45 across 110 test matches.

Furthermore, his average against arguably the two best bowling attacks in Australia and SA is lacking at 38.6 and 33.8. Therefore Rahul Dravid is not an all time great. Any arguments?

Open a new thread about Dravid. His ATG credentials aren't as certain for sure.

Let's stick to the topic here.

 

[90MPH]

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

View attachment 70859

Lol, Ambrose the guy who took 225 wickets in 175 was a better ODI ?

I posted that stat since you are so obcessed stats.

Ambrose is no doubt a Test great but he doesn't even come close to Waqar in ODIs as I saw the latter win so many matches unlike Ambrose.

Seriously your obcession with stats and disecting them may convince you and possibly a few Indian fans but no one else especially my generation that saw Waqar growing up.

 

[90MPH]

Your "stats" have been proven to be faulty by the entirety of the forum. That one fifer was because Waqar had reinvented himself into a Ntini, Anderson type of bowler after his crippling injury. In total he has over 20 fifers

Please dont state facts.

Just post stats from certain criteria like top "6 teams only" and from 1995 to 1998 to prove some new generation 20/20 fans that he was indeed overrated.

 

[Buffet]

What is your take on Wasim vs McGrath then?

McGrath was a better bowler.

 

[Saj]

Waqar's overall record speaks for itself.

No doubt in my mind he is one of the greatest bowlers ever.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Since OP and his supporters love using stats so much, lets use them in another context.

Please consider the following argument

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People often talk about Dravid as an all time great, the wall etc but is it really so? I have been thinking about this carefully and i have decided to analyse the stats.

Here are his performances vs the best test teams of his era:

vs Aus, 33 matches, average of 38.68.
vs SA, 21 matches, average of 33.84
vs Pak, 15 matches, average of 63.75
vs Eng, 21 matches, average of 60.84
vs SL, 20 matches, average of 48.85

vs overall: 110 matches, average of 45.31.

Now you might think that is pretty good until you realise how he failed miserably vs arguably the two best bowling line ups of his era in Aus and SA. He played 54 matches against them and averged just 36.75, seriously mediocre for a supposed great.

Furthermore, he benefited heavily from bashing the weaker versions of these attacks. His double hundred vs Aus came in a match where Aus fielded a weak attack without their two best bowlers in Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne.

Against a full strength Australian attack of Warne and McGrath he has one hundred in 10 matches and not a single one in Australia

He has zero hundreds vs Wasim/Waqar

He only has one hundred vs SA when either Donald or Pollock were playing

Despite the fact that he bashed the weaker versions of the Aus and SA attacks, he still ended up with an average below 40 and 35 vs them respectively. He bashed the weaker Pakistani attack of the mid 2000s but averaged a grand total of 27 against them in 1999 with zero hundreds.

On the other hand, he excelled vs weak opposition:

vs WI, average of 63.81 even though WI have had no world class bowlers for most of his career.

vs Zim, average of 97, do i need to say more?

vs Bangladesh, average of 70.

I can therefore statistically conclude that he is no all time great. Dravid's averages are boosted by bashing weak attacks and a closer analysis of the stats shows otherwise. He still only ends up averaging 45 vs the better teams in his era which proves he is not an all time great.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

any counter arguments OP? I can also use stats to discredit pretty much every Indian great barring perhaps one or two.

First I am not even Indian. Second, this thread is about Waqar so I will refrain from writing an essay on Dravid here. Open a new thread and we can do it there.

Just one note on Dravid - he scored runs in England when he was like 37/38. England in England has been one of the top 2 bowling attacks for almost a decade.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Please dont state facts.

Just post stats from certain criteria like top "6 teams only" and from 1995 to 1998 to prove some new generation 20/20 fans that he was indeed overrated.

Common sense is really not common. Waqar fans are the ones who use his peak (1990 to 1994) to prove that he was an ATG. Most of his career was outside of that timespan in which he was just a good bowler.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Lol, Ambrose the guy who took 225 wickets in 175 was a better ODI ?

I posted that stat since you are so obcessed stats.

Ambrose is no doubt a Test great but he doesn't even come close to Waqar in ODIs as I saw the latter win so many matches unlike Ambrose.

Seriously your obcession with stats and disecting them may convince you and possibly a few Indian fans but no one else especially my generation that saw Waqar growing up.

Yes, same world cup in which Waqar was taken to cleaners by Jadeja in the quarter final, Ambrose was swinging the ball by a mile in the semi-final and made world class batsmen like Mark Waugh look like a tailender.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Your "stats" have been proven to be faulty by the entirety of the forum. That one fifer was because Waqar had reinvented himself into a Ntini, Anderson type of bowler after his crippling injury. In total he has over 20 fifers

Please show me where were those stats proven wrong. All I have seen so far is whining, emotional outburst, and name calling rather than any concrete logic and stats.

 

[90MPH]

Yes, same world cup in which Waqar was taken to cleaners by Jadeja in the quarter final, Ambrose was swinging the ball by a mile in the semi-final and made world class batsmen like Mark Waugh look like a tailender.

Cluecless again. Ambrose never swung the ball because he was never a swing bowler. He was a seam bowler who moved the ball off the wicket.

And so what if he took a few early wickets ?? Australia still won the semi final.

And duh of course Waqar got hit occasionally because he was a pitch up bowler who looked for bowld and lbws like no other quick bowler.

Again No, Ambrose or Pollock were not better ODI bowlers.

You have no idea, stick to stats and cricinfo charts to decide who was the best bowlers.

 

[90MPH]

Btw Mark Waugh was never world class.

He was a very wristy elegant batsman who underachieved given his talent while his brother Steve Waugh is a world class because he scored not just more runs but important runs when the team needs them.

 

[Buffet]

And duh of course Waqar got hit occasionally because he was a pitch up bowler who looked for bowld and lbws like no other quick bowler.

Again No, Ambrose or Pollock were not better ODI bowlers.

Waqar didn't get occasionally hit, he got hit frequently. It's reflected in his stats. Average bowler, just average bowlers(including poor and minnows) gave 4.64 runs per over when Waqar played. Waqar gave 4.68 runs per over.

Here is how both were ranked in ODI format in their career,



But hey, let's ignore stats, charts, actual performances to put Waqar as better ODI bowler. Waqar spending majority of time outside of top 10 rank and Pollock spending pretty much entire career in top 3 doesn't matter. Those are useless things because we are comparing a Pakistani bowler with a SA bowler in PP.

 

[Buffet]

Waqar bowling style was to pitch it up. He picked up wickets faster and also got hit for plenty. He was a very good ODI bowler ,but many fans mix formats here and give him higher stature in ODI due to his test performances.

 

[90MPH]

Waqar didn't get occasionally hit, he got hit frequently. It's reflected in his stats. Average bowler, just average bowlers(including poor and minnows) gave 4.64 runs per over when Waqar played. Waqar gave 4.68 runs per over.

Here is how both were ranked in ODI format in their career,

View attachment 70873

But hey, let's ignore stats, charts, actual performances to put Waqar as better ODI bowler. Waqar spending majority of time outside of top 10 rank and Pollock spending pretty much entire career in top 3 doesn't matter. Those are useless things because we are comparing a Pakistani bowler with a SA bowler in PP.

You are another stats obcessed fan, right ? Rankings, stats charts have to be put into perspective.

It's a ridiculous suggestion to say Pollock was a better bowler just because he had better economy rates. Maybe here's something you can learn - Better economy rates doesn't win you cricket matches.

Didn't you say that Chandperpaul was a better batsman than Javid Miandad ?? That too based on stats. That was one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have heard of.

Buts that' what happens when you don't watch players and go to cricinfo all day to dissect stats against certain teams and from certain years.

Yes I agree if PP is biased with Pakistani players then you must be biased against Pakistani players and your Indian bias. Works both ways before you play that card.

In any case nothing to be proven because the vast majority who saw Waqar during the beginng and his prime will know he is one of the great fast bowlers:

 

[Adil_94]

look at how most neutrals rate him. He is rated as an ATG he is always rated lower than Wasim but he is definitely ATG not just his stats but the impact he had on the game as well.

 

[Adil_94]

Waqar is the opposite of YK on here. someone who is near universally rated as an ATG is an ICC HOFer and rated as one of the quicks who help revolutionise the game but some so called experts are trying to denigrate him and his legacy because they just watch cricket on cricinfo databases and excel spreadsheets.

 

[90MPH]

Waqar Younis
416 wickets in 260 ODI matches = 1.6 wickets per match

Shaun Pollock
303 wickets in 390 ODI matches = 1.2 wickets per match.

I have just seen these stats of both players and then made the calculation per wicket per match.

Waqar was not just a better ODI bowler because I saw it and judged it but these stats overall show he was a much better bowler because he was a wicket taking machine.

There's no comparison whatsoever but some will still dissect stats to show their bias

 

[Buffet]

You are another stats obcessed fan, right ? Rankings, stats charts have to be put into perspective.

It's a ridiculous suggestion to say Pollock was a better bowler just because he had better economy rates. Maybe here's something you can learn - Better economy rates doesn't win you cricket matches.

Didn't you say that Chandperpaul was a better batsman than Javid Miandad ?? That too based on stats. That was one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have heard of.

Buts that' what happens when you don't watch players and go to cricinfo all day to dissect stats against certain teams and from certain years.

Yes I agree if PP is biased with Pakistani players then you must be biased against Pakistani players and your Indian bias. Works both ways before you play that card.

In any case nothing to be proven because the vast majority who saw Waqar during the beginng and his prime will know he is one of the great fast bowlers:

Yah, no one else watches cricket, right? When did I say that Waqar was not one of the great fast bowler? You post random stuff at times when replying in different threads and not sure why?

Does it make any sense for me to start posting , Pollock was one of the best bowlers and yadaa yada, when you are not even denying that? Think for a minute. If you are comparing bowlers, then you are going to hear the counter points. If you don't like it then tough luck. Providing counterpoints doesn't mean that I am saying Waqar was not a great fast bowler.

 

[Buffet]

Waqar Younis
416 wickets in 260 ODI matches = 1.6 wickets per match

Shaun Pollock
303 wickets in 390 ODI matches = 1.2 wickets per match.

I have just seen these stats of both players and then made the calculation per wicket per match.

Waqar was not just a better ODI bowler because I saw it and judged it but these stats overall show he was a much better bowler because he was a wicket taking machine.

Shows a great understanding of ODI games. There is a reason that Pollock ruled the ICC ranking and Waqar spent pretty much entire career outside of top 10. ICC ranting does have it's flaws when gap is that huge then it compensate for any flaws, specially if it's true for such a long period.

Anyway, out of this thread. Waqar is an ATG in test and a very good bowler in ODI. Over all an ATG for me. If I have to pick between Waqar and Pollock, I know who i will pick for ODI games.

 

[Hasan123]

Can't believe how active this thread still is. Waqar is a certified ATG. Not interested in stats, most neutral fans and his opponents will recognise him as a ATG

 

[Zak_Fan]

Waqar failed the toughest challenges. A combined average of 31+ in Australia, England, India and South Africa takes away any chance of him being called an ATG. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling

 

[waleed88]

Waqar declined after 1999, but his average is the same as Wasim's post 1999 matches.. they both averaged 29

 

[hk031992]

Waqar failed the toughest challenges. A combined average of 31+ in Australia, England, India and South Africa takes away any chance of him being called an ATG. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling

View attachment 71794

Sorry but this is a comical argument. Failed against the toughest challenges? Apart from Australia, he did not fail anywhere. He never played India in his prime.

He averaged 23 or so in the only series he played in South Africa.

He did very well in England in 1992 and 1996, taking 3 fifers in 1992 and winning a man of the match award in 1996.

How can that be called a failiure? Or are we going to look at series that a player had past his prime and somehow conclude that they failed in certain conditions?

And what exactly is this obsession that Indian fans have with making India out to be a great team in the 90s? India were a mediocre test team in the 90s that did very little of note. Why is India such a big challenge? Of course the fact that neither Waqar nor Wasim played India for A DECADE is never factored in. The same useless stats are thrown around time and time again.

And why not bother mentioning the West Indies who were the #1 test team until 1995? The WI team between 90-95 is better than India was at ANY TIME in the 90s

The problem with stats obsessed fans like yourself or the OP is a complete and utter lack of cricketing knowledge. Throwing stats around without any proper context demonstrates this.

Waqar is not just an all time great, he was more of an all time great than most of Indias great batsmen were.

 

[Slog]

Waqar failed the toughest challenges. A combined average of 31+ in Australia, England, India and South Africa takes away any chance of him being called an ATG. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=bowling

View attachment 71794

ah poor guy

Sorry literally no sane expert or former cricketer will agree with you there

 

[Pantani]

Waqar is definitely in the top 10 greatest fast bowlers of all time, personally I would have him in my top 5, alongside McGrath, Ambrose, Steyn and Wasim

 

[street cricketer]

Waqar is definitely in the top 10 greatest fast bowlers of all time, personally I would have him in my top 5, alongside McGrath, Ambrose, Steyn and Wasim

Marshall?
Hadlee?

 

[Slog]

Marshall?
Hadlee?

its his personal list

otherwise i would say a couple of others are also better

but yes for sure he is around top 10 for me

 

[Hitman]

Sorry but this is a comical argument. Failed against the toughest challenges? Apart from Australia, he did not fail anywhere. He never played India in his prime.

He averaged 23 or so in the only series he played in South Africa.

He did very well in England in 1992 and 1996, taking 3 fifers in 1992 and winning a man of the match award in 1996.

How can that be called a failiure? Or are we going to look at series that a player had past his prime and somehow conclude that they failed in certain conditions?

And what exactly is this obsession that Indian fans have with making India out to be a great team in the 90s? India were a mediocre test team in the 90s that did very little of note. Why is India such a big challenge? Of course the fact that neither Waqar nor Wasim played India for A DECADE is never factored in. The same useless stats are thrown around time and time again.

And why not bother mentioning the West Indies who were the #1 test team until 1995? The WI team between 90-95 is better than India was at ANY TIME in the 90s

The problem with stats obsessed fans like yourself or the OP is a complete and utter lack of cricketing knowledge. Throwing stats around without any proper context demonstrates this.

Waqar is not just an all time great, he was more of an all time great than most of Indias great batsmen were.

Really? Which ones?

 

[Hitman]

BTW, Waqar is a great of the game, at least for me.

 

[Abdullah719]

ah poor guy

Sorry literally no sane expert or former cricketer will agree with you there

This thread was bumped because of the Sehwag thread.

Apparently, the argument is that since Waqar failed in Australia and in 2 matches in India, Sehwag's 24.7 average in 19 matches in NZ, SA and England is justified. Waqar is rated as an ATG thus Sehwag must also be rated as an ATG.

The argument that [MENTION=139678]Zak_Fan[/MENTION] is putting forward is a very poor one. He is conflating Waqar's bad record in Australia with his decent-ish record in England and South Africa to present the overall record as mediocre (31 bowling average).

The problem is that a 24.7 batting average is far worse than a 31 bowling average. If we do the same thing with Sehwag, i.e. mix his poor record with his somewhat decent output in Australia, we can say that he averages 33 overall in Australia, BD, England, SA and NZ which is FIVE Test playing nations where he overall comes out as mediocre.

This is a dishonest argument, on the whole.

It's better to look at the stats on a country by country basis and a pattern emerges.

Sehwag has very poor numbers for a batsman, by ANY standard in 3 major countries, and he played 5+ matches in each of those.

Waqar has very poor numbers in Australia, and in India where he played 2 Tests way after his peak.

Other arguments can be made in favour of Sehwag such as his impact (again, that won't negate his 'efforts' in NZ, SA and England) and his strike-rate, which put teams on the back-foot. But on numbers, I don't think he fits the bill for an ATG.

(For follow-up comments that are strictly pertaining to Sehwag rather than this unnecessary comparison with Waqar, please post on the relevant thread, guys.)

 

[Slog]

This thread was bumped because of the Sehwag thread.

Apparently, the argument is that since Waqar failed in Australia and in 2 matches in India, Sehwag's 24.7 average in 19 matches in NZ, SA and England is justified. Waqar is rated as an ATG thus Sehwag must also be rated as an ATG.

The argument that [MENTION=139678]Zak_Fan[/MENTION] is putting forward is a very poor one. He is conflating Waqar's bad record in Australia with his decent-ish record in England and South Africa to present the overall record as mediocre (31 bowling average).

The problem is that a 24.7 batting average is far worse than a 31 bowling average. If we do the same thing with Sehwag, i.e. mix his poor record with his somewhat decent output in Australia, we can say that he averages 33 overall in Australia, BD, England, SA and NZ which is FIVE Test playing nations where he overall comes out as mediocre.

This is a dishonest argument, on the whole.

It's better to look at the stats on a country by country basis and a pattern emerges.

Sehwag has very poor numbers for a batsman, by ANY standard in 3 major countries, and he played 5+ matches in each of those.

Waqar has very poor numbers in Australia, and in India where he played 2 Tests way after his peak.

Other arguments can be made in favour of Sehwag such as his impact (again, that won't negate his 'efforts' in NZ, SA and England) and his strike-rate, which put teams on the back-foot. But on numbers, I don't think he fits the bill for an ATG.

(For follow-up comments that are strictly pertaining to Sehwag rather than this unnecessary comparison with Waqar, please post on the relevant thread, guys.)

31 bowling average is not comparable to a 25 batting average AT ALL

25 batting avg is pathetic

31 is just ok. Nothing great but no disaster

 

[hk031992]

Really? Which ones?

Like Sehwag who was a virtual walking wicket in tough conditions

Or Dravid who averaged 36 in 50 plus tests vs SA and Aus.

BTW, I do rate Dravid as an all time great. But stats can be manipulated to make someone believe anything. As mentioned, the poster was trying to group Waqar's mediocre record in Australia with England and SA to make it look like Waqar failed in those conditons but he acually did very well in those places barring Aus.

Over the last decade, i will gladly admit India have been a better team than Pak. However, this obsession with making India out to be a great team in the 90's is comical. The thread starter and Zak fan have both done that and that is flat out laughable. When one player does not even get a chance to bowl to a certain for a decade, how exactly is it fair to judge him vs that team based on that? And since when was India this incredible world class team in the 90's?

The best teams during Waqar's prime were Aus, WI and England and he did very well vs them barring Aus. SA emerged as a top quality team post 94-95 and Waqar only really toured SA once anywhere near his prime (1998) and averaged 22 there.

The arguments in this thread are comical and show a fundemental lack of cricketing knowledge. I never thought i would see the day when someone would seriously claim Gillespie was a better bowler than Waqar.

 

[street cricketer]

This thread was bumped because of the Sehwag thread.

Apparently, the argument is that since Waqar failed in Australia and in 2 matches in India, Sehwag's 24.7 average in 19 matches in NZ, SA and England is justified. Waqar is rated as an ATG thus Sehwag must also be rated as an ATG.

The argument that [MENTION=139678]Zak_Fan[/MENTION] is putting forward is a very poor one. He is conflating Waqar's bad record in Australia with his decent-ish record in England and South Africa to present the overall record as mediocre (31 bowling average).

The problem is that a 24.7 batting average is far worse than a 31 bowling average. If we do the same thing with Sehwag, i.e. mix his poor record with his somewhat decent output in Australia, we can say that he averages 33 overall in Australia, BD, England, SA and NZ which is FIVE Test playing nations where he overall comes out as mediocre.

This is a dishonest argument, on the whole.

It's better to look at the stats on a country by country basis and a pattern emerges.

Sehwag has very poor numbers for a batsman, by ANY standard in 3 major countries, and he played 5+ matches in each of those.

Waqar has very poor numbers in Australia, and in India where he played 2 Tests way after his peak.

Other arguments can be made in favour of Sehwag such as his impact (again, that won't negate his 'efforts' in NZ, SA and England) and his strike-rate, which put teams on the back-foot. But on numbers, I don't think he fits the bill for an ATG.

(For follow-up comments that are strictly pertaining to Sehwag rather than this unnecessary comparison with Waqar, please post on the relevant thread, guys.)

You argue that Waqar's poor average in India is due to him playing past his prime. Yet that's the same case with Sehwag too in Australia and England. Guy was completely shot after 2010 and became embarrassing as soon as he lost his reflexes because his entire game was built on outstanding hand eye coordination. He was great in Australia before 2010 (averaged ~60) and good in England (ave ~40). He was definitely poor throughout in South Africa and New Zealand. But not really the same case with Australia or England.

I definitely don't think he's an ATG. But when he was at his prime, he was one of the best openers in the game. He had one of the steepest declines because he didn't really have a great technique like SRT or Dravid to be effective past 35 years but judging him based on his last period is like judging Waqar after his stress fracture when he picked just a single fifer in his 2nd half of his career. That's like a batsman making just a single century in one half of his career.

 

[Hitman]

Like Sehwag who was a virtual walking wicket in tough conditions

Or Dravid who averaged 36 in 50 plus tests vs SA and Aus.

BTW, I do rate Dravid as an all time great. But stats can be manipulated to make someone believe anything. As mentioned, the poster was trying to group Waqar's mediocre record in Australia with England and SA to make it look like Waqar failed in those conditons but he acually did very well in those places barring Aus.

Over the last decade, i will gladly admit India have been a better team than Pak. However, this obsession with making India out to be a great team in the 90's is comical. The thread starter and Zak fan have both done that and that is flat out laughable. When one player does not even get a chance to bowl to a certain for a decade, how exactly is it fair to judge him vs that team based on that? And since when was India this incredible world class team in the 90's?

The best teams during Waqar's prime were Aus, WI and England and he did very well vs them barring Aus. SA emerged as a top quality team post 94-95 and Waqar only really toured SA once anywhere near his prime (1998) and averaged 22 there.

The arguments in this thread are comical and show a fundemental lack of cricketing knowledge. I never thought i would see the day when someone would seriously claim Gillespie was a better bowler than Waqar.

Like I said before, Waqar is certainly a great of the game, at least for me. And yes, he is more of an ATG than Sehwag, I won't doubt that. But Dravid is definitely better, although Dravid wasn't about natural talent at all, while Waqar was all about natural talent.

 

[hk031992]

Here is how i rank the top test bowlers all time

top 5 (in no order):

Marshall
Hadlee
Imran
Ambrose
Steyn

places 5-10 (in no particular order):

McGrath
Akram
Lillee
Holding
Donald/Waqar

places 11-15 (in no particular order):

Garner
Roberts
Pollock
Walsh

I apologise if i missed someone. I rank Waqar just inside the top 10. It was hard for me to choose between him and Donald and i personally have no problem with anyone who ranks Donald higher.

The worst case scenario is someone ranking Waqar outside the top 10 but still inside the top 15. That still makes him an all time great and quite easily so. He did not have the career of a top 5 and is below some of the non top 5 bowlers like McGrath for example. But he certainly had a great career and it makes little sense not to rank him atleast in the top 15.

 

[Balthazar]

It's hard to rate someone with an average of over 40 in Aus as an ATG. They were the best team and how you perform there is what really matters. India had a formidable batting line-up and his average against them is not good either.

 

[Slog]

It's hard to rate someone with an average of over 40 in Aus as an ATG. They were the best team and how you perform there is what really matters. India had a formidable batting line-up and his average against them is not good either.

the india sample set is negligible

and waqar's status as an ATG isnt changed because you are biased.

lol at ppl who claim sehwag is an ATG and then say Waqar isnt. how do you even keep a straight face lmao

 

[Balthazar]

the india sample set is negligible

and waqar's status as an ATG isnt changed because you are biased.

lol at ppl who claim sehwag is an ATG and then say Waqar isnt. how do you even keep a straight face lmao

Where did I claim that Sehwag is an ATG? ATG bowlers perform against best of the teams and Waqar certainly isn't.

 

[JaDed]

Looks like stats and away averages are only applicable to Indian batsmen.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Here is how i rank the top test bowlers all time

top 5 (in no order):

Marshall
Hadlee
Imran
Ambrose
Steyn

places 5-10 (in no particular order):

McGrath
Akram
Lillee
Holding
Donald/Waqar

places 11-15 (in no particular order):

Garner
Roberts
Pollock
Walsh

I apologise if i missed someone. I rank Waqar just inside the top 10. It was hard for me to choose between him and Donald and i personally have no problem with anyone who ranks Donald higher.

The worst case scenario is someone ranking Waqar outside the top 10 but still inside the top 15. That still makes him an all time great and quite easily so. He did not have the career of a top 5 and is below some of the non top 5 bowlers like McGrath for example. But he certainly had a great career and it makes little sense not to rank him atleast in the top 15.

Sorry, but you have Steyn ahead of Mcgrath in the top 5 bowlers of all time ? .. Then you put Mcgrath with Waqar in the after top 5 great bowlers, Waqar could not even hold Mcgrath's jocks nor tie his shoe lace, no offence. Mcgrath is easily the greatest fast bowler of all time, END OFF...

 

[hk031992]

Sorry, but you have Steyn ahead of Mcgrath in the top 5 bowlers of all time ? .. Then you put Mcgrath with Waqar in the after top 5 great bowlers, Waqar could not even hold Mcgrath's jocks nor tie his shoe lace, no offence. Mcgrath is easily the greatest fast bowler of all time, END OFF...

Yes i put Steyn ahead of McGrath. Steyn is a deestructive strike bowler regardless of whether the surface is flat or bowling friendly. McGrath was a great bowler but despite his excellent average i the sub continent, he was not the type of bowler who could destroy teams on flat surfaces because of his obvious limitations. (1 five wicket haul in 17 matches in the sub continent shows this). I will gladly rate Steyn higher as a TEST bowler and will have him over McGrath in my team anyday.

I already said i rated McGrath ahead of Waqar if you actually bothered to read my post.

As far as McGrath "easily" being the greatest fast bowler, i have never seen any actual explanation for why. Its simply disrespecful to other great bowlers by saying that one guy is "easily" the greatest ever when neither stats nor actual performances show this. What makes McGrath "easily" better than Marshall or Ambrose for example? Nothing. No offense but just because you are blinded by McGrath doesn't easily make him the greatest bowler ever.

 

[hk031992]

It's hard to rate someone with an average of over 40 in Aus as an ATG. They were the best team and how you perform there is what really matters. India had a formidable batting line-up and his average against them is not good either.

SA had a formidable batting line up and were easily the second best team in the world in the late 90's, and when Waqar toured there in 1998, he averaged 22.

WI were the best team in the world between 1990-95 and he had an extremely impressive average vs them

What formidable line up did India have? India's line up did not become very good until the 2000's with Sehwag, Laxman, Dravid and Tendulkar all being in their primes. India did not have a formidable line up in the 90's and besides Pakistan and India did not even play each other for a decade. (when both Waqar and Wasim were in their absolute prime). How much sense does it make to judge someone on that?

 

[Romali_rotti]

As far as McGrath "easily" being the greatest fast bowler, i have never seen any actual explanation for why. Its simply disrespecful to other great bowlers by saying that one guy is "easily" the greatest ever when neither stats nor actual performances show this. .

Neither stats nor actual performance shows this, really ?

- Got top order batsmen on a regular basis - Check
- Troubled the best bats of his time consistently, etc Lara, Tendulkar - Check
- Won the most amount of WCs - Check
- Has the most amount of Wickets - Check
- Has one of the best economy rate of all time - Check

Also check post 96 by Buffet from an earlier thread:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...n-McGrath-vs-Wasim-Akram-Who-was-better/page2

 

[Adil_94]

people can try as much as they like to denigrate Waqar
his peers and the cricketing fraternity rate him as an ATG. Not just for his stats but the impact he had on the game with the reverse swing revolution in the 90s.

 

[joly]

growing up in India in early 90s we always heard older people discuss how great Wasim was and that Waqar was only his shadow,however It is obvious that Waqar was never an ATG,he was more into the Tier-II category

 

[Balthazar]

SA had a formidable batting line up and were easily the second best team in the world in the late 90's, and when Waqar toured there in 1998, he averaged 22.

WI were the best team in the world between 1990-95 and he had an extremely impressive average vs them

What formidable line up did India have? India's line up did not become very good until the 2000's with Sehwag, Laxman, Dravid and Tendulkar all being in their primes. India did not have a formidable line up in the 90's and besides Pakistan and India did not even play each other for a decade. (when both Waqar and Wasim were in their absolute prime). How much sense does it make to judge someone on that?

He played against India in '99. By that time we had a settled batting unit.
Majority of his games against Australia have come when they were ranked #1. You are just finding excuses to push his case as an ATG, which he's not.

 

[mani1]

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

So do I

 

[LordJames]

I saw Waqar Bowl and there is no doubt in my mind that he is ATG.

For those who didn't see him Bowl and look at stats, he is still ATG.

 

[troodon]

People who might have seen Waqar after mid 90's can easily mistake him to a run of the mill trundler who performed once in a while.

Anyone who saw Waqar in early 90's would know what kind of bowler he was.

 

[shaz619]

Waqar is the opposite of YK on here. someone who is near universally rated as an ATG is an ICC HOFer and rated as one of the quicks who help revolutionise the game but some so called experts are trying to denigrate him and his legacy because they just watch cricket on cricinfo databases and excel spreadsheets.

Not only that but they hold certain biases against select players when they are feuding with others posters, I can't fathom this thread on any level; the basic aptitude of posters who agree must be questioned. Without a doubt, Waqar's genius is not in question.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Top 10 fast bowler whichever way anyone twists it. Not the same as sehwag.

 

[shaz619]

Top 10 fast bowler whichever way anyone twists it. Not the same as sehwag.

This is like questioning the ATG status of Bret the Hitman Hart, now we know he wasn't on shawns level [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] but he'd still make the top 10 very easily

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This is like questioning the ATG status of Bret the Hitman Hart, now we know he wasn't on shawns level [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] but he'd still make the top 10 very easily

I disagree. In terms of drawing ability Shawn was probably greater than Bret because Bret was too squeaky clean for the Attitude Era. However , in terms of wrestling ability, Bret > Shawn quite easily. I'd only put Benoit and angle ahead but let's not derail this thread with wrestling. We can discuss this in the professional wrestling thread.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

This is like questioning the ATG status of Bret the Hitman Hart, now we know he wasn't on shawns level [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] but he'd still make the top 10 very easily

Buy yes your analogy is right. Waqar may not be in the Steyn/Marshall/McGrath bracket but his status as a top 10 fast bowler in test cricket is beyond question.

 

[90MPH]

He's not a ATG for some Indian posters. Ok understand.

He is for the majority of the rest.

 

[mani1]

Australia were not the best team in the world when Waqar was at his best the West Indies were, all the way to 95 they were the number 1 ranked team.

Waqar was amazing against them put the fear of God in to Richie Richardson whom along with Gooch was ranked number 1 and a beast against fast bowling. Made him wear a helmet for the first time ever.

Waqar was with out a shadow of a doubt one of the greatest ever in both formats of the game.

For half his career he was a shadow of what he was yet still has better figures than highly rated bowlers such as Lillee and Akram.

 

[Abdullah719]

You argue that Waqar's poor average in India is due to him playing past his prime. Yet that's the same case with Sehwag too in Australia and England. Guy was completely shot after 2010 and became embarrassing as soon as he lost his reflexes because his entire game was built on outstanding hand eye coordination. He was great in Australia before 2010 (averaged ~60) and good in England (ave ~40). He was definitely poor throughout in South Africa and New Zealand. But not really the same case with Australia or England.

I definitely don't think he's an ATG. But when he was at his prime, he was one of the best openers in the game. He had one of the steepest declines because he didn't really have a great technique like SRT or Dravid to be effective past 35 years but judging him based on his last period is like judging Waqar after his stress fracture when he picked just a single fifer in his 2nd half of his career. That's like a batsman making just a single century in one half of his career.

Forgot to respond here earlier, got busy.

Your argument is valid as well, but at the end of the day, Waqar only failed in one country with a decent sample size while Sehwag failed in 3 - we can make that 2 if we discount his failures in England on the last tour.

This is, of course, a completely stats based back and forth argument.

In the bigger picture, both Waqar and Sehwag are rated very highly in Test cricket and both achieved a lot. I feel that neutrals rate Waqar higher as a bowler than they rate Sehwag as a batsman - perhaps I'm wrong on this.

 

[Slog]

There's two groups which doubt Waqars status as an ATG

1. Shehzad, Akmal and to some extent Afridi ******* who can't forgive Waqar for putting their heroes into their place

2. Indian posters who have normally NEVER ever praised Pakistan or anything related to it. They are probably the same group of folks who used to argue around 2010 that Zaheer and Wasim were comparable before their argument fell apart naturally. So their views shouldn't be a surprise.

Waqars status as an ATG is stamped. Only question is where does he lie among others.

With Sehwag there is a genuine case that he is not an ATG. For me the only argument for it is not dependant on his averages anyway which pro Sehwag brigade is posting. It's with his brute style where he could change complexion of the match. If he'd done it more consistently and all around then there's a greater case.

 

[shaz619]

Buy yes your analogy is right. Waqar may not be in the Steyn/Marshall/McGrath bracket but his status as a top 10 fast bowler in test cricket is beyond question.

Like Sachin is not in the bracket of Bradman but he's still okay basically

 

[Dead Ball]

Borderline ATG for me.

Let me give my reasons -

- Failed against Australia in both formats. They were the best side in the world for most of his career. WI were good early on but were carrying a few passengers during the mid nineties. Since late 90's their batting attack was borderline minnow level, apart from Lara.

- Below average performances in WC's. Do not be deceived by his average in WC's, even when he took wickets, he leaked runs. Go through his match by match details and you'll know what i mean.

- Average performances in ODI Finals. Not too many memorable performances against strong opponents in finals, if any?

- Out of his 16 test 5 fers in tests, 15 came in the first five years but only one in the last eight years of his career. Although he had an insane peak, he was inconsistent since then. Its almost like a batsman scoring 2-3 hundreds in the last half of his career after scoring 20 in the first half.

Despite these shortcomings he has an absolute joy to watch on song, and had arguably a top 3 test peak in test history. Other bowlers like Akram, Steyn, McGrath , Marshall, Donald etc have a more complete CV in comparison so i would rank him lower than them.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Like Sachin is not in the bracket of Bradman but he's still okay basically

No man. Then we'd be comparing with Barnes and Lohmann.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

There's two groups which doubt Waqars status as an ATG

1. Shehzad, Akmal and to some extent Afridi ******* who can't forgive Waqar for putting their heroes into their place

2. Indian posters who have normally NEVER ever praised Pakistan or anything related to it. They are probably the same group of folks who used to argue around 2010 that Zaheer and Wasim were comparable before their argument fell apart naturally. So their views shouldn't be a surprise.

Waqars status as an ATG is stamped. Only question is where does he lie among others.

With Sehwag there is a genuine case that he is not an ATG. For me the only argument for it is not dependant on his averages anyway which pro Sehwag brigade is posting. It's with his brute style where he could change complexion of the match. If he'd done it more consistently and all around then there's a greater case.

I think it's less to do with anyone being an Afridi fan or an Indian as much as being too young to remember a peak Waqar. A lot of Aussies don't rate him very highly at all. Bit the English do. Among even ATG bowlers, Waqar was very unique . Most others were consistently brilliant wit a steady decline towards the end of their careers. Waqar on the other was a sheer force of nature until his stress fracture in early 95 averaging a ridiculous 16 or 17 per wicket. But after that from 95 to 2003, he averaged 28 with the ball which was still good but at a time when Walsh,Ambrose McGrath,Pollock,Donald were still great, he didn't really stand out. I think a lot of folks on here, including myself, started watching 96 onwards, and therefore simply never understood how good he was as we've never seen it live. Add to that his dumb captaincy and the fact he was the first bowler fined for ball tampering kinda made matters worse.

Of course, years later having read about his exploits from 1990-94 and having watched YT videos etc. this changed completely.

 

[thelandofthebravepeople]

Waqar is considered one of the greatest bowler of all time. How great can be discussed.

The OP posting all sorts of silly stats and comparing him with Srinath, Broad etc is embarrasing.

If we go by stats then Voge is a better batsman then Sachin, right? His average is higher. OR Philander a better bowler then Wasim Akram and Steyn, lol.

 

[Romali_rotti]

There's two groups which doubt Waqars status as an ATG



2. Indian posters who have normally NEVER ever praised Pakistan or anything related to it.

What a silly thing to say, Wasim is idolized and praised by millions and millions of Indians, if you ask Indian kids in general, a lot would say they love Wasim and wants to bowl like him. Wasim has more of a celebrity status in India than he does in Pakistan, heck I love Wasim along with many other Indian PPers here, so what does that make us ?. You need to face reality; Waqar in Indian memories is famous for the beating of his life he took against Jadeja at the biggest stage in World cricket, and that's his legacy for us. Whenever he played tests vs India he has been Mediocre, his stats when combined vs SA, Australia, ENG,INDIA is 30 plus, and you want to say he is an ATG ? Ohh please, sorry fanboism doesn't stack up well to reality.... Not saying he is a bad bowler but not an ATG no way HOSE.......

 

[Abdullah719]

What a silly thing to say, Wasim is idolized and praised by millions and millions of Indians, if you ask Indian kids in general, a lot would say they love Wasim and wants to bowl like him. Wasim has more of a celebrity status in India than he does in Pakistan, heck I love Wasim along with many other Indian PPers here, so what does that make us ?. You need to face reality; Waqar in Indian memories is famous for the beating of his life he took against Jadeja at the biggest stage in World cricket, and that's his legacy for us. Whenever he played tests vs India he has been Mediocre, his stats when combined vs SA, Australia, ENG,INDIA is 30 plus, and you want to say he is an ATG ? Ohh please, sorry fanboism doesn't stack up well to reality.... Not saying he is a bad bowler but not an ATG no way HOSE.......

Again, as I mentioned earlier, you can't combine a bunch of countries to make the overall record look bad when the reality is different. Waqar has a bad record vs Australia and almost every cricketer has a bad record against one or two countries. His averages against SA/England are 27ish which is not a bad record, it's just not as good as it could've been.

His only really bad output was against Australia. When you say 'whenever he played Tests vs India', you make it seem a lot more than the reality. He played 2 Tests twice, ten years apart. 4 matches is not a great sample size for a long career.

If you start taking a player's record against just one or two countries as the basis for him not being rated as a great then would it make sense to not rate Dravid as an ATG because of his poor record vs Australia and SA? He averaged 36 against these two countries in FIFTY+ matches.

 

[Romali_rotti]

If you start taking a player's record against just one or two countries as the basis for him not being rated as a great then would it make sense to not rate Dravid as an ATG because of his poor record vs Australia and SA? He averaged 36 against these two countries in FIFTY+ matches.

For this exact reason I don't rate Dravid as an ATG, I never have. Ppl who followed my posts will know I rate Younis Khan ahead of Dravid....

 

[Abdullah719]

For this exact reason I don't rate Dravid as an ATG, I never have. Ppl who followed my posts will know I rate Younis Khan ahead of Dravid....

Interesting. So you seem to have a different standard for ATGs. Fair enough.

Younis' record in Aus, SA and WI isn't all that flashy either.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Waqar is considered one of the greatest bowler of all time. How great can be discussed.

The OP posting all sorts of silly stats and comparing him with Srinath, Broad etc is embarrasing.

If we go by stats then Voge is a better batsman then Sachin, right? His average is higher. OR Philander a better bowler then Wasim Akram and Steyn, lol.

Poor logic. Voges did not even play 30 tests. The comparison of Anderson, Broad, etc is a valid one. They have played as many tests as Waqar.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Waqar Younis
416 wickets in 260 ODI matches = 1.6 wickets per match

Shaun Pollock
303 wickets in 390 ODI matches = 1.2 wickets per match.

I have just seen these stats of both players and then made the calculation per wicket per match.

Waqar was not just a better ODI bowler because I saw it and judged it but these stats overall show he was a much better bowler because he was a wicket taking machine.

There's no comparison whatsoever but some will still dissect stats to show their bias

What about economy? Pollock's economy was full 1 run less than Waqar which meant on average he gave 10 runs less in every match.