The 'underbowled' and 'too young' part are both excuses. They cannot be arguments for why he hasn't bowled so well against the Aussies in Australia because he didn't bowl THAT well against them in Pakistan either. The fact is, the last time the Aussies lost in Pakistan, NO-ONE bowled THAT well because the pitches were absolute batting paradises. This is where the line-and-length bowling comes to the fore and I've never seen evidence that Waqar could just slip back a cog and bowl a boring line. To me, he was always above that sort of thing and regardless of the conditions, would try his heart out. THIS is what I admire about him. The problem is, sometimes that ultra attacking attitude can translate into less-then-satisfactory returns.Please explain the comment about Waqar not being an all conditions type bowler. I think generally the conditions can be divided into three types, Aus - very bouncy, Eng - Seam of the wicket, and swing in the air, SubContinent/WI (thre have been some pitches in these areas which were different like Sabina Park I think) - slow, low bounce, not much swing in the air. Waqar has done well in all conditions, maybe not so much in Aus, but he didnt get a series in Aus when he was bowling at his peak, he either got injured, got underbowled, or was too young in Aus.
That's not really what I said. I've seen Waqar bowl well in varying conditions myself. I just reckon Glenn does it slightly better. Just my opinion, neither right nor wrong.First of all I really dont care about who u admire or have idolized. I only read ur comment about Waqar not being an all conditions bowler, which I thought was totally wrong, and was trying to prove otherwise.
And Malcolm Marshall's strike rate is around 46. Does this instantly mean that Waqar is that much a better bowler? The strike rate in terms of number of balls bowled before a wicket is taken means little, especially when you're talking about just over two over's difference. It's no secret that Glenn McGrath takes longer to take his wickets. As has been said, he mainly bowls a decent line-and-length, moves the ball either way and waits for the batsmen to make mistakes. So obviously his strikerate is going to be slightly higher (anything below 60 is OUTSTANDING)Waqar has a st/rt of 42.8, Glen has a st/rt of 51.7 !! Thats says it all.
You're kidding, right??? Geezus, that's insane! That's not right place right time, that's just skill!!Now make it a leg-side stumping chance standing up to Mike Hendrick and you will get a different answer. Just circumstances. Luck, if you like - right place, right time.
[Beavis and Butthead impersonation] Huh uh uh uh.........he said 'whack'.......huh uh uh.......[/Beavis and Butthead impersonation]lol top thats soem whack avatar
Also because sometimes it's HOW cricketer's do things which make them famous. I mean Leary Constantine was considered one of the greatest allronders who ever lived yet his Test stats were ordinary. A quote from the time about him:But we'll carry on arguing about cricket and cricketers just as long as there is a game somewhere because we all have an opinion.
Thanks. Nice of you to say.I dont disagree with ur assessment that McGrath is a better all round bowler in all kinds of conditions than Waqar, kind of indifferent about this actually, because its difficult to say such a thing outright, especially with the kind of performances Waqar has given. But still I dont necessarily disagree, its ur opinion and thats fine.
Well okay I can see how that may have come across and I really see your point. In short, I wasn't making the logical connection of:But, maybe I misunderstood, but in one of ur posts u had said Waqar was not good in all conditions, and this was not in comparison with McGrath, but it was a general statement. A bit like, if u say that Wasim has been slower than Waqar, I would agree with it, but if u say that Wasim has been a slow bowler, I would emphatically disagree.
Exactly what I thought of him, except my experience was when he bounced Robin Smith in a one-dayer a few years. LETHAL.Waqar always came across to me as a 'treat to watch' kinda bowler, when he had that magic delivery to Logie, I literally jumped out of my seat and just frantically started yelling, 'what a delivery', my mom was seriously worried.
You've pretty much summed up what I think of him and Wasim except I think he's actually a better bowler now. Smarter, if you will. Sure we'll never see those searing inswinging yorkers anymore but as you said, he has a pretty effective out-swinger these days. Now for someone to lose their primary weapons (pace and inswinger) and scome back to be as good as he still is, I reckon that's amazing.But Wasim, and to some extent McGrath also, was the bowler batsmen must have hated to face. The laterl movement at express speed wasnt there (maybe it was occasioanlly), but he had movement both ways and deliveries were not pitched up (although this proved to be Wasim's downfall as well I think, he could have taken a lot more wickets had he pitched the ball consistently up like Waqar). With Waqar the batsman must have thought that he had a chance as the ball would most probably be pithced up, and if he could negotiate the swing, it will be an easy boundary. Sanjay Majrekar was particularly ruthless on Waqar in one series, as he was understanding the swing well, playing the ball late, and as soon as the ball was straying on the leg side (due to excessive inswing or poor line), the ball was quickly dispatched to the boundary. Now, Waqar has managed to develop an outswinger but its too late, and he just doenst have the pace anymore.
word brotherThe only problem with Akhtar that I see is that he probably cannot continue long enough to be considered among the game's greatest.He is so injury prone and so obssessed with the speed that he stretches himself too much and I feel he won't be in the reckoning a few years from now.
I remember seeing just that watching the cricket once. As I said earlier in the thread, something like 30%+ of Glenn McGrath's wickets were top-order batsmen.they did some super articles. i wish they do a analysis of mcgrath and others now.
a significant percentage of waqars wickets were tailenders. it rated donald and mcgrath and ambrose very high coz they got top order batsmen waqar was not even in the top 10..
I agree. He pushes himself far to much and his action puts a lot of strain on his back. It's only a matter of time, unfortunately.The only problem with Akhtar that I see is that he probably cannot continue long enough to be considered among the game's greatest.He is so injury prone and so obssessed with the speed that he stretches himself too much and I feel he won't be in the reckoning a few years from now.