Waqar Younis vs Ian Bishop

[Matt79]

Threw a sympathy vote to Bishop in the end, given I really couldn't decide who was better, by the terms of the question, and Bishop doesn't deserve the smashing he's getting.

 

[Richard]

These two form half the pace quartet of my 'if only they hadn't been blighted by injury' XI, with Jeff Thompson and one of Jack Gregory or Shane Bond.

Thommo and Waqar weren't exactly "blighted" by injury, were they? I'd put them in the camp with Terry Alderman, Jimmy Adams, Angus Fraser and many others, in that they had one serious injury, which though it didn't end their careers did to some degree reduce (in some cases only temporarily) their effectiveness, but was only a one-off.

A bit different from the likes of Bishop, Gough, Bond, Simon Jones, McDermott, Reid, Reiffel, Fleming, Doull, Nash, Franklin... etc. etc. who have just had injury after injury, often in different forms, occasionally in the same.

 

[Matt79]

Well neither Thommo nor Waqar were ever anything like the bowlers they'd been prior to their injury. So I think it's fair to say the injury blighted their career. Call it a 'what might have been' XI if you prefer.

 

[Richard]

That sounds better, but still, "injury blighted" seems to me to suggest some sort of constant, recurring nature. Though I can't really think of a really accurate term to describe someone for whom a one-off injury caused (sometimes irreparable) damage, the way it did with Thommo, Waqar, Gus Fraser, Reon King and others.

Fortunately for the likes of Alderman, Vaughan etc. some people manage to beat serious injury and re-emerge as good as if not better than ever.

 

[ret]

There's no doubt Waqar in the end achieved more but I've often wondered whether Bishop might've been one of the best there's ever been had he had the chance.

Bishop's whole career (the part of note anyway) was not that much longer than Waqar's period where he was a force beyond almost all that had been seen before. Given that Waqar had a later period of further excellence that puts him fairly comfortably ahead.

However, on the not-remotely-unreasonable presumption that Bishop would have done as well in the 28 games he missed as he did in the 37 he played, he could have been one of the greatest ever even if he had been finished at 29. If he'd continued to do well until the age of 32-33 or so on top of that (not, I don't think, all that unreasonable a presumption either) then he might've ended-up with 100 or so Tests, 450 or so wickets and an average of 22-23. Just think of that.

Bishop's career was savagely damaged by his injury, even though he played long enough to leave no-one in any doubt how good he was. Waqar, of course, had a serious injury of his own and even though it did not recur it cannot possibly be complete coincidence that after it he was never again the destructive force he had been before it. I've said before that I don't think it'd be reasonable to think he could've continued to average less than 18 for the next 6 years or so had he not picked-up the injury. That he could've done better than he ended-up doing, though, I can't help feeling is fairly inevitable.

So potentially, had neither suffered back problems, my thoughts are that we'd probably be talking of them as two of the best there's ever been. As it is, Waqar undoubtedly comes out on top.

nice post

 

[Top_Cat]

Waqar for me overall (was one of my heroes as a kid) but pre-injury for both of them, Bish the more classical bowler with probably a few more weapons.

One thing I absolutely loved about Waqar was his constant attacking at the batsmen with full bowling. I've seen him say many times that he always preferred to be up at the bat and only use short ones as a shock delivery. If nothing that's pretty ballsy to rely purely on your speed through the air and any movement to beat the batsmen because it can so easy turn into a smackable half-volley whereas a poor directed bouncer will generally fly over the batsmen's head.

I've got the video of that series Richard YouTubed earlier and Bish was sensational in that series. Dev Malcolm looked bloody terrifying, though.

 

[bagapath]

removing minnows, these are the stats of bish and waqar.

IR Bishop (WI) 43 76 8407 3909 161 6/40 8/57 24.27 2.78 52.2 6 0
Waqar Younis (Pak) 73 128 13517 7374 293 7/76 12/130 25.16 3.27 46.1 16 4


while bishop has a better ER and, as a result of which, a better avg, waqar takes more wickets per test and takes them faster.

as a fan i liked both of them equally. but waqar was a little more special - with his swinging yorkers, long and explosive run-up and reverse swing; also, the fact that he played longer helped establish a stronger image of him mind's eye.

 

[Migara]

Very little to choose in terms of pace between Bishop and Waqar pre-injury.

This was not about the acutal speed they bowled. What they had additional to it.

And believe it or not, there were inswinging yorkers before Imran...

Yes, they had. But Spofforth, Tyson, Larwood, Trueman, Lillee, Thomopson, Holding, Marshall, Boyce, Ambrose, Patterson or Donald, they did not use the reverse swinging variety, which is different to ordinaty inswinging yorker. Pakistani's mastered yorker as a deadly weapon, whether you admit it or not.

 

[Craig]

I voted for Patterson Thompson, he was the irrelevant 3rd option, wasn't he?

 

[Xuhaib]

I voted for Patterson Thompson, he was the irrelevant 3rd option, wasn't he?

Nahi he was suppose to be the only relevant option funny to see how many fell for it I can say you are one of the brighter ones here.

 

[Migara]

And for the poster who said that Bishop was easy meat for a good puller and hooker, well Smith was excellent at those strokes but didn't find facing him easy, as this footage shows.

Smith was the best hooker and puller in last 30 years? Wow.. nice.

But I would liked him to bowled to one of Ponting, Inzamam, De Silva or Tendulkar in their prime. Easily the four best exponets of hook and pull, who are non-West Indian.

1993/4 series, WI vs PAK, this was probably the best ever series that were played in recent times. Two fast bowling super powers met each other. (and Bishop at his peak)

ODI #1:, Bishop disappearing against Inzamam.

ODI #2: Again disappearing 6 an over. This time IIRC Basit Ali took to him.

ODI #3: This was a better performance. But still Inzamam went after him.

ODI #4: On a **** pitch, still gone over 4 per over.

ODI #5: 10-0-62-1. Once again manhandled by Basit Ali.

And then bowled well in the 1st test to break down in the second.

This was Bishop at his peak, and Pakistani batsmen, at peak. Bishop was no match for them honestly, because they recognized him as the one to attack. Honestly on fllatter pitches today, Waqar would have still been a threat, because his method does not take pitch in to acount as much as Bishop.

 

[zaremba]

Spofforth, Tyson, Larwood, Trueman, Lillee, Thomopson, Holding, Marshall, Boyce, Ambrose, Patterson or Donald, they did not use the reverse swinging variety, which is different to ordinaty inswinging yorker. Pakistani's mastered yorker as a deadly weapon, whether you admit it or not.

I see, it's a nationalistic thing is it? Yawn.

As it happens I've been a big fan of many Pakistani bowlers. If you know anything about the history of Sussex (the team I support) this will not surprise you. In my time as a Sussex fan we've been privileged to watch: Imran Khan, Mushtaq Ahmed, Yasir Arafat, Mohammad Akram, Mohammad Sami (not to mention Javed Miandad).

And I'm more than happy to give them credit for what they achieved. In the same way that I'm happy to give credit to an American for mastering conventional swing.

Ironically, if you're looking for the Pakistani who pioneered reverse swing, it wasn't any of the 3 you mentioned but Sarfraz Nawaz.

As for whether a (non-reverse) swinging yorker was a deadly weapon before the great Pakistani quicks mastered the reverse swinging yorker, well I can assure you that it was.

 

[Migara]

I see, it's a nationalistic thing is it? Yawn.

I definietly see it :added yawn:

Ironically, if you're looking for the Pakistani who pioneered reverse swing, it wasn't any of the 3 you mentioned but Sarfraz Nawaz.

I never said Imran, Wasim & Waqar pioneered it. They astered it in to a deadly weapon.

As for whether a (non-reverse) swinging yorker was a deadly weapon before the great Pakistani quicks mastered the reverse swinging yorker, well I can assure you that it was.

I am very fond to see how many batsmen were cleaned up with inswinging yoekers before that. I can assure, average number of dismissals off yorkers per match at least twice than earlier eras. Any nice memeber in this forum can run a query on that an see (i am pressed for time for an extensive search)

 

[zaremba]

Smith was the best hooker and puller in last 30 years? Wow.. nice.

No, I didn't say Smith was the best hooker and puller in 30 years. You might want to try reading my posts before replying to them.

1993/4 series, WI vs PAK, this was probably the best ever series that were played in recent times. Two fast bowling super powers met each other. (and Bishop at his peak)...
This was Bishop at his peak, and Pakistani batsmen, at peak. Bishop was no match for them honestly, because they recognized him as the one to attack. Honestly on fllatter pitches today, Waqar would have still been a threat, because his method does not take pitch in to acount as much as Bishop.

Ian Bishop's stress fracture was diagnosed in 1991. The point of this thread is to speculate as to who would have been the greater bowler had he and Waqar not had their injuries. If you're talking about Bishop in 1993/4, you're talking about him post-injury. By 1993/4 he had lost a good deal of his pace.

 

[ret]

Smith was the best hooker and puller in last 30 years? Wow.. nice.

But I would liked him to bowled to one of Ponting, Inzamam, De Silva or Tendulkar in their prime. Easily the four best exponets of hook and pull, who are non-West Indian.

1993/4 series, WI vs PAK, this was probably the best ever series that were played in recent times. Two fast bowling super powers met each other. (and Bishop at his peak)

ODI #1:, Bishop disappearing against Inzamam.

ODI #2: Again disappearing 6 an over. This time IIRC Basit Ali took to him.

ODI #3: This was a better performance. But still Inzamam went after him.

ODI #4: On a **** pitch, still gone over 4 per over.

ODI #5: 10-0-62-1. Once again manhandled by Basit Ali.

And then bowled well in the 1st test to break down in the second.

This was Bishop at his peak, and Pakistani batsmen, at peak. Bishop was no match for them honestly, because they recognized him as the one to attack. Honestly on fllatter pitches today, Waqar would have still been a threat, because his method does not take pitch in to acount as much as Bishop.

I haven't seen that series but your interpretation of how things went looks a little off target

let's take the first 3 ODIs as you have supplied us with their links

Ist ODI: Bishop 9 overs, 2/54 .... a quick glance at the FoW would tell you that he took 2 quick wkts to put breaks on Pak. He removed Inzi, the set batsman who could have taken Pak to a bigger total had he stayed their for long, and followed it up by picking up dangerous Wasim .... so from 1/185, Pak went to 3/185

WI won the game comfortably so appears as if Pak bowlers didn't put too much pressure on them

2nd ODI: he appears to have gone for runs .... but again WI appears to have pulled off a comfortable win, probably because Pak bowlers didn't create much pressure

3rd ODI: Bishop picks up Sohail and has decent figures .... Walsh was 0/63, all the other WI bowlers went for more than Bishop, i.e. Bishop is the most economical bowler for the WI .... Many of the Pak bowlers went for a lot and appears to have done nothing notable

Implying that Bishop was not effective because Inzi and Basit went after him w/o taking into account how other bowlers [from both sides] performed is hilarious

 

[Top_Cat]

Smith was the best hooker and puller in last 30 years? Wow.. nice.

But I would liked him to bowled to one of Ponting, Inzamam, De Silva or Tendulkar in their prime. Easily the four best exponets of hook and pull, who are non-West Indian.

1993/4 series, WI vs PAK, this was probably the best ever series that were played in recent times. Two fast bowling super powers met each other. (and Bishop at his peak)

ODI #1:, Bishop disappearing against Inzamam.

ODI #2: Again disappearing 6 an over. This time IIRC Basit Ali took to him.

ODI #3: This was a better performance. But still Inzamam went after him.

ODI #4: On a **** pitch, still gone over 4 per over.

ODI #5: 10-0-62-1. Once again manhandled by Basit Ali.

And then bowled well in the 1st test to break down in the second.

This was Bishop at his peak, and Pakistani batsmen, at peak. Bishop was no match for them honestly, because they recognized him as the one to attack. Honestly on fllatter pitches today, Waqar would have still been a threat, because his method does not take pitch in to acount as much as Bishop.

Mate, this is getting a bit ridiculous. Did you actually see any of these matches?

 

[Jigga988]

Smith was the best hooker and puller in last 30 years? Wow.. nice.

But I would liked him to bowled to one of Ponting, Inzamam, De Silva or Tendulkar in their prime. Easily the four best exponets of hook and pull, who are non-West Indian.

1993/4 series, WI vs PAK, this was probably the best ever series that were played in recent times. Two fast bowling super powers met each other. (and Bishop at his peak)

ODI #1:, Bishop disappearing against Inzamam.

ODI #2: Again disappearing 6 an over. This time IIRC Basit Ali took to him.

ODI #3: This was a better performance. But still Inzamam went after him.

ODI #4: On a **** pitch, still gone over 4 per over.

ODI #5: 10-0-62-1. Once again manhandled by Basit Ali.

And then bowled well in the 1st test to break down in the second.

This was Bishop at his peak, and Pakistani batsmen, at peak. Bishop was no match for them honestly, because they recognized him as the one to attack. Honestly on fllatter pitches today, Waqar would have still been a threat, because his method does not take pitch in to acount as much as Bishop.

Anyone can pick out matches where batsmen have targeted bowlers successfully, I'm sure I can find 5 matches where Mcgrath and Pollock have gone for runs... a bit dodgy tbh...

 

[Richard]

BTW I wonder how many people reading this thread know who Patterson Thompson was? In case anyone doesn't, it's worth a quick look - he was almost certainly the worst seam-bowler ever to play Test cricket in the modern era and probably for a fair while before it too. If not ever.

 

[Jigga988]

BTW I wonder how many people reading this thread know who Patterson Thompson was? In case anyone doesn't, it's worth a quick look - he was almost certainly the worst seam-bowler ever to play Test cricket in the modern era and probably for a fair while before it too. If not ever.

Ha, cricinfo's little summary of him...

When he made his Test debut for the West Indies against New Zealand in Barbados in 1995-96, Patterson Thompson had a shocker. Making Devon Malcolm look like a metronome, he bowled 22 no-balls and returned match figures of 22-1-135-4 - which flattered him. He played just one more Test, in Australia the following winter, and that was that. His Test strike rate, 45.6, would do anyone proud but his economy rate, 5.65, would make even a joke bowler blush.

Obviously didn't watch these matches on account of me being three, figures like that are unheard of though... must have been a bizzare couple matches.

 

[Harry Harrison]

Voted for Ian Bishop.

In fact it's too close to call. When they were both young they were two of the most incredible bowlers I've seen. I went for Bishop because the overwhelming preference for Waqar in this poll is a travesty.

Ian Bishop pre-injury was just about the best-equipped fast bowler of all time. He had incredible pace, bounce, and movement.

I suspect that most of those sneering at the comparison with Waqar would not do so had they seen Bishop bowl before his injury.