Waqar Younis vs. Glenn McGrath vs. Shoaib Akhtar

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Economy rate isn't particularly relevant when you take your wickets as quickly as Waqar (or Steyn.)

It's a complete fallacy that a bowler with an economy rate of 2.1 and a SR of 60 is cheaper than a bowler with an economy rate of 3 and a SR of 42.

Yeah not to mention that you are always going to have a higher ER if you bowl full on the stumps like Waqar frequently did. The margin for error is much less.

[Top_Cat]

Yeah exactly, full at the stumps and trying for big swing, you're going to go for more runs. Doubt there'd be a batsman who faced Waqar in the early-mid 90's who'd say his bowling full made him easier to face. Sure you might get a few half-volleys to play with and even a few on your pads if he was having an off day. But always in the back of your mind would be the one he got right and next thing you knew, your stumps (or toes, as the case may be) would be flying back towards the 'keeper.

No dropping back two metres and 20Km/h for Waqar. Some days he'd take some lumps but still prepared to throw it up there full and fast anyway. It's man's bowling.

Even that video doesn't tell the full story though; Waqar's first spell was awesome.

[aussie]

TBF by the 1996 world-cup he was passed his peak. But yes your still 100% on point.

[Top_Cat]

haha, what? Even if it was true, and having watched that WC I reckon he was bowling as quick and nasty as he ever did, how is that even relevant? Because he got smashed? The way Jadeja was playing that day, it really didn't matter who was bowling.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

McGrath (and Warne incidentally) bowled better away from home than they did in Australia, so the unhelpful home pitches argument carries a lot more weight for McGrath than it does for Wasim, Waqar or Imran. Yet no-one uses the argument as an excuse to elevate McGrath's achievements.

McGrath bowled worse in Australia than he did outside Australia.

Australian pitches might not have been a massive hindrance, but they weren't as helpful as the pitches he played on abroad.

Imran, Kapil, Wasim and Waqar always get the "remember they had to bowl a lot on dead home wickets" excuse, despite the fact that all of them bowled better at home than they did abroad.

Am well their is barely @ 1 point gap in the difference with Pigeon's home record & away records though (same thing with Hollywood). So thats not a gap in average to base anything on really. McGrath was just as good home or away.

I personally dont recall the likes of Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Kapil getting much extra championing or excuses being made because of the fact the had to bowl on flat home pitches TBH.

To my knowledge the fact that they did bowl on alot of flat home pitches is basically just acknowleged as a obvious standard fact of their respective careers & people move on - no one dwells on it.

If people do make such an excuse, they are minsinformed. Since i'd back other great non subcontinental fast-bowlers such as Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Roberts, Holding, Hall, Donald etc to bowl well on flat sub-continental pitches if they had to play on them as their home pitches regularly (based on the success they had in Asia in their careers). So that is a nothing argument really.

[Burgey]

Where does durability rank for you guys when discussing this?

If I'm a captain and I choose McGrath, I pretty much know he's going to turn up and be close to or at his best, no matter what the conditions.

Its not the sexehest of attributes I grant you, but it's a handy one to have. Barring his ankle injury early 2000s and when he rolled his ankle in 05, the man just turned up and did it, day in and day out.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

haha, what? Even if it was true, and having watched that WC I reckon he was bowling as quick and nasty as he ever did, how is that even relevant? Because he got smashed? The way Jadeja was playing that day, it really didn't matter who was bowling.

Waqar peak is generally accepted to have ended by the end of 1994 when he suffered that career chaning back injury vs AUS. He was clearly never the same in either test or ODIs after then.

But as i said i dont disagree with your POV that..."No dropping back two metres and 20Km/h for Waqar. Some days he'd take some lumps but still prepared to throw it up there full and fast anyway. It's man's bowling".


Which during his 89-94 peak did happen againts good batsmen like what Jadeja did to him in that 96 WC QF, i.e the 1993 PAK tour to WI. Just suggesting that in he wasn't @ his ultimate peak anymore during the 96 WC encounter - but i'm not making excuse for it, since Jadeja certainly may have done that to other top bowlers the way he was batting ATT.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by weldone

Overall, McGrath>Waqar>>Shoaib

Peaks? I don't care. Because at their peaks, Mendis>Murali and Hussey>Sachin. Depends on how you define a peak.

Disclaimer: I think Waqar had the potential to be the best fast bowler in the history of test cricket by a comfortable margin, period.

A peak can be defined as basically the best of players career for a sustained period. Few if any player in test history was a good from test 1 to retirement. Every player who had a sustained injury free career, had a series or individual innings which propelled the start of their peak & it ended by some sort of decline in productivity (for batsmen it was declined in reflexes or bowlers drop in pace (fast bowlers) & spinners (tired fingers which caused them to not spin the ball as big as before).

But of course like Mendis a 1 year peak isn't good enough, you need to at least be dynamic for about 4-5 years really. Although excpetions could be made for people who had 3 year peaks or injury raved careers of top players who played in & out for years i.e Flintoff, Cairns, Tyson, Bond, Schultz, Frank Tyson, Gough).

Originally Posted by Burgey

Where does durability rank for you guys when discussing this?

If I'm a captain and I choose McGrath, I pretty much know he's going to turn up and be close to or at his best, no matter what the conditions.

Its not the sexehest of attributes I grant you, but it's a handy one to have. Barring his ankle injury early 2000s and when he rolled his ankle in 05, the man just turned up and did it, day in and day out.

It shouldn't make much a difference really. Since if you are picking hypotetical all-time XI for the various top 8 teams, you would pick Waqar presuming he is @ is 89-94 peak & just like McGrath in all conditons you would expect him to be close to or @ his best no matter what conditons too.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by aussie

Waqar peak is generally accepted to have ended by the end of 1994 when he suffered that career chaning back injury vs AUS. He was clearly never the same in either test or ODIs after then.

Even if true (which I don't think it is; reckon the injury which really changed the way he had to bowl occurred late 90's), he still got smashed when he was killing everyone else. Lara's 150-odd in Sharjah against him is probably still talked about in some circles. Was certainly what put Lara on the map in ODI's at the time.

[Burgey]

Well no Auusie, you'd pick him, I wouldn't. Because I saw him bowl pies here on more than one occasion.

It's a good thing there's widely available video from all over the place now, because frankly if all I'd ever seen of Waqar was how he bowled here, I'd think him nothing more than a moderate threat.

He in Australia is like Warne in India. Coulda shoulda woulda.

Didn't.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Even if true (which I don't think it is; reckon the injury which really changed the way he had to bowl occurred late 90's), he still got smashed when he was killing everyone else. Lara's 150-odd in Sharjah against him is probably still talked about in some circles. Was certainly what put Lara on the map in ODI's at the time.

That Lara 150 was in 1993 though, would would have been during that peak period of 89-94.

Maybe his ODI exploits post 1994 didnt decline as rapidly. Since in 2001 Natwest even i remember him producing the best two ODI spells i've ever seen, when he took 13 wickets in 2 ODIs (7 vs ENG & 6 vs AUS).

But his test expolits after 1994 was certainly never the same. Just took two 5 wicket hauls (againts quality opposition) in 8 years after that. First i saw him bowl in test vs AUS 99/00 he certainly was average

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by aussie

But his test expolits after 1994 was certainly never the same. Just took two 5 wicket hauls (againts quality opposition) in 8 years after that. First i saw him bowl in test vs AUS 99/00 he certainly was average

He didn't wake up on Jan 1995 a decidedly worse bowler than he was in on Dec 31st 1994, especially since he was still terrifyingly quick for years after that.

Plus, you can't pin it all on his own decline, batsmen just played him better after a while. It happens to all bowlers once they get a good look at a bloke and Waqar certainly got a lot of attention.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

He didn't wake up on Jan 1995 a decidedly worse bowler than he was in on Dec 31st 1994, especially since he was still terrifyingly quick for years after that.

Plus, you can't pin it all on his own decline, batsmen just played him better after a while. It happens to all bowlers once they get a good look at a bloke and Waqar certainly got a lot of attention.

Its not a question of waking up and suddenly being rubbish. Anyone who watched Waqar post injury in 1995 noticed that he was half the bowler. Yes he may still occasionally have bowled quick, and yes occasionally he swung the ball (in fact he probably became a better new ball bowler after) but he rarely swung the ball at the pace and as much as he did pre 1995 and I think that is glaringly obvious if you watch even a single video of his career.

This is similar to the argument on Craig White who continued to occasionally bowl just as quick post 2001 as he did before but it was glaringly obvious that he was half the bowler.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by aussie

A peak can be defined as basically the best of players career for a sustained period. Few if any player in test history was a good from test 1 to retirement. Every player who had a sustained injury free career, had a series or individual innings which propelled the start of their peak & it ended by some sort of decline in productivity (for batsmen it was declined in reflexes or bowlers drop in pace (fast bowlers) & spinners (tired fingers which caused them to not spin the ball as big as before).

But of course like Mendis a 1 year peak isn't good enough, you need to at least be dynamic for about 4-5 years really. Although excpetions could be made for people who had 3 year peaks or injury raved careers of top players who played in & out for years i.e Flintoff, Cairns, Tyson, Bond, Schultz, Frank Tyson, Gough).




It shouldn't make much a difference really. Since if you are picking hypotetical all-time XI for the various top 8 teams, you would pick Waqar presuming he is @ is 89-94 peak & just like McGrath in all conditons you would expect him to be close to or @ his best no matter what conditons too.

All irrelevant. Any player who is the man for 12 years is better than someone who was great for 5. There is no question about it. ask any captain in the world if they could have Waqar for 5 or McGrath for 12 and they'd all take McG. Durability matters.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

Its not a question of waking up and suddenly being rubbish. Anyone who watched Waqar post injury in 1995 noticed that he was half the bowler. Yes he may still occasionally have bowled quick, and yes occasionally he swung the ball (in fact he probably became a better new ball bowler after) but he rarely swung the ball at the pace and as much as he did pre 1995 and I think that is glaringly obvious if you watch even a single video of his career.

DWTA. As far as I saw, he was sending down similar stuff but was just played better.