• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Who's the better bowler, Mk II?

Who was better


  • Total voters
    33

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You've just changed your stance, you said he wasn't at top form facing good sides though? And what you, above, said is precisely what I said, he wasn't totally crap against the best sides but he had trouble, and he had trouble with Australia since the get-go. No out-of-form argument to it.
Yes, I was slightly errant in what I said earlier. Waqar did indeed have some matches against stereotypically "good" teams in his first phase, just not including India nor more than 1 against Australia. He didn't have trouble with Australia since the get-go, at all - he took 7-144 in his first game of the period against them. In his next period, though, he was out of form, and performed poorly against everyone.
Big difference in the players mentioned. Warne may have been poor against SL and WI at the start but he hadn't continued to be poor against them.
It doesn't matter - he has continued to be poor against India (and that first series, ludicrously, is counted in the case-against regarding India and Warne). The only thing that matters is that he was poor - those first few series could have been against anyone - at the commencement of his career. Warne is far from the only example - far, far more players than not fit the same pattern.
You just said they were. The sides mentioned in phase 4 were still not strong. So what are you saying here anyway? He was poor against them too at the end.
He was poor against everyone at the end of his career. However, this does not impact, in the slightest, on what he'd done earlier in his career. All the fact that he was poor later on in his career says is, well... that he was poor later on in his career... simple as. 1995 and 1996 was not phase-four though, phase-four was 2000-onwards.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Yes, I was slightly errant in what I said earlier. Waqar did indeed have some matches against stereotypically "good" teams in his first phase, just not including India nor more than 1 against Australia. He didn't have trouble with Australia since the get-go, at all - he took 7-144 in his first game of the period against them. In his next period, though, he was out of form, and performed poorly against everyone.
It's good you acknowledge it. Now acknowledge that in his FIRST game he actually took 2 for 95; in his second he took 3 for 108; and in his 3rd 1 for 21. You just shift the goal posts to where you think it should count.

It doesn't matter - he has continued to be poor against India (and that first series, ludicrously, is counted in the case-against regarding India and Warne). The only thing that matters is that he was poor - those first few series could have been against anyone - at the commencement of his career. Warne is far from the only example - far, far more players than not fit the same pattern.
But you just proved my point, because Warne has kept failing against India many people regard him poor against them. They don't discount other periods.

He was poor against everyone at the end of his career. However, this does not impact, in the slightest, on what he'd done earlier in his career. All the fact that he was poor later on in his career says is, well... that he was poor later on in his career... simple as. 1995 and 1996 was not phase-four though, phase-four was 2000-onwards.
Which is exactly my point. The only 'phase' which he was universally poor was #4, not #2.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It's good you acknowledge it. Now acknowledge that in his FIRST game he actually took 2 for 95; in his second he took 3 for 108; and in his 3rd 1 for 21. You just shift the goal posts to where you think it should count.
I don't disacknowledge it; I simply think it's pretty meaningless because those games could have been against anyone (including stronger sides than Australia) and most players fail a bit at the start of their career. Waqar wasn't yet, as you put it, Super-Waqar the best bowler bar none. No-one, in fact, has claimed he was. I'm only interested in the time in which he was; not before, not after. And bringing in times before and after and claiming he was something he wasn't is, to me, below the belt.
But you just proved my point, because Warne has kept failing against India many people regard him poor against them. They don't discount other periods.
Right, forget the Warne example; take, shall we say, Imran Khan, who was poor in his first 4 Tests (all against and in England, who he didn't exactly struggle against in either capacity later on). These first 4 (as I'm currently arguing elsewhere) were totally meaningless to his later career.
Which is exactly my point. The only 'phase' which he was universally poor was #4, not #2.
No, he was universally poor in #2, too. It just contained more games against Australia than anyone else. If you knock-out the games against Australia, though, his record was still poor in phase-two. Phase-three is the only one where his performance against Australia is less than against others... in a whole one Test.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I don't disacknowledge it; I simply think it's pretty meaningless because those games could have been against anyone (including stronger sides than Australia) and most players fail a bit at the start of their career. Waqar wasn't yet, as you put it, Super-Waqar the best bowler bar none. No-one, in fact, has claimed he was. I'm only interested in the time in which he was; not before, not after. And bringing in times before and after and claiming he was something he wasn't is, to me, below the belt.
But your stipulation is meaningless. He goes onto - exactly right after that series - destroy the Kiwis and West Indies? Do we treat those performances with a grain of salt? They came RIGHT after, this is what I mean by you trying to build a wall between his two forms. You don't wake up, especially at the start of your career, and become very good. He was good in the beginning, as his matches against NZ and WI show and he was just hit around by the Aussies.

Right, forget the Warne example; take, shall we say, Imran Khan, who was poor in his first 4 Tests (all against and in England, who he didn't exactly struggle against in either capacity later on). These first 4 (as I'm currently arguing elsewhere) were totally meaningless to his later career.
Bad example again. Khan's # of tests isn't important here as the two periods in question are separated by years. Waqar's supposed transformation happens in the VERY next test - 8 months? Ridiculous.

No, he was universally poor in #2, too. It just contained more games against Australia than anyone else. If you knock-out the games against Australia, though, his record was still poor in phase-two. Phase-three is the only one where his performance against Australia is less than against others... in a whole one Test.
You can squirm out of accepting it as much as you like. No matter what phase, Waqar was hit around by the Aussies; just accept it, stop making these really bad excuses.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But your stipulation is meaningless. He goes onto - exactly right after that series - destroy the Kiwis and West Indies? Do we treat those performances with a grain of salt? They came RIGHT after, this is what I mean by you trying to build a wall between his two forms. You don't wake up, especially at the start of your career, and become very good. He was good in the beginning, as his matches against NZ and WI show and he was just hit around by the Aussies.
It really doesn't matter. I stop and start with good and poor games. One can go from brilliant to terrible in the space of a game, less than a week apart; I've seen it many times before. There aren't always obvious reasons for it, certainly not. But it happens, and to deny it would be foolhardy. Sometimes these players are never the same again, either.
Bad example again. Khan's # of tests isn't important here as the two periods in question are separated by years. Waqar's supposed transformation happens in the VERY next test - 8 months? Ridiculous.
It doesn't matter whether they're separated by years or days. One can become a good bowler, if not perhaps overnight, then within a few days. Sometimes, things just click.
You can squirm out of accepting it as much as you like. No matter what phase, Waqar was hit around by the Aussies; just accept it, stop making these really bad excuses.
I don't disaccept it, I just find different reasons for it than you do.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
LOL, my last comment on this with you, it's ridiculous now.

It really doesn't matter. I stop and start with good and poor games. One can go from brilliant to terrible in the space of a game, less than a week apart; I've seen it many times before. There aren't always obvious reasons for it, certainly not. But it happens, and to deny it would be foolhardy. Sometimes these players are never the same again, either.
By that criteria, every player in the history of the game can claim they were never outdone, just that they weren't in a good spot - bad form. And because it seems that bad form stops and starts even at the rate of 1 match at a time - your persuation, not mine - you can entertain that. Well, sorry, I can't. It sounds, frankly, stupid.

It doesn't matter whether they're separated by years or days. One can become a good bowler, if not perhaps overnight, then within a few days. Sometimes, things just click.
It COMPLETELY matters. You can improve yourself in that time frame, but wherein we talk of tests and the gap between them, we are talking a much smaller time-frame and such improvements or faults are not going to appear in a matter of 1 test.

I don't disaccept it, I just find different reasons for it than you do.
To call those reasons 'different' would be one way of saying it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
LOL, my last comment on this with you, it's ridiculous now.
If you wish.
By that criteria, every player in the history of the game can claim they were never outdone, just that they weren't in a good spot - bad form. And because it seems that bad form stops and starts even at the rate of 1 match at a time - your persuation, not mine - you can entertain that. Well, sorry, I can't. It sounds, frankly, stupid.
I've never broken such things into single-match spells, have I? (Except in the Chaminda Vaas case, but that's before your time thankfully) I've grouped together matches which fit well into one spell, then others which fit into another.

Many players had loads of bad games and few if any good ones. Waqar clearly didn't. He had a pretty large number of good games, which had some spells of bad ones either side. I cannot see that it makes any sense to blur together such output groups just because of chronological considerations. For reasons explained below.
It COMPLETELY matters. You can improve yourself in that time frame, but wherein we talk of tests and the gap between them, we are talking a much smaller time-frame and such improvements or faults are not going to appear in a matter of 1 test.
They are. Have you seriously not seen bowlers have very, very poor games then very, very good ones just a week later? 'Cos I have. And the opposite too. And sometimes I've seen cases where these differentiations start off spells of similar outcomes. This is exactly what happened in the Waqar case.
To call those reasons 'different' would be one way of saying it.
It'd be the only way.
 

Swervy

International Captain
one thing has to be said Richard, you continually surpass your earlier scheivements!!!

This is hilarious
 

Beleg

International Regular
hey perm, or anybody else for that matter,

Why/how is Shoaib over-rated? (and I feel as if I am repeating myself here...)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
one thing has to be said Richard, you continually surpass your earlier scheivements!!!
No, I don't, you just see new things ATT. The things I argue remain, however, grounded in the same way they always have been.
 

Swervy

International Captain
The things I argue remain, however, grounded in the same way they always have been.
and thats why you are always wrong



(just kidding you by the way, although your methods of selecting what stats to look at etc are simply bizarre and quite frankly, misguided)
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No they're not, they're the only way that makes any sense. Anyone who cannot see what I see in the stats is clearly a dunce of the highest order.
















(Yes, this post was in jest too - mostly)
 

Beleg

International Regular
Because he's an injury prone,uncommitted bowler who doesn't have a good record against the two top sides of his time.
I'll break your post into three bits.

Injury prone is irrelevent while judging the peformance of a player.
Judging a player's commitment is not only completely subjective, but again irrelevent if we are only concerned with actual performance, pretty much the only benchmark that makes sense.

And I am not quite sure how you came to the conclusion at the end of your post. His record against South Africa is, if anything, better than almost any other Pakistani bowler in our history. And from a perosnal prespective, his spell at Durban in the 98 series, as well as the variety and guile he displayed in the 03/04 home tour account for some of the best bowling performances I have ever seen.

His record against Australia, on first glance, does seem pretty shoddy. 31 wickets in 10 games isn't really the hallmark of a great bowler, is it now. However, this is where depending purely on statistics misfires.

Shoaib Akhtar, on more than one occasion, has destroyed the Australian batting line-up like no other bowler, with the exception, perhaps, of Shane Bond. Colombo 02 and Melbourne 04 are prime examples of that in test cricket. He has frequently won personal battles against Lehmann, Gilchrist and Hayden, with Ponting being the only player, if my memory serves me correctly, that has clearly gotten the better of their mutual encounters.

And the fact that he has come up with fast, furious and feisty spells on wickets which offered little to no conventional support to the bowlers only serves to illustrate his achivements.

Of course, Shoaib Akhtar, at the beginning of his career was not the bowler he grew into during his later 20's, early 30's. However, his performance over the last five/six years, on extremely unresponsive wickets and often in extremely unsporting conditions against some of the best batsmen in modern cricket, with all their fancy gear and without the aid of friendly home umpires is unparralled in Pakistani bowling history.

There just are too many spells that come to mind.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
If you wish.
LOL, I can't stay away because this is just funny now. Lemme try one more time.

I've never broken such things into single-match spells, have I? (Except in the Chaminda Vaas case, but that's before your time thankfully) I've grouped together matches which fit well into one spell, then others which fit into another.
LOL, yes, you grouped the first few games into one spell, a second spell just after his great phase and because of what? Because in the 1st and 3rd phase he does poorly? That is your criteria for not accepting these claims. What is funny is the gap between the 1st and 2nd phase is just as small as the gap between the 2nd and 3rd. Is it that hard to say he wasn't that good against Australia?

I mean think about it for a minute, how many career defining phases can Waqar possibly have, and all whenever he happens to play Australia?

Many players had loads of bad games and few if any good ones. Waqar clearly didn't. He had a pretty large number of good games, which had some spells of bad ones either side. I cannot see that it makes any sense to blur together such output groups just because of chronological considerations. For reasons explained below.
Er, because to say he didn't do as well against better test countries, even at his peak, is more appropriate - even likely - than to say he started being good on x period, bad on y period and ignore a pretty obvious trend.

They are. Have you seriously not seen bowlers have very, very poor games then very, very good ones just a week later? 'Cos I have. And the opposite too. And sometimes I've seen cases where these differentiations start off spells of similar outcomes. This is exactly what happened in the Waqar case.
Yes, but not career-defining points. No, they don't just stop start at the rate you are suggesting. To me that is ludicrous.

It'd be the only way.
How about 'stupid'?

I think I really should step aside now. It's obvious we are not going to agree on much, except disagreeing.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
LOL, yes, you grouped the first few games into one spell, a second spell just after his great phase and because of what? Because in the 1st and 3rd phase he does poorly? That is your criteria for not accepting these claims. What is funny is the gap between the 1st and 2nd phase is just as small as the gap between the 2nd and 3rd. Is it that hard to say he wasn't that good against Australia?

I mean think about it for a minute, how many career defining phases can Waqar possibly have, and all whenever he happens to play Australia?
As I've said about 5 times now (this feels familiar, incidentally): it wasn't just Australia who he played in his first poor period (phase two), nor his second (phase four). If it was exclusively Australian games that formed the poor periods, or if he'd done well against other teams at the same time as doing poorly against Australia, then you'd have a point, but neither of these are true.

Also, Australia do not remain the same team. To suggest that the same thing impedimented Waqar in 1989\90 that did in 1999\2000 is, to me, crazy. Australia were 2nd from bottom in at the start of 1989\90, and they were atop by a fair bit in 1999\2000. This is two completely different sides in question.
Er, because to say he didn't do as well against better test countries, even at his peak, is more appropriate - even likely - than to say he started being good on x period, bad on y period and ignore a pretty obvious trend.
I don't think it is, especially where a bowler is concerned. Bowlers can be bowling brilliantly one minute and terribly the next. If there's no obvious trend - which there isn't to my mind - other than "bowling well" and "not bowling well" this is the only conclusion to come to.
Yes, but not career-defining points. No, they don't just stop start at the rate you are suggesting. To me that is ludicrous.
And it's not ludicrous to me. I've seen players' careers take different paths any number of times; some careers can be split into 5 or 6 different sections. It all has to start somewhere. I don't see any evidence to support the notion that there has to be lots of time between games for things to change.
How about 'stupid'?

I think I really should step aside now. It's obvious we are not going to agree on much, except disagreeing.
You can step aside any time you like - I shall not stop arguing something I believe. If you wish to, that's your choice.
 
I'll break your post into three bits.

Injury prone is irrelevent while judging the peformance of a player.
Judging a player's commitment is not only completely subjective, but again irrelevent if we are only concerned with actual performance, pretty much the only benchmark that makes sense.

And I am not quite sure how you came to the conclusion at the end of your post. His record against South Africa is, if anything, better than almost any other Pakistani bowler in our history. And from a perosnal prespective, his spell at Durban in the 98 series, as well as the variety and guile he displayed in the 03/04 home tour account for some of the best bowling performances I have ever seen.

His record against Australia, on first glance, does seem pretty shoddy. 31 wickets in 10 games isn't really the hallmark of a great bowler, is it now. However, this is where depending purely on statistics misfires.

Shoaib Akhtar, on more than one occasion, has destroyed the Australian batting line-up like no other bowler, with the exception, perhaps, of Shane Bond. Colombo 02 and Melbourne 04 are prime examples of that in test cricket. He has frequently won personal battles against Lehmann, Gilchrist and Hayden, with Ponting being the only player, if my memory serves me correctly, that has clearly gotten the better of their mutual encounters.

And the fact that he has come up with fast, furious and feisty spells on wickets which offered little to no conventional support to the bowlers only serves to illustrate his achivements.

Of course, Shoaib Akhtar, at the beginning of his career was not the bowler he grew into during his later 20's, early 30's. However, his performance over the last five/six years, on extremely unresponsive wickets and often in extremely unsporting conditions against some of the best batsmen in modern cricket, with all their fancy gear and without the aid of friendly home umpires is unparralled in Pakistani bowling history.

There just are too many spells that come to mind.
By 2 best sides,I meant Australia & India(who have been the top 2 for most of Shoaib's career).I don't rate those bowlers highly who can't keep themselves fit for more than half of tests their team plays & have reputation of faking injuries & consistent discipline problems.
 
Last edited:

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
hey perm, or anybody else for that matter,

Why/how is Shoaib over-rated? (and I feel as if I am repeating myself here...)
Over-rated is a pretty tricky term. Shoaib has/had the potential to be one of the best bowlers of all-time, but he's thrown that away with his indiscipline, lack of commitment and shocking attitude. He made his debut for the Pakistan team in 1997, and has only played 43 Tests, that is disgraceful. Ten years of top level cricket and he only has 43 Tests to show for it.

Also, his performances haven't actually been that good. His statistics have been improved by taking cheap wickets against Bangladesh, while he has been pretty poor for most of his career against India and Australia, the two best batting line-ups of his era. Shoaib has had to bowl on some flat tracks, that is true, and he has often done fairly well on respsonsive wickets, purely because of the pace he generates. But really, he isn't that good, largely because of his attitude and personality.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Beleg said:
hey perm, or anybody else for that matter,

Why/how is Shoaib over-rated? (and I feel as if I am repeating myself here...)
Quite happy to reproduce these quotes - these were some of the very first posts I ever made on CW, from March 2006. I think I can say that time has proven me to be correct.

How to you compile a 'over-rated XI' and not have Shoaib Akhtar? At least Lee has some heart. Shoaib is the most overrated bowler in world cricket - why was he in the World XI? when he has a good day he's devestating - but for that to happen the planets need to align, the tides have to be just right, and most importantly, he needs to feel like it. Needless to say, that doesn't happen often.
Shoaib >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lee
i don't agree. I'd take Lee
Why? Shoaib has shown he's improve his attitude - just look at how he played vs England. In terms of figures, Lee is inferior in pretty much every way. Shoaib has a much better average and strike rate.
Lack of heart is pretty difficult to get past - going back to the overrated issue, rather than Lee vs Akhtar, not having heart, everyone knowing you don't have heart, and people still arguing your case as a great bowler, selecting you for world XI's etc, is certainly to be overrated.
 

funnygirl

State Regular
Which is easy ?8-)

bowling at full pace in the first test and then take rest .

or

bowling the whole series with a sustained fire power .


which is easy ?

Bowling in a dead track overs after overs

or

Faking an injury in such docile pitches as soon as u realise that there is no help for the bowlers .
 

Top