Who's the better bowler, Mk II?

[Sanz]

Yes, it does actually. If they perform in their first few Tests, they've done something not that many do, and deserve credit for it.

If they don't, however, they're only doing what most do, and don't really deserve much criticism for it.

Provided, obviously, that they become, later in their career, good performers. Many do poorly in their first few Tests and continue to do poorly in later ones.

For a good player, though, to judge anything whatsoever on 1 or 2 early Tests of failure is, well... completely unfair, frankly.

No its called manipulation of stats to win an argument which you cant other wise. For example in this link http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype (your link 1) you have deliberately ignored the second test Waqar Played against Australia in 1994-95 series to prove your point that he was highly successful against all oppositions.

Not to forget you also excluded the series against Aus in 1989-90 because it suits your argument.

 

[Ikki]

Zimbabwe were not the only weak side in phase two, he also faced New Zealand and Sri Lanka and was every bit as poor as he was against Australia. This tells me that it was not to do with who the opposition was but rather with how he was bowling.

What is discernible to me is that when he came-up against good sides, it happened to be at a time when he wasn't bowling very well. Nothing more.

I disagree with you - surprise surprise - but then in your words Waqar didn't play against the top sides when he was at peak hence it doesn't diminish his status? Which essentially means his ability was never tested so we can't say he wasn't good enough? How about his first few test games against Australia? Hardly was crap against everybody, considering he was great against the Windies just after. I wonder why you've edited that bit out.

Sorry mate, you're picking and patching more than usual.

He doesn't, though, many of those sides were strong. Your argument seems to be "if Waqar did well, the oppo was weak; if he did poorly it was strong". I've disproved everything else.

SL, NZ, Eng, Zimbabwe were strong? Huh?

I am not saying Waqar did well just because the opposition was weak, but I am saying his record shows that when he meets a quality side he goes from Super-Waqar the best bowler bar-none to pretty ordinary in a lot of cases.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, it does actually. If they perform in their first few Tests, they've done something not that many do, and deserve credit for it.

If they don't, however, they're only doing what most do, and don't really deserve much criticism for it.

Provided, obviously, that they become, later in their career, good performers. Many do poorly in their first few Tests and continue to do poorly in later ones.

For a good player, though, to judge anything whatsoever on 1 or 2 early Tests of failure is, well... completely unfair, frankly.

So, in essence, only count them if they succeed? Makes no sense and, again, you're goal-shifting.

No its called manipulation of stats to win an argument which you cant other wise. For example in this link http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype (your link 1) you have deliberately ignored the second test Waqar Played against Australia in 1994-95 series to prove your point that he was highly successful against all oppositions.

Not to forget you also excluded the series against Aus in 1989-90 because it suits your argument.

Exactly.

 

[Ikki]

I think you may have missed my point, though my fault as I didn't go into too much detail about it anyway. The point I was trying to make was that Waqar did as well (or better) than Shoaib when you look at his whole career, which includes those long years when he was completely washed up. If Shoaib gets to go on playing for Pakistan, his figures will be nowhere near as good as Waqar's when he retires after being washed up and what not.

I'm not sure how I missed your point at all. You said to say "Akhtar > Waqar is ludicrous", well it's clearly not.

 

[Richard]

No its called manipulation of stats to win an argument which you cant other wise. For example in this link http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype (your link 1) you have deliberately ignored the second test Waqar Played against Australia in 1994-95 series to prove your point that he was highly successful against all oppositions.

Not to forget you also excluded the series against Aus in 1989-90 because it suits your argument.

I excluded them because they were at the start of his career, as I do with pretty much any player who's had a few early poor and irrelevant Tests (like Imran, for instance, or Atherton, or any other player who's ever had a couple of poor games at the start of their career). Yes, it does suit my argument - my argument would not be what it was if the facts didn't suit it.

I didn't ignore the other Test in 1994\95 at all, meanwhile - I quite clearly and very deliberately placed it in the second, unsuccessful, phase of his career. This is because that's where it fits. There's no good reason whatsoever to place it with earlier, successful, games.

 

[Sanz]

I excluded them because they were at the start of his career, as I do with pretty much any player who's had a few early poor and irrelevant Tests (like Imran, for instance, or Atherton, or any other player who's ever had a couple of poor games at the start of their career). Yes, it does suit my argument - my argument would not be what it was if the facts didn't suit it.

I didn't ignore the other Test in 1994\95 at all, meanwhile - I quite clearly and very deliberately placed it in the second, unsuccessful, phase of his career. This is because that's where it fits. There's no good reason whatsoever to place it with earlier, successful, games.

This is unbelievable stuff, even from your standards.

 

[Richard]

I disagree with you - surprise surprise - but then in your words Waqar didn't play against the top sides when he was at peak hence it doesn't diminish his status? Which essentially means his ability was never tested so we can't say he wasn't good enough?

He did play against one of the top two sides, though - he played West Indies, who were at that time better than Australia, having battered them very well in 1991 and matched them fairly evenly in 1992\93. And he did superbly against them. And everyone else. And in my book, if you're doing that superbly against everyone, that there's 1 team you only played once against it doesn't really matter that much, you've still done sensationally.

How about his first few test games against Australia? Hardly was crap against everybody, considering he was great against the Windies just after. I wonder why you've edited that bit out.

His first few games could have been against anyone, Australia were at that time 2nd from bottom in The World anyway. Not that many people do well right from their very 1st Test. Shane Warne (FOR EXAMPLE) didn't - does the fact that he was execrably poor in 1991\92 and most of 1992\93 say anything about his deeds thereafter? No. Likewise Glenn McGrath, who was exceedingly ordinary in his first 12 Tests or so. Doesn't matter in the slightest once he started doing well.

SL, NZ, Eng, Zimbabwe were strong? Huh?

No, I said they weren't - at least, not in 1995 and 1996.

I am not saying Waqar did well just because the opposition was weak, but I am saying his record shows that when he meets a quality side he goes from Super-Waqar the best bowler bar-none to pretty ordinary in a lot of cases.

I don't think there's any connection. He went from Super-Waqar the best bowler bar none to a very average one because he did, not because of who he faced.

 

[Richard]

This is unbelievable stuff, even from your standards.

Congratulations on one of the most useless, unsubstantiated posts in history.

 

[Sanz]

Congratulations on one of the most useless, unsubstantiated posts in history.

Its nothing compared to 41689 (and counting) pieces of pure rubbish....

 

[Fusion]

Personally, I blame SJS for all this bickering. First, he curses up a storm, then he creates the original who is better thread on Imran vs Wasim, which got both Richard and Sanz all riled up. Obviously that was SJS' master plan all along!

 

[Matt79]

After reading this, have to ask - Waqar Younis = Matthew Hayden of bowling?

 

[Richard]

Its nothing compared to 41689 (and counting) pieces of pure rubbish....

 

[Richard]

After reading this, have to ask - Waqar Younis = Matthew Hayden of bowling?

Nah. Hayden's mostly recognised on CW for being the falsely-promoted type he is; Waqar, meanwhile, often has the truth of his career (which is better than many realise) on here.

 

[Matt79]

Hayden > any English batsman since Boycott.

Just putting it out there.

 

[Richard]

Hayden > any English batsman since Boycott.

Worst post ever. I'm this close to throwing in a Rolleyes, and it wouldn't EVEN be in jest.

 

[Matt79]

Hey I thought I was being reasonable - I said Boycott and not Compton.

BTW You've read my sig?

 

[Richard]

Don't know who "Irfan" is, never mind what he's on about, and there's no link so I can't find-out; disagree with the Rolleyes part; and obviously agree wholesomely with the Twenty20 part.

 

[Matt79]

Did you click the link on the T20 part?

Irfan only has about 500 posts... - you're grip on what's happening around here is slipping mate.

 

[Richard]

Oh, Irfan as in "irfan" the CW poster? I get confused when people put incorrect CAPS in there. And even more so when people sig CW quotes without the link.

And yeah, course I read the Twenty20 thing - class, almost goes without saying.

 

[Ikki]

He did play against one of the top two sides, though - he played West Indies, who were at that time better than Australia, having battered them very well in 1991 and matched them fairly evenly in 1992\93. And he did superbly against them. And everyone else. And in my book, if you're doing that superbly against everyone, that there's 1 team you only played once against it doesn't really matter that much, you've still done sensationally.

You've just changed your stance, you said he wasn't at top form facing good sides though? And what you, above, said is precisely what I said, he wasn't totally crap against the best sides but he had trouble, and he had trouble with Australia since the get-go. No out-of-form argument to it.

His first few games could have been against anyone, Australia were at that time 2nd from bottom in The World anyway. Not that many people do well right from their very 1st Test. Shane Warne (FOR EXAMPLE) didn't - does the fact that he was execrably poor in 1991\92 and most of 1992\93 say anything about his deeds thereafter? No. Likewise Glenn McGrath, who was exceedingly ordinary in his first 12 Tests or so. Doesn't matter in the slightest once he started doing well.

Big difference in the players mentioned. Warne may have been poor against SL and WI at the start but he hadn't continued to be poor against them.

No, I said they weren't - at least, not in 1995 and 1996.

I don't think there's any connection. He went from Super-Waqar the best bowler bar none to a very average one because he did, not because of who he faced.

You just said they were. The sides mentioned in phase 4 were still not strong. So what are you saying here anyway? He was poor against them too at the end.