What's new

Joel Garner vs Waqar Younis - Better Test bowler?

Ab Fan

Ab Fan

Senior Test Player
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Runs
28,847
Who is a better bowler of the two?

Joel Garner:

Matches - 58
Wickets - 259
Avg - 20

Waqar Younis:

Matches - 87
Wickets - 373
Avg - 23
 
Garner is probably the greatest bowler of all time or atleast top 3. Why compare waqar to him? Makes no sense
 
mominsaigol said:
Garner is probably the greatest bowler of all time or atleast top 3. Why compare waqar to him? Makes no sense
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ab Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
How about the fact that he played lesser matches than him, maybe that has something to do with it
 
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
 
Ab Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
Statpadder Inc said:
How about the fact that he played lesser matches than him, maybe that has something to do with it
Click to expand...

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 said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
Ab Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
True, that's why mahela is a better batsman than viv. More matches and more runs.

Amazing genius and intellect at display here
 
Statpadder Inc said:
True, that's why mahela is a better batsman than viv. More matches and more runs.

Amazing genius and intellect at display here
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Sachin can't match Viv's class.
Click to expand...

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

1712763653441.png
 
Ab Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
160KPH said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Buffet said:
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.
Click to expand...

NZ should be there in Garner's era, especially from 80s onwards.
 
Ab Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mominsaigol said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
mominsaigol said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ve been defending Waqar against him for a long time on this forum :ROFLMAO:

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.
 
160KPH said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ab Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
160KPH said:
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 :ROFLMAO:

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.
Click to expand...
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 😭😭
 
jeetu said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
160KPH said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.\

stats.espncricinfo.com

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

stats.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.
stats.espncricinfo.com

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

stats.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.
 
jeetu said:
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.\

stats.espncricinfo.com

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

stats.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.
stats.espncricinfo.com

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

stats.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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ab Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
DeadlyVenom said:
There is a real campaign online to try and belittle Waqar Younis. Mainly with Indians at the forefront.
Click to expand...

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
 
Rajdeep said:
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
Click to expand...

Who is Amir?
 
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.
 
Rajdeep said:
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
Click to expand...
I don't know why it's the case just an observation.
 
Buffet said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
My ranking for great Pak test fast bowler would be
1. Wasim
2. Imran
3. Waqar
4. Fazal
5. Akhtar
 
Garner was better bowler , he looked more threatening . Also , it was difficult to score of him.
 
Garner was a Bumrah but less seamy but even taller with an extremely high point of release so with more awkward bounce, and had a full career, this isn't close
 
atreus said:
Garner was a Bumrah but less seamy but even taller with an extremely high point of release so with more awkward bounce, and had a full career, this isn't close
Click to expand...
How many 5-fers for both?
 
People crucifying Waqar over Avg. Look at his SR 43 , amazing

Looking at that list having fetish over a Quartet with these bowlers

Ambrose
Cummins
Steyn
Waqar
----------
This would be GOAT x 🐐 attack
 
Buffet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Waqar pre stress fractures of the back was a freak show.
 
Kianig89 said:
People crucifying Waqar over Avg. Look at his SR 43 , amazing

Looking at that list having fetish over a Quartet with these bowlers

Ambrose
Cummins
Steyn
Waqar
----------
This would be GOAT x 🐐 attack
Click to expand...

If you are going not take avg and to simply go by SR then why Ambrose? Ambrose SR is 54.

1733506125697.png
 
aboveandbeyond said:
Waqar pre stress fractures of the back was a freak show.
Click to expand...

He wasn't any freak show against good teams even then.

Top 6 teams in early 90s were Pak, Ind, WI, Ind, SA and Eng.

1733506486088.png



Waqar's did not stand out as freak bowler against match involving top 6 teams:

1733506924811.png
 
atreus said:
I reckon Waqar has a lot more, is to be expected because he was the opening bowler while Garner usually used to come after Marshall and Holding
Click to expand...
Waqar was one change too, used with old bowl more often than not.
 
Buffet said:
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.
Click to expand...
Garner got benefit of bare wickets and of and playing days where batting was more difficult.
 
Mainul said:
Garner got benefit of bare wickets and of and playing days where batting was more difficult.
Click to expand...
and Waqar got the benefit of bottle caps and seam lift.

before you deny it, he is on video ball tampering and admitted as such
 
Mainul said:
Garner got benefit of bare wickets and of and playing days where batting was more difficult.
Click to expand...
Without getting into intangibles, we can simply see where Garner stood in his era against others and where Waqar stood in his era against others when playing decent teams.

But Garner's output against good sides was in the same range as other top pacers of his era , not the case of Waqar.
 
Waqar had an unbelievable peak and is a Pakistan legend but you cannot rate someone solely by cherrypicking their best years. The test of greatness is also how they cope over time with physical limitations, rule changes, tactical evolutions etc. Waqar's effectiveness undeniably declined from 1995 thanks to a combination of injuries, loss of pace and overreliance on reverse swing.

His bowling avg from Jan 1995 until his last Test is 28.13 - similar to likes of Heath Streak, Chris Cairns, Darren Gough, Andrew Caddick and Jacques Kallis. Not knocking them as they're all fine cricketers but not a pool of ATG pacers.

Meanwhile in his last three years of Test cricket from Jan 1984 until his retirement in Mar 1987 - Joel Garner's bowling avg was behind only Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan and Malcolm Marshall at 20.09 (min 50 wickets).

Yes Garner didn't face the range of strong opponents Waqar did in the 1990s. However high release point seamers who consistently hit good lengths with some sideways movement have succeeded in every era of Test cricket in nearly all conditions. They're also less susceptible to a drop-off should their pace decline.

Therefore it's hard to believe Joel Garner wouldn't have been effective in the same era where similar seamers such as McGrath, Pollock, Ambrose and co were running riot. Or present day with the likes of Hazlewood, Starc, Rabada and co. The two reasons he isn't the WI GOAT pacer are Malcolm Marshall and Curtly Ambrose.

Meanwhile Waqar, who couldn't sustain his formula of extreme reverse at high pace even in that era, would struggle to replicate it today with such hypervigilance over ball tampering with TV cameras at every ground along with neutral umpires.
 
Markhor said:
Waqar had an unbelievable peak and is a Pakistan legend but you cannot rate someone solely by cherrypicking their best years. The test of greatness is also how they cope over time with physical limitations, rule changes, tactical evolutions etc. Waqar's effectiveness undeniably declined from 1995 thanks to a combination of injuries, loss of pace and overreliance on reverse swing.

His bowling avg from Jan 1995 until his last Test is 28.13 - similar to likes of Heath Streak, Chris Cairns, Darren Gough, Andrew Caddick and Jacques Kallis. Not knocking them as they're all fine cricketers but not a pool of ATG pacers.
Click to expand...

Average of 28.13 actually flatter him for the period you are citing.

Waqar averaged 31.59 in 43 test in that period against non-minnows while Heath Streak, Cris Cairns, Dareen Gaugh, Andrew Caddick etc had avg of 28 or around without having to bowl to ZIm/BD.

If 31.49 avg in 43 tests does not grab the attention then taking one 5-fer in 8-9 years should grab the attention when he was not bowling to BD/ZIM. Every single bowler in this list has lots of 5-fers in this period, Waqar has just 1.

Imagine a bowler with 1 5-fers or batsman with 1 ton playing against non-minnows for 8-9 years. People praise longevity, this not a longevity worth citing.


1733518443069.png
 
Ab Fan said:
Who is a better bowler of the two?

Joel Garner:

Matches - 58
Wickets - 259
Avg - 20

Waqar Younis:

Matches - 87
Wickets - 373
Avg - 23
Click to expand...
Without even looking at stats

Joel Garner

Only wasim and imran were true great bowlers of Pakistan

Not waqar. He is more around Johnson and shami level.
 
Ab Fan said:
Waqar was one change too, used with old bowl more often than not.
Click to expand...
Waqar opened the bowling 141 times out of the 154 innings he bowled in, 18 off his 22 fifers and all his tenfers come there.

Waqar opening the bowling: 141 times, 339 wickets, 23.87 average, 44.1 Strike rate, a fifer nearly every eighth inning
Garner opening the bowling: 49 innings, 127 wickets, 20.22 average, 45.9 Strike rate, a fifer nearly every tenth inning.
 
jeetu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Waqar first 10 years ave was 21.56.He was getting worse as he balls.I wonder what Joel bowling ave be if he played 4 more years
 
Ab Fan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the reason for why people from past didn't rate Garner in top bowlers list is because he tend to get his wickets from lower batting order since during a big part his time he tend to be 3rd or 4th position bowlers
IMG_20250217_205723.jpg
His performance vs top order (except 2nd and 3rd) batsman is below his overall career bowling average.Plus he has more 9th and 10th batsman wickets than 4th and 5th position batsman
 
By the way, Joel Garner averages 43 against India. So, those who try to put Bumrah down for his poor performance vs NZ, here we have another example of an ATG pacer with a bogey opposition.
 
Fanboy375 said:
I think the reason for why people from past didn't rate Garner in top bowlers list is because he tend to get his wickets from lower batting order since during a big part his time he tend to be 3rd or 4th position bowlers
View attachment 150902
His performance vs top order (except 2nd and 3rd) batsman is below his overall career bowling average.Plus he has more 9th and 10th batsman wickets than 4th and 5th position batsman
Click to expand...

Pretty good post. Can I get the link to refer this image?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
World Test Championship - The era of doctored pitches & technique-less batters?
Replies
16
Views
816
U$ofA
U
T
Why is Malcolm Marshall considered a GOAT despite average performance in ODI cricket?
Replies
74
Views
2K
rpant_gabba
rpant_gabba
N
Top 50 Test batters with best match factors
Replies
34
Views
1K
Narayana59
N
N
Why Steve Smith is still the undisputed second greatest Test batter of all time?
2 3 4
Replies
285
Views
8K
DeadlyVenom
DeadlyVenom
Buffet
All time great away series for pacers against top sides
Replies
69
Views
3K
aboveandbeyond
A
Back
Top