Lol the Waqar fans have no answer to the justified criticism that Waqar in his prime from 1989 to 1997 feasted on very poor low quality sides i.e. an indecline West Indies, a NZ, English team which played minnow level cricket back then, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, a South African side which was just coming out of transition
Shoaib in comparison in his prime from 1998 to 2006 has plenty of 5 wicket hauls against the Australian invincible side of 1999 to 2005, he bowled to a much better Indian batting line up, bowled to a better New Zealand, England, South African, Sri Lankan sides against whom he picked up 5 wicket hauls, heck even Zimbabwe was a much better team during that time period compared to Waqar's prime, he bowled without quality support bowlers, bowled when reverse swing was a well known art, bowled when the ICC made batting much friendlier than before. The only thing Waqar has over Shoaib is longetivity but the fact is Waqar was a liability for Pakistan from 1999 to 2003 and had he not been made captain he would never have played the 2003 ODI WC for sure.
Its not about being a Waqar fan but about being unbiased. We all know how much you admire Shoaib and I respect that but it doesn't change the fact that Waqar was a much greater player than Shoaib. I will specifically address some of the assertions you have made in your posts in this thread and how pretty much none of them stand up to close scrutiny.
It is always difficult to analyze the numbers of someone like Shoaib who was never a permanent fixture in the team at any point in his career, let alone compare him with one of the ATGs. Waqar, despite being plagued by injuries throughout his career was a much more reliable player and managed to play in about 80% of the tests (87 out of 111) and about 70% (262 of 382) of the ODIs that Pakistan played during his career. Shoaib's participation on the other hand remained below 50% (46 out of 94 tests and 163 out of 345 ODIs)in both and even when he did play more often than not he broke down. Adjusting for those occasions his participation is more like 30% over the course of his career. I doubt there has been any player in the history of the game with a poorer record in terms of being absent from the team for reasons other than non-selection. Also, unlike Waqar, not all of Shoaib's absences were caused by injuries or fitness issues. The fact that he still left such a legacy is a testament to his effectiveness but also leaves us with the question of what he could have achieved had he played more consistently.
Coming to your point about their respective peak years, the five year period of 90-94 was probably Waqar's peak. During this time he took 184 wickets in only 31 matches (more than Shoaib's entire career) with England 92, W.I 93 and NZ (both home and away being the highlights). His spells in WI, Eng and NZ are still some of the best I have ever seen from a Pakistani bowler. And none of them were weak teams, especially at home. Most of Waqar's wickets in those series were top order wickets of main opposition batsmen. Given Shoaib's sporadic appearances its really difficult to pinpoint his real peak in terms of a period (probably the closest he came to it was in 2002-03) and which is perhaps why we remember his career in terms of specific spells like Chennai 99 or Colombo 02 and overestimate his overall impact on the game. You have repeatedly stated that Shoaib was more effective against Australia when Waqar had both a better average against Australia and in Australia than Shoaib. Moreover, barring the Colombo test, Shoaib's other 5 wicket hauls against Australia were neither very destructive nor did they include many top order bats.
Your observation about Waqar being less effective towards the end of his career has some merit but not because he was a liability on the team but because his performance during this period paled in comparison to what he had achieved previously. During the last 4 years of his career (00-03) he picked 94 wickets @ 27.9 in tests and 129 @ 25.2 in ODIs and that is when he had lost most of his pace. Shoaib on the other hand in his last 4 years in tests produced 60 wickets @30 and 39 @ 33.7 in ODIs. Clearly shows how Waqar reinvented himself after losing his pace but Shoaib being the one trick pony he was declined sharply when his fitness and pace deserted him.
Shoaib was undoubtedly one of the fastest, if not THE fastest bowler ever to play the game. In terms of pace he was way ahead of Waqar. He also had better overall control than Waqar who had a tendency to spray it around at times, especially with the new ball. Waqar, however, was peerless with the old ball. In my three decades of watching this game I certainly haven't seen anything like Waqar's spells with the old ball. Shoaib running in at full throttle, full of menace, was a sight to behold, but for me at least, it will not equal the thrill of watching Waqar dismantle batting lineups with those searing toe crushing yorkers. However, as a Pakistan cricket fan I consider it a pleasure and honor to have witnessed both of them in their pomp.
He was overrated and the haircut was terrible as well! Ali was the greatest fighter where as Shoaib will never be considered as the greatest fast bowler by anyone who knows what they are talking about!or talent and waqar wins this easily.
