Should Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis performances against New Zealand in the 90's have any value, given they were a horribly weak side back then?

[Savak]

Mccullam's captaincy changed the nature and direction of New Zealand Cricket. New Zealand have been blessed with some extraordinary talent in the last 10 years i.e. Brendon Mccullam, Kane Williamson, Daryl Mitchell Jesse Ryder, Tom Latham, Devin Conway, Rachin Ravindra, Lockie Ferguson, Ross Taylor, Tim Southie, Trent Bolt, Kyle Jamieson, Mitchel Satner, O Keefe, Matt Henry and this team has qualified for the Semi Finals and Finals of every ICC event and they have beaten Pakistan in UAE, India in India.

In stark contrast the New Zealand team of the 1990's which Wasim, Waqar heavily feasted on in 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995 was perhaps its weakest in history. Don't believe me, just check out the batting averages of the vast majority of the batsmen who played in those series and compare them to the players New Zealand have at its disposal today. Only the 1990 team had one world class player i.e. Martin Crowe and both the W's admit he was the best player of reverse swing they had ever encountered. Martin Crowe was not in the 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 series. I mean should the wickets of the W even be counted or have any value in these series when NZ were at its weakest?

Let's not forget Pakistan drew 1-1 against NZ at home in 1996 and in the 2001 series NZ finally had a bunch of good cricketers who were way superior that the cricketers in the early 90's team i.e. Mark Richardson, Steven Fleming, Nathan Astle, Mathew Sinclair, Daryl Tuffey, Chris Martin e.t.c and the end result was that Pakistan lost the ODI series 3-2 and the test series was drawn 1-1.

 

[sweep_shot]

NZ were still a heavyweight team. They won 2000 CT and reached 1992 semi-final.

Performances against them in 90's should definitely count.

We shouldn't try to analyse 1990's cricket through the lense of modern times.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

NZ were not a weak side back then too...but it is debatable which side is better. Current one or any from past

 

[Buffet]

Mccullam's captaincy changed the nature and direction of New Zealand Cricket. New Zealand have been blessed with some extraordinary talent in the last 10 years i.e. Brendon Mccullam, Kane Williamson, Daryl Mitchell Jesse Ryder, Tom Latham, Devin Conway, Rachin Ravindra, Lockie Ferguson, Ross Taylor, Tim Southie, Trent Bolt, Kyle Jamieson, Mitchel Satner, O Keefe, Matt Henry and this team has qualified for the Semi Finals and Finals of every ICC event and they have beaten Pakistan in UAE, India in India.

In stark contrast the New Zealand team of the 1990's which Wasim, Waqar heavily feasted on in 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995 was perhaps its weakest in history. Don't believe me, just check out the batting averages of the vast majority of the batsmen who played in those series and compare them to the players New Zealand have at its disposal today. Only the 1990 team had one world class player i.e. Martin Crowe and both the W's admit he was the best player of reverse swing they had ever encountered. Martin Crowe was not in the 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 series. I mean should the wickets of the W even be counted or have any value in these series when NZ were at its weakest?

Let's not forget Pakistan drew 1-1 against NZ at home in 1996 and in the 2001 series NZ finally had a bunch of good cricketers who were way superior that the cricketers in the early 90's team i.e. Mark Richardson, Steven Fleming, Nathan Astle, Mathew Sinclair, Daryl Tuffey, Chris Martin e.t.c and the end result was that Pakistan lost the ODI series 3-2 and the test series was drawn 1-1.

It should be given value but with context. There is no harm in feasting against weaker sides or minnows. But you got to step up when playing against better teams as well. NZ was weak and the first 10 years of Wasim's career SL was minnow. You should not discard wickets agaisnt NZ/SL but you should see it in conext of what they did against better teams. You can also see what other pacers like McGrath, Ambrose, Donald etc did at the same time.




Before anyone brings the famous arguement about Pakistani wickets not being helpful for Wasim and Waqar,

Here is away against same teams. Wickets were suposed to be more helpful when playing away from Pakistan. You can compare where they stand up against peer group only away to not get into arguement about Pakistani flat pitches.





No one should ignore performance against NZ or minnows, but see it in context. Wasim and Waqar were comfortably below their top level peer group who played with them. Waqar simply lacked the skills, but Wasim with all his skills had less than stellar output against better teams. Wasim should have done better based on his skill set.

Wasim was a tier above Waqar despite getting clubbed together.

 

[topspin]

Mccullam's captaincy changed the nature and direction of New Zealand Cricket. New Zealand have been blessed with some extraordinary talent in the last 10 years i.e. Brendon Mccullam, Kane Williamson, Daryl Mitchell Jesse Ryder, Tom Latham, Devin Conway, Rachin Ravindra, Lockie Ferguson, Ross Taylor, Tim Southie, Trent Bolt, Kyle Jamieson, Mitchel Satner, O Keefe, Matt Henry and this team has qualified for the Semi Finals and Finals of every ICC event and they have beaten Pakistan in UAE, India in India.

In stark contrast the New Zealand team of the 1990's which Wasim, Waqar heavily feasted on in 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995 was perhaps its weakest in history. Don't believe me, just check out the batting averages of the vast majority of the batsmen who played in those series and compare them to the players New Zealand have at its disposal today. Only the 1990 team had one world class player i.e. Martin Crowe and both the W's admit he was the best player of reverse swing they had ever encountered. Martin Crowe was not in the 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 series. I mean should the wickets of the W even be counted or have any value in these series when NZ were at its weakest?

Let's not forget Pakistan drew 1-1 against NZ at home in 1996 and in the 2001 series NZ finally had a bunch of good cricketers who were way superior that the cricketers in the early 90's team i.e. Mark Richardson, Steven Fleming, Nathan Astle, Mathew Sinclair, Daryl Tuffey, Chris Martin e.t.c and the end result was that Pakistan lost the ODI series 3-2 and the test series was drawn 1-1.

You've come with some good threads in the past but this isn't one of them.

New Zealand had some batsmen who were very good at negotiating swing and seam bowling. Despite their limitations they've always punched above their weight because they prepare very well.

In World Cups played during the 90s, they made 2 of the 3 semi-finals. Misbah captained Pakistan in 2 x ICC tournaments; 2013 CT and 2015 World Cup however failed to get his side through to the semis.

 

[Buffet]

NZ were not a weak side back then too...but it is debatable which side is better. Current one or any from past

NZ was a poor test side in 90s.





NZ in the last 10 years,





NZ in the last 10 years is vasly better side than NZ of 90s. It's not debatable. It shows up in results. I don't think NZ had better test team than last 10 years in anytime in their history.

 

[RyanRyan10]

Even the unbiased fans are falling in trap @Rana

 

[Justcrazy]

No.

A test playing nation cannot be underestimated. Wasim and Waqar were all time greats , and I doubt Pakistan will see any like them again.

 

[NishanKonar]

It should be given value but with context. There is no harm in feasting against weaker sides or minnows. But you got to step up when playing against better teams as well. NZ was weak and the first 10 years of Wasim's career SL was minnow. You should not discard wickets agaisnt NZ/SL but you should see it in conext of what they did against better teams. You can also see what other pacers like McGrath, Ambrose, Donald etc did at the same time.

View attachment 151884


Before anyone brings the famous arguement about Pakistani wickets not being helpful for Wasim and Waqar,

Here is away against same teams. Wickets were suposed to be more helpful when playing away from Pakistan. You can compare where they stand up against peer group only away to not get into arguement about Pakistani flat pitches.

View attachment 151885



No one should ignore performance against NZ or minnows, but see it in context. Wasim and Waqar were comfortably below their top level peer group who played with them. Waqar simply lacked the skills, but Wasim with all his skills had less than stellar output against better teams. Wasim should have done better based on his skill set.

Wasim was a tier above Waqar despite getting clubbed together.

always maintained Wasim & Waqar were slightly overrated

Yes both produced excellent highlights packages - so any yound guys watching their reels / videos on youtube wud get excited. Who wont get excited by those banana inswing toe crushers

But if u go deeper into those games - their actual impact is highly debatable. Like they generally struggled against Australia or South Africa - never won a test series against either Australi / SOuth Africa - even though both nations are considered a paradise for pace bowlers

Also they took heaps of wickets against England / NZ when they wer not that great

In contrast McGrath was head & shoulders above everyone - when it came to winning test matches for Australia. He delivered in every country - home & away and with ridiculous consistency. Just like Bumrah is doing nowadays. Or Dale Steyn was doing a a decade back

 

[Deewana Mastana]

While it’s true that New Zealand in the 1990s often struggled to compete against top-tier sides, dismissing the achievements of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis during that era purely on that basis would be unfair and reductive. Greatness in sport is not solely determined by the strength of the opposition, but by consistency, dominance, and the ability to exploit every situation to its maximum — something both Akram and Waqar did with devastating effect.

Yes, New Zealand had a relatively modest batting lineup during much of the 1990s, especially in comparison to the stronger teams of the era like Australia or South Africa. But that doesn’t mean they were pushovers. Batsmen like Martin Crowe (until the mid-90s), Nathan Astle, and Stephen Fleming provided occasional resistance, and conditions in New Zealand — often seamer-friendly — weren’t always easy to exploit unless you had real skill.

What makes Wasim and Waqar's performances significant is not just the volume of wickets they took, but how they took them. Reverse swing at pace, toe-crushing yorkers, and unrelenting pressure were trademarks of their bowling — techniques and skill sets that work regardless of opposition quality. Many great bowlers struggled to consistently exploit weaker sides, often due to complacency or inconsistent conditions. These two, however, were relentless.

Moreover, performances should be judged not only in isolation, but as part of a broader career context. Wasim and Waqar dominated not just against New Zealand, but also against the likes of Australia, India, England, and the West Indies. The New Zealand games were part of a pattern — not an exception.

In conclusion, while New Zealand may not have been the strongest side in the 1990s, the skill, precision, and ruthlessness that Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis exhibited against them still deserve recognition. Dismissing those performances entirely because of the opposition would be akin to ignoring a masterclass just because the audience was small. The artistry remains the same.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Stats don't matter to us.

Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis are two of the most iconic cricketers of the 90s and many of us became passionate fans of the game because of these legends. They played half their cricket in the body breaking heat of the subcontinent and of Sharjah on flat lifeless surfaces. That should also be taken into account. Without world class training facilities and nutrition too.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

There were only 4 strong sides in the 90's

OZ
SA
PAK
WI (fell away 97 onwards)


Performing against NZ and ENG was certainly not as important as performing against these 4 sides .

You can probably add performing against India in India. Because while India were a shyte side away, they were really strong at home.

 

[ikky47]

There were only 4 strong sides in the 90's

OZ
SA
PAK
WI (fell away 97 onwards)


Performing against NZ and ENG was certainly not as important as performing against these 4 sides .

You can probably add performing against India in India. Because while India were a shyte side away, they were really strong at home.

Waqar was not good against any of the 4 strong sides in the 90s mainly feasted on NZ + Eng. Wasim much better record against the other sides. SA is Wasim biggest hole but he only played 2 test matches away in SA in his entire career. He had a good ave in Aus prior to his last tour their in 99/00 which he underpeformed massively. I think Wasim was done as a test level bowler by around the end of 1999 with the exception of a few performances after he should have retired from tests in 1999. But he prolonged his career till 2002 in tests.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Waqar was not good against any of the 4 strong sides in the 90s mainly feasted on NZ + Eng. Wasim much better record against the other sides. SA is Wasim biggest hole but he only played 2 test matches away in SA in his entire career. He had a good ave in Aus prior to his last tour their in 99/00 which he underpeformed massively. I think Wasim was done as a test level bowler by around the end of 1999 with the exception of a few performances after he should have retired from tests in 1999. But he prolonged his career till 2002 in tests.

Yes. Wasim should have retired after winning the Asian Test Championship in '99 imo.

In fact, Waqar should have retired then as well and both should've just focussed on ODIs.

 

[sindhiboy]

NZ was a poor test side in 90s.

View attachment 151886



NZ in the last 10 years,

View attachment 151887



NZ in the last 10 years is vasly better side than NZ of 90s. It's not debatable. It shows up in results. I don't think NZ had better test team than last 10 years in anytime in their history.

So NZ, SL, Zim were the weakest teams in that era and Wasim Akram was particularly impressive vs them.
The West Indies was the one top team he was particularly dominant against both home and away.

His record vs these 4 teams:
249 wickets in 55 tests with a bowling avg of 20.09

His Record vs the rest (Australia,England,South Africa, Bangladesh):
165 wickets in 49 tests with a bowling avg of 28.94

 

[BouncerGuy]

Pick and choose, and you find flaws in top players somehow... That is now how things should be measured.

 

[ikky47]

Yes. Wasim should have retired after winning the Asian Test Championship in '99 imo.

In fact, Waqar should have retired then as well and both should've just focussed on ODIs.

I don't think Wasim was the same bowler in test post his diabeties diagnosis but most definitely he should have called it a day from Test after the Asian Test championship in 99. Same for Waqar really but they both extended their careers unnecessarily.
Players from the subcontinent never retire when they should and always prolong their careers.

Back onto this, Waqar massively underachieved against the best sides, no comparison Bumrah is better test bowler than him. I still think Imran was a better test bowler than Wasim if anything. Which is a whole different topic

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Don't know where you get these weird ideas from. NZ reached two semis in 90s wcs and won CT 2000.

Next thread. Should Bradman's 99.94 average be counted since he never played tests in Asia.

 

[Ab Fan]

It just tells us that they were not some kind of out of the world fast bowlers. Every generation will produce fast bowlers of their calibre. They are greats but not top level.