Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 129

Thread: Waqar Younis vs. Glenn McGrath vs. Shoaib Akhtar

  1. #46
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,065
    Think with Waqar, there's an element of bad luck. On his first tour here in '90, he was pretty raw and I know people were excited to see him on the next tour because, without getting the figures, he did look exciting. Between then and the '95 tour, obviously he was awesome but, always being quite injury-prone, I reckon he was coming back from another one when he lobbed here again. From what i remember, he did seem to be feeling his way a bit through that tour and I do remember he'd had a massive break prior to the tour which I think was injury-related.

    The home series against OZ in '94, first test aside where he and Wasim tore the Aussie second dig apart, the pitches were just so damn flat so I wasn't surprised to see his figures blow out. And, obviously, by '99 he'd dropped a fair chunk of pace although his big reverse-swinger to knock over Ponting in Hobart was just...... back in 5.




    (looking for it on YouTube, dirty-minded ****ers).
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  2. #47
    State Vice-Captain akilana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Moon
    Posts
    1,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    McGrath won more matches than Waqar. Don't see it similar to that argument really.
    Ya he might've won but it doesn't mean he was the better match winning bowler.

  3. #48
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,225
    Quote Originally Posted by akilana View Post
    Ya he might've won but it doesn't mean he was the better match winning bowler.
    I think he means that McGrath won more matches for Australia than Waqar did Pakistan
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Think with Waqar, there's an element of bad luck. On his first tour here in '90, he was pretty raw and I know people were excited to see him on the next tour because, without getting the figures, he did look exciting. Between then and the '95 tour, obviously he was awesome but, always being quite injury-prone, I reckon he was coming back from another one when he lobbed here again. From what i remember, he did seem to be feeling his way a bit through that tour and I do remember he'd had a massive break prior to the tour which I think was injury-related.

    The home series against OZ in '94, first test aside where he and Wasim tore the Aussie second dig apart, the pitches were just so damn flat so I wasn't surprised to see his figures blow out. And, obviously, by '99 he'd dropped a fair chunk of pace although his big reverse-swinger to knock over Ponting in Hobart was just...... back in 5.




    (looking for it on YouTube, dirty-minded ****ers).
    Certainly the case, but you have to mark him down for it, you just have to, cos it suits my argument

    Carry on.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

  4. #49
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    Think with Waqar, there's an element of bad luck. On his first tour here in '90, he was pretty raw and I know people were excited to see him on the next tour because, without getting the figures, he did look exciting. Between then and the '95 tour, obviously he was awesome but, always being quite injury-prone, I reckon he was coming back from another one when he lobbed here again. From what i remember, he did seem to be feeling his way a bit through that tour and I do remember he'd had a massive break prior to the tour which I think was injury-related.

    The home series against OZ in '94, first test aside where he and Wasim tore the Aussie second dig apart, the pitches were just so damn flat so I wasn't surprised to see his figures blow out. And, obviously, by '99 he'd dropped a fair chunk of pace although his big reverse-swinger to knock over Ponting in Hobart was just...... back in 5.


    (looking for it on YouTube, dirty-minded ****ers).
    Yea i remember these well, Ponting leaving alone & getting bowled with a big inswingers or reverse-swing deliveries (cant remember which one it was).


  5. #50
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Seems like a rather pointless discussion IMO. Defining 'peaks' is quite nearly impossible especially when its done solely with statistics.

    Anyhow, on any given day if you gave me all 3 of them at their absolute best I would choose Waqar with no hesitation. I agree with those who mention that Akthar has no place with the other 2 because I couldnt trust him to be consistent for 2 spells let alone for an entire day or period of time. Not that he wasnt a very good bowler its just that he fits the stereotype that is Pakistan cricket when it comes to unpredictability not to mention that he doesnt have any sort of record to speak off in England, South Africa or Australia.
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

  6. #51
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,295
    Waqar's figures are destroyed by the last three years of his career. People talk about how McGrath is way better than Waqar because he had better statistics over a decade. How about comparing McGrath's 'decade' with Waqar's 'decade'?

    McGrath:-468 wickets @ 20.49 @ a SR of 50.1 and 4.7 wickets per match on average and three 10-fers from 1996 to 2005

    Waqar? Surely the five year peak-freak show is statistically way behind since his peak was only for half this period?

    Er, No.

    Waqar:-271 wickets @ 21.71 @ a SR of 40.9 and 4.9 wickets per match on average and five 10-fers from 1990 to 1999

    So, even if we compare across a ten year period, the difference, statistically is negligible despite what people think so. The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)

    See, I have no problem with people considering McGrath to be a better bowler than Waqar, but when people think he is some kind of peak freak who does not deserve to be compared to be McGrath, It'd do good for them to remember that he averaged almost five wickets a game at 21 for an entire decade while still taking wickets close to two overs faster than your average ATG bowler.

    Just Sayin'
    Last edited by Teja.; 22-08-2010 at 09:48 PM.

  7. #52
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Burgey View Post
    Certainly the case, but you have to mark him down for it, you just have to, cos it suits my argument

    Carry on.
    Massive Waqar fanboyism at work with me, though. At his best, Waqar was an absolute bad-ass. Just thinking about that run-up and action gives me tingles in places that are weird and deeply confusing.

  8. #53
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Faisal1985 View Post
    So you are defining peak as a start of an impressive series (i.e. McGrath v WI in 95) until a bowler gets injured which is career threatening (i.e. Waqar's injury)...?
    Getting injured or a indicition of decline in effectiveness. For eg Murali after 2007/08, Imran Khan post 87/88, Kumble post AUS 07/08, Trueman, Donald post IND 2000, Pollock post 01/02 etc etc

    All are examples of great bowlers who peaks ended due to decline in their legendary skill set (drop in pace or reduction in spin).

    So a peak for bowler (and bat too) is generally The start of career defining/changing impressive or innings/bowling performance to decline in effectiveness due to career defining/changing injury or decline in skillset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faisal1985 View Post
    Why can't be the period during which the player actually performed better then his over all stats be the peak period? That makes more sense to me.
    Which is what i showed above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faisal1985 View Post
    Plus as far as i remember Akhtar did have a knee injury around that time..
    Yes after series vs IND 05/06. But as i said below, his pace after coming back from the injury in 05/06 has gone from the 97-2006 days. But i still think if Akhtar's body can manage he could still destroy top teams in tests in helpful conditions - just that his super pace of 97-2006 is gone now.





    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball
    Surely the fact that Shoaib has barely played any international cricket for almost 5 years due to various injury problems is pretty much the definition of the end of his peak?
    Its not just the last 5 years. His entire 10 year test clear was like that, it was always stop start due to injuries. He played for a few months - got injured & when he came back in tests he would produce a stunning bowling performace.

    The only thing i'd say is that since his superb 05/06 series when he he lead PAK to beating us & vs IND 05/06 test vs Karachi. His pace due to injuries finally taking a toll has declined his pace a bit. Since when he produced these two bowling performances:

    - 2nd Test: South Africa v Pakistan at Port Elizabeth, Jan 19-22, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

    - 1st Test: India v Pakistan at Delhi, Nov 22-26, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

    I saw the test in S Africa. Although he bowled well, his pace was not as lethal as some of famous spells of between 97-2006. So i still think if Akhtar's body can manage he could still destroy top teams in tests in helpful conditions - just that his super pace of 97-2006 is gone now.

  9. #54
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,308
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    Waqar's figures are destroyed by the last three years of his career. People talk about how McGrath is way better than Waqar because he had better statistics over a decade. How about comparing McGrath's 'decade' with Waqar's 'decade'?

    McGrath:-468 wickets @ 20.49 @ a SR of 50.1 and 4.7 wickets per match on average and three 10-fers from 1996 to 2005

    Waqar? Surely the five year peak-freak show is statistically way behind since his peak was only for half this period?

    Er, No.

    Waqar:-271 wickets @ 21.71 @ a SR of 40.9 and 4.9 wickets per match on average and five 10-fers from 1990 to 1999

    So, even if we compare across a ten year period, the difference, statistically is negligible despite what people think so. The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)

    See, I have no problem with people considering McGrath to be a better bowler than Waqar, but when people think he is some kind of peak freak who does not deserve to be compared to be McGrath, It'd do good for them to remember that he averaged almost five wickets a game at 21 for an entire decade while still taking wickets close to two overs faster than your average ATG bowler.

    Just Sayin'
    1990-1994 31 184 7/76 13/135 18.49 35.3 19 4

    1995-1999 25 89 6/78 10/133 28.35 52.4 2 1

    Think that pretty much says it all for me. And thats not even considering the fact that the largest proportion of his wickets came against Zimbabwe who were hardly known for being the most formidable batting side at the time.

  10. #55
    International Vice-Captain Faisal1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    Waqar's figures are destroyed by the last three years of his career. People talk about how McGrath is way better than Waqar because he had better statistics over a decade. How about comparing McGrath's 'decade' with Waqar's 'decade'?

    McGrath:-468 wickets @ 20.49 @ a SR of 50.1 and 4.7 wickets per match on average and three 10-fers from 1996 to 2005

    Waqar? Surely the five year peak-freak show is statistically way behind since his peak was only for half this period?

    Er, No.

    Waqar:-271 wickets @ 21.71 @ a SR of 40.9 and 4.9 wickets per match on average and five 10-fers from 1990 to 1999

    So, even if we compare across a ten year period, the difference, statistically is negligible despite what people think so. The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)

    See, I have no problem with people considering McGrath to be a better bowler than Waqar, but when people think he is some kind of peak freak who does not deserve to be compared to be McGrath, It'd do good for them to remember that he averaged almost five wickets a game at 21 for an entire decade while still taking wickets close to two overs faster than your average ATG bowler.

    Just Sayin'
    Good post...
    BE AFRIDI!
    Be VERY AFRIDI!!

  11. #56
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,724
    I would pay to watch either of the Pakistan bowlers, however despite McGrath putting me to sleep, I would think him overall the better bowler
    You know it makes sense.

  12. #57
    State Vice-Captain Debris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    1,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    Waqar's figures are destroyed by the last three years of his career. People talk about how McGrath is way better than Waqar because he had better statistics over a decade. How about comparing McGrath's 'decade' with Waqar's 'decade'?

    McGrath:-468 wickets @ 20.49 @ a SR of 50.1 and 4.7 wickets per match on average and three 10-fers from 1996 to 2005

    Waqar? Surely the five year peak-freak show is statistically way behind since his peak was only for half this period?

    Er, No.

    Waqar:-271 wickets @ 21.71 @ a SR of 40.9 and 4.9 wickets per match on average and five 10-fers from 1990 to 1999

    So, even if we compare across a ten year period, the difference, statistically is negligible despite what people think so. The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)

    See, I have no problem with people considering McGrath to be a better bowler than Waqar, but when people think he is some kind of peak freak who does not deserve to be compared to be McGrath, It'd do good for them to remember that he averaged almost five wickets a game at 21 for an entire decade while still taking wickets close to two overs faster than your average ATG bowler.

    Just Sayin'
    No-one is saying that Waqar was not a great bowler. He is only being marked hard because of who he is being compared to. He is one of the all-time great bowlers but McGrath is just that bit better. I look at the stats above and what really hits me is that McGrath played almost twice as many games and still was as effective as Waqar. And that pitches were generally considered more favourable to fast bowling during Waqar's peak.
    Last edited by Debris; 23-08-2010 at 05:13 AM.

  13. #58
    International Captain Himannv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SL
    Posts
    6,237
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    McGrath >> Waqar >>>>>>> Shoaib generally.

    However at their peak/prime Waqar would probably win.
    This. All due respect, I'm not so sure why Shoaib is here.
    "I will go down as Darren Sammy, the one who always smiles" - Darren Sammy

  14. #59
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)
    I'd also point the small matter of almost 200 wickets difference, can't not call that major.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  15. #60
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    z
    Posts
    6,295
    Waqar obviously decided how many Tests Pakistan played.

    While McGrath can be given extra points for maintaining those statistics despite Australia playing so many tests, It is not Waqar's fault that Pakistan did not play as many tests as AUS did, He was still tearing it up in the county circuit FTR.

    Again, I have no qualms with people believing McGrath to be better. I just feel that it is a completely legitimate POV to believe Waqar to be slightly better.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Mystery Draft 3 - Global Premier League
    By Athlai in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 712
    Last Post: 19-04-2010, 02:06 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-03-2010, 09:30 AM
  3. Amazing Waqar Younis
    By Sanz in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-01-2010, 06:06 AM
  4. Mystery Draft V.2 (1989-2009)
    By Mupariwa_Magic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 492
    Last Post: 21-11-2009, 01:00 PM
  5. Northern Hemisphere Vs Southern
    By taitmachine in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-02-2008, 08:34 PM

Posting Permissions

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