Waqar Younis vs. Glenn McGrath vs. Shoaib Akhtar

[Top_Cat]

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).

[akilana]

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.

[Burgey]

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

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.

[aussie]

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).

[tooextracool]

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.

[Teja.]

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'

[Top_Cat]

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.

[aussie]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tooextracool]

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.

[Faisal1985]

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...

[archie mac]

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

[Debris]

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.

[Himannv]

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.

[marc71178]

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.

[Teja.]

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.