• 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.

Waqar Younis vs Ian Bishop

Better bowler in his injury free period


  • Total voters
    45

Xuhaib

International Coach
Two bowlers who had the ability to end as a top 5 test bowler of all time had it not been for the injuries. Overall Waqar more then Bishop but that was because Bishop was hit by injuries in his career much earlier then Waqar.

So who do you think was a much superior bowler?
 

Xuhaib

International Coach
I can't decide tbh, if its a hard bouncy Aussie, SA or those days WI track I guess I will go for Bishop for rest I will take Waqar:)
 

ret

International Debutant
as we know, Bishop's career was marred with injuries so its difficult to compare his overall career with someone's .... it would be nice if someone could analyze the best period of Bishop's career and may be compare that with Waqar's
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
Waqar brought something new with the pace. Bishop was from old school. Good hookers and pullers could handle him with ease. But Handling Imran, Wasim and Waqar brought a new dimension in to cricket. ie. how to score off a inswinging yorker. Clearing of front foot and slogging, paddle sweeps were brought on by successes of Waqar and co.

Hence Waqar for me.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
as we know, Bishop's career was marred with injuries so its difficult to compare his overall career with someone's .... it would be nice if someone could analyze the best period of Bishop's career and may be compare that with Waqar's
^^
Voila.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I can't decide tbh, if its a hard bouncy Aussie, SA or those days WI track I guess I will go for Bishop for rest I will take Waqar:)
Just as Bishop demonstrated he could succeed on slow, low decks in various countries, Waqar showed quite clearly (in West Indies in 1993 and South Africa in 1998/99) that bouncy decks did not remotely hinder him.
 
Two bowlers who had the ability to end as a top 5 test bowler of all time had it not been for the injuries. Overall Waqar more then Bishop but that was because Bishop was hit by injuries in his career much earlier then Waqar.

So who do you think was a much superior bowler?
its the most stupid and funniest poll i have ever seen in my life. By the way do you know how many players are in a team who play cricket?
 

Jigga988

State 12th Man
Voted for Bish... felt a bit sorry for the guy, tbh, I thought he had the most pace you're likely to see from that era... before the injuries of course. In terms of stats and achievements it is Waqar and Waqar was definitely better for the lengths of both their careers, just thought Bish might've had the potential to be as good as a Marshall if not ridden with injuries... impossible to tell though...
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Waqar brought something new with the pace. Bishop was from old school. Good hookers and pullers could handle him with ease. But Handling Imran, Wasim and Waqar brought a new dimension in to cricket. ie.how to score off a inswinging yorker. Clearing of front foot and slogging, paddle sweeps were brought on by successes of Waqar and co.

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

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

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
I saw Bishop bowl only in 1995 and that was as nothing more than "a West Indies bowler". Yet having looked at his career, at what people said about him and seen various bits and pieces of footage, I've been left in no doubt about his capability. It's very surprising that anyone'd think Waqar was obviously a better bowler.

BTW if anyone hasn't ever seen Bishop bowl there's a couple of deliveries here - unfortunately the camera is behind Walsh at the other end (and I imagine most are familiar with him) and behind the wicketkeeper to Bishop. You still get a vague idea though, and this is the only piece of footage on the internet apparently. This features them battering Robin Smith, one of the most gutsy in the business, in 1990 - can't work-out whether it's Sabina Park or The ARG.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
BTW if anyone hasn't ever seen Bishop bowl there's a couple of deliveries here - unfortunately the camera is behind Walsh at the other end (and I imagine most are familiar with him) and behind the wicketkeeper to Bishop. You still get a vague idea though, and this is the only piece of footage on the internet apparently. This features them battering Robin Smith, one of the most gutsy in the business, in 1990 - can't work-out whether it's Sabina Park or The ARG.
I was watching this footage just the other day. It illustrates Bishop's pace pretty nicely.

Some great Tony Grieg commentary about 2/3 of the way through - "Oh, he's hit him, he's hurt him, I've often wondered why he doesn't wear the proper protection; [distinct note of satisfaction enters voice] that one may have broken his jaw".

I loved watching Smith bat against the Windies. Seeing him getting duffed up - and just avoiding bouncers - was part of made him such an easy batsman to love.

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.
 

Goughy

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

And believe it or not, there were inswinging yorkers before Imran...
Yeah, Id put Bish over Waqar in terms of pace.

Waqar was probably the more destructive and probably the better bowler. But Bish was more classical and possibly more reliable.

I think if I had 3 other good bowlers then Bishop would fit better into a unit but if I had 3 ordinary bowlrs then adding Waqar brings more to the table.
 

Top