Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 142
Like Tree85Likes

Thread: Waqar Younis

  1. #106
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Faisal1985 View Post
    Possible Contradictions by Richard

    "Wicket-taking can certainly help accurate bowling be really economical instead of fairly economical."

    "Getting tailenders or top-order batsmen out at the end of the innings will almost never slow the run-rate, because at the death everyone goes for everything regardless."
    The former quote would more accurately read "getting early wickets" rather than merely "getting wickets".
    Moreover:

    "Bowling lots at the stumps and being consistently accurate is a different matter. Waqar was not a bowler of any great consistent accuracy, but he did aim at the sort of place which gets you bowled and lbw wickets with far more regularity than most bowlers. Priority and accuracy is not the same thing."

    And

    ""Being accurate" means hitting the spot you're aiming at."

    Also is contradictory.
    It isn't.
    If Waqar wanted to hit the stumps and "He did" for the most part of his wickets then he is accurate as per your logic because he aimed for it and got it right many times.
    You don't seem to understand very well - most every Waqar delivery was aimed at the stumps except when he chucked the odd short one in, but he missed that aim with great regularity, as well as hitting it on plenty of occasions too (which when you bowl several thousand deliveries you will do). Other bowlers hit their aim - whatever that aim might have been - with far more regularity than Waqar.

    As I say - there is no such thing as "is accurate" \ "is not accurate" - it's a question of how accurate. No-one's saying Waqar was a hopeless waste of space who couldn't ever hit a barn door in 50 attempts, merely that compared to plenty of bowlers, his accuracy was inferior. That didn't stop him being a damn decent ODI bowler, but it did make him notably inferior to a good few others.
    My suggestion try to change this girlish habit of "i am always right" even when you are far from it.
    I wouldn't say what I said if it wasn't right. See? It'd be rather foolish to deliberately say something that was wrong just for the sake of being wrong.
    Fred Tetanus and Likes Given like this.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  2. #107
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    I wouldn't say what I said if it wasn't right. See? It'd be rather foolish to deliberately say something that was wrong just for the sake of being wrong.
    No, it's just what you think is right. Doesn't mean it is, Dickadoo.

  3. #108
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    As an overall, his economy-rate in matches where he's taken 3 or more wickets is 4.13-an-over; where he's taken 0, 1 or 2, it's 4.93-an-over, a collossal difference.

    For Lee (and the same is true of Shoaib), when he bowled well he bowled economically and penetratively; when he bowled poorly he was profligate and unpenetrative.
    There's also the possibility that those stats show that by not taking wickets, it is more likely that runs are to be scored. It can go both ways.

  4. #109
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    8,642
    Richard, your posts seem to give the impression that bowling at the stumps consistently over a 266-match ODI career is absolute childplay.
    Last edited by Teja.; 23-03-2010 at 09:33 PM.


  5. #110
    International Coach Xuhaib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Karachi
    Posts
    10,123
    haha...Richard having one of those threads.

  6. #111
    International Captain bagapath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    6,067
    my top 10 fast bowlers of the last 30 years

    Tests

    Marshall
    McGrath
    Hadlee
    Imran
    Lillee
    Ambrose
    Donald
    Akram
    Holding
    Waqar

    ODIs

    Akram
    Garner
    Waqar
    McGrath
    Pollock
    Hadlee
    Donald
    Lee
    Bond
    Ambrose

    Cant really answer the thread starter's question straight. I guess, depite Waqar's awesome record in tests, there are enough greats who were better than him. In ODIs he is closer to the top of the pile for sure. But since test cricket is considered to be the ultimate form of cricket his fame is a notch below that of his contemporaries.
    Last edited by bagapath; 23-03-2010 at 11:33 PM.

  7. #112
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,571
    Haha, for so long seeing "the last 30 years" has had connotation of the 1970s onwards. Doesn't really work now! Just noted that looking at bagapath's list.

  8. #113
    International Coach Xuhaib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Karachi
    Posts
    10,123
    My take on Waqar has always been the same.

    90-94 Best fast bowler ever.

    95-98 World class.

    99-03 Barely test class.

  9. #114
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    8,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Xuhaib View Post
    My take on Waqar has always been the same.

    90-94 Best fast bowler ever.

    95-98 World class.

    99-03 Barely test class.
    Overall, all time great?

  10. #115
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    29,571
    I think anyone who has a period of excellence like Waqar did would still be an all time great, even if he had've gone straight from the 1990-94 "best fast bowler ever" tag (not really my opinion, but understandable) to 1999-2003 "barely test class", simply because of how amazing that peak was.

    Similar, in a way, to Botham. How good Beefy was at his peak still gives him great status, at least within his own nation, despite the majority of his career (in terms of years) not really performing to such a standard.

  11. #116
    International Coach Xuhaib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Karachi
    Posts
    10,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    Overall, all time great?
    Depends on your criteria.

    My criteria for an all time great is the top 50 cricketers ever so by that defination i say a lower rung all time great.

  12. #117
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Again, I know what I did, you don't. In reality I picked 3 wickets because that seemed to me to constitute a spell where a decent number of wickets were taken; 1 or 2 is run-of-the-mill. I picked the variables, then looked at the results, not tested a different number of variables to see which gave the most desireable (to me) results.
    No it doesn't matter how you did it. The whole process is taking bigger chunk of Lee's good games. 25% compared to Mcgrath's 18.

    The reality is that mostly, Lee and Shoaib tend to either take wickets and bowl economically or go around the park and not threaten. I don't need to be selective about how I display the data - however I or anyone else displays it, that's what it shows. You could go through every spell of both bowlers and categorise them as "went around the park and took wickets", "economical and penetrative" and "went around the park and didn't threaten" if you wanted to, that'd be the best way to do it, but I really CBA, because I don't need to - I already know what happened.
    It is funny to see adding another Criteria since your last post. Earlier in the thread you said the following :-

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    For Lee (and the same is true of Shoaib), when he bowled well he bowled economically and penetratively; when he bowled poorly he was profligate and unpenetrative.
    Now all at a sudden you have cleverly inserted another criteria (marked in the post above.

    And you are still wrong, you do not know what happened in every thread.Here are a some of matches where Lee was economic but not penetrative.

    2nd ODI: Australia v Bangladesh at Cairns, Aug 3, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
    12th Match: Australia v England at Jaipur, Oct 21, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
    4th ODI: India v Australia at Chandigarh, Oct 8, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

  13. #118
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Xuhaib View Post
    Depends on your criteria.

    My criteria for an all time great is the top 50 cricketers ever so by that defination i say a lower rung all time great.
    The point is one can have his PoV on whether or not Waqar is an All time greatbut to make a statement like Damien Fleming is fair way ahead of Waqar as an ODI bowler is simply baffling.

  14. #119
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91 View Post
    I'd have him in the top 5 bowlers of alltime and in my alltime XI. The guy was a genius with the ball and had a small runup that generated great pace.

    Waqar wouldn't of been anywhere near as good as what he was without Wasim and Imran's bowling is a tad overrated by most, due to the fact that he was the total package as a cricketer and could do everything, much like Gary Sobers.
    Agree, Wasim was a genius. Waqar not being anywhere near as good without him is a mighty claim.

    Simply wrong on Imran. Was probably the best bowler of the 80s where his contemporaries were some of the best bowlers of all time.
    ★★★★★

  15. #120
    International Captain thierry henry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    6,705
    Just to go back to the debate at the very start of the thread, I'd like to echo Goughy's sentiments on Wasim.

    At the risk of being shouted down for stats-obsession, Wasim's test record appears to me to be a rung below the other contenders. What's also interesting is that he is referred to as such an utterly devastating wicket-taking bowler, yet compared to other great or supposedly great quicks has a fairly middling strike-rate and probably the lowest wickets-per-match.

    I also don't see, prima facie, what would make Wasim so clearly superior to a McGrath or a Pollock (so so underrated) as an ODI bowler.

    I'm not denying there are probably counter arguments, just felt this needed pointing out. The reason I really felt it needed pointing out is because, in a sport where "aura" seems to be used as a tiebreaker for statistically similar players, Akram seems to exist in a class all of his own. You constantly hear him described as a sort of superhuman bowler who had absolutely everything- speed, swing, seam, accuracy, nous, just everything, as if he somehow combined the best attributes of all of the greats. This might make sense if he took his wickets at 15 apiece, but he didn't. Rather, he performed to a similar standard to Shaun "Poor Man's McGrath who was ineffective in tests for a large part of his career" Pollock in terms of wicket-taking and economy in both forms of the game.
    Last edited by thierry henry; 24-03-2010 at 02:00 AM.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-03-2010, 09:30 AM
  2. Amazing Waqar Younis
    By Sanz in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 06:06 AM
  3. Mystery Draft V.2 (1989-2009)
    By Mupariwa_Magic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 492
    Last Post: 21-11-2009, 01:00 PM
  4. Younis quits again .....
    By Zinzan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-11-2009, 05:16 PM
  5. Mahmood and Panesar power England to series glory
    By symonds_94 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 10:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •