• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Wasim - style over substance?

GuyFromLancs

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
Whatever the answer is, still a great player - but with slightly under 4 wickets per match, and a higher proportion of tail-enders than some of his fellow greats in the quick department, is Wasim an ever-so-slight victory for style over substance?

This isn't to say there isn't massive amounts of substance too. But to look at Wasim, and examine what he has in his locker, so to speak, you could be forgiven for imagining a sub-20 average bowler. But a data analysis show him to be statstically inferior to those who would challenge his implied supremacy.

Opinions
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
To answer the first post -- a little bit. He certainly had substance but he is made to be more than he was. "He could bowl 6 different balls an over!" So what?

I dont really have emotional attachment to cricketers so I dont quite get it when other people do. It leads me to looking like I overly criticise many people's favourite players when in reality I just think they are rated over and above their pure contributions. I am perhaps a working class, pit face, dour cricketer and aesthetics mean little to me. No Wasim, Carl Hooper, David Gower, Mark Waugh near any of my favourite XIs.
 
Black_Warrior

Black_Warrior

Cricketer Of The Year
Goughy said:
To answer the first post -- a little bit. He certainly had substance but he is made to be more than he was. "He could bowl 6 different balls an over!" So what?

I dont really have emotional attachment to cricketers so I dont quite get it when other people do. It leads me to looking like I overly criticise many people's favourite players when in reality I just think they are rated over and above their pure contributions. I am perhaps a working class, pit face, dour cricketer and aesthetics mean little to me. No Wasim, Carl Hooper, David Gower, Mark Waugh near any of my favourite XIs.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with you on most points.. While I do have an emotional attachment to certain players and Wasim is one of my personal favourites, but I to tend to critically analyse them and most of the time, my most favourite players such as Inzamam and Wasim Akram tend to fall short on 'substance'

Going back to the original post, yes I would agree with that, although I am not sure if its so much about style over substance but more like the substance not matching up to the skill level.
Yes he could bowl 6 different deliveries without much change to his action or wrist position, but does he have the career to show for that?
Bowlers who could NOT do all that and did not possess that skill level have a better career to show.

There were perhaps a few external factors that made a difference but at the end of the day, when you look back at a player's record, you don't look at all that, you look at their quantifiable achievements and Wasim if he is being honest with himself would acknowledge that he might have been the most skilled bowler of his time, but he was unable to use that to become the best bowler of his time.
 
Himannv

Himannv

International Coach
I agree that he didn't dominate as much as he should have and could perhaps have done better. Having said that, I'm not really bothered much about statistics as I don't feel they always capture the quality of the player. I haven't seen too many bowlers who are better than Wasim Akram and I think he's clearly one of the greatest of all time.
 
Furball

Furball

Evil Scotsman
On what planet does a bloke with over 400 Test wickets at an average of 23 fall short on 'substance'?

He had an enormous box of tricks and is statistically is probably in the top 10 bowlers of all time when you look at the volume of wickets he took. What more are you looking for?
 
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
GingerFurball said:
On what planet does a bloke with over 400 Test wickets at an average of 23 fall short on 'substance'?

He had an enormous box of tricks and is statistically is probably in the top 10 bowlers of all time when you look at the volume of wickets he took. What more are you looking for?
Click to expand...

Probably shouldve taken more wickets considering the amount he played, but he's obviously a great great bowler no one's denying that
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
GuyFromLancs said:
Whatever the answer is, still a great player - but with slightly under 4 wickets per match, and a higher proportion of tail-enders than some of his fellow greats in the quick department, is Wasim an ever-so-slight victory for style over substance?

This isn't to say there isn't massive amounts of substance too. But to look at Wasim, and examine what he has in his locker, so to speak, you could be forgiven for imagining a sub-20 average bowler. But a data analysis show him to be statstically inferior to those who would challenge his implied supremacy.

Opinions
Click to expand...
Fully agree with that, especially the part in bold.
 
salman85

salman85

International Debutant
Both substance and style.

He was a massive crowd puller however, and easily one of the most exciting crickets to have ever played the game.The enigma and spark around his ability does add a lot more to his career persona.He has a career record that rightly puts him amongst the greatest crickets to have played the game.However,yes, when you look at the astronomical talent that he had, he could have ended up heads and shoulders above all other fast bowlers, whereas as things stand, he is one of the best, not THE best.

Obviously this is down to issues off the field, and the fact that Wasim indulged in the ever present web of groupings in Pakistan Cricket. I think it got to a point where his own self belief in his ability got the better of him occasionally, and thus shows career figures that could have been better had he focused on the game itself.

A good thing that i've noticed about Wasim after retirement, is his constant help to young bowlers.He was responsible for Gul becoming a top drawer bowler a couple of years back, he transformed Ishant into a much better bowler when he coached KKR, played a role in Irfan Pathan bursting into the international arena, and also left a marked impression on Starc. Sure, this isn't really a lineup of fast bowlers who are the greatest in the world, but it does go on to show he has always been willing to pass on knowledge, and every time, there has been a marked improvement in the mentioned fast bowlers performance when he has been in Wasim's guidance.
 
Last edited:
Beleg

Beleg

International Regular
he played alongside some rank fieldsmen in his day and age. in many ways he was the picture of inconsistency but having said that, he could be, and was, about as devastating and mercurial as they come. the batsmen could never afford to relax because the next unplayable delivery was just around the corner
 
S

subshakerz

International Coach
It is hard to answer.

The thing with Wasim is that he had a slow start to his career from 85-89. It was on the Australian tour of 1990 when he really came into his own as a matchwinner. From 1990 to the late 90s, he was excellent though and performed well against almost everyone. Then he again had a dip in form towards the end of his career.

His figures in the 90s are fantastic and comparable to any of the greats. Check it at Cricket Records | Records | 1990s | Test matches | Best averages | ESPN Cricinfo. It was around this time he began to rated by his peers as the best in the world, either no.1 or joint no.1 with Ambrose (I can think of Michael Slater, Michael Atherton, Chris Cairns, Brian Lara, Stephen Fleming, Walsh, Donald, Ambrose, Ganguly, Kapil Dev, Mark Taylor, Ponting, McGrath among many others who have given him this ranking). If there was a bowler of the 90s, Wasim is a prime candidate.

The problem was, Wasim with his left arm swing, swinging both ways, deceptive speed, control of reverse swing and ability to produce a Jaffa at anytime, was an incredibly awkward proposition. Having watched Wasim for much of his career, I can attest to how opposition batsmen, especially openers, would just focus on playing him out due to respect and choose not to attack him, and attack other bowlers in the attack. Wasim himself was not the most dogged or thinking bowler (he himself said in his book that he often did not know what ball he would bowl next) and if the batsmen didn't fall for his bag of tricks it would often end in a stalemate. This was especially true after 97 onwards when he lost the pace and sting which would only resurface occasionally. I recall Warne mentioning this before Wasim toured Australia in 99, that the Aussies would just be concerned with limiting rather than engaging Wasim. This was a critical difference between him and McGrath or Ambrose, who would keep hammering away at the batsmen relentlessly in the corridor of uncertainty.

So in summary, Wasim was an all-time great, and while the opposition may have feared him the most among his contemporaries, this didn't always translate to pure wicket-taking. Which is why I rank him slightly lower on the all-time great scale.
 
Red

Red

The normal awards that everyone else has
He took 2.3 wickets per innings. That what you'd expect from someone bowling in very good attacks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top