Joel Garner vs Waqar Younis

[a massive zebra]

Two outstanding but very different bowlers who both had a great yorker and who are both somewhat overshadowed by colleagues (Marshall and Akram) in modern day retrospective common consensus. Who was the better of the two?

 

[Starfighter]

Is Waqar really overshadowed by Wasim? Garner fairly easy for me.

 

[a massive zebra]

I don't think he should be, as Waqar in the first half of his career was more destructive than Wasim at any time in his career. But if you listen to players from the 80s and 90s, a lot of them would say Wasim was the best bowler they faced, but not many say that about Waqar.

 

[Starfighter]

I don't think he should be, as Waqar in the first half of his career was more destructive than Wasim at any time in his career. But if you listen to players from the 80s and 90s, a lot of them would say Wasim was the best bowler they faced, but not many say that about Waqar.

That's my style over substance theory again.

 

[vicleggie]

I'd rather be Joel Garner, for obvious reasons.

 

[Slifer]

Garner and that's with all due respect to Waqar. Realistically, Garner is only outside the top 10 among fast bowlers because he probably didn't play enough tests and he never took a 10 for. Otherwise, none of the bowlers ranked above him are necessarily better bowlers.

 

[BazBall21]

Haven't decided yet. I'm biased to Waqar.

 

[Sunil1z]

Garner was the better batsman.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Waqar at his peak was better but career wise Garner easily takes it.

 

[Ashes81]

Garner for me.

Waqar was a great bowler but he relied on reverse swing which let's be honest there is always going to be questions over.

 

[thierry henry]

Is Waqar really overshadowed by Wasim?

Yeah as someone whose first childhood cricketing memories derive from this era I always find this idea weird, because for me Waqar seemed like the bigger star. In the early 90s Waqar was the younger, faster, and more destructive of the pair. It seems absurd to me to say that Akram had "style points" over him because early 90s Waqar was about as ***y a bowler as you could imagine.

Isn't it really more that Wasim had more longevity and a better overall career, so retrospectively he is rightfully regarded as better? I totally disagree with the idea that he was the bigger star or regarded as the better of the pair during Waqar's brief but spectacular prime

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah as someone whose first childhood cricketing memories derive from this era I always find this idea weird, because for me Waqar seemed like the bigger star. In the early 90s Waqar was the younger, faster, and more destructive of the pair. It seems absurd to me to say that Akram had "style points" over him because early 90s Waqar was about as ***y a bowler as you could imagine.

Isn't it really more that Wasim had more longevity and a better overall career, so retrospectively he is rightfully regarded as better? I totally disagree with the idea that he was the bigger star or regarded as the better of the pair during Waqar's brief but spectacular prime

Wasim was regarded as better even at their peak because he was quality with old and new ball. Overall his peer rating is far higher.

Waqar was a flop in Australia despite three tours there.

 

[Bolo.]

I can't speak for other countries, but Waqar was regarded as much better in RSA during his peak. He was one of the few players to get a lot of media attention in RSA for performances not involving RSA. I remember a newspaper article from the early 90s talking him up as the potential GOAT.

I'm sure some people regarded Wasim as better. But I'm also sure that blanket statements like Wasim being regarded as better are retconning due to the fact that Wasims peak kept going after Waqars back went.

 

[subshakerz]

I can't speak for other countries, but Waqar was regarded as much better in RSA during his peak. He was one of the few players to get a lot of media attention in RSA for performances not involving RSA. I remember a newspaper article from the early 90s talking him up as the potential GOAT.

I'm sure some people regarded Wasim as better. But I'm also sure that blanket statements like Wasim being regarded as better are retconning due to the fact that Wasims peak kept going after Waqars back went.

Wasim was generally regarded as better because he shot to stardom in the 90 Australia series, and if you did well in Australia at the time your rating immediately went up.

Also, there is a lot of retconning here about how good Waqar was at the time. He would frequently be beaten out of the attack with the new ball only to clean the tail up with the old ball.

 

[subshakerz]

As for this poll, I am going with Garner. Super consistent across different conditions. Lack of fifers not really an issue since when he took the new ball, he took 5 fifers in 27 tests which is excellent.

 

[Starfighter]

It seems absurd to me to say that Akram had "style points" over him because early 90s Waqar was about as ***y a bowler as you could imagine.

If you're referring to my comment two below the one you're replying to, I would say so when it comes to peer ratings. From what I've read, peers really seem to rate bowlers who did a lot of different things with the ball, and Wasim definitely had more tricks than Waqar.

That's why I don't really listen to them, because they lead to opinions like Lillee > Hadlee.

 

[Bolo.]

Wasim was generally regarded as better because he shot to stardom in the 90 Australia series, and if you did well in Australia at the time your rating immediately went up.

Also, there is a lot of retconning here about how good Waqar was at the time. He would frequently be beaten out of the attack with the new ball only to clean the tail up with the old ball.

Why are you always so insistent that perception follows some binary path?

You weren't in RSA for Waqars peak, RSA and Pak never played, and there was no internet. How can you think you have a handle on what perception was?

Analysis was simpler pre-internet. Peak waqar was running GOAT numbers on SR, average and WPM, and it showed in the analysis I saw. I reckon his peak has been retconned down by looking more deeply at it (as well as him becoming mediocre fast). FTR though, Waqar has a notably higher % of top order wickets and Wasim a notably higher % of tail.

 

[subshakerz]

Why are you always so insistent that perception follows some binary path?

You weren't in RSA for Waqars peak, RSA and Pak never played, and there was no internet. How can you think you have a handle on what perception was?

Analysis was simpler pre-internet. Peak waqar was running GOAT numbers on SR, average and WPM, and it showed in the analysis I saw. I reckon his peak has been retconned down by looking more deeply at it (as well as him becoming mediocre fast). FTR though, Waqar has a notably higher % of top order wickets and Wasim a notably higher % of tail.

Ok fair enough we can agree that in that period it is hard to get an exact sense of world perception.

 

[jcas0167]

I don't think he should be, as Waqar in the first half of his career was more destructive than Wasim at any time in his career. But if you listen to players from the 80s and 90s, a lot of them would say Wasim was the best bowler they faced, but not many say that about Waqar.

An exception would be Martin Crowe who said Waqar was the best he bowler had faced after NZ toured Pakistan in 1990.

 

[honestbharani]

I love Waqar but come on, Wasim at his best was a joy to watch as a bowler. Maybe the left arm angle gives him an unfair advantage but peak Wasim bowling 140+, swinging both ways off 8 paces was just peak cricket.