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

Buffet

Senior ODI Player
Joined
Aug 1, 2011
Runs
24,940
Post of the Week
2
Waqar was thrilling to watch and his name comes whenever some one bowls a great reverse swing spell. Today, Bumrah bowled and posters are again talking about Waqar. There is one issue though. Waqar's record was average against top batting sides of his era. I think he was one trick pony and that trick worked mostly against weaker sides.


During Waqar's career, sorted by W/L : WI, Aus, SA, Pak and Ind come as the top 5 teams.


Top 5 sides: Waqar's Avg 29 with 4 5-fers (36 tests)

It's obvious that bowlers like McGrath, Walsh, Ambrose, Pollock, Donald, Wasim, Marshall, Bishop were vastly superior to Waqar with new ball. As result, all of them averaged below 25 and had more 5-fers against top sides.

What was the reason for Waqar to have such an inferior record when compared to other top pacers? Personally I think, Waqar relied on reverse too much and it worked simply great against weaker sides, but stronger sides were able to counter that. Waqar had very little skills with new ball and that resulted in average record against stronger sides.

I did see his entire career and he was fun to watch like Akhtar, but I think Akhtar had more new ball skills than Waqar. I think having Waqar in history makes our cricket richer and he was thrilling to watch. His name will always come up whenever some one bowls a great reverse swing spell.

What are your thoughts? What happened to his famous reverse swing against better sides? Having only 4 5-fers
against the top 4 sides in his entire career? That's just too little.



Waqar_Top_5_Sides.png
 
Waqar has an unreal fantasy fan club because of all Yorkers, reverse swing and stumps flying videos on social media

He’s got to be a good bowler considering he has 375 odd Test wickets. Not sure if I’ve heard any former great/legend praise him as much as they praise Wasim Akram

Wasim Akram for me was the Zinadine Zidane of cricket. Absolute maestro

Waqar Younis comes across as a bit of a Rui Costa. Great footballer but not exactly that elite level
 
Waqar has an unreal fantasy fan club because of all Yorkers, reverse swing and stumps flying videos on social media

He’s got to be a good bowler considering he has 375 odd Test wickets. Not sure if I’ve heard any former great/legend praise him as much as they praise Wasim Akram

Wasim Akram for me was the Zinadine Zidane of cricket. Absolute maestro

Waqar Younis comes across as a bit of a Rui Costa. Great footballer but not exactly that elite level
He was surely a good bowler otherwise you don't get 300 plus test wickets with below 25 average.

Yes, there was noticeable gap between Wasim and Waqar despite both getting lumped together. Against stronger sides, in ODI and with new ball - Waqar was just not among the top bowlers for me. He will be always a legend for me who was fun to watch with old ball against tail or even non-tail of weaker sides.
 
He failed in tests played in Australia and India, who had the 2 x best batting line-ups during his career. He also failed against these sides during the World Cup.

A great bowler who failed on the big stage and for that reason he's not a top tier ATG like Wasim Akram.
 
Waqar faced far superior batters.

Bumrah mostly faces junk T20 hacks.

Also, Waqar was better in ODI than in Test (416 ODI wickets).
Forget Bumrah. Compare his with his peers. He is no where close to other top bowlers against good sides.

I strongly disagree with him being better in ODI than test. He was not really great in ODI format. He got spanked a lot in ODI in his entire career. I rate him as a better test bowler.
 
I strongly disagree with him being better in ODI than test. He was not really great in ODI format. He got spanked a lot in ODI in his entire career. I rate him as a better test bowler.

416 ODI wickets in 262 games.

He is #3 of all time in terms of most wickets in ODI.
 
416 ODI wickets in 262 games.

He is #3 of all time in terms of most wickets in ODI.
To put it in context for you.

If you had 5 Waqar's bowling together, opposition will reach 240 runs on average. That was a very good score in his playing days. He was just too expensive in ODI and picking less than 2 wickets per match means you are not going to bowl out opposition despite being expensive if 5 Waqar's were bowling together.
 
Here is Waqar's ER compared to others when he played - 100+ wickets.

Waqar ODI ER.png
 
Waqar was never a special bowler. He didn't had any weapon in his arsenal except reverse swing with old tampered ball.

I do give him a bit of credit for longevity though. He had a few injuries but managed to come back well inspite of pace going down and ended up with a good number of wickets at a great average. He is at same level as Pollock and Anderson.
 
Waqar faced far superior batters.

Bumrah mostly faces junk T20 hacks.

Also, Waqar was better in ODI than in Test (416 ODI wickets).
This is such nonsense, Waqar's peak came in the 90s which was the most bowling friendly era since the 50s.
Is Joe root a t20 hack?
Waqar benefited from playing with the old tampered ball too
 
Waqar in the first half of his career relied heavily on raw pace and reverse swing with an older ball which proved very effective as his 1989-1993 Test numbers show.

However after several injuries his pace declined and the increased vigilance over ball tampering (Waqar being one of the biggest beneficiaries of) meant he couldn't obtain such extravagant reverse swing.

From 1994 to his retirement, his Test bowling average was 26.85 belonging in the same category as Heath Streak, Simon Doull and Darren Gough.

People lump the 2Ws together but Wasim had more skill and guile. Despite his own injuries and loss of pace - his quick arm action and additional height still made him hard to play.

Waqar is undoubtedly a Pakistani ATG but is a tier below the likes of Wasim, Ambrose, Donald or McGrath.
 
Waqar’s peak was short lived and that peak was breathtaking. That is where all the social media posts we see come from.
For the majority of his career, waqar was a trundler. Like Ian Bishop, Waqar had 2 parts to his career. In the 1st part, both were beasts. Post injury, they were trundlers and decent bowlers. During their peak. both Bishop and Waqar were scary to face.
 
Meaningless stat Angus Fraser Andrew Caddick are better bowlers than Waqar and infact Marshall by this logic
 
Waqar in the first half of his career relied heavily on raw pace and reverse swing with an older ball which proved very effective as his 1989-1993 Test numbers show.

However after several injuries his pace declined and the increased vigilance over ball tampering (Waqar being one of the biggest beneficiaries of) meant he couldn't obtain such extravagant reverse swing.

From 1994 to his retirement, his Test bowling average was 26.85 belonging in the same category as Heath Streak, Simon Doull and Darren Gough.

People lump the 2Ws together but Wasim had more skill and guile. Despite his own injuries and loss of pace - his quick arm action and additional height still made him hard to play.

Waqar is undoubtedly a Pakistani ATG but is a tier below the likes of Wasim, Ambrose, Donald or McGrath.
This, never seen anyone rate waqar higher than wasim expect for a few people in this forum.
And wasim was extremely clutch too
How would you rate imran compared to waqar and wasim
 
Waqar in the first half of his career relied heavily on raw pace and reverse swing with an older ball which proved very effective as his 1989-1993 Test numbers show.

However after several injuries his pace declined and the increased vigilance over ball tampering (Waqar being one of the biggest beneficiaries of) meant he couldn't obtain such extravagant reverse swing.

From 1994 to his retirement, his Test bowling average was 26.85 belonging in the same category as Heath Streak, Simon Doull and Darren Gough.

People lump the 2Ws together but Wasim had more skill and guile. Despite his own injuries and loss of pace - his quick arm action and additional height still made him hard to play.

Waqar is undoubtedly a Pakistani ATG but is a tier below the likes of Wasim, Ambrose, Donald or McGrath.
I suspect posters who lump Wasim and Waqar together have not watched both or just a too big a fan of Waqar.
 
Wasim was a genius with the ball.
Seam & seing with the nee ball and the ability to reverse it with the older ball. A truly special bowler and an ATG.

Waqar between 1989 to 1991 was like a stallion... express pace, would pick up a couple wickets with the new ball at pace (with away swingers) and then coming on later to clean up the middle/lower order.

The back injury prior to the 1992 World Cup denied him his potential ATG status. He remained quick until the end of 1993 but not lightening quick pre his back injury.

Still gets plenty of plaudits for changing the way he bowled and continuing his career lost injuries
 
I am old to have seen Imran, Wasim and Waqar all in their respective primes.

Wasim was the most skillful.
Waqar was the quickest PRE- stress fracture (which kept him out of the 92 World Cup)
Imran had the biggest heart

I saw Waqar when he first came over to Surrey in 91 he was really lightening quick — topped the first class averages but was over bowled by his county. Got injured and was never as quick again — a testimony to his work ethic that he was prepared to work to come back from what could have been a career ending injury (Harris Raufs of the world take note).
 
And Bumrah between 2016-23 has better economy rate than Waqar in ODIs.

Not that it will make any different to you or anyone else, but I'm sorry I can't rate him until I've seen his bowling test results.
 
Wasim was a genius with the ball.
Seam & seing with the nee ball and the ability to reverse it with the older ball. A truly special bowler and an ATG.

Waqar between 1989 to 1991 was like a stallion... express pace, would pick up a couple wickets with the new ball at pace (with away swingers) and then coming on later to clean up the middle/lower order.

The back injury prior to the 1992 World Cup denied him his potential ATG status. He remained quick until the end of 1993 but not lightening quick pre his back injury.

Still gets plenty of plaudits for changing the way he bowled and continuing his career lost injuries
Great minds think alike etc :)
 
Not that it will make any different to you or anyone else, but I'm sorry I can't rate him until I've seen his bowling test results.

Waqar? Ofcourse hard to rate him with those numbers vs top teams.
 
I wouldn't lump in his performances from the back end of his career. The guy was finished by then.

Look at the prime of his career.

In his first five years, he averaged 19.15 with the ball in Test cricket (33 matches) and was lethal. Even in his first 9 years, he was averaging 21.52 (53 matches).
 
Waqar? Ofcourse hard to rate him with those numbers vs top teams.

Bumrah, personally I don't enjoy watching him bowl, not ehrn I see his action... it doesn't look right to me but this may change if I get to see his results from an Independant accredited laboratory
 
I am old to have seen Imran, Wasim and Waqar all in their respective primes.

Wasim was the most skillful.
Waqar was the quickest PRE- stress fracture (which kept him out of the 92 World Cup)
Imran had the biggest heart

I saw Waqar when he first came over to Surrey in 91 he was really lightening quick — topped the first class averages but was over bowled by his county. Got injured and was never as quick again — a testimony to his work ethic that he was prepared to work to come back from what could have been a career ending injury (Harris Raufs of the world take note).
Thanks for the post. I only saw Wasim/Waqar's entire career.
 
The Waqar phenomenon is easy to explain. He flopped against most of the major nations except against England and at that time, it was the English press and institutions that set the narrative of who was great and who wasn't.
 
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.
 
Waqar has an unreal fantasy fan club because of all Yorkers, reverse swing and stumps flying videos on social media

He’s got to be a good bowler considering he has 375 odd Test wickets. Not sure if I’ve heard any former great/legend praise him as much as they praise Wasim Akram

Wasim Akram for me was the Zinadine Zidane of cricket. Absolute maestro

Waqar Younis comes across as a bit of a Rui Costa. Great footballer but not exactly that elite level
The 2Ws achieved a lot but they also warped the minds of a generation of Pakistani pacers into worshipping raw pace and reverse swing at the expense of everything else.

Pace alone doesn't frighten the modern batter while reverse swing post-sandpapergate has reduced. This mindset partly explains why we haven't produced a single seamer to take 200 Test wickets since Waqar, and our horrific record in the Southern Hemisphere including 0-17 in Australia.

However there's one wicket-taking delivery that's stood the test of time. It doesn't produce any viral videos or social media buzz like Waqar's freakish yorker to Brian Lara in Rawalpindi, but it represents the vast majority of the scalps of Test cricket's most prolific seam bowlers.

Good length aimed towards top of offstump with a bit of swing or seam either way. It doesn't fit the toxic masculine image of a Pakistani phaast bowler that many fans have - but that's your bread and butter.
 
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.
Say the person was not even born or who was in her nappies when Waqar burst on to the scene
 
The 2Ws achieved a lot but they also warped the minds of a generation of Pakistani pacers into worshipping raw pace and reverse swing at the expense of everything else.

Pace alone doesn't frighten the modern batter while reverse swing post-sandpapergate has reduced. This mindset partly explains why we haven't produced a single seamer to take 200 Test wickets since Waqar, and our horrific record in the Southern Hemisphere including 0-17 in Australia.

However there's one wicket-taking delivery that's stood the test of time. It doesn't produce any viral videos or social media buzz like Waqar's freakish yorker to Brian Lara in Rawalpindi, but it represents the vast majority of the scalps of Test cricket's most prolific seam bowlers.

Good length aimed towards top of offstump with a bit of swing or seam either way. It doesn't fit the toxic masculine image of a Pakistani phaast bowler that many fans have - but that's your bread and butter.
I think there is some truth in it when people say that the conditions play a part on how a player develops...

Firstly most kids start playing on the streets with tape ball, this is when reverse swing is perfected. Tape up one side and the ball reverses... the quicker you bowl it the harder it becomes to bat against it...

Then as you progress, you start playing on dry, grass less wickets that offer nothing to the faster bowlers so again they work on the reverse swing...

So whilst I agree that the two WW's, Safaraz and IK before them, inspired a generation but I do belive the conditions contributed towards it
 
I wouldn't lump in his performances from the back end of his career. The guy was finished by then.

Look at the prime of his career.

In his first five years, he averaged 19.15 with the ball in Test cricket (33 matches) and was lethal. Even in his first 9 years, he was averaging 21.52 (53 matches).
We cannot accurately analyse players by cherrypicking their best years and ignoring their worst.

Part of a fast bowler's challenge and what determines their legacy is how they maintain their effectiveness with age. Look at Jimmy Anderson who's no less potent now than five or ten years ago.
 
Say the person was not even born or who was in her nappies when Waqar burst on to the scene
Doesn’t matter. Facts are facts. People only use this argument to their convenience when they don’t like what they hear, but it means nothing.
 
We cannot accurately analyse players by cherrypicking their best years and ignoring their worst.

Part of a fast bowler's challenge and what determines their legacy is how they maintain their effectiveness with age. Look at Jimmy Anderson who's no less potent now than five or ten years ago.
Again, I don't think anyone is calling him an ATG... but he was special when his career started.
This is not cherry picking but stating the obvious
 
I wouldn't lump in his performances from the back end of his career. The guy was finished by then.

Look at the prime of his career.

In his first five years, he averaged 19.15 with the ball in Test cricket (33 matches) and was lethal. Even in his first 9 years, he was averaging 21.52 (53 matches).

He was certainly a different bowler in early years, but how many great bowlers we know who has 3-4 5-fers against the top half sides in entire career. Waqar certainly stands out in that regard.

He did not play SA in early years. Not really great against Aus or Ind. He was very good against WI.
 
Doesn’t matter. Facts are facts. People only use this argument to their convenience when they don’t like what they hear, but it means nothing.
Doesn’t matter. Facts are facts. People only use this argument to their convenience when they don’t like what they hear, but it means nothing.

Well it does. Because unlike you, I was fortunate enough to watch him play at the oval and against middles at lords in 1990...

I have seen him bowling live pre and post injury and the excitement he brought to the game wasn't just from Pakistani's but by the vast majorly of people connected to English cricket, players, coaches, administrators, journalists and fans alike.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Somewhat harsh (and hyperbolic, I assume to emphasise your point).
As I wrote pre- stress fracture, he was exceptional.
Consider his performance vs West Indies 1990 on Pakistani pitches.
A side that contained Haynes, Greenidge, Richardson, Hooper, Dujon etc — all super players of pace.
Haynes at the time, described him as the fastest through the air he had ever faced.

Also, whilst lower order batting techniques are indeed undoubtedly better, top order batters don’t have the techniques, especially against pace, that they had in the 90s as they face so little of it.
 
We cannot accurately analyse players by cherrypicking their best years and ignoring their worst.

Part of a fast bowler's challenge and what determines their legacy is how they maintain their effectiveness with age. Look at Jimmy Anderson who's no less potent now than five or ten years ago.

Of course, but it's important to be fair and understand why he was seen as a great fast bowler.

It wasn't natural aging in his case. The injuries took a toll on his body for the rest of his career so we have to keep that in mind when assessing his true quality as a bowler.

If the comparison is on sheer longevity then yes Waqar's career was average.
 
Of course, but it's important to be fair and understand why he was seen as a great fast bowler.

It wasn't natural aging in his case. The injuries took a toll on his body for the rest of his career so we have to keep that in mind when assessing his true quality as a bowler.

If the comparison is on sheer longevity then yes Waqar's career was average.
Nah, it was still above average. In entire career, he got plenty of wickets.
 
Waqar was thrilling to watch and his name comes whenever some one bowls a great reverse swing spell. Today, Bumrah bowled and posters are again talking about Waqar. There is one issue though. Waqar's record was average against top batting sides of his era. I think he was one trick pony and that trick worked mostly against weaker sides.


During Waqar's career, sorted by W/L : WI, Aus, SA, Pak and Ind come as the top 5 teams.


Top 5 sides: Waqar's Avg 29 with 4 5-fers (36 tests)

It's obvious that bowlers like McGrath, Walsh, Ambrose, Pollock, Donald, Wasim, Marshall, Bishop were vastly superior to Waqar with new ball. As result, all of them averaged below 25 and had more 5-fers against top sides.

What was the reason for Waqar to have such an inferior record when compared to other top pacers? Personally I think, Waqar relied on reverse too much and it worked simply great against weaker sides, but stronger sides were able to counter that. Waqar had very little skills with new ball and that resulted in average record against stronger sides.

I did see his entire career and he was fun to watch like Akhtar, but I think Akhtar had more new ball skills than Waqar. I think having Waqar in history makes our cricket richer and he was thrilling to watch. His name will always come up whenever some one bowls a great reverse swing spell.

What are your thoughts? What happened to his famous reverse swing against better sides? Having only 4 5-fers
against the top 4 sides in his entire career? That's just too little.



View attachment 141970
Basically Sehwag of bowling.
 
Well it does. Because unlike you, I was fortunate enough to watch him play at the oval and against middles at lords in 1990...

I have seen him bowling live pre and post injury and the excitement he brought to the game wasn't just from Pakistani's but by the vast majorly of people connected to English cricket, players, coaches, administrators, journalists and fans alike.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was a huge beneficiary of ball tampering and weak batting lineups.

I’m sure watching 1988-1993 Waqar bowl with a doctored ball was a joy to watch.

It looks so exciting when you watch videos so I’m sure it must have been even more exciting to watch him in the ground. I envy you.
 
Somewhat harsh (and hyperbolic, I assume to emphasise your point).
As I wrote pre- stress fracture, he was exceptional.
Consider his performance vs West Indies 1990 on Pakistani pitches.
A side that contained Haynes, Greenidge, Richardson, Hooper, Dujon etc — all super players of pace.
Haynes at the time, described him as the fastest through the air he had ever faced.

Also, whilst lower order batting techniques are indeed undoubtedly better, top order batters don’t have the techniques, especially against pace, that they had in the 90s as they face so little of it.
The balls used in that West Indies 1990 series wouldn’t be allowed today.
 
waqars peak coincided with his max pace, after that, as is evident by his commentary, analysis and management stints thereafter, hes not a sharp guy, not even on the same level as asif mentally, let along guys like was and imran. he had some skill, but lived off of the stats of his youth, judged purely on the merits of his post back injury career he was a good international bowler, but not an ATG.

also his exploits in county cricket, which at the time was similar to performing in IPL, built his reputation massively.
 
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was a huge beneficiary of ball tampering and weak batting lineups.

I’m sure watching 1988-1993 Waqar bowl with a doctored ball was a joy to watch.

It looks so exciting when you watch videos so I’m sure it must have been even more exciting to watch him in the ground. I envy you.
So would you have the same criticism of Wasim ?
 
From among his contemporaries , I'd take

Ambrose
Walsh
Pollock
Donald
McGrath
Wasim

ahead of Waqar as Test bowlers.

I'm not considering just peak Waqar but his overall career.
 
Waqar faced far superior batters.

Bumrah mostly faces junk T20 hacks.

Also, Waqar was better in ODI than in Test (416 ODI wickets).

This.

Completely agree. The test batting line ups of this era are walking wickets compared to class of 90's.
 
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.

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
 
From among his contemporaries , I'd take

Ambrose
Walsh
Pollock
Donald
McGrath
Wasim

ahead of Waqar as Test bowlers.

I'm not considering just peak Waqar but his overall career
Agreed with the rest, but I am
curious as to why you pollock and walsh above him
 
1. Imran
2. Wasim
3.waqar
4. Asif
5. Daylight

These are my top 5 test pacers of all time from Asia.
 
waqars peak coincided with his max pace, after that, as is evident by his commentary, analysis and management stints thereafter, hes not a sharp guy, not even on the same level as asif mentally, let along guys like was and imran. he had some skill, but lived off of the stats of his youth, judged purely on the merits of his post back injury career he was a good international bowler, but not an ATG.

also his exploits in county cricket, which at the time was similar to performing in IPL, built his reputation massively.

87 tests, 373 test wickets at 24 a piece with a SR of 43 (which incidentally puts him in the top 10 of all time — better than Marshall, Donald, Holding etc)

Not too shabby a Test record (especially as most of those Tests were past his max pace)

The facts, the stats and those who saw him simply don’t support the central tenets of your argument
 
Waqars late career stats nose dived because his age fudging caught up with him. Reality was that he was close to 38-39 when he retired in 2004.
 
87 tests, 373 test wickets at 24 a piece with a SR of 43 (which incidentally puts him in the top 10 of all time — better than Marshall, Donald, Holding etc)

Not too shabby a Test record (especially as most of those Tests were past his max pace)

The facts, the stats and those who saw him simply don’t support the central tenets of your argument
last 50 tests, 175 wickets at 27, not bad stats but not atg stats, he started with a bang and petered out towards the end. he took one fifer in his last 40 tests against non-minnows.

as someone who only started watching cricket post 97 i never got the hype about him, his stats were great but i cant remember watching any test performance that made me go wow, which was not the case with wasim. its only when i saw older videos and heard cousins talk about him at the start of his career it made sense.

hes not a bad bowler, but the second half of his career was no where near ATG level.
 
Waqar has an unreal fantasy fan club because of all Yorkers, reverse swing and stumps flying videos on social media

He’s got to be a good bowler considering he has 375 odd Test wickets. Not sure if I’ve heard any former great/legend praise him as much as they praise Wasim Akram

Wasim Akram for me was the Zinadine Zidane of cricket. Absolute maestro

Waqar Younis comes across as a bit of a Rui Costa. Great footballer but not exactly that elite level
have you seen waqar play during the 90s?
 
He failed in tests played in Australia and India, who had the 2 x best batting line-ups during his career. He also failed against these sides during the World Cup.

A great bowler who failed on the big stage and for that reason he's not a top tier ATG like Wasim Akram.
Inzi also failed at the big stages, so that means he should not be an ATG?
 
last 50 tests, 175 wickets at 27, not bad stats but not atg stats, he started with a bang and petered out towards the end. he took one fifer in his last 40 tests against non-minnows.

as someone who only started watching cricket post 97 i never got the hype about him, his stats were great but i cant remember watching any test performance that made me go wow, which was not the case with wasim. its only when i saw older videos and heard cousins talk about him at the start of his career it made sense.

hes not a bad bowler, but the second half of his career was no where near ATG level.

Career stats mean over a entire career. And in that journey people have ups and downs.

People can't seem to fathom waqar was a incredibly destructive strike bowler and a legitimate Great of the game
 
What was Waqar's speed in his peak days between 1989-1993?
 
Inzi also failed at the big stages, so that means he should not be an ATG?

Inzy failed vs Aus and SA too, two top sides of his era. He is not an ATG, a Michael Clarke level batsman.
 
No. I started watching cricket properly in 2003. He was pretty underwhelming in the 2003 World Cup.
bro, than how can you bash a guy who you never watched live ?

Like I know Akhtar didnt achieve much, but having watched Akhtar live i could tell what impact he had.
 
bro, than how can you bash a guy who you never watched live ?

Like I know Akhtar didnt achieve much, but having watched Akhtar live i could tell what impact he had.
Have I bashed him? I said he is like Rui Costa, that’s not bashing. Have you seen Rui Costa playing football?
 
Doesn’t matter. Facts are facts. People only use this argument to their convenience when they don’t like what they hear, but it means nothing.
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
 
Have I bashed him? I said he is like Rui Costa, that’s not bashing. Have you seen Rui Costa playing football?
bro u are saying he has a fantasy fan club.
What i have read about waqar by people who saw him bowl is all praises for him..

@Markhor gave us a very good picture on him
 
All said and done, I do have a lot of respect for Waqar Younis because unlike Shoaib, he has a full fledged long career, doesn't talk a lot of nonsensical stuff post retirement, neither is obsessed with how good he was in his young days and has a beautiful wife who did great work as doctor during COVID times.

I have good childhood memories of Shoaib Akhtar, steaming in at a pace which on average was better than Lee. But he is not a true gentleman or an all-time great of the game like Waqar Younis.
 
Inzamam is not an atg. He scored 1 century against the 2 best bowling attacks of his era - aus and sa combined ( home and away).
And his terrible record in wcs, averages 22 in 5 wcs
exactly, but it is something that alot of fans dont accept
 
bro u are saying he has a fantasy fan club.
What i have read about waqar by people who saw him bowl is all praises for him..

@Markhor gave us a very good picture on him
It’s true. A lot of fans like me who didn’t watch Pakistan cricket in the 80s and 90s will only go buy those videos of his wickets, Yorkers etc. I also wrote that he has to be a good bowler because he took 375 Test wickets, and we see today how hard it is for fast bowlers to cross 200 even.

In comparison to Wasim Akram, who we can all agree is the top tier of cricket legends, Waqar isn’t anywhere near him. Do you think Waqar was as good as him?
 
It’s true. A lot of fans like me who didn’t watch Pakistan cricket in the 80s and 90s will only go buy those videos of his wickets, Yorkers etc. I also wrote that he has to be a good bowler because he took 375 Test wickets, and we see today how hard it is for fast bowlers to cross 200 even.

In comparison to Wasim Akram, who we can all agree is the top tier of cricket legends, Waqar isn’t anywhere near him. Do you think Waqar was as good as him?
Waqar is no where near Wasim, but at the same time Waqar is probably the second best or third best pace bowler if we place Imran at second or third.

But my point is an accurate picture on Waqar can be given by those who saw him, like you and me saw Akhtar and can give an accurate picture on him even though Akhtar's stats were not that great
 
Inzi also failed at the big stages, so that means he should not be an ATG?

I did make it clear that I view Waqar as an ATG, just not a top tier ATG like Wasim Akram.

Inzi isn't an ATG.

For me Misbah is an ATG because he has a higher average at a similar strike rate. His most notable innings was the 2011 Semi-Final innings in Mohali. Nothing can top that.
 
I did make it clear that I view Waqar as an ATG, just not a top tier ATG like Wasim Akram.

Inzi isn't an ATG.

For me Misbah is an ATG because he has a higher average at a similar strike rate. His most notable innings was the 2011 Semi-Final innings in Mohali. Nothing can top that.
When it comes to ATG its ATG, there are no tiers.

Eitehr he is an ATG or he is not
 
When it comes to ATG its ATG, there are no tiers.

Eitehr he is an ATG or he is not

Not every ATG player will be good enough to make the best XI, so tiers are required to distinguish the very best from the rest.

As only the top 11 players can make the World Best XI, you also need to consider who can make the second best XI, third best XI and etc.
 
Career stats mean over a entire career. And in that journey people have ups and downs.

People can't seem to fathom waqar was a incredibly destructive strike bowler and a legitimate Great of the game
stats can be used to make many points, that's why stats alone never tell the whole story, waqar as good as he was does not come close to the ATGs of the game, ambrose, mcgrath, wasim, Donald were significantly better than in his career era so if he wasn't among the best in his era how can he be among the best of all time.
 
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.

Agreed.

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

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.
 
Waqar was thrilling to watch and his name comes whenever some one bowls a great reverse swing spell. Today, Bumrah bowled and posters are again talking about Waqar. There is one issue though. Waqar's record was average against top batting sides of his era. I think he was one trick pony and that trick worked mostly against weaker sides.


During Waqar's career, sorted by W/L : WI, Aus, SA, Pak and Ind come as the top 5 teams.


Top 5 sides: Waqar's Avg 29 with 4 5-fers (36 tests)

It's obvious that bowlers like McGrath, Walsh, Ambrose, Pollock, Donald, Wasim, Marshall, Bishop were vastly superior to Waqar with new ball. As result, all of them averaged below 25 and had more 5-fers against top sides.

What was the reason for Waqar to have such an inferior record when compared to other top pacers? Personally I think, Waqar relied on reverse too much and it worked simply great against weaker sides, but stronger sides were able to counter that. Waqar had very little skills with new ball and that resulted in average record against stronger sides.

I did see his entire career and he was fun to watch like Akhtar, but I think Akhtar had more new ball skills than Waqar. I think having Waqar in history makes our cricket richer and he was thrilling to watch. His name will always come up whenever some one bowls a great reverse swing spell.

What are your thoughts? What happened to his famous reverse swing against better sides? Having only 4 5-fers
against the top 4 sides in his entire career? That's just too little.



View attachment 141970
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.
 
Not every ATG player will be good enough to make the best XI, so tiers are required to distinguish the very best from the rest.

As only the top 11 players can make the World Best XI, you also need to consider who can make the second best XI, third best XI and etc.
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.
 
Back
Top