What's new

Why did Waqar Younis not receive as much adulation in comparison to Wasim Akram?

Wasim had better PR? or was he actually better than Waqar?
 
On a cricketing level Wasim was definitely more skilful and unanimously harder to face throughout his career. It’s not just about swing, Wasim’s bouncer was very deceptive and difficult to pick up. In terms of wicket-taking ability Waqar outperformed him but Waqar was easier to get away - which is probably where the “harder to face” argument comes from. I don’t think batsmen ever felt truly comfortable.

Media does play a role and a some of the media hype around Wasim comes from India and that is simply because he has made some good statements about India as well as spending time coaching the likes of Pathan and Zaheer Khan.
 
Waqar also recently damaged his reputation by foraying into coaching. Wasim has cleverly swerved any roles with the national team.

If Waqar manages to stay away people will start remembering his legacy as a bowler more than his bowling coaching, which is a win for everyone.
 
Both made every wish list for most indians of a particular gen in the 90's. on cricketing skills alone i'd rate akram harder to face. but waqar running in was box office on his own. u'd be lucky to see one like them. To see two in tandem is any pace bowleing fan's ulimate fantasy. Legends !
 
MenInG said:
Wasim had better PR? or was he actually better than Waqar?
Click to expand...

Well, many batsmen of that era, o
Including the likes of Dravid, Kallis and Ponting have said that Wasim was the toughest bowler they faced. Waqar was great, but Wasim was at another level.
 
Quite simple really.

Wasim Akram won Pakistan the 92 WC. Waqar's absence in the tournament was actually a blessing in disguise as he was a bottler on the big stage as evident by his record against Australia and India, who had the 2 best batting line-ups during his time. Wasim on the other hand performed very well against both sides.

His records in away tests played in Australia and India was awful and he choked against them in the World Cup matches. When the stakes were high, the more he choked and as result the more that Pakistan suffered.

His understanding of cricket has always been substandard and that can be reflected by how he fared during his multiple stints as Head and/or Bowling Coach.

He was not a likeable individual either. He was instructing Wasim to get out to prevent Kumble getting a 10fer. He deliberately bowled beamers at Symonds during the 2003 WC match and has also fallen out with many players. He confessed that he was to blame for why him and Wasim never got on.

He had 2 good stages during his career. First was during the 80s up until the 92 England WC tour before he got injured and just before the end of his career when he mastered the art of conventional swing. It took him a while because he was a one trick pony. He relied on reverse swing via ball tampering. Without it he was just an above average/decent bowler i.e. not quite world class.

Wasim Akram had all the ingredients and utilised all of these to become one greatest fast bowlers of all-time.
 
Last edited:
topspin said:
Quite simple really.

Wasim Akram won Pakistan the 92 WC. Waqar's absence in the tournament was actually a blessing in disguise as he was a bottler on the big stage as evident by his record against Australia and India, who had the 2 best batting line-ups during his time. Wasim on the other hand performed very well against both sides.

His records in away tests played in Australia and India was awful and he choked against them in the World Cup matches. When the stakes were high, the more he choked and as result the more that Pakistan suffered.

His understanding of cricket has always been substandard and that can be reflected by how he fared during his multiple stints as Head and/or Bowling Coach.

He was not a likeable individual either. He was instructing Wasim to get out to prevent Kumble getting a 10fer. He deliberately bowled beamers at Symonds during the 2003 WC match and has also fallen out with many players. He confessed that he was to blame for why him and Wasim never got on.

He had 2 good stages during his career. First was during the 80s up until the 92 England WC tour before he got injured and just before the end of his career when he mastered the art of conventional swing. It took him a while because he was a one trick pony. He relied on reverse swing via ball tampering. Without it he was just an above average/decent bowler i.e. not quite world class.

Wasim Akram had all the ingredients and utilised all of these to become one greatest fast bowlers of all-time.
Click to expand...

Waqar Younis isn't much different to Sarfraz when it comes to their mannerisms. They belong to the streets.
 
I always liked Waqar more. He always gave his best, is seemingly more patriotic and is always willing to do more on his part to help Pak Cricket (even though it often doesn't go as he intends it to).

Wasim is more of a chill guy who likes to maintain a distance from official posts and hands on jobs. Has a great PR game and is more groomed for media handling. Likes to be the best of both worlds and forays into coverage for games and tournaments that are not exclusively Pakistani.

As a bowler, Waqar seemed more pleasing to me as a kid with his stumps clattering yorkers. Wasim was more of a consistent bowler who bowled with intricacies and skills that young kids couldn't grasp. You can say Waqar was more brute while Wasim was more finesse.
 
Because Waqar failed most of his big tests and was average/poor against major teams and in a lot of countries.

Wasim was an ATG. A skilled magician right up there with the greatest of any generation.
 
topspin said:
Quite simple really.

Wasim Akram won Pakistan the 92 WC. Waqar's absence in the tournament was actually a blessing in disguise as he was a bottler on the big stage as evident by his record against Australia and India, who had the 2 best batting line-ups during his time. Wasim on the other hand performed very well against both sides.

His records in away tests played in Australia and India was awful and he choked against them in the World Cup matches. When the stakes were high, the more he choked and as result the more that Pakistan suffered.

His understanding of cricket has always been substandard and that can be reflected by how he fared during his multiple stints as Head and/or Bowling Coach.

He was not a likeable individual either. He was instructing Wasim to get out to prevent Kumble getting a 10fer. He deliberately bowled beamers at Symonds during the 2003 WC match and has also fallen out with many players. He confessed that he was to blame for why him and Wasim never got on.

He had 2 good stages during his career. First was during the 80s up until the 92 England WC tour before he got injured and just before the end of his career when he mastered the art of conventional swing. It took him a while because he was a one trick pony. He relied on reverse swing via ball tampering. Without it he was just an above average/decent bowler i.e. not quite world class.

Wasim Akram had all the ingredients and utilised all of these to become one greatest fast bowlers of all-time.
Click to expand...

Oh dear - simplistic view of the world.

Usual baby argument about india and Australia. India of the early 90s was not a great batting line up in any case. Waqar played vs India in 1989 - in his first series before his peak. - and then 1999 well after his peak. So you can’t judge peak Waqar vs India. Australia he played against in 1989, 1994 (two 4-fers in khi which Pakistan won). Then he played immediately after his second serious back injury in 1996 - took him a couple of tests to get going and then cleaned the tail in the final match. His next test was well after his peak in 1999 and even then he had a pretty good game in Hobart.

So stop this silly nerdy (I get my stats from cricinfo without any context stuff).

And the ball tampering stuff has been addressed to death over here.

Where are our Pakistan fans here that allow these ridiculous new age opinions to stick.
 
topspin said:
Quite simple really.

Wasim Akram won Pakistan the 92 WC. Waqar's absence in the tournament was actually a blessing in disguise as he was a bottler on the big stage as evident by his record against Australia and India, who had the 2 best batting line-ups during his time. Wasim on the other hand performed very well against both sides.

His records in away tests played in Australia and India was awful and he choked against them in the World Cup matches. When the stakes were high, the more he choked and as result the more that Pakistan suffered.

His understanding of cricket has always been substandard and that can be reflected by how he fared during his multiple stints as Head and/or Bowling Coach.

He was not a likeable individual either. He was instructing Wasim to get out to prevent Kumble getting a 10fer. He deliberately bowled beamers at Symonds during the 2003 WC match and has also fallen out with many players. He confessed that he was to blame for why him and Wasim never got on.

He had 2 good stages during his career. First was during the 80s up until the 92 England WC tour before he got injured and just before the end of his career when he mastered the art of conventional swing. It took him a while because he was a one trick pony. He relied on reverse swing via ball tampering. Without it he was just an above average/decent bowler i.e. not quite world class.

Wasim Akram had all the ingredients and utilised all of these to become one greatest fast bowlers of all-time.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading after the first paragraph.
Look at his strike rate, look at it again, then look at it one more time.
 
Abstraction1 said:
I stopped reading after the first paragraph.
Look at his strike rate, look at it again, then look at it one more time.
Click to expand...

Is 300 all out in 50 overs worse or is 350 all out in 60 overs worse?

At the end of the day, the runs scored matters, thats why Avg is universally considered the gold standard gauging performance.
 
Waqar became pretty avg by the end of 1998. There was a reason why Akhtar easily replaced him from 1999 onwards. Waqar played the last 3-4 years of his career based on past reputation.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Is 300 all out in 50 overs worse or is 350 all out in 60 overs worse?

At the end of the day, the runs scored matters, thats why Avg is universally considered the gold standard gauging performance.
Click to expand...

This baby argument again.

What if in the 4th innings you were defending 400 and only had 50 overs to bowl out the opposition? Eh? Eh? You’d prefer a draw would you?

Such a childish argument.

In general this is why you have bowling units. The wicket takers take the wickets, runs conceded is not as important. Then you have the donkey work bowlers - less talented, more accurate, it’s their job to keep the runs down.

Seriously what do they teach kids these days
 
TheSultan said:
Oh dear - simplistic view of the world.

Usual baby argument about india and Australia. India of the early 90s was not a great batting line up in any case. Waqar played vs India in 1989 - in his first series before his peak. - and then 1999 well after his peak. So you can’t judge peak Waqar vs India. Australia he played against in 1989, 1994 (two 4-fers in khi which Pakistan won). Then he played immediately after his second serious back injury in 1996 - took him a couple of tests to get going and then cleaned the tail in the final match. His next test was well after his peak in 1999 and even then he had a pretty good game in Hobart.

So stop this silly nerdy (I get my stats from cricinfo without any context stuff).

And the ball tampering stuff has been addressed to death over here.

Where are our Pakistan fans here that allow these ridiculous new age opinions to stick.
Click to expand...

Dumbest thing I've probably ever read on PP.

Australia were the best team in the 90s and 2000s. Doesn't matter what you think of India's batting line up, what matters is that they have always been Pakistan's biggest rival.

If you can't deliver in their backyard and let them destroy you in World Cup matches then it shows that Waqar failed when the stakes were high.

In tests, he averaged 40 in Australia and well over 70 in India. He choked in crucial World cup matches including the 1996 WC QF and against both sides in the 2003 WC.

No need for further mental gymnastics. Having read your posts I would look in the mirror before bringing up "baby arguments".

This is the kind of thing you'd expect from an uneducated ex-cricketer like Abdul Razzaq who once called Bumrah a "baby bowler".
 
Last edited:
topspin said:
Dumbest thing I've probably ever read on PP.

Australia were the best team in the 90s and 2000s. Doesn't matter what you think of India's batting line up, what matters is that they have always been Pakistan's biggest rival.

If you can't deliver in their backyard and let them destroy you in World Cup matches then it shows that Waqar failed when the stakes were high.

In tests, he averaged 40 in Australia and well over 70 in India. He choked in crucial World cup matches including the 1996 WC QF and against both sides in the 2003 WC.

No need for further mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...

Australia were not the best team until 1995. West Indies were still the best team until then. Waqar took 19 wickets in 3 matches in their back yard in 1993

England had the no1 (Gooch) and no2 (Robin Smith) batsmen in the world in 1992. He beat them in their own back yard.

He didn’t play india in their back yard until 1999 when everyone (even you probably) should know he wasn’t the same bowler. And Pakistan beat India anyway over the 3 tests they played in that period in their “back yard”

Learn some history and don’t give me random stats.

Don’t give me baby arguments
 
Last edited:
topspin said:
This is the kind of thing you'd expect from an uneducated ex-cricketer like Abdul Razzaq who once called Bumrah a "baby bowler".
Click to expand...

Haha - did Razzi really say that? He’s gone up in my estimation!
 
Majid Khan said:
It's a very satisfying feeling as a Pakistan fan to know that Wasim Akram, who was a genius and some say was arguably the greatest fast bowler ever, and yet we Pakistan fans can boast Waqar and Imran Khan who were arguably better fast bowlers.. I did say arguably twice here, in two different contexts.

A similar analogy could be Sobers, Viv and Lara -- any one of these three could be Arguably the greatest test batsman ever, and yet the other two were arguably better. :)
Click to expand...

Brilliant post - very well said
 
topspin said:
Dumbest thing I've probably ever read on PP.

Australia were the best team in the 90s and 2000s. Doesn't matter what you think of India's batting line up, what matters is that they have always been Pakistan's biggest rival.

If you can't deliver in their backyard and let them destroy you in World Cup matches then it shows that Waqar failed when the stakes were high.

In tests, he averaged 40 in Australia and well over 70 in India. He choked in crucial World cup matches including the 1996 WC QF and against both sides in the 2003 WC.

No need for further mental gymnastics. Having read your posts I would look in the mirror before bringing up "baby arguments".

This is the kind of thing you'd expect from an uneducated ex-cricketer like Abdul Razzaq who once called Bumrah a "baby bowler".
Click to expand...

That's really poor, no wonder Wasim is the better bowler.
 
There are two main reasons.

Firstly Wasim won WC for his country.

Secondly Wasim was left armer , there is no competition for him in that category. When you make any dream XI ,Wasim will find a place because of being a left armer
 
TheSultan said:
Australia were not the best team until 1995. West Indies were still the best team until then. Waqar took 19 wickets in 3 matches in their back yard in 1993

England had the no1 (Gooch) and no2 (Robin Smith) batsmen in the world in 1992. He beat them in their own back yard.

He didn’t play india in their back yard until 1999 when everyone (even you probably) should know he wasn’t the same bowler. And Pakistan beat India anyway over the 3 tests they played in that period in their “back yard”

Learn some history and don’t give me random stats.

Don’t give me baby arguments
Click to expand...

Took 19 wickets in Windies in 1993 but had no impact on the series. Got clobbered by Simmons and Haynes and lost the series 2-0. He had little support to be fair.

But that's no excuse for a bowler who could, supposedly, win matches on his own.

If Waqar's peak only lasted 27 matches (1990-1994), that goes against him. No need to make excuses for his lack of performances in India/Australia or outside of his peak.

His overall record, is impressive but inferior to that if his contemporaries. He bashed minnows Zimbabwe and Bangladesh which skews his stats. Take them out and his career average creeps over 25.

None of his other contemporaries' stats are as skewed by his minnow bashing.

Outside of his peak, he impacted the results of probably only 3 test matches against top opposition. Lords test against England, 1996 and the 1st 2 tests of the series in SL.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Took 19 wickets in Windies in 1993 but had no impact on the series. Got clobbered by Simmons and Haynes and lost the series 2-0. He had little support to be fair.

But that's no excuse for a bowler who could, supposedly, win matches on his own.

If Waqar's peak only lasted 27 matches (1990-1994), that goes against him. No need to make excuses for his lack of performances in India/Australia or outside of his peak.

His overall record, is impressive but inferior to that if his contemporaries. He bashed minnows Zimbabwe and Bangladesh which skews his stats. Take them out and his career average creeps over 25.

None of his other contemporaries' stats are as skewed by his minnow bashing.

Outside of his peak, he impacted the results of probably only 3 test matches against top opposition. Lords test against England, 1996 and the 1st 2 tests of the series in SL.
Click to expand...

Not Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Both were minnows during that time. He feasted against them. Sri Lanka had just one decent batsman, Aravinda De Silva, while Ranatunga was a below par Test batsman averaging barely 35 in his career. As usual, he was a flop against Australi even when he was at his peak averaging 34 odd against them.
 
As for the West Indies being the #1 Test team till 1995, they were a declining team since 1989, as acknowledged by Brian Lara himself. The only reason they somehow managed to cling on to the #1 spot till 1995 is because of their bowlers. They didn’t have a single world class batsman apart from Lara in that period.
 
Hitman said:
As for the West Indies being the #1 Test team till 1995, they were a declining team since 1989, as acknowledged by Brian Lara himself. The only reason they somehow managed to cling on to the #1 spot till 1995 is because of their bowlers. They didn’t have a single world class batsman apart from Lara in that period.
Click to expand...

Yes they were declining, there’s no secret in that but they were still the best in the world and still a world class outfit and were still unbeaten till 1995z It wasn’t just Lara - Haynes was one of the best batsmen in the world. He aged like fine wine.
 
topspin said:
Quite simple really.

Wasim Akram won Pakistan the 92 WC. Waqar's absence in the tournament was actually a blessing in disguise as he was a bottler on the big stage as evident by his record against Australia and India, who had the 2 best batting line-ups during his time. Wasim on the other hand performed very well against both sides.

His records in away tests played in Australia and India was awful and he choked against them in the World Cup matches. When the stakes were high, the more he choked and as result the more that Pakistan suffered.

His understanding of cricket has always been substandard and that can be reflected by how he fared during his multiple stints as Head and/or Bowling Coach.

He was not a likeable individual either. He was instructing Wasim to get out to prevent Kumble getting a 10fer. He deliberately bowled beamers at Symonds during the 2003 WC match and has also fallen out with many players. He confessed that he was to blame for why him and Wasim never got on.

He had 2 good stages during his career. First was during the 80s up until the 92 England WC tour before he got injured and just before the end of his career when he mastered the art of conventional swing. It took him a while because he was a one trick pony. He relied on reverse swing via ball tampering. Without it he was just an above average/decent bowler i.e. not quite world class.

Wasim Akram had all the ingredients and utilised all of these to become one greatest fast bowlers of all-time.
Click to expand...
What is wrong in that?
It is an utter humiliation conceding a record like this. Anyone would have done the same. They are playing for pride of the nation, they are not supposed to show respect in the most gruesome rivalry lol.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Took 19 wickets in Windies in 1993 but had no impact on the series. Got clobbered by Simmons and Haynes and lost the series 2-0. He had little support to be fair.

But that's no excuse for a bowler who could, supposedly, win matches on his own.

If Waqar's peak only lasted 27 matches (1990-1994), that goes against him. No need to make excuses for his lack of performances in India/Australia or outside of his peak.

His overall record, is impressive but inferior to that if his contemporaries. He bashed minnows Zimbabwe and Bangladesh which skews his stats. Take them out and his career average creeps over 25.

None of his other contemporaries' stats are as skewed by his minnow bashing.

Outside of his peak, he impacted the results of probably only 3 test matches against top opposition. Lords test against England, 1996 and the 1st 2 tests of the series in SL.
Click to expand...

The only series where Waqar bashed a minnow was Zimbabwe 1993 with 25 wickets in 3 matches.

Impacted the results of only 3 matches against “top opposition”?

First test 1990 at Karachi vs West Indies (9 wickets in the match)

Vs England - Lords and the Oval test matches 1992 - 5fer in each game

First test Australia karachi 1994 - 8 wickets in the match

New Zealand 1990 (29 wickets in 3 matches) - they were a fantastic batting side with Martin Crowe, John Wright, Franklin who had an amazing tour of England in 1990 vs England.
Legendary Hamilton test
1994 test series

I’m the first to admit Waqar wasn’t great post 1996 and his second back injury. But proud he played on with pockets of success along the way and did an adequate job without reaching those great heights again. Some bowlers never come back from back injury and I still respect them like Ian Bishop.

Waqar’s peak was extraordinary by anyone’s standards. His second coming wasn’t great, but allowed him to have a great career rather than fizzle out like a lot of express pacers do after they lose their speed. And even after all that he still has one of the best strike rates of all time for bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets.

He will be just below top tier of all time because of his performances in the second half of his career. But his peak was unmatched by anyone.
 
TheSultan said:
The only series where Waqar bashed a minnow was Zimbabwe 1993 with 25 wickets in 3 matches.

Impacted the results of only 3 matches against “top opposition”?

First test 1990 at Karachi vs West Indies (9 wickets in the match)

Vs England - Lords and the Oval test matches 1992 - 5fer in each game

First test Australia karachi 1994 - 8 wickets in the match

New Zealand 1990 (29 wickets in 3 matches) - they were a fantastic batting side with Martin Crowe, John Wright, Franklin who had an amazing tour of England in 1990 vs England.
Legendary Hamilton test
1994 test series

I’m the first to admit Waqar wasn’t great post 1996 and his second back injury. But proud he played on with pockets of success along the way and did an adequate job without reaching those great heights again. Some bowlers never come back from back injury and I still respect them like Ian Bishop.

Waqar’s peak was extraordinary by anyone’s standards. His second coming wasn’t great, but allowed him to have a great career rather than fizzle out like a lot of express pacers do after they lose their speed. And even after all that he still has one of the best strike rates of all time for bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets.

He will be just below top tier of all time because of his performances in the second half of his career. But his peak was unmatched by anyone.
Click to expand...

I said impacted outside of his peak. Not during his peak.
Anyway his overall record , sans Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, is not as impressive as the others of his era. Doesnt matter what he did during his 4 year peak.
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
Not Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, but Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Both were minnows during that time. He feasted against them. Sri Lanka had just one decent batsman, Aravinda De Silva, while Ranatunga was a below par Test batsman averaging barely 35 in his career. As usual, he was a flop against Australi even when he was at his peak averaging 34 odd against them.
Click to expand...

Sr Lanka were not minnows imo. During the time period of Waqar's career, SL won a test series in NZ , won a test in England, 2 test series in Pakistan , beat Pakistan to win the Asian test championship in 2002 and had a decent home record as well. I wont call them minnows. Their away record was superior to India's for example.

Remove BD and Zim, and Waqar's career average is around 25.16. His contemporaries' averages don't fall off like that when we exclude minnows Zimbabwe and BD.

Career stats(excluding Zimbabwe and BD)

Waqar - 293 wickets at 25.16
Pollock - 389 wickets at 23.78
Wasim - 367 wickets at 23.78
Walsh - 510 wickets at 24.61
Donald - 316 wickets at 22.50
Ambrose - 397 wickets at 21.16
McGrath - 549 wickets at 21.73
 
All this Waqar bashing and yet he still has one of the greatest records in the history of the game in both formats.

Shezada.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Sr Lanka were not minnows imo. During the time period of Waqar's career, SL won a test series in NZ , won a test in England, 2 test series in Pakistan , beat Pakistan to win the Asian test championship in 2002 and had a decent home record as well. I wont call them minnows. Their away record was superior to India's for example.

Remove BD and Zim, and Waqar's career average is around 25.16. His contemporaries' averages don't fall off like that when we exclude minnows Zimbabwe and BD.

Career stats(excluding Zimbabwe and BD)

Waqar - 293 wickets at 25.16
Pollock - 389 wickets at 23.78
Wasim - 367 wickets at 23.78
Walsh - 510 wickets at 24.61
Donald - 316 wickets at 22.50
Ambrose - 397 wickets at 21.16
McGrath - 549 wickets at 21.73
Click to expand...

You are reaching there. I don’t even remember him playing any matches against bangladesh. And so what if he took wickets against them and zimbos.

People do.

Look at Tendulkar - he has an average of 136 against bangladesh. If you take away his matches against bangla and zimbos he has a much inferior record than Lara. He’s played 21 extra matches and scored fewer runs.

If you take away mcgrath and warne’s record against their bunny team England it’s not as good.

Anyone can play silly games with stats.
 
Alec Stewart said that W&W were very hard to face. Wasim maybe 1% harder because Stewart couldn’t see his approach to the wicket - he popped out from behind the umpire and quickly ran through his action.

W&W respected Stewie because he would clobber them with the new ball, and have runs on the board when it started to reverse. He got a 175 (though Waqar was not playing) in that 1992 series and carried his bat in another match.
 
TheSultan said:
You are reaching there. I don’t even remember him playing any matches against bangladesh. And so what if he took wickets against them and zimbos.

People do.

Look at Tendulkar - he has an average of 136 against bangladesh. If you take away his matches against bangla and zimbos he has a much inferior record than Lara. He’s played 21 extra matches and scored fewer runs.

If you take away mcgrath and warne’s record against their bunny team England it’s not as good.

Anyone can play silly games with stats.
Click to expand...

I have no problem if anyone wants to rate Lara over Tendulkar based on Sachins minnow bashing. SRT still averages above 50 .

What do you mean people do? Only Waqar has 21 % of his test wickets against those 2 minnows . Next highest being Wasim at 11% .

England were McGrath's bunny team because he was THAT good. Not because England were test minnows like Zimbabwe or BD lol. Peurike logic!
 
Robert said:
Alec Stewart said that W&W were very hard to face. Wasim maybe 1% harder because Stewart couldn’t see his approach to the wicket - he popped out from behind the umpire and quickly ran through his action.

W&W respected Stewie because he would clobber them with the new ball, and have runs on the board when it started to reverse. He got a 175 (though Waqar was not playing) in that 1992 series and carried his bat in another match.
Click to expand...

Very true the respect was mutual and Alec always speaks in glowing terms about them both.

Just a side note - in 1992, he made 190 in the first test at edgbaston - and it was wasim who was not playing. Waqar played that match and was his first match back after injury. Stewart’s innings was majestic albeit on a placid pitch - even as a Pakistan fan it was a great innings to watch. Amazing timing.

One oft-forgotten fact about that series was that both Waqar and Wasim were carrying injuries before the series. Waqar back and wasim shin splints. There was even talk about both of them missing the first 2 tests - I remember Imran Khan on a tv show saying if we made it through the first 2 tests unscathed we may have a chance in that series. Waqar played the first test half fit. It’s all the more remarkable that both Waqar and wasim played matchwinning roles in the next match and subsequently the series.
 
Robert said:
Alec Stewart said that W&W were very hard to face. Wasim maybe 1% harder because Stewart couldn’t see his approach to the wicket - he popped out from behind the umpire and quickly ran through his action.

W&W respected Stewie because he would clobber them with the new ball, and have runs on the board when it started to reverse. He got a 175 (though Waqar was not playing) in that 1992 series and carried his bat in another match.
Click to expand...

Stewart was brilliant against us in 96 as well, Waqar was more fearsome during the 92 series but picked up a few 4-fers during 96 IIRC.
 
Nikhil_cric said:
I have no problem if anyone wants to rate Lara over Tendulkar based on Sachins minnow bashing. SRT still averages above 50 .

What do you mean people do? Only Waqar has 21 % of his test wickets against those 2 minnows . Next highest being Wasim at 11% .

England were McGrath's bunny team because he was THAT good. Not because England were test minnows like Zimbabwe or BD lol. Peurike logic!
Click to expand...

Im not taking anything away from Mcgrath or Tendulkar but what I’m saying is anyone can play silly mathematical yoga with stats. It just depends which way you look at it. These were examples that you took way too seriously. Calm the anger down little one.

And even if Waqar averaged 25 and still had a strike rate in the 40s minus minnows - it’s still ATG stats.
 
Last edited:
TheSultan said:
Im not taking anything away from Mcgrath or Tendulkar but what I’m saying is anyone can play silly mathematical yoga with stats. It just depends which way you look at it. These were examples that you took way too seriously. Calm the anger down little one.

And even if Waqar averaged 25 and still had a strike rate in the 40s minus minnows - it’s still ATG stats.
Click to expand...

Not angry at all, boomer. If Waqar did not average below 25 against proper sides, then his ATG can be questioned. Nothing wrong with that.

His peak was far to short and stats way too skewed because of minnows.

Many on here dont rate the likes of Walsh or Pollock because of their higher strike rates. But they had incredible control and economy which is important in tests as well.

They had more wickets at lower averages against top sides, so if their status as ATG bowlers is questionable, I'm not sure why Waqars isnt.
 
Sunzi said:
Stewart was brilliant against us in 96 as well, Waqar was more fearsome during the 92 series but picked up a few 4-fers during 96 IIRC.
Click to expand...

One of the best England openers of all time, so they mucked him up by giving him the gloves and putting him at #7.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OnThisDay?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OnThisDay</a> in 2001. Waqar Younis took 7-36 his best ever figures in ODIs and the 2nd best ever in ODIs by a Pakistani bowler, as Pakistan beat England by 6 wickets in Leeds <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Cricket?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Cricket</a> <a href="https://t.co/oymIuqDRT7">pic.twitter.com/oymIuqDRT7</a></p>— Saj Sadiq (@SajSadiqCricket) <a href="https://twitter.com/SajSadiqCricket/status/1669971621761761281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 17, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Wasim had a much longer career than Waqar, Wasim won a WC infact bowl a match winning spell, Wasim led his side to a final as skipper, Waqar as skipper got humiliated in group stage, thus far Wasim has more adulation
 
If he had played all of his prime years he could have been easily surpassed Wasim Akram in terms of wickets.

1701804340355.jpeg
 
In a recent video on his YouTube channel, Former Indian cricketer Aakash Chopra has revealed:

"I remember someone who used to come running from far. He too had a slight round-arm action. Just watching him run was a delight. Sometimes with the new ball as well but he was absolutely lethal with the old ball. The bowler's name is Waqar Younis. His rhythm was worth watching."

"After that, I am thinking Wasim bhai. He is among the two Ws - Waqar and Wasim, and Wasim was different. He firstly used to change the angles a lot, bowl over and around the stumps, with a slight round-arm action or high-action as per his wish. Wasim Akram was that complete bowler who used to behold."
 
Wasim never got thrashed the way Vicky got thrashed by Ajay Jadeja in 1996 CWC quarter final. It was the phainty of a lifetime which ‘changed’ Vicky as a bowler. He was never the same again.
 
ManFan said:
Wasim was always shrewd and was careful enough to be "camera-ready" while Waqar came across as bitter and brutish.
Click to expand...
Yes, that could be the reason , but purely on cricketing reasons , Waqar for me was a bigger match winner and watchable fearsome fastmnn than Wasim.
 
Why Wasim gets more limelight?

Ah, because Wasim was in a different class than Waqar. It's as simple as that.

Legacy of pacers are defined by what they do in away test series. Waqar was good but not really the top tier in test. Then no need to talk abouit ODI, because Waqar was just not anywhere close to top tier in ODI, he was extremely expensive in ODI for his time.

Combined both of that then it's not a surprise that Wasim is seen as far better player. It's not beacause of media or other non-cricketing stuff. It's just simple performance in cricket.





Away_WW.jpg
 
Waqar had freak ability but Wasim was consistently a master.

Waqar at his best is at par with any bowlers peak ever.

But Wasim sustained the same level of mastery over two decades in all forms of the game. Wasim is arguably the greatest fast bowler ever and an even better person. Shane many Pakistanis still disrespect him.
 
Waz was far more talented with the ball then Waqar who only really had that famous in swinging yorker. Waz was also a better batsman and superior at licking Imran Khan's boots!(y)Most of all Waz won us the WC in 1992 that we keep going on about over 30 years later.
 
Waqar does not get the same adulation because of his non performance in the world cups. He missed 1992 WC and was the main reason for Pakistan's exit in the 1996 WC. He just played one game in 1999 WC and was decent in his last WC 2003 where he tool 7 wickets in 6 games. Wasim was more talented bowler who did not rely on one type of ball to get the wickets and also his legend was made when Pakistan won the 1992 WC finals where was was the MOM. Even in his last world cup when he was past his prime, he out bowled Waqar by a huge margin claiming 12 wickets at 16 in 6 games.
 
Waqar as an bowler was no better than ashok dinda got benefited by ball tampering,malpractice,bowler friendly pitches and tones of tailenders wicket in that era that started in lineup from wicketkeeper position. Most of the wickets came against minnow teams.
 
giri26 said:
Waqar does not get the same adulation because of his non performance in the world cups. He missed 1992 WC and was the main reason for Pakistan's exit in the 1996 WC. He just played one game in 1999 WC and was decent in his last WC 2003 where he tool 7 wickets in 6 games. Wasim was more talented bowler who did not rely on one type of ball to get the wickets and also his legend was made when Pakistan won the 1992 WC finals where was was the MOM. Even in his last world cup when he was past his prime, he out bowled Waqar by a huge margin claiming 12 wickets at 16 in 6 games.
Click to expand...
Also because he was a flop with a capital F against Australia, and particularly in Australia his entire career.
 
TheSultan said:
Australia were not the best team until 1995. West Indies were still the best team until then. Waqar took 19 wickets in 3 matches in their back yard in 1993

England had the no1 (Gooch) and no2 (Robin Smith) batsmen in the world in 1992. He beat them in their own back yard.

He didn’t play india in their back yard until 1999 when everyone (even you probably) should know he wasn’t the same bowler. And Pakistan beat India anyway over the 3 tests they played in that period in their “back yard”

Learn some history and don’t give me random stats.

Don’t give me baby arguments
Click to expand...
No matter how hard you try to paint the picture but you can’t mask the filter waqar used throughout his career (Ball tempering) Cause of that he got lots of wickets that too against minnows and tailenders still he was decent bowler bUt when cameras surfaced more in matches ball tempering got limited He was no better Than Ashok Dinda both were equal. Wasim is definitely legend
 
Golu-momin said:
No matter how hard you try to paint the picture but you can’t mask the filter waqar used throughout his career (Ball tempering) Cause of that he got lots of wickets that too against minnows and tailenders still he was decent bowler bUt when cameras surfaced more in matches ball tempering got limited He was no better Than Ashok Dinda both were equal. Wasim is definitely legend
Click to expand...

Nonsense about tv cameras. Waqar did not play in an era with black n white TV with a solitary camera! Pakistan were the most scrutinised team in the world especially post 1992 when the England team threw a tantrum. If his performances were going to dip it would have been immediately after that. Yet, he was still prolific until 1997.
 
Golu-momin said:
No matter how hard you try to paint the picture but you can’t mask the filter waqar used throughout his career (Ball tempering) Cause of that he got lots of wickets that too against minnows and tailenders still he was decent bowler bUt when cameras surfaced more in matches ball tempering got limited He was no better Than Ashok Dinda both were equal. Wasim is definitely legend
Click to expand...
Have you seen him doing ball tempering???

Stop posting stuff that you have no proof about...
 
BouncerGuy said:
Have you seen him doing ball tempering???

Stop posting stuff that you have no proof about...
Click to expand...
The first player in cricket history to be suspended for ball tampering was Waqar. Pakistan did not even contest the charge.
 
1. A world cup.
2. He got involved in pakistan cricket.

Any person who takes the coaching or pcb admin spot or selector role, ends up having his reputation destroyed.

There are disgruntled players that spread rumors about how bad xyz is and that creates a perception.
 
Buffet said:
The first player in cricket history to be suspended for ball tampering was Waqar. Pakistan did not even contest the charge.
Click to expand...
Waqar made his debut in 1989.

His charge was in 2000.

You cannot randomly apply a filter based on a charge in 2000, nor is appeal or lack of contest relevant. For example Indians threatened the life of an umpire and forced that Sachin was found not guilty of tampering. Does this truly mean they didn't tamper?

If you want to put an asterix on Waqar then similar asterix must be placed on almost all bowlers during the 90s including Indian bowlers during that time and lately we must apply those filters to Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Dale Steyn who played under captains who were caught tampering.
 
TheSultan said:
Nonsense about tv cameras. Waqar did not play in an era with black n white TV with a solitary camera! Pakistan were the most scrutinised team in the world especially post 1992 when the England team threw a tantrum. If his performances were going to dip it would have been immediately after that. Yet, he was still prolific until 1997.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Pakistan played under intense and Racist media coverage. Those that weren't around to experience it, don't know the extent of it. There is no way he would have escaped if he was dodgy.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Waqar made his debut in 1989.

His charge was in 2000.
Click to expand...
Question asked about seeing Waqar tampering the ball.

Given he was the first player in cricket history to get suspension for ball tamperning and PCB did not contest, no need to ask if anyone saw Waqar tampering.

--------------------

Many fans simply think that Waqar stopped taking 5-fers due to injury. But cameras, neutral umpires and injury all three played it's part in Waqar stopped taking 5-fers after first 30 tests or so. On other hands, Wasim did not drop like a rock and continued for 50-60 tests without picking 5-fers after neutral umpires/cameras came.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
If you want to put an asterix on Waqar then similar asterix must be placed on almost all bowlers during the 90s including Indian bowlers during that time and lately we must apply those filters to Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Dale Steyn who played under captains who were caught tampering.
Click to expand...

I do think that even Wasim and many other bowlers benefitted from Tampering, but I did not put asterix on Wasim's name. I do know that Steyn tampered as well. Many bowlers have been caught tampering, but no bowler was that much dependent on tampering and reverse. Neutral umpires came in mid 90s and camera started capturing more stuff. Waqar did drop in his pace after injury but going from picking 5-fers so frequently to stop picking 5-fers for not just 10-15 tests , but 50-60 tests after nuetral umpires/camera came in picture tells me that Waqar was one trick pony and heavily dependent on it.

So Asterix is not about simply being caught or being the first player to be suspended for ball tampering. It's his dependency on it.
 
Wasim didn't need reverse swing to become a lethal bowler but Waqar did. That is the difference in their legacies.

If reverse swing wasn't a part of the game, Waqar wouldn't have hit the heights he did. It's only post 2000 that he started to bowl decently with the new ball.

I rate Waqar to the extent that he definitely maximized his ability to extract the most out of reverse swing and for that he deserves credit. But overall Waqar is not at all at the level of Wasim.
 
Buffet said:
I do think that even Wasim and many other bowlers benefitted from Tampering, but I did not put asterix on Wasim's name. I do know that Steyn tampered as well. Many bowlers have been caught tampering, but no bowler was that much dependent on tampering and reverse. Neutral umpires came in mid 90s and camera started capturing more stuff. Waqar did drop in his pace after injury but going from picking 5-fers so frequently to stop picking 5-fers for not just 10-15 tests , but 50-60 tests after nuetral umpires/camera came in picture tells me that Waqar was one trick pony and heavily dependent on it.

So Asterix is not about simply being caught or being the first player to be suspended for ball tampering. It's his dependency on it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, want to be clear what you mean by this - he went for 50-60 games without a 5fer?

You mention he got caught in 2000, and you also believe he tampered from the beginning, so he must have continued tampering during this decline no, Or did he stop for a while and then pick it up?

A more likely scenario for his decline is injury, pace decline and age fudging than depending on ball tampering.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Sorry, want to be clear what you mean by this - he went for 50-60 games without a 5fer?

You mention he got caught in 2000, and you also believe he tampered from the beginning, so he must have continued tampering during this decline no, Or did he stop for a while and then pick it up?
Click to expand...

Waqar played 50-60 tests after 1994 and he has grand total of 1 5-fers against non-minnows. He was picking 5-fers at a very high rate and then simply stopped picking 5-fers, like some one flipped a switch. Injury is not a likly exlanation here. Have you come across any bowler playing 50+ tests after injury with 1 5-fer agaisnt non-minnows? Or let's say any bowler without considering injury aspect playing for 50+ tests with 1 5-fers against non-minnows. I don't know any except Waqar.

Tampering became far harder with neutral umpires( Nuetral umpires started in mid 90s). Tampering happens even now, but it's far harder to get away without getting caught. Before neutral umpires and camera following the bowlers, it was free for all and Waqar relied on reverse the most. That's why as soon as it became hard to do, his performance flipped. It was not the same situation with Wasim. It's one thing to benefit from ball tampering and reverse but it's another to so heavily depend on that you stop picking 5-fers for 50-60% of your career.
 
I don't understand why people usually willing to condemn the various degrees of cheating and dishonesty throughout Pakistani society suddenly bite their tongues on the subject of ball tampering in the 1990s.

We accept this generation used drugs, mutinied against various captains, got caught for drunk driving, and fixed matches. Yet ball tampering is a bridge too far ?

Tampering was rife in that era where TV coverage wasn't as comprehensive like today. Pakistan particularly stood to benefit with the dry, abrasive conditions at home/Sharjah, patriotic umpires like Shakoor Rana who turned a blind eye, and possessing two generational fast bowlers with skillsets ideally suited to exploit reverse swing - especially Waqar with his pace and low, slingy action.

Carl Hooper said in his recent PP interview that during WI's 1991 Test series in Pakistan, the ball looked like a dog chewed it. He didn't go further but the inference was clear. Hooper is a very mild mannered individual, spoke glowingly of Pakistan cricket in that interview and has no axe to grind. The fact xenophobic English journalists in 1992, or Indian trolls over the years who live to undermine Pakistan cricket, repeated these allegations doesn't invalidate them.

Waqar still had a good career but lacking the pace and extravagant reverse of his early days, his numbers dropped post-1994. Wasim didn't decline to the same extent because even without pace or extravagant reverse - batsmen still had to contend with his quick arm action making it hard to read cues, was taller than Waqar so could force you onto the backfoot, and left-arm angle which was rarer in that era unlike now.
 
Markhor said:
I don't understand why people usually willing to condemn the various degrees of cheating and dishonesty throughout Pakistani society suddenly bite their tongues on the subject of ball tampering in the 1990s.

We accept this generation used drugs, mutinied against various captains, got caught for drunk driving, and fixed matches. Yet ball tampering is a bridge too far ?

Tampering was rife in that era where TV coverage wasn't as comprehensive like today. Pakistan particularly stood to benefit with the dry, abrasive conditions at home/Sharjah, patriotic umpires like Shakoor Rana who turned a blind eye, and possessing two generational fast bowlers with skillsets ideally suited to exploit reverse swing - especially Waqar with his pace and low, slingy action.

Carl Hooper said in his recent PP interview that during WI's 1991 Test series in Pakistan, the ball looked like a dog chewed it. He didn't go further but the inference was clear. Hooper is a very mild mannered individual, spoke glowingly of Pakistan cricket in that interview and has no axe to grind. The fact xenophobic English journalists in 1992, or Indian trolls over the years who live to undermine Pakistan cricket, repeated these allegations doesn't invalidate them.

Waqar still had a good career but lacking the pace and extravagant reverse of his early days, his numbers dropped post-1994. Wasim didn't decline to the same extent because even without pace or extravagant reverse - batsmen still had to contend with his quick arm action making it hard to read cues, was taller than Waqar so could force you onto the backfoot, and left-arm angle which was rarer in that era unlike now.
Click to expand...
You have came to the conclusion that Wasim adapted to no ball tampering and Waqar didn't. Hence the difference in quality.

Yet the explanation may be a lot simpler, Wasim was a better bowler.

There is no proof of extensive ball tampering. Citing a player dropping in form is not a good enough explanation. Plenty of players succumb to injuries and their career peters out.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
You have came to the conclusion that Wasim adapted to no ball tampering and Waqar didn't. Hence the difference in quality.

Yet the explanation may be a lot simpler, Wasim was a better bowler.

There is no proof of extensive ball tampering. Citing a player dropping in form is not a good enough explanation. Plenty of players succumb to injuries and their career peters out.
Click to expand...
It was so extensive that even blood coming out of fingers by cut from bottle cap did not have any effect on umpires. If you could get away with that then you could get away with anything.

-------------------------

During the innings, Crowe dropped a delivery from Abdul Qadir at his feet and bent down to pick it up and lob it back to the bowler. "It was totally mutilated on one side with two or three deep scratches gouged out," he said. "I complained to the umpires but they did nothing."

On the morning of the first day of the final Test at Faisalabad, Pringle decided to put what he had learned into practice. He found an old bottle top, cut it into quarters, covered the serrated edge with tape, leaving a sharp point exposed. At the first drinks interval the umpires did not ask to look at the ball and, with Pakistan making sedate progress, Pringle started scratching the ball with the bottle top. Pakistan crashed from 35 for 0 to 102 all out. Pringle finished with his Test-best figures of 7 for 52.



"Neither umpire showed any concern or took any notice in what we were doing even though, at the end of the innings, the ball was very scratched," Pringle noted. "One side was shiny but there were lots of grooves and lines and deep gouges on the other side. It was so obvious. It was ripped to shreds ... one side of the ball had been demolished. The umpires were walking across to each other and talking quite a lot. I sensed that they could tell what was going on ... but they didn't want to get involved in anything controversial."

However, while the men in white remained implacable, others were wise to what was happening. Pringle recalled that as he left the stadium after taking his seven wickets on the first day, a local dignitary tapped him on the shoulder and said: "Pringle, it is fair now. Both teams are cheating."

Although the umpires did not check the ball during each session, they did have it during intervals and at the close. And as the game wore on, Pringle became deliberately obvious in an attempt to get a reaction, even gouging the ball as he talked to the umpire. Still nothing was said.

So eagerly was he vandalizing the ball that at one stage he cut himself on the jagged bottle top. Even the sight of a bowler with blood freely flowing from a sliced finger did not cause any disquiet as far as the officials were concerned. Pringle finished with 11 for 152 after taking 2 for 190 in the first two matches, but his efforts could not prevent New Zealand sliding to another defeat and a series whitewash.

www.espncricinfo.com

As old as the hills

The thorny subject of ball tampering has stalked the game for many years, but it is only in the last couple of decades that it has become something a wider audience has been aware of. Arguably, it has been going on since cricket's earliest days, but invas
www.espncricinfo.com www.espncricinfo.com

------------------------------------------
 
Buffet said:
Waqar played 50-60 tests after 1994 and he has grand total of 1 5-fers against non-minnows. He was picking 5-fers at a very high rate and then simply stopped picking 5-fers, like some one flipped a switch. Injury is not a likly exlanation here. Have you come across any bowler playing 50+ tests after injury with 1 5-fer agaisnt non-minnows? Or let's say any bowler without considering injury aspect playing for 50+ tests with 1 5-fers against non-minnows. I don't know any except Waqar.

Tampering became far harder with neutral umpires( Nuetral umpires started in mid 90s). Tampering happens even now, but it's far harder to get away without getting caught. Before neutral umpires and camera following the bowlers, it was free for all and Waqar relied on reverse the most. That's why as soon as it became hard to do, his performance flipped. It was not the same situation with Wasim. It's one thing to benefit from ball tampering and reverse but it's another to so heavily depend on that you stop picking 5-fers for 50-60% of your career.
Click to expand...
You have formed your opinion and are now trying to fit the data to suit.

But the facts are his career nose dived after first few years, and he was also charged with tampering at the end.

If you accept that he tampered at the start and got caught tampering at the end then it would be reasonable to also assume that he tampered throughout.

So the alleged tampering should be a constant no?

Despite this constant his career nose dived. What else nose dived during this time? His pace and fitness.

So whatever your stance on tampering is ...it is far more logical to conclude that as his pace declined and he battled with injuries, his output declined. Tampering is just to fit something into the theory without any real basis apart from people's opinion.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
You have formed your opinion and are now trying to fit the data to suit.

But the facts are his career nose dived after first few years, and he was also charged with tampering at the end.

If you accept that he tampered at the start and got caught tampering at the end then it would be reasonable to also assume that he tampered throughout.

So the alleged tampering should be a constant no?
Click to expand...
Degree of tampering will be drastically different after neutral umpires and camera. The way you are phrasing it, we had tampering during Steyn time and in 2000 and in early 90s. All were same. That's not true at all.

No bowler can get away with blood coming out of finger due to cut from bottle caps in front of umpire like early 90s.
 
Waqar tampered throughout his career. It's what kept him somewhat relevant for as long as it did.
 
Buffet said:
Degree of tampering will be drastically different after neutral umpires and camera. The way you are phrasing it, we had tampering during Steyn time and in 2000 and in early 90s. All were same. That's not true at all.

No bowler can get away with blood coming out of finger due to cut from bottle caps in front of umpire like early 90s.
Click to expand...
Your article only proves Kiwis admitted they tampered with the ball. Parts about blood flowing on the pitch, Intikhab Alam sneaking into their dressing room to steal the ball and they think the ball was so tampered that Pakistanis were using a knife on the pitch is good things to include in a book but most people will raise their eyebrows.

Why would degree of tampering be different? Aussies got caught using sandpaper in their pants, it is unlikely that was their only time doing it. It is probably the worst way to scuff a ball. What more can you do than this?
 
Buffet said:
Question asked about seeing Waqar tampering the ball.

Given he was the first player in cricket history to get suspension for ball tamperning and PCB did not contest, no need to ask if anyone saw Waqar tampering.

--------------------

Many fans simply think that Waqar stopped taking 5-fers due to injury. But cameras, neutral umpires and injury all three played it's part in Waqar stopped taking 5-fers after first 30 tests or so. On other hands, Wasim did not drop like a rock and continued for 50-60 tests without picking 5-fers after neutral umpires/cameras came.
Click to expand...
And Tendulkar your Bhagwaan was the first batsman in history to be done for ball tampering.

Move on, no one is buying your cult propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
[VIDEO] "A legal notice of 200 million for Waqar Younis Sahib and 150 million for Wasim Bhai...": Mushtaq Ahmed
Replies
22
Views
2K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
LordJames
  • Poll Poll
Wasim Akram vs Waqar Younis: Who is better for the role in PCB?
Replies
28
Views
2K
LordJames
LordJames
Savak
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?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Ab Fan
Ab Fan
Buffet
[VIDEOS] Why did Waqar Younis have such an ordinary record against top sides?
3 4 5
Replies
334
Views
13K
Fanboy375
Fanboy375
Mamoon
[PICTURES] Is Joe Root’s reputation in danger due to Indian propaganda?
10 11 12
Replies
908
Views
30K
Mamoon
Mamoon
Back
Top