Waqar Younis vs Ian Bishop

[Xuhaib]

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?

[Precambrian]

Waqar by a country mile and a half.

Put a poll .

[Xuhaib]

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

[funnygirl]

Waqar multiplied by 1000.

[ret]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ret

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]

Originally Posted by Xuhaib

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.

[Harry Harrison]

Originally Posted by Xuhaib

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?

[Slifer]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

Waqar by a country mile and a half.

Put a poll .

By a country mile and a half..Never!!!

[Evermind]

brb working on my coke vs pepsi poll

[Jigga988]

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...

[Jigga988]

Originally Posted by Evermind

brb working on my coke vs pepsi poll

[zaremba]

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.