[VIDEOS] Why did Waqar Younis have such an ordinary record against top sides?

[topspin]

If you go down the XI route than that means you are only considering 11 cricketers, which is unfair.

Thing is either you are an ATG or not.

I get your point, its like you have to choose between Ponting or Smith.

But thing is, ATG itself is one single tier in which both Ponting and Smith will walk in. But maybe some like Damian Martyn might not.

Fair enough.

The only reason why I consider splitting ATGs into tiers to be important when ranking players is simply because I feel there is a significant difference in quality between those who are nearer to the top than those who scrape it in the ATG category.

For e.g. I consider the gap between Wasim and Waqar, when it comes to their difference in class, to be quite noticeable statistically and visually.

 

[Major]

Fair enough.

The only reason why I consider splitting ATGs into tiers to be important when ranking players is simply because I feel there is a significant difference in quality between those who are nearer to the top than those who scrape it in the ATG category.

For e.g. I consider the gap between Wasim and Waqar, when it comes to their difference in class, to be quite noticeable statistically and visually.

In an atg team would who would you choose as the second or third bowler amongst all bowlers in the world.

Assuming that you keep akram as first

 

[shariqnoor]

Waqar would be today's equivalent of soda crate street bowler Haris Rauf. With zero reverse swing on offer in white ball cricket these days, he would be a complete scattergun. He would be getting a royal spanking from the likes of AB de Villiers and Jos Buttler.

 

[Buffet]

The main thing you have skipped here is adding New Zealand, England, and Sri Lanka to the filter. Do you think these teams were minnows in the past?

And one more thing, it doesn't matter how many 5fers or 10fers you have taken. The thing that matters the most is the number of wickets, and I see his strike rate aligning with McGrath's.

I simply took the W/L during his career and took the top 5 teams based on W/L. They were not minnows but they were not the stronger teams as reflected by W/L.

Like today, performance against Aus, Ind, Eng and NZ will be seen differently than teams below them. That does not make other teams minnows.

 

[Buffet]

The main thing you have skipped here is adding New Zealand, England, and Sri Lanka to the filter. Do you think these teams were minnows in the past?

And one more thing, it doesn't matter how many 5fers or 10fers you have taken. The thing that matters the most is the number of wickets, and I see his strike rate aligning with McGrath's.

For batsmen scoring tons against strong teams and for bowlers taking 5-fers against strong teams has been the benchmark in test cricket.

Yes, you can have situations where 90 runs are far more valuable than 150 runs and similarly 4 wickets are far more valuable than 5-fers, but over a long career it evens out. A batsman having 3-4 tons in his entire career against top oppositions or bowler having 3-4 5-fers against strong opposition is not going to be seen a top tier performer. Does not make them poor players, just not top tier. That and away performance against strong teams.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Waqar has been acknowledged by the whole world. It is a rare feat. that a guy performs against the top 10 teams of his era. The one who does that it the greatest of the lot, Waqar might not be the greatest one to ever play this sport but he definitely is one of the ATGs.

 

[Buffet]

Fair enough.

The only reason why I consider splitting ATGs into tiers to be important when ranking players is simply because I feel there is a significant difference in quality between those who are nearer to the top than those who scrape it in the ATG category.

For e.g. I consider the gap between Wasim and Waqar, when it comes to their difference in class, to be quite noticeable statistically and visually.

It's actually a fair point. Only 11 players can make into ATG XI but some players will be candidate for spot and some are never a candidate. For example, players like Dravid, Waqar are never a candidate for even 2nd ATG XI. On other hands - Steyn, Wasim, McGrath, SRT, Lara etc will be candidate for a spot even if they miss it.

So top tier ATGs can be described as who are candidate for at least 2nd world XI if not the first.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

It's actually a fair point. Only 11 players can make into ATG XI but some players will be candidate for spot and some are never a candidate. For example, players like Dravid, Waqar are never a candidate for even 2nd ATG XI. On other hands - Steyn, Wasim, McGrath, SRT, Lara etc will be candidate for a spot even if they miss it.

So top tier ATGs can be described as who are candidate for at least 2nd world XI if not the first.

Why would dravid not be a candidate for a 2nd atg xi

 

[NishanKonar]

Why would dravid not be a candidate for a 2nd atg xi

Dravid was bang average in Australia & South Africa

 

[NishanKonar]

Problem with Waqar Younis was he a bit of a one trick guy. Had a fast inswinging yorker but very little apart from that. His new ball skills were not great. He was basically Lasith Malinga but with more reverse swing due to doctored balls of the 90s when umpires were less vigilant.

After sometime good batter simply reduced their backlift to keep out that yorker & Waqar struggled to get them out. He was very effective against tailenders but on pitches which were not helpful he generally started to pick frontline batter's wickets

After he lost his pace post his injury in 1995 - that inswinging yorker became less lethal - just like Shaheen Shah after his comeback

 

[Mamoon]

Agreed.



So does this mean in your eyes you no longer consider him to be an ATG? I remember you once ranked him as one.

There’s no doubt he was a beneficiary of ball tampering but he also came back from injury and proved himself to be a complete bowler when he was able to bowl good conventional swing with the new ball. The way I see it, he had the longevity and a decent number of wickets to scrape his way as an ATG bowler but at the same I do accept it’s a borderline case.

The true definition of an ATG player is someone who will be great in every era. A bowler like Waqar doesn’t fit that category because he would be nowhere near great today.

Waqar today would be one of the most expensive bowlers in the world with a high average. There is no way he would be doing better than guys like Bumrah, Cummins, Hazlewood, Rabada etc.

Therefore, calling him one of the greatest bowlers ever is an overestimation because then you will have to include a lot of other bowlers in that category too.

 

[Mamoon]

Such a foolish statement. The quality of batting in this era and when compared to 90's is chalk and cheese. Majority of bats are Flat track bullies and t20 hacks

There were a lot of crap batsmen in the 90s too who benefited from low scoring rates. These batsmen would be completely exposed today. It works both ways.

Nevertheless, the quality of batting of the two eras is a debate for a different thread because in the context of Waqar’s career, it doesn’t mean much because Waqar struggled against quality batsmen in his time as well.

 

[Mamoon]

bro you use the same argument against me when there is a discussion on inzi.

You say the same thing that because i didnt watch him in the 90s or early 2000s i dont know better

It is difficult not to if you say stuff like Rizwan is a better ODI batsman than Inzamam etc.

 

[IMMY69]

It's hilarious that posters watch YouTube snippets and assume Waqar was a one trick guy...

In a team of ATG's I cannot think of a better bowler (pre first back injury) to come in as first change.

 

[NishanKonar]

It's hilarious that posters watch YouTube snippets and assume Waqar was a one trick guy...

In a team of ATG's I cannot think of a better bowler (pre first back injury) to come in as first change.

I am a 90s kid. Watched Waqar Younis during his peak years. And yes he was one trick guy. A Lasith Malinga with more reverse swing. That big inswing yorker but limited skills with new ball

Only those who never watched him live will disagree

 

[NishanKonar]

The true definition of an ATG player is someone who will be great in every era. A bowler like Waqar doesn’t fit that category because he would be nowhere near great today.

Waqar today would be one of the most expensive bowlers in the world with a high average. There is no way he would be doing better than guys like Bumrah, Cummins, Hazlewood, Rabada etc.

Therefore, calling him one of the greatest bowlers ever is an overestimation because then you will have to include a lot of other bowlers in that category too.

Disagree here. Waqar Younis had a lethal yorker with pinpoint accuracy ; so he wud have excelled in T20s & ODI - just like Lasith Malinga

 

[zarak]

Very simple split his career into two parts and check those stats. Waqar up to 1994-1995 and the Waqar that played after. The latter waqar was at the level of Rana Naved. A basic outswing bowler. He continued to play on reputation and seniority but did not warrant a place in the side.

 

[Mamoon]

So would you have the same criticism of Wasim ?

Both Wasim and Waqar benefited a lot from doctored balls and weak tailenders. In fact, Wasim has the highest percentage of tailend wickets among all notable pacers.

However, Wasim had genuine skill with the new ball. He would have been a nightmare for the batsmen in any era. Waqar never learned to bowl with an undoctored new ball until 2000-2001 when he was fast medium and no longer effective with the old ball.

Disagree here. Waqar Younis had a lethal yorker with pinpoint accuracy ; so he wud have excelled in T20s & ODI - just like Lasith Malinga

A major reason why his yorkers were unplayable was because of reverse-swing. Take that out of the equation and he becomes easier to manage.

Waqar today wouldn’t have a Test career, an average ODI career and a good T20 career because he would pick plenty of wickets because of his length but he will also get tonked.

 

[zarak]

Both Wasim and Waqar benefited a lot from doctored balls and weak tailenders. In fact, Wasim has the highest percentage of tailend wickets among all notable pacers.

However, Wasim had genuine skill with the new ball. He would have been a nightmare for the batsmen in any era. Waqar never learned to bowl with an undoctored new ball until 2000-2001 when he was fast medium and no longer effective with the old ball.

A major reason why his yorkers were unplayable was because of reverse-swing. Take that out of the equation and he becomes easier to manage.

Waqar today wouldn’t have a Test career, an average ODI career and a good T20 career because he would pick plenty of wickets because of his length but he will also get tonked.

Agreed. Waqar today would be somewhere around the level of Hasan Ali.

 

[Mamoon]

Agreed. Waqar today would be somewhere around the level of Hasan Ali.

This is why Shaheen deserves more respect from the fans and more protection from PCB. A fit and firing Shaheen is better than Waqar and Shoaib.

His skill with the new ball is incredible, but he needs at least 6 months off to get his pace back. Bumrah missed almost the entire 2022 and he is now back as good as ever.

Had BCCI rushed him back or not allowed him to fully recover, they would have lost him just like PCB risk losing Shaheen.

 

[ssuhaide]

Waqar was a huge beneficiary of bowling with tampered balls against lineups that had 4-5 number 11s, and today’s number 11s have far better defensive techniques and temperament than number 8s of his time.

Waqar would just be an ordinary bowler in today’s era. Hardly better than someone like Rauf and Wahab.

I'm no Waqar fan boy but come on saying Waqar is hardly better than Rauf is insulting. The guy took 300 plus test wickets. I also find it very interesting that multiple posters point out Waqar was great with the old tampered ball and tarnish him with that brush but then don't tarnish Wasim with the same brush.

 

[zarak]

This is why Shaheen deserves more respect from the fans and more protection from PCB. A fit and firing Shaheen is better than Waqar and Shoaib.

His skill with the new ball is incredible, but he needs at least 6 months off to get his pace back. Bumrah missed almost the entire 2022 and he is now back as good as ever.

Had BCCI rushed him back or not allowed him to fully recover, they would have lost him just like PCB risk losing Shaheen.

I think PCB is blamed too much. Does Shaheen want to be a legendary bowler or a rich bowler. He can opt out of IL20 or play half of the PSL or refuse T20 captaincy but he seems motivated by $$. I do not think he will have a great career and will probably become like an Irfan Pathan type allrounder.

 

[shaz619]

Pakistani fast bowlers can only dream of matching half of what he achieved, it’s always fun though going back in time to pick such a career apart to suit our narrow narratives

 

[Major]

It is difficult not to if you say stuff like Rizwan is a better ODI batsman than Inzamam etc.

You never watched waqars peak but give justification....

 

[Major]

The stats posted in op are misleading.

Also, the guy bowled in sharjah and pakistan and hmaitained a good avg

 

[Buffet]

The stats posted in op are misleading.

Also, the guy bowled in sharjah and pakistan and hmaitained a good avg

What do you find misleading about it?

 

[Major]

What do you find misleading about it?

the criteria should be bowling avgs, not 5vers

 

[Buffet]

Why would dravid not be a candidate for a 2nd atg xi

He has obvious weakness. We are talking about ATG XI and I won't even consider players like Dravid or Waqar.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

He has obvious weakness. We are talking about ATG XI and I won't even consider players like Dravid or Waqar.

I am taking about a 2nd Atg xi. I am aware of Dravids fault and find his fanboys who consider him to be better than sachin as annoying and delusional.
But still should be good enough to make a 2nd rate atg xi

 

[Buffet]

the criteria should be bowling avgs, not 5vers

Average is also highlighted in the same stats and it's around 28-29. That's pretty ordinary as well.

Having said that batsmen are judged on making big tons and bowlers are judged on 5-fers in terms of how much impact they are having. Yes, some time those tons or 5-fers are not really impactful but over entire career, if you are going to have 3-4 tons or 3-4 5-fers against top sides then it's just not good enough. Top tier players perform against the top teams , it's simple as that. Performing means you score daddy tons and run through their batting line ups.

Pollock had below 25 average in first and second half of his career. But I don't put him in bracket of Donald or Steyn. He stopped taking 5-fers in his second half of career. He was in the same bracket in first half but in second half he was not a bowler who will run through sides, more like picking up 2 wickets here or 3 wickets there while average was below 25. So average is not meaningless but you got to see if bowler is able to run through sides and 5-fers are good proxy to judge that.

 

[Buffet]

I am taking about a 2nd Atg xi. I am aware of Dravids fault and find his fanboys who consider him to be better than sachin as annoying and delusional.
But still should be good enough to make a 2nd rate atg xi

Yes, 2nd ATG XI is not so easy to get. There are players who did not have so obvious weakness against bounce.

 

[Ab Fan]

He has obvious weakness. We are talking about ATG XI and I won't even consider players like Dravid or Waqar.

None of the two will make it to first or second ATG XI even if we consider from 1960 onwards.

 

[NishanKonar]

Both Wasim and Waqar benefited a lot from doctored balls and weak tailenders. In fact, Wasim has the highest percentage of tailend wickets among all notable pacers.

However, Wasim had genuine skill with the new ball. He would have been a nightmare for the batsmen in any era. Waqar never learned to bowl with an undoctored new ball until 2000-2001 when he was fast medium and no longer effective with the old ball.

A major reason why his yorkers were unplayable was because of reverse-swing. Take that out of the equation and he becomes easier to manage.

Waqar today wouldn’t have a Test career, an average ODI career and a good T20 career because he would pick plenty of wickets because of his length but he will also get tonked.

It was not just reverse swing. Waqar Younis bowled really quick in the early 90s. He was in that 90-95 mph range. Also his yorkers were deadly accurate. FAst yorkers at 90 mph wud be lethal in any erawith or without reverse swing

Like I said without reverse swing he wud be Lasith Malinga who had very successful LOI career. I dotn think Waqar was ATG but there is no point just downplaying his abilities. he was far better than Hasan Ali or Shaheen Shah

 

[Buffet]

Waqar would be today's equivalent of soda crate street bowler Haris Rauf. With zero reverse swing on offer in white ball cricket these days, he would be a complete scattergun. He would be getting a royal spanking from the likes of AB de Villiers and Jos Buttler.

Nah, Haris can't even bowl 20 overs.

We are looking at flaws in Waqar but it hardly means that he is comparable to bowlers who bowl 20-25 balls in one match. He was expensive even in 90s in ODI, but no way comparable to Rauf.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Waqar had the greatest two year bowling peak is the history of cricket

 

[160KPH]

IMO Waqar’s record gets unnecessarily nitpicked - particularly on this forum.

You have to compare bowlers against other bowlers of their era as they had played under different rule sets and conditions. One thing is for sure, Waqar had one of the most explosive and deadly peaks of any bowler in history and there’s a reason why he’s rated so highly by his contemporaries and by the other greats of the game.

Also, the Bumrah comparisons don’t make any sense because Bumrah is bowling in one of the most bowling friendly Test eras in the history of cricket. Never before have there been so many Test bowlers bowling under an average of 25 and the last 5 years had one of the lowest bowling strike rates in the entire history of Test cricket. This is due to numerous factors but partially due to batsmen’s technique favoring the limited overs format more than the longer format.

This isn’t to say that Bumrah isn’t an amazing bowler - he’s absolutely incredible. But you can’t just compare him across eras with other bowlers because he’s bowling in a very bowler friendly Test era. Just compare him with his peers like Rabada, Cummins, etc and compare Waqar with his peers.

 

[topspin]

In an atg team would who would you choose as the second or third bowler amongst all bowlers in the world.

Assuming that you keep akram as first

Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath
Wasim Akram

 

[topspin]

It's actually a fair point. Only 11 players can make into ATG XI but some players will be candidate for spot and some are never a candidate. For example, players like Dravid, Waqar are never a candidate for even 2nd ATG XI. On other hands - Steyn, Wasim, McGrath, SRT, Lara etc will be candidate for a spot even if they miss it.

So top tier ATGs can be described as who are candidate for at least 2nd world XI if not the first.

Exactly that.

Do you consider Waqar to be an ATG? For me it's a borderline case and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he just about makes it.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Its not a bad record at all.

Good record against all sides.

Top test record overall.

Express pace peak that has probably not been matched.

Massive impact and legacy on those that seen him even the likes of Usain Bolt from the Windies loved Waqar at his prime.

He seems unnecessarily disrespected here, I suspect its because of his coaching career.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Agreed. Waqar today would be somewhere around the level of Hasan Ali.

Waqar is in the top 5 fast bowlers produced in the history of Pakistan.

India is yet to produce a bowler that is comparable to the dirt under Waqars spikes.

England have never had a genuine express bowler averaging what Waqar does or having a career like him.

Relegating him to Hassan Ali category is pure disrespect.

 

[Buffet]

Exactly that.

Do you consider Waqar to be an ATG? For me it's a borderline case and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he just about makes it.

Yes, I consider Waqar an ATG.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

I am a 90s kid. Watched Waqar Younis during his peak years. And yes he was one trick guy. A Lasith Malinga with more reverse swing. That big inswing yorker but limited skills with new ball

Only those who never watched him live will disagree

Lol Malinga could barely bowl in test matches.

 

[Ab Fan]

Don't think there is any doubt that Wasim and Donald were probably the most skillful pacers of the 90s decade.

Waqar didn't relied on conventional swing or seam much. Waqar was also short heighted so unlike Ambrose, he didn't had the ability to extract the extra bounce and accuracy was obviously not his forte.

These skills or lack of are basically what separates Waqar from Wasim, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath. Nevertheless, he is the 4th best pacer of the 1990s and that's an achievement itself. In 1990s test XI, most would have Wasim, Ambrose, Donald and Warne as their 8-11.

 

[Kianig89]

From Allan Donald to Ricky Ponting to Sachin Tendulkar to Michael Atherton to Michael Holding everybody at some stage in their commentary stint as quoted Waqar Younis as top tier World class fast bowler and that should be enough for fans to make any judgement rather than relying on arm chair critics who have never held a cricket bat or bowl in their entire life

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Its okay to say that he shouldn’t be clubbed with Wasim, Mcgraths and Ambrose but again I would rate him over the likes of Johnson, Shami, Srinath, Boult etc

I would say ye is a borderline ATG and that’s great.

 

[NishanKonar]

Nah, Haris can't even bowl 20 overs.

We are looking at flaws in Waqar but it hardly means that he is comparable to bowlers who bowl 20-25 balls in one match. He was expensive even in 90s in ODI, but no way comparable to Rauf.

Haris Rauf is modern day version of Muhammad Sami. In fact Sami was actually slightly better in his initial days - he had decent control & good swing before he degenerated into a loose canon bcoz of his insane obsession with speed guns !

Waqar Younis is leagues apart

 

[NishanKonar]

Its okay to say that he shouldn’t be clubbed with Wasim, Mcgraths and Ambrose but again I would rate him over the likes of Johnson, Shami, Srinath, Boult etc

I would say ye is a borderline ATG and that’s great.

Shami & Trent Boult wud be rated as better test bowlers than Waqar but Waqar was better than them in ODI

 

[NishanKonar]

Don't think there is any doubt that Wasim and Donald were probably the most skillful pacers of the 90s decade.

Waqar didn't relied on conventional swing or seam much. Waqar was also short heighted so unlike Ambrose, he didn't had the ability to extract the extra bounce and accuracy was obviously not his forte.

These skills or lack of are basically what separates Waqar from Wasim, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath. Nevertheless, he is the 4th best pacer of the 1990s and that's an achievement itself. In 1990s test XI, most would have Wasim, Ambrose, Donald and Warne as their 8-11.

Alan Donald was not really skillful. He had brute pace but never had that swing & craftmanship of Wasim Akram. On dead pitches Donald tended to struggle. He was lethal on those pacy bouncy South African pitches

 

[SamNJ]

His new ball skills weren't really that poor and he could definitely seam the ball a lot more than people here think of.
He struggled to extract bounce, that was the only weak link in his bolwing.

 

[Ab Fan]

Shami & Trent Boult wud be rated as better test bowlers than Waqar but Waqar was better than them in ODI

Not really. Boult was better in conventional swing but worst of the three in terms of reverse swing.

Waqar was faster, more capable of knocking off the tail and at that pace and reverse swing, he would have picked bucketload of wickets even if ball tampering wasn't that common in those days.

 

[NishanKonar]

In the 90s these wud be my top pace bowlers

1. Glenn McGrath
2. Wasim Akram
3. Curtly Ambrose

After that Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Waqar Younis

 

[NishanKonar]

Not really. Boult was better in conventional swing but worst of the three in terms of reverse swing.

Waqar was faster, more capable of knocking off the tail and at that pace and reverse swing, he would have picked bucketload of wickets even if ball tampering wasn't that common in those days.

Boult had much better new ball skills. Waqar was very ineffective with new ball in test cricket. He was deadly with old ball but mostly used to clean up the tail. That skewed his bowling average. Bcoz he wud struggle all innings but then take 3-4 tailenders in just 3-4 overs with his fast inswinging yorkers. Thats why his strike rate was insane. But it was misleading bcoz he did not run thru top order unlike say Dale Steyn or Bumrah or Boult in peak form !

 

[Ab Fan]

Alan Donald was not really skillful. He had brute pace but never had that swing & craftmanship of Wasim Akram. On dead pitches Donald tended to struggle. He was lethal on those pacy bouncy South African pitches

Donald could swing the ball both ways, may not be at the level of Wasim, Hadlee or Anderson but he did, probably at same level as Bumrah today. He was a terrific exponent of reverse swing too and has great record in Asia, also had an effective yorker. Basically he is what Bumrah is today but faster than him and smoother action. Bumrah has a better yorker and a very cunning slower delivery.

 

[Ab Fan]

In the 90s these wud be my top pace bowlers

1. Glenn McGrath
2. Wasim Akram
3. Curtly Ambrose

After that Donald, Pollock, Walsh, Waqar Younis

McGrath debuted in 1995. Ideally he should be behind Wasim, Ambrose, Donald and Waqar all 4 in 1990s decade. Pollock was giving him a close tough fight throughout the 90s.

 

[Ab Fan]

Boult had much better new ball skills. Waqar was very ineffective with new ball in test cricket. He was deadly with old ball but mostly used to clean up the tail. That skewed his bowling average. Bcoz he wud struggle all innings but then take 3-4 tailenders in just 3-4 overs with his fast inswinging yorkers. Thats why his strike rate was insane. But it was misleading bcoz he did not run thru top order unlike say Dale Steyn or Bumrah or Boult in peak form !

He would get the better of several good batsmen too due to his mastery of reverse swing especially with the pace he bowled. One just can't take away the fact that he had amazing skills in the first half of 90s and he would have still run through several sides. Boult is comfortably below him. He himself is a one trick pony, only good with conventional swing.

 

[NishanKonar]

Donald could swing the ball both ways, may not be at the level of Wasim, Hadlee or Anderson but he did, probably at same level as Bumrah today. He was a terrific exponent of reverse swing too and has great record in Asia, also had an effective yorker. Basically he is what Bumrah is today but faster than him and smoother action. Bumrah has a better yorker and a very cunning slower delivery.

No way. Bumrah is leagues ahead of Donald. Never saw Donald win South Africa a test match in Asia. He was always more of a helpful conditions type bowler - very good in South Africa & England but a bit tame in other conditions. In fact he also struggled to make an impact in Australia

 

[NishanKonar]

McGrath debuted in 1995. Ideally he should be behind Wasim, Ambrose, Donald and Waqar all 4 in 1990s decade. Pollock was giving him a close tough fight throughout the 90s.

From 1995-2000 Glen McGrath was by far the best test bowler. The 1 guy who won test matches consistently for Australia. Wasim Akram was very good in the early 90s but became a bit flat in the 2nd half in test cricket. Ambrose was good throughout the decade but McGrath was the better matchwinner

 

[NishanKonar]

He would get the better of several good batsmen too due to his mastery of reverse swing especially with the pace he bowled. One just can't take away the fact that he had amazing skills in the first half of 90s and he would have still run through several sides. Boult is comfortably below him. He himself is a one trick pony, only good with conventional swing.

The thing is Waqar generally struggled to take top order wickets even in his peak years. He wud come at the end of the innings & finish of the tail. rarely saw him trouble top order batters expect when they were looking to score quick runs in the slog overs

One reason Waqar struggled in Australia is bcoz the ball did not reverse swing there even with the old ball.

 

[Buffet]

McGrath debuted in 1995. Ideally he should be behind Wasim, Ambrose, Donald and Waqar all 4 in 1990s decade. Pollock was giving him a close tough fight throughout the 90s.

McGrath debuted in 93 and actually played more test than Waqar. The highest wicket taker among pacers in 90s was Ambrose with 309 wickets and McGrath had 266 wickets.

There is no reason to not count McGrath when talking about bowlers in 90s.

 

[NishanKonar]

McGrath debuted in 93 and actually played more test than Waqar. The highest wicket taker among pacers in 90s was Ambrose with 309 wickets and McGrath had 266 wickets.

There is no reason to not count McGrath when talking about bowlers in 90s.

Thats why McGrath was for me best bowler in the 90s. Followed by Wasim & Ambrose. Wasim was better in ODI but Ambrose was better in test

After that I wud put Courtney Walsh in test cricket. He was bit underrated but had very good record in England & Asian conditions

 

[Buffet]

Thats why McGrath was for me best bowler in the 90s. Followed by Wasim & Ambrose. Wasim was better in ODI but Ambrose was better in test

After that I wud put Courtney Walsh in test cricket. He was bit underrated but had very good record in England & Asian conditions

Walsh actually got better with time. Underrated bowler.

 

[NishanKonar]

My point is Waqar Younis had terrific stats. 373 wickets at an excellent strike rate. But his wicket tally & strike rate was skewed by his ability to clean up tail very fast with old ball

Against top order batters Waqar was not so great. Nowhere close to the likes of McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Pollock, Donald, Wasim.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

154KMH in an odi in South Africa after his back injury

His back injury is also the reason he relied so heavily on reverse swing after his comeback. He had to adopt the open chest delivery to stay in the game, hence he was less able to exploit the new ball swing of his contemporaries.

 

[NishanKonar]

Walsh actually got better with time. Underrated bowler.

Yes from 1991 onwards he was pretty good. And although he was medium fast, he had a menacing bouncer. On the 5th day on wearing wickets in Asia , he was lethal. Saw him knock out so many batters with his bouncer even on low slow Asian pitches

 

[Buffet]

Consensus so far - Waqar's ordinary record against top sides was due to his over relying on reverse swing and lack of new ball skills.

 

[Technics 1210]

Alan Border on Waqar Younis unable to play the 1992 WC due to injury - half our worries are over.

 

[Ab Fan]

No way. Bumrah is leagues ahead of Donald. Never saw Donald win South Africa a test match in Asia. He was always more of a helpful conditions type bowler - very good in South Africa & England but a bit tame in other conditions. In fact he also struggled to make an impact in Australia

Donald averages in teens in India and Sri Lanka. Just phenomenal bowler who lost few years of his peak due to apartheid ban. He would have debuted around 1986-87 otherwise.

 

[Ab Fan]

Anderson can actually be considered a better bowler than Waqar. The guy has phenomenal skills and amazing longevity. Boult? Not really. He was slower than Anderson, doesnt have a good record in Asia and doesn't have the longevity either.

 

[NishanKonar]

Donald averages in teens in India and Sri Lanka. Just phenomenal bowler who lost few years of his peak due to apartheid ban. He would have debuted around 1986-87 otherwise.

Bhai averages & stats does not convey everything

If u go by stats Waqar Younis wud be ATG !

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Consensus so far - Waqar's ordinary record against top sides was due to his over relying on reverse swing and lack of new ball skills.

If you ignore why he had to rely on reverse swing which was his career threatening back injury when he was at the height of his powers. That he still went on to be a superstar despite having to change his action is testament to his greatness. You could compare it to Muhammad Ali who relied on sheer boxing skill once his speed and reactions had left him.

 

[Buffet]

If you ignore why he had to rely on reverse swing which was his career threatening back injury when he was at the height of his powers. That he still went on to be a superstar despite having to change his action is testament to his greatness. You could compare it to Muhammad Ali who relied on sheer boxing skill once his speed and reactions had left him.

Yes, that's why some poster comparing him with Rauf etc have lost the plot. Despite having injury, he bowled and played 50 plus tests. Any parallel with some one, who wants to bowl 20 balls in a day, does not make sense. He is one of the greats of the game.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Yes, that's why some poster comparing him with Rauf etc have lost the plot. Despite having injury, he bowled and played 50 plus tests. Any parallel with some one, who wants to bowl 20 balls in a day, does not make sense. He is one of the greats of the game.

Rauf has plenty of raw ability, he can actually do most everything with the ball, just lacks guidance and coaching. Imran Khan would have been perfect if he had been less focused on leading his nation in other maters.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Shami & Trent Boult wud be rated as better test bowlers than Waqar but Waqar was better than them in ODI

No one rates them better, you are wrong.

Waqars peak irrespective of who it came against is more than enough to take him higher than Boult and Shami.

In odis I can actually agree if someone says that Boult and Shami are better coz they have great world cup records and also very good overall stats.

 

[adi_62941]

Shoaib was better than him in terms of end results. Shoaib did take wickets against top teams, and he was a top match winner for Pakistan. Waqar was a beast in his early 4-5 years, and then he caught that injury which resulted in shortening his pace, eventually exposing his bowling weaknesses to all top teams and batsmen. He was a very ordinary bowler post-1996 until he retired. Although he did manage to take some impactful wickets later in his career, he also faced more failures.

Like Saqlain, he retired very early; otherwise, they both could have lasted until the 2007 World Cup

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Anderson can actually be considered a better bowler than Waqar. The guy has phenomenal skills and amazing longevity. Boult? Not really. He was slower than Anderson, doesnt have a good record in Asia and doesn't have the longevity either.

Anderson is an outlier in many ways. He was definitely not a "great" bowler until 2014. A good one at best.

But from June 2014,

He has taken 350 Test wickets at 22.14 (approx)

He has been the best seamer of the last decade at least in terms of his record .

The Anderson of the last 10 years compares favorably to the career records of many ATG bowlers

 

[Ab Fan]

Bhai averages & stats does not convey everything

If u go by stats Waqar Younis wud be ATG !

Donald has 4-fers and 5-fers in Asia and his wickets tally is impressive too, what more you are looking for. His worse record is vs Australia but even that is not awful by any standard.

 

[Statpadder Inc]

Wasim, Ambrose, McGrath and Donald are tier 1 atgs.
Walsh, pollock and waqar in the tier below.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Waqar's overall career , including his peak, is the only reason I would put him 7th amongst his contemporaries behind Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock , McGrath, Wasim.

The primary issue is that his record is skewed by taking around 20 % of his wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh at a low average . None of the others bashes those 2 Test minnows like that.

Their records hold up against the Top 8 sides.

If you take a post peak Waqar and exclude ZIM and BD, the numbers look even worse

From October 5, 1994 onwards

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

stats.espncricinfo.com

This is why those who saw him after his peak in Test cricket never saw him as a particularly impressive bowler .

Whenever you saw Waqar against top 8 sides from 1995 onwards, you were left with the impression that he is a good bowler and nothing more.

It was a monstrous peak from October 1990 - October 1994

 

[Buffet]

Waqar's overall career , including his peak, is the only reason I would put him 7th amongst his contemporaries behind Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock , McGrath, Wasim.

The primary issue is that his record is skewed by taking around 20 % of his wickets against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh at a low average . None of the others bashes those 2 Test minnows like that.

Their records hold up against the Top 8 sides.

If you take a post peak Waqar and exclude ZIM and BD, the numbers look even worse

From October 5, 1994 onwards

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

stats.espncricinfo.com

This is why those who saw him after his peak in Test cricket never saw him as a particularly impressive bowler .

Whenever you saw Waqar against top 8 sides from 1995 onwards, you were left with the impression that he is a good bowler and nothing more.

It was a monstrous peak from October 1990 - October 1994

Well illustrated the point. Waqar played 44 tests with average around 32 with very little impact after that. No one will give a even second thought for a bowler having such numbers when talking about best bowlers in world in any period.

 

[Buffet]

Also, some posters may feel puzzled why so many rate him just boundary line ATG and some don't see him as an ATG. There is reason for that. I see him as an ATG, but I am never going to argue with anyone who does not see him as an ATG.

In including his peak and non-peak , all pacers record since Waqar debuted against non-minnows.

His average jumps above 25. Hazlewood, Asif, Walsh etc have better average and Akhtar was not too behind.

Normally, ATG bowlers average below 25 against non-minnows. No harm in bashing minnows, but if you can't average below 25 without minnows then it does separates you from the best.