Joel Garner vs Waqar Younis - Better Test bowler?

[Ab Fan]

Who is a better bowler of the two?

Joel Garner:

Matches - 58
Wickets - 259
Avg - 20

Waqar Younis:

Matches - 87
Wickets - 373
Avg - 23

 

[mominsaigol]

Garner is probably the greatest bowler of all time or atleast top 3. Why compare waqar to him? Makes no sense

 

[Ab Fan]

Garner is probably the greatest bowler of all time or atleast top 3. Why compare waqar to him? Makes no sense

Greatest would be Marshall. Garner's average is among the lowest but think its hard to seperate between him and Waqar. If Garner was the greatest, he would have not ended with 115 lesser wickets than Waqar.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Greatest would be Marshall. Garner's average is among the lowest but think its hard to seperate between him and Waqar. If Garner was the greatest, he would have not ended with 115 lesser wickets than Waqar.

How about the fact that he played lesser matches than him, maybe that has something to do with it

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Joel garner easily, has an incredible record and is balanced everywhere. Higher average away from home and had to compete with so many greats in his same team

 

[mominsaigol]

Greatest would be Marshall. Garner's average is among the lowest but think its hard to seperate between him and Waqar. If Garner was the greatest, he would have not ended with 115 lesser wickets than Waqar.

Garner had lesser matches? Way fewer matches?

By this logic afridi is a goat bowler and amongst the greatest spinners of all time and significantly superior to kuldeep yadav as a spinner because he has nearly double the wickets?

But that's not true, as afridi was beyond inconsistent as a spinner? Afridi has more wickets cause he's played like more matches then any pakistani cricketer or most people in general?

 

[Hitman]

Just look at Garner's numbers, an average of 20.97 is just out of the world.

 

[Buffet]

Garner's away average - 20
Waqar's away average - 26

-----

Waqar's average agasint top sides during his playing days ( Aus, WI, SA, Ind ) - 29
Garner's average agaisnt top sides during his playing days ( Aus, Pak, Eng ) - 20


-----

It's a lopsided comparison. Waqar has very ordinary bowling record agasint good teams even taking home and away both.

 

[Ab Fan]

How about the fact that he played lesser matches than him, maybe that has something to do with it

And why he played lesser games? Was he not good enough to play more games beyond that or perhaps not operating at same level which is why he played fewer games? One has to take these factors into consideration.

 

[RidiculousMan]

It's like saying who was better between Sachin and Sir Viv.

While Sachin was good. Viv is obviously a step above him. Same with Garner v Waqar

 

[Rajdeep]

It's like saying who was better between Sachin and Sir Viv.

While Sachin was good. Viv is obviously a step above him. Same with Garner v Waqar

The facts are as follows:

1. Sachin is better than Viv
2. Big red Garner is better than Waqar

 

[rpant_gabba]

Garner didn't have to tamper the ball.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

It's like saying who was better between Sachin and Sir Viv.

While Sachin was good. Viv is obviously a step above him. Same with Garner v Waqar

Typical coping mechanism. Sachin in tests has a higher average than viv and his away record is better than his home one.

Sachin also dominated in aus, while waqar was a minnow basher

 

[Statpadder Inc]

And why he played lesser games? Was he not good enough to play more games beyond that or perhaps not operating at same level which is why he played fewer games? One has to take these factors into consideration.

True, that's why mahela is a better batsman than viv. More matches and more runs.

Amazing genius and intellect at display here

 

[The Bald Eagle]

The facts are as follows:

1. Sachin is better than Viv
2. Big red Garner is better than Waqar

Sachin can't match Viv's class.

 

[Ab Fan]

True, that's why mahela is a better batsman than viv. More matches and more runs.

Amazing genius and intellect at display here

1. In case of pacers, longevity matters more.

2. Mahela is not a better batsman than Viv because he is a home track bully and a failure everywhere outside Asia. Additionally, he would have his stats inflated by playing more minnows like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. If all these factors are not enough, then the SR factor for Viv makes it a vast difference between the two.

 

[Rajdeep]

Sachin can't match Viv's class.

Not sure what class is that but stats wise Sachin is better than Viv. That is not the case between Waqar and Garner where the later has better stats as OP has highlighted.

Also, class is subjective and people look at it from their respective bias point of view. Sir Don Bradman himself said Sachin is the greatest batsman after him and invited him home for dinner. I mean he has seen Viv play as well but only reserved that judgement for Sachin. I am sure Sir Don a things or two about batting and class more than us.

Sir Don gifting Sachin the signed bat is passing the torch moment like how in 3 idiots movie Boman Irani hand over the pen to Amir Khan as mark of excellence

 

[Hitman]

Sachin can't match Viv's class.

And you say that not even watching cricket in the 90's let alone in the 80's and the 70's?

 

[Statpadder Inc]

1. In case of pacers, longevity matters more.

2. Mahela is not a better batsman than Viv because he is a home track bully and a failure everywhere outside Asia. Additionally, he would have his stats inflated by playing more minnows like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. If all these factors are not enough, then the SR factor for Viv makes it a vast difference between the two.

1) Garner has a much better record away from home compared to waqar. An incredibly balanced one at that too.

2) Waqar himself was a minnow basher who feasted on lesser teams.

3) Garner took 250+ wickets so the point about longevity doesn't really stand. Longevity matters but only to some extent

 

[The Bald Eagle]

And you say that not even watching cricket in the 90's let alone in the 80's and the 70's?

You have mistaken me for some other person bro.

 

[Mamoon]

Waqar wouldn’t even be better than Wahab and Rauf in this era and people are comparing him to a bonafide legend like Garner.

Waqar is the most overrated fast bowler in history. He was extremely lucky to play in an era where ball-tampering was strife.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Sachin can't match Viv's class.

Only for a few pakistanis.

For ROW only Bradman is comparable to Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[Suleiman]

Indian obsession with Waqar continues despite him not being “good enough” by their standards

New thread on him every few weeks.

 

[TheSultan]

Who is a better bowler of the two?

Joel Garner:

Matches - 58
Wickets - 259
Avg - 20

Waqar Younis:

Matches - 87
Wickets - 373
Avg - 23

Post the strike rates dude

 

[topspin]

This is not even worthy of comparison. Waqar Younis was a one trick pony with a tampered old ball.

 

[gibsyhesperis]

An awful lot of people commenting on here who saw neither of them at their peak and are thumbing through used copies of Wisden (or probably looking up records on cricinfo).
I always appreciate the exuberance of youth however there are some terribly ill-informed comments on here.

It is fair to say both were extremely fine bowlers.
Garner had the benefit of being part of one of the all time great attacks of all time but did have an element of control and bounce that was extraordinary— his performance in the 1979 World Cup final was exemplary.

Waqar was genuinely one of the fastest bowlers I have seen, pre-back injury.
I saw a lot of him during the 1991 season for Surrey (when he became the Wisden cricketer of the year)
His pace through the air was incredible, a point commented upon by Desmond Haynes when facing him.
To say his achievements were solely due to ball tampering is foolish, as one could then levy that accusation against all the Pakistani quicks of that time — Imran, Wasim etc.
Maybe that is the intention of posters but they seem to revel in singling Waqar out.
All a bit petty really

 

[jeetu]

Garner was better but Waqar will always figure in the list of Top 20 bowlers of all time. Both were underrated because they were not the best bowlers in the team for majority of their career.

Player	Span	Mat	Wkts	Avg	Econ	SR	5W	10W
MD Marshall (WI)	1978-1991	81	376	20.94	2.68	46.7	22	4
J Garner (WI)	1977-1987	58	259	20.97	2.47	50.8	7	0
CEL Ambrose (WI)	1988-2000	98	405	20.99	2.3	54.5	22	3
FS Trueman (ENG)	1952-1965	67	307	21.57	2.61	49.4	17	3
GD McGrath (AUS)	1993-2007	124	563	21.64	2.49	51.9	29	3
K Rabada (SA)	2015-2024	62	291	22.05	3.37	39.2	14	4
AA Donald (SA)	1992-2002	72	330	22.25	2.83	47	20	3
Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ)	1973-1990	86	431	22.29	2.63	50.8	36	9
PJ Cummins (AUS)	2011-2024	62	269	22.53	2.88	46.8	12	2
M Muralidaran (ICC/SL)	1992-2010	133	800	22.72	2.47	55	67	22
Imran Khan (PAK)	1971-1992	88	362	22.81	2.54	53.7	23	6
DW Steyn (SA)	2004-2019	93	439	22.95	3.24	42.3	26	5
SM Pollock (SA)	1995-2008	108	421	23.11	2.39	57.8	16	1
Waqar Younis (PAK)	1989-2003	87	373	23.56	3.25	43.4	22	5
Wasim Akram (PAK)	1985-2002	104	414	23.62	2.59	54.6	25	5
R Ashwin (IND)	2011-2024	100	516	23.75	2.81	50.7	36	8
DK Lillee (AUS)	1971-1984	70	355	23.92	2.75	52	23	7
RA Jadeja (IND)	2012-2024	72	294	24.13	2.47	58.6	13	2
CA Walsh (WI)	1984-2001	132	519	24.44	2.53	57.8	22	3
JR Hazlewood (AUS)	2014-2024	70	273	24.82	2.78	53.3	12	0
JB Statham (ENG)	1951-1965	70	252	24.84	2.33	63.7	9	1

Rabada's current standing surprised me. Currently his average is lowest among all SA bowlers.

 

[160KPH]

The only place I ever see Waqar Younis underrated is online.

And there’s a reason why his detractors will post stats but never post SR’s which is incredibly important in the Test format. The fact remains that he had potentially the greatest peak for any fast bowler ever in around his first 30 or so Tests.

The only one who competes with his SR is Dale Steyn (and now Rabada) who also is one of the greatest pacers ever.

 

[mominsaigol]

The only place I ever see Waqar Younis underrated is online.

And there’s a reason why his detractors will post stats but never post SR’s which is incredibly important in the Test format. The fact remains that he had potentially the greatest peak for any fast bowler ever in around his first 30 or so Tests.

The only one who competes with his SR is Dale Steyn (and now Rabada) who also is one of the greatest pacers ever.

I don't underrated waqar.

I think he's one of the greatest bowlers of all time and deserves top 10, even his haters have to admit top 15 atleast.

It's just Joel garner I consider top 3, Joel garner was honestly next level, I've seen his bowling and he's down right unplayable at times.

But waqar is no doubt and I don't think theirs anything wrong with claiming Joel garner is better then him.

What I am suprised about is how a certain someone is claiming haris rauf is superior to waqar

Edit: No it's not you btw, read the above comments and you'll know what I mean.

 

[Ab Fan]

Garner's away average - 20
Waqar's away average - 26

-----

Waqar's average agasint top sides during his playing days ( Aus, WI, SA, Ind ) - 29
Garner's average agaisnt top sides during his playing days ( Aus, Pak, Eng ) - 20


-----

It's a lopsided comparison. Waqar has very ordinary bowling record agasint good teams even taking home and away both.

NZ should be there in Garner's era, especially from 80s onwards.

 

[mominsaigol]

And why he played lesser games? Was he not good enough to play more games beyond that or perhaps not operating at same level which is why he played fewer games? One has to take these factors into consideration.

It's fine that he didn't play long.

It's better for a player to retire when their at their peak and be remembered then retire as has beens, which is why I also respect quinton.

Waqar younis biggest stain on his career is that at the end of his rope in international he started to falter which is why you have nonsense arguments on him being some sort of failure ball tampering hack bowler.

 

[160KPH]

I don't underrated waqar.

I think he's one of the greatest bowlers of all time and deserves top 10, even his haters have to admit top 15 atleast.

It's just Joel garner I consider top 3, Joel garner was honestly next level, I've seen his bowling and he's down right unplayable at times.

But waqar is no doubt and I don't think theirs anything wrong with claiming Joel garner is better then him.

What I am suprised about is how a certain someone is claiming haris rauf is superior to waqar

Edit: No it's not you btw, read the above comments and you'll know what I mean.

Yeah completely agree Joel Garner is one of the all time legends.

Malcolm Marshall was slightly better than Garner the same way I think Wasim was slightly better than Waqar. All of them legends though.

What I am suprised about is how a certain someone is claiming haris rauf is superior to waqar

Edit: No it's not you btw, read the above comments and you'll know what I mean.

I’ve been defending Waqar against him for a long time on this forum

The ball tampering argument is a weak one in my opinion because all of the bowlers and bowling attacks were manipulating the ball in all kinds of ways back then. The Australian team was roughing up the ball with sand paper as recently as 2018, you think the other Australian greats were not trying to get small advantages when there were way less cameras and way less chance of getting caught?

Not to even mention that back in the day the old ball used to go out of shape much much sooner. The newer produced balls in modern times swing/seam/spin for way way longer than they used to back in the day.

And also, Waqar was getting plenty of wickets with the new ball in his prime also and not just the old reversing ball.

 

[jeetu]

The only place I ever see Waqar Younis underrated is online.

And there’s a reason why his detractors will post stats but never post SR’s which is incredibly important in the Test format. The fact remains that he had potentially the greatest peak for any fast bowler ever in around his first 30 or so Tests.

The only one who competes with his SR is Dale Steyn (and now Rabada) who also is one of the greatest pacers ever.

SR is important but ER also needs to be taken into account. ER shows how much runs bowlers are leaking. Among the list only Steyn , Rabada and Waqar has ER over 3. Also only these 3 bowlers have SR under 45. So it kinds of even out. That is why when rating bowler Average remains the better criteria than StrikeRate.

Waqar was force of nature in early 90's. I saw him terrorize every batsman with yorkers. Even in latter half of 90's he was a great bowler. He was still picking wickets at good rate , but the fear factor was gone. He is a bonafide ATG bowler.

 

[160KPH]

Greatest would be Marshall. Garner's average is among the lowest but think its hard to seperate between him and Waqar. If Garner was the greatest, he would have not ended with 115 lesser wickets than Waqar.

They’re both great and to he honest it’s a pretty good comparison. Garner probably has the more balanced record overall, slightly better average, but Waqar has the better strike rate.

Marshall vs Akram
Garner vs Younis

The thing is that the better bowler depends very much on the point in their career. I’m not sure there’s ever been a better bowler than Waqar in his absolute prime for those 3-4 years. For those few years he was completely unplayable and destructive and has the numbers to back it up.

 

[mominsaigol]

Yeah completely agree Joel Garner is one of the all time legends.

Malcolm Marshall was slightly better than Garner the same way I think Wasim was slightly better than Waqar. All of them legends though.

I’ve been defending Waqar against him for a long time on this forum

The ball tampering argument is a weak one in my opinion because all of the bowlers and bowling attacks were manipulating the ball in all kinds of ways back then. The Australian team was roughing up the ball with sand paper as recently as 2018, you think the other Australian greats were not trying to get small advantages when there were way less cameras and way less chance of getting caught?

Not to even mention that back in the day the old ball used to go out of shape much much sooner. The newer produced balls in modern times swing/seam/spin for way way longer than they used to back in the day.

And also, Waqar was getting plenty of wickets with the new ball in his prime also and not just the old reversing ball.

Australian greats were the King's of cheating in general, And I'm happy to admit that even though I'm aussie supporter.

Classic Aussies loved nothing more to win lol irrespective of morals.

As for waqar, a burnt out waqar at age 45 was shown bowling in domestic and he still swung better both inswing, and offswing as well has having perfect line and length . And he did it way way better then even upcoming youngsters.

The commentators literally commented on how good waqar is, The only issue was that due to his burnt out age, he lost pace and was bowling less then 100kph so literally around spinner level bowling so he got tonked.

But people and youngsters still admitted that he could move the ball and pitch it on areas way better then anyone could, and the domestic bats literally stated that had this been prime waqar bowling at 140+, then they wouldn't stand a chance.

That's speaks to his greatness lol, First have someone like haris rauf fix his line and length and then compare him to someone like Ali , how dare someone mention rauf's name next to waqar

 

[160KPH]

SR is important but ER also needs to be taken into account. ER shows how much runs bowlers are leaking. Among the list only Steyn , Rabada and Waqar has ER over 3. Also only these 3 bowlers have SR under 45. So it kinds of even out. That is why when rating bowler Average remains the better criteria than StrikeRate.

Waqar was force of nature in early 90's. I saw him terrorize every batsman with yorkers. Even in latter half of 90's he was a great bowler. He was still picking wickets at good rate , but the fear factor was gone. He is a bonafide ATG bowler.

I think average is the most important statistic as well, particularly in the shorter formats, but SR should certainly be taken into consideration. There are many times in Test cricket, where the speed and time you bowl the opposition is very important. For example, if a team is trying to play out for a draw then your strike rate is a much more relevant statistic than the average.

Yeah, Waqar post injuries was definitely not as good as in his prime. If he had performed the same way he did in his first 30 or so Tests for another 30-40 Tests he would probably he in the GOAT discussion, but his performance clearly fell off a bit.

 

[jeetu]

I think average is the most important statistic as well, particularly in the shorter formats, but SR should certainly be taken into consideration. There are many times in Test cricket, where the speed and time you bowl the opposition is very important. For example, if a team is trying to play out for a draw then your strike rate is a much more relevant statistic than the average.

Yeah, Waqar post injuries was definitely not as good as in his prime. If he had performed the same way he did in his first 30 or so Tests for another 30-40 Tests he would probably he in the GOAT discussion, but his performance clearly fell off a bit.

In that specific case (team going for a draw) your point regarding SR is pretty valid. A high strike rate bowler can pull off a win.
However if target is small then it can be double edge sword as runs will leak more from same bowler.\

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Waqar at 32 test mark averaged 18.85 with 187 wickets. If you double that , then you are looking at 64 test , 374 wickets at under 19 average. That would him above Marshall. And I rate Marshall as the greatest fast bowler of all.

My favorite among this type of comparison is case of Micheal Hussey.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Hussey at 20 test mark averaged 84.80. By 54th test it fell below 50. He ended up with 51.52 in 87 test. Those was great numbers but he will never figure in any GOAT discussion.

 

[Ab Fan]

In that specific case (team going for a draw) your point regarding SR is pretty valid. A high strike rate bowler can pull off a win.
However if target is small then it can be double edge sword as runs will leak more from same bowler.\

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Waqar at 32 test mark averaged 18.85 with 187 wickets. If you double that , then you are looking at 64 test , 374 wickets at under 19 average. That would him above Marshall. And I rate Marshall as the greatest fast bowler of all.

My favorite among this type of comparison is case of Micheal Hussey.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Hussey at 20 test mark averaged 84.80. By 54th test it fell below 50. He ended up with 51.52 in 87 test. Those was great numbers but he will never figure in any GOAT discussion.

Yup that's the point exactly. Longevity matters just about as much as averages, especially talking about great players because replacing them with someone who produces equally good output is hard.

As example, Courtney Walsh is underrated but did Windies found anyone post him who could pick wickets at average of 24 over the next decade or so? Ofcourse, No. That's where Walsh longevity was influential in keeping Windies relevant till the early part of 2000s. Even a 26-27 average with longevity deserves more brownie points here.

 

[jeetu]

Yup that's the point exactly. Longevity matters just about as much as averages, especially talking about great players because replacing them with someone who produces equally good output is hard.

As example, Courtney Walsh is underrated but did Windies found anyone post him who could pick wickets at average of 24 over the next decade or so? Ofcourse, No. That's where Walsh longevity was influential in keeping Windies relevant till the early part of 2000s. Even a 26-27 average with longevity deserves more brownie points here.

I agree. Walsh played with Ambrose who was better bowler. That is the big reason he remains underrated. Walsh was the last great WI bowler and after him quality of WI test bowling nosedived. Some shined for initial 2-3 years then became mediocre to poor.
Another case is regarding Akhtar.
Shoaib Akhtar played 46 test at average of 25.69 with 176 wickets in 11 year test span. Pakistan would have won far more matches with him averaging 28 with 325 wickets in 100 tests.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

There is a real campaign online to try and belittle Waqar Younis. Mainly with Indians at the forefront.

 

[mazkhan]

All you need to know about waqars prowess is how the English rated him

He was Surrey premier bowler and played for Glamorgan and held in high regard .

All nonsense about him being a tamperer and no better than wahab.

Early waqar had serious pace he was easily bowling 90mph had one of the best late indipping swing in bowling

He lost pace at the end but was still a canny white ball bowler

 

[Rajdeep]

There is a real campaign online to try and belittle Waqar Younis. Mainly with Indians at the forefront.

Why you think that would be the case? Indian's don't even rate Waqar that highly as he never was good against us. Wasim Akram is India's icon and we all admire him the most.

Indian's rate Pak bowlers in following order:

1. Wasim
2. Imran
3. Amir
4. Akhtar
5. Waqar

 

[Hextro]

Why you think that would be the case? Indian's don't even rate Waqar that highly as he never was good against us. Wasim Akram is India's icon and we all admire him the most.

Indian's rate Pak bowlers in following order:

1. Wasim
2. Imran
3. Amir
4. Akhtar
5. Waqar

Who is Amir?

 

[MANU ROY]

Who is Amir?

There is guy who run through India top order in ct17 maybe him

 

[Hextro]

Waqar Younis's average and number of wickets after 54 test matches were 21.68 and 271 respectively.

Longevity is a far more important factor when comparing fast bowlers than people realize, it's often underestimated. That's because fast bowlers tend to have a greater fall-off than other cricketers. After all, fast-bowling is the most physically taxing job in cricket.

Would Garner be able to keep up the same level of performance for another 114 wickets? I doubt it.

 

[Hextro]

There is guy who run through India top order in ct17 maybe him

Maybe, but I'm asking Rajdeep specifically.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Why you think that would be the case? Indian's don't even rate Waqar that highly as he never was good against us. Wasim Akram is India's icon and we all admire him the most.

Indian's rate Pak bowlers in following order:

1. Wasim
2. Imran
3. Amir
4. Akhtar
5. Waqar

I don't know why it's the case just an observation.

 

[Buffet]

Garner's away average - 20
Waqar's away average - 26

-----

Waqar's average agasint top sides during his playing days ( Aus, WI, SA, Ind ) - 29
Garner's average agaisnt top sides during his playing days ( Aus, Pak, Eng ) - 20


-----

It's a lopsided comparison. Waqar has very ordinary bowling record agasint good teams even taking home and away both.

Waqar did decline a lot after first half of 90s, but some posters have imginary effectiveness of Waqar in their head during his peak days. I saw Waqar's entire career. Exciting to watch, but comfortably below top class bowlers when bowling agaisnt top sides.

Waqar has 3 5-fers agasint top sides till mid 90s and average of 25 plus. Waqar was mighty effective agaisnt weaker sides but relying on just reverse swing did not help him same way agaisnt better sides.

 

[jeetu]

My ranking for great Pak test fast bowler would be
1. Wasim
2. Imran
3. Waqar
4. Fazal
5. Akhtar

 

[Justcrazy]

Garner was better bowler , he looked more threatening . Also , it was difficult to score of him.