Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
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.
Last edited by Top_Cat; 25-08-2010 at 06:17 PM.
TBF by the 1996 world-cup he was passed his peak. But yes your still 100% on point.
Last edited by aussie; 25-08-2010 at 06:53 PM.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Burgey; 25-08-2010 at 07:00 PM.
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
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
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.
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.Originally Posted by Burgey
Last edited by aussie; 25-08-2010 at 07:30 PM.
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.
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
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.
Last edited by Top_Cat; 25-08-2010 at 08:00 PM.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)