Waqar Younis at his peak vs Malcolm Marshall at his peak

[Kirkut]

Discuss!

 

[subshakerz]

Marshall easily. Marshall during his peak (83-88) was taking around 6 wickets a test while playing with 2-3 other world class pacers and conquering India, Pakistan, England and Australia.

Waqar during his peak (90-94) was a demon but also feasted a lot on weak lineups from Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and New Zealand. He was not the best new ball bowler and would often get smashed up front before cleaning up with the old ball. Never could conquer Australia either.

 

[Kirkut]

Marshall easily. Marshall during his peak (83-88) was taking around 6 wickets a test while playing with 2-3 other world class pacers and conquering India, Pakistan, England and Australia.

Waqar during his peak (90-94) was a demon but also feasted a lot on weak lineups from Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and New Zealand. He was not the best new ball bowler and would often get smashed up front before cleaning up with the old ball. Never could conquer Australia either.

A counter argument here could be that Marshall benefitted while playing with 3 other world class fast bowlers who built enough pressure on the batsmen and made the job easier, instead of him doing all the hard work alone of setting up the batsman from scratch all the time.

Waqar may have feasted on weak batting line ups but that doesn't change the fact that while he would not critically injure a batsman, his full length inswinging torpedoes would be enough to give goosebumps to someone who is not familiar with the game at all, let alone to avid cricket fans.

The Australia argument makes sense, but we can also say that Macco had an upper hand bowling to a decent batting line up but Waqar was made to face an ATG batting line up. Besides Waqar never played in Australia at his prime.

I voted for Waqar, but maybe Marshall wins this poll.

In limited overs cricket, it's a no contest. Waqar all the way!!

 

[Slifer]

A counter argument here could be that Marshall benefitted while playing with 3 other world class fast bowlers who built enough pressure on the batsmen and made the job easier, instead of him doing all the hard work alone of setting up the batsman from scratch all the time.

Waqar may have feasted on weak batting line ups but that doesn't change the fact that while he would not critically injure a batsman, his full length inswinging torpedoes would be enough to give goosebumps to someone who is not familiar with the game at all, let alone to avid cricket fans.

The Australia argument makes sense, but we can also say that Macco had an upper hand bowling to a decent batting line up but Waqar was made to face an ATG batting line up. Besides Waqar never played in Australia at his prime.

I voted for Waqar, but maybe Marshall wins this poll.

In limited overs cricket, it's a no contest. Waqar all the way!!

With all due respect, let's not make it seem like Waqar was bowling with a bunch of amateurs. When he started out, he shared the ball with Imran, Wasim and Mustaq, all decent bowlers. And let me give you an example, when Marshall toured India in '83 the only constant bowler was Holding. Roberts only played the last two tests and Garner missed the entire series through injury. He took wickets through skill. Marshall was taking similar wickets per match as Hadlee even with a the competition. And doing so all around the world. That's the key difference. Waqars peak was insane but imo, it wasn't worldwide domination like Marshall.

 

[Slifer]

A counter argument here could be that Marshall benefitted while playing with 3 other world class fast bowlers who built enough pressure on the batsmen and made the job easier, instead of him doing all the hard work alone of setting up the batsman from scratch all the time.

Waqar may have feasted on weak batting line ups but that doesn't change the fact that while he would not critically injure a batsman, his full length inswinging torpedoes would be enough to give goosebumps to someone who is not familiar with the game at all, let alone to avid cricket fans.

The Australia argument makes sense, but we can also say that Macco had an upper hand bowling to a decent batting line up but Waqar was made to face an ATG batting line up. Besides Waqar never played in Australia at his prime.

I voted for Waqar, but maybe Marshall wins this poll.

In limited overs cricket, it's a no contest. Waqar all the way!!

Peak Waqar ie 1990 to 1994, did not face an all time great Aussie lineup.

 

[Kirkut]

With all due respect, let's not make it seem like Waqar was bowling with a bunch of amateurs. When he started out, he shared the ball with Imran, Wasim and Mustaq, all decent bowlers. And let me give you an example, when Marshall toured India in '83 the only constant bowler was Holding. Roberts only played the last two tests and Garner missed the entire series through injury. He took wickets through skill. Marshall was taking similar wickets per match as Hadlee even with a the competition. And doing so all around the world. That's the key difference. Waqars peak was insane but imo, it wasn't worldwide domination like Marshall.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

 

[Slifer]

As a follow up, the only fast bowler who I will concede of possibly having a higher peak (in my time of following cricket) than Marshall was probably Imran Khan.

 

[Salamuddin]

Waqar like many esteemed subcontinental players is probably a bit overrated. As someone pointed out he had a lot of success aagainst fairly weak batting lineups usually at home. Away from home he was poor in Australia in 90 and very good in England in 92 but hardly earth shattering. Plenty of other seamers have gone to England and averaged sub 25. He had success in Nz but that was a single test.
He did very well against the Westindies granted in 90 and away in 93 but certainly by 93 it was debatable whether the Windies were still the best side in the world given they had scraped past SAF in 92 and Aus in 92/93.

 

[Slifer]

Waqar like many esteemed subcontinental players is probably a bit overrated. As someone pointed out he had a lot of success aagainst fairly weak batting lineups usually at home. Away from home he was poor in Australia in 90 and very good in England in 92 but hardly earth shattering. Plenty of other seamers have gone to England and averaged sub 25. He had success in Nz but that was a single test.
He did very well against the Westindies granted in 90 and away in 93 but certainly by 93 it was debatable whether the Windies were still the best side in the world given they had scraped past SAF in 92 and Aus in 92/93.

The West Indies team he did well against in '93 was certainly past its best, but it was still a good team, especially at home. He would've faced Haynes, Richardson and Lara fresh off of his break out tour down under. Certainly not a weak team/lineup imo

 

[Kirkut]

As a follow up, the only fast bowler who I will concede of possibly having a higher peak (in my time of following cricket) than Marshall was probably Imran Khan.

I am not sure how much Imran Khan benefitted from home umpiring but he got plenty of lbw decisions his way even when the ball was clearly high enough to miss the stumps, all from the West Indies tour of Pakistan in 1986 footage.

 

[Apex Predator]

Bottle caps

 

[subshakerz]

I am not sure how much Imran Khan benefitted from home umpiring but he got plenty of lbw decisions his way even when the ball was clearly high enough to miss the stumps, all from the West Indies tour of Pakistan in 1986 footage.

That series was when Imran introduced neutral umpires though.

 

[Slifer]

I am not sure how much Imran Khan benefitted from home umpiring but he got plenty of lbw decisions his way even when the ball was clearly high enough to miss the stumps, all from the West Indies tour of Pakistan in 1986 footage.

Yeah but during his insane peak, he was wreaking havok all over the world. From the 1979-80 series in India to the 1989-90 series in Pakistan, Imran had one series where he averaged more than 30 with the ball. In between, he had phenomenal series away to : WI, England, and Australia.