McGrath won more matches than Waqar. Don't see it similar to that argument really.The waqar and mcgarth argument reminds me of the sehwag vs sanga argument.
Waqar for me for his match winning ability.
The period of time necessary for the one you prefer to be assessed as better.How long are you talking about when you say peak? A day, a month, a year?
One of the great mysteries that Waqar never did that well here. But it has to be marked against him whether he was "at his peak", coming back from injury, whatever.This.
Akthar could crack open any batting lineup in the world at his peak. Waqar was brilliant in his early years.
Ya he might've won but it doesn't mean he was the better match winning bowler.McGrath won more matches than Waqar. Don't see it similar to that argument really.
I think he means that McGrath won more matches for Australia than Waqar did PakistanYa he might've won but it doesn't mean he was the better match winning bowler.
Certainly the case, but you have to mark him down for it, you just have to, cos it suits my argumentThink with Waqar, there's an element of bad luck. On his first tour here in '90, he was pretty raw and I know people were excited to see him on the next tour because, without getting the figures, he did look exciting. Between then and the '95 tour, obviously he was awesome but, always being quite injury-prone, I reckon he was coming back from another one when he lobbed here again. From what i remember, he did seem to be feeling his way a bit through that tour and I do remember he'd had a massive break prior to the tour which I think was injury-related.
The home series against OZ in '94, first test aside where he and Wasim tore the Aussie second dig apart, the pitches were just so damn flat so I wasn't surprised to see his figures blow out. And, obviously, by '99 he'd dropped a fair chunk of pace although his big reverse-swinger to knock over Ponting in Hobart was just...... back in 5.
(looking for it on YouTube, dirty-minded ****ers).
Yea i remember these well, Ponting leaving alone & getting bowled with a big inswingers or reverse-swing deliveries (cant remember which one it was).Think with Waqar, there's an element of bad luck. On his first tour here in '90, he was pretty raw and I know people were excited to see him on the next tour because, without getting the figures, he did look exciting. Between then and the '95 tour, obviously he was awesome but, always being quite injury-prone, I reckon he was coming back from another one when he lobbed here again. From what i remember, he did seem to be feeling his way a bit through that tour and I do remember he'd had a massive break prior to the tour which I think was injury-related.
The home series against OZ in '94, first test aside where he and Wasim tore the Aussie second dig apart, the pitches were just so damn flat so I wasn't surprised to see his figures blow out. And, obviously, by '99 he'd dropped a fair chunk of pace although his big reverse-swinger to knock over Ponting in Hobart was just...... back in 5.
(looking for it on YouTube, dirty-minded ****ers).
Massive Waqar fanboyism at work with me, though. At his best, Waqar was an absolute bad-ass. Just thinking about that run-up and action gives me tingles in places that are weird and deeply confusing.Certainly the case, but you have to mark him down for it, you just have to, cos it suits my argument
Carry on.
Getting injured or a indicition of decline in effectiveness. For eg Murali after 2007/08, Imran Khan post 87/88, Kumble post AUS 07/08, Trueman, Donald post IND 2000, Pollock post 01/02 etc etcSo you are defining peak as a start of an impressive series (i.e. McGrath v WI in 95) until a bowler gets injured which is career threatening (i.e. Waqar's injury)...?
Which is what i showed above.Why can't be the period during which the player actually performed better then his over all stats be the peak period? That makes more sense to me.
Yes after series vs IND 05/06. But as i said below, his pace after coming back from the injury in 05/06 has gone from the 97-2006 days. But i still think if Akhtar's body can manage he could still destroy top teams in tests in helpful conditions - just that his super pace of 97-2006 is gone now.Plus as far as i remember Akhtar did have a knee injury around that time..
Its not just the last 5 years. His entire 10 year test clear was like that, it was always stop start due to injuries. He played for a few months - got injured & when he came back in tests he would produce a stunning bowling performace.GingerFurball said:Surely the fact that Shoaib has barely played any international cricket for almost 5 years due to various injury problems is pretty much the definition of the end of his peak?
1990-1994 31 184 7/76 13/135 18.49 35.3 19 4Waqar's figures are destroyed by the last three years of his career. People talk about how McGrath is way better than Waqar because he had better statistics over a decade. How about comparing McGrath's 'decade' with Waqar's 'decade'?
McGrath:-468 wickets @ 20.49 @ a SR of 50.1 and 4.7 wickets per match on average and three 10-fers from 1996 to 2005
Waqar? Surely the five year peak-freak show is statistically way behind since his peak was only for half this period?
Er, No.
Waqar:-271 wickets @ 21.71 @ a SR of 40.9 and 4.9 wickets per match on average and five 10-fers from 1990 to 1999
So, even if we compare across a ten year period, the difference, statistically is negligible despite what people think so. The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)
See, I have no problem with people considering McGrath to be a better bowler than Waqar, but when people think he is some kind of peak freak who does not deserve to be compared to be McGrath, It'd do good for them to remember that he averaged almost five wickets a game at 21 for an entire decade while still taking wickets close to two overs faster than your average ATG bowler.
Just Sayin'
Good post...Waqar's figures are destroyed by the last three years of his career. People talk about how McGrath is way better than Waqar because he had better statistics over a decade. How about comparing McGrath's 'decade' with Waqar's 'decade'?
McGrath:-468 wickets @ 20.49 @ a SR of 50.1 and 4.7 wickets per match on average and three 10-fers from 1996 to 2005
Waqar? Surely the five year peak-freak show is statistically way behind since his peak was only for half this period?
Er, No.
Waqar:-271 wickets @ 21.71 @ a SR of 40.9 and 4.9 wickets per match on average and five 10-fers from 1990 to 1999
So, even if we compare across a ten year period, the difference, statistically is negligible despite what people think so. The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)
See, I have no problem with people considering McGrath to be a better bowler than Waqar, but when people think he is some kind of peak freak who does not deserve to be compared to be McGrath, It'd do good for them to remember that he averaged almost five wickets a game at 21 for an entire decade while still taking wickets close to two overs faster than your average ATG bowler.
Just Sayin'
No-one is saying that Waqar was not a great bowler. He is only being marked hard because of who he is being compared to. He is one of the all-time great bowlers but McGrath is just that bit better. I look at the stats above and what really hits me is that McGrath played almost twice as many games and still was as effective as Waqar. And that pitches were generally considered more favourable to fast bowling during Waqar's peak.Waqar's figures are destroyed by the last three years of his career. People talk about how McGrath is way better than Waqar because he had better statistics over a decade. How about comparing McGrath's 'decade' with Waqar's 'decade'?
McGrath:-468 wickets @ 20.49 @ a SR of 50.1 and 4.7 wickets per match on average and three 10-fers from 1996 to 2005
Waqar? Surely the five year peak-freak show is statistically way behind since his peak was only for half this period?
Er, No.
Waqar:-271 wickets @ 21.71 @ a SR of 40.9 and 4.9 wickets per match on average and five 10-fers from 1990 to 1999
So, even if we compare across a ten year period, the difference, statistically is negligible despite what people think so. The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)
See, I have no problem with people considering McGrath to be a better bowler than Waqar, but when people think he is some kind of peak freak who does not deserve to be compared to be McGrath, It'd do good for them to remember that he averaged almost five wickets a game at 21 for an entire decade while still taking wickets close to two overs faster than your average ATG bowler.
Just Sayin'
This. All due respect, I'm not so sure why Shoaib is here.McGrath >> Waqar >>>>>>> Shoaib generally.
However at their peak/prime Waqar would probably win.
I'd also point the small matter of almost 200 wickets difference, can't not call that major.The only major difference is Waqar took wickets 9.2 balls faster than McG(despite taking slightly more)