Waqar Younis vs Ian Bishop

[zaremba]

Yeah, Id put Bish over Waqar in terms of pace.

Waqar was probably the more destructive and probably the better bowler. But Bish was more classical and possibly more reliable.

I think if I had 3 other good bowlers then Bishop would fit better into a unit but if I had 3 ordinary bowlrs then adding Waqar brings more to the table.

I can't help thinking that if both had escaped injury, the "greatest Post-Packer XI" poll could have produced a pace attack consisting of Waqar, Bishop and Marshall.

I'm aware that I could be deceived by rose-tinted spectacles, but I really do rate the young Waqar and Bishop as the most promising quicks I've ever seen.

 

[Ikki]

I voted Waqar. I don't really understand the reason why Waqar does not get into the debates of the greatest bowlers. Yes, he doesn't have much of a record against Australia but everywhere else he is almost unbeatable. His bowling against the Windies - the team that was probably #1 most when he faced them - is nothing short of extraordinary. A bit expensive, but possibly the greatest striker all time?

 

[JBH001]

I think its because of Waqar's sharp decline at the end of his career. He really looked a shadow of his former self.

I do agree though, that Waqar should figure higher in terms of great fast bowlers. His SR for most of his career was superlative and at his best he consistently outmatched the best batsmen of his era. I watched him bowl live in the early 90s when Pak toured SL, and man it was thrilling to watch that long run and that jump at the crease.

Fantastic bowler.

 

[Goughy]

I don't really understand the reason why Waqar does not get into the debates of the greatest bowlers.

I could offer a few reasons why he doesnt enter the debate for the greatest. However the 2 most likely are:

- As already mentioned, his end of career decline
and
- Most likely, he was pretty much a one dimensional player.

Waqar was possibly, for a period, the most destructive bowler of recent years. Unfortunately (and I tend to agree) people often want their 'greatest' to be multi-dimensional and rounded players. Guys that can change their roles as conditions change. Guys like Hadlee, Marshall, Lillee, Ambrose, Pollock etc could all do a multitude of things depending on the situation.

Waqar did one thing amazingly well. Is that enough to be the greatest? I dont know

(ramble ends)

 

[zaremba]

Waqar was possibly, for a period, the most the most bowler of recent years.

I agree - I think!

 

[Goughy]

I agree - I think!

Post re-ordered and edited.

 

[zaremba]

Waqar could also bowl pretty well with the new ball - pitching on a length (and deploying the odd nasty bouncer) and getting away-swing.

 

[Goughy]

Waqar could also bowl pretty well with the new ball - pitching on a length (and deploying the odd nasty bouncer) and getting away-swing.

I was thinking that he was an 'attacking' bowler as opposed to somebody capable of attacking as well as bowling the channels, keeping it tight, working to plans etc depending on what was needed. Not as rounded as others or as proficient at playing as many different roles. An amazing attacking bowler but not a rounded bowler. Does that matter? I dont know.

 

[zaremba]

I was thinking that he was an 'attacking' bowler as opposed to somebody capable of attacking as well as bowling the channels, keeping it tight, working to plans etc depending on what was needed. Not as rounded as others or as proficient at playing as many different roles. An amazing attacking bowler but not a rounded bowler. Does that matter? I dont know.

Ah, I see your point. Well my view, for what it's worth, is that if you've an attacking bowler who'll take 5-40 in 10 overs, that's always a better bet than a defensive bowler who takes 5-40 in 20 overs. Makes for more entertaining cricket. And boy, Waqar was an entertaining bowler to watch. I'd far rather watch a Waqar splattering stumps with fast swinging yorkers than a McGrath inducing ill-judged edges to remorseless back-of-a-length bowling.

 

[Richard]

I was watching this footage just the other day. It illustrates Bishop's pace pretty nicely.

Some great Tony Grieg commentary about 2/3 of the way through - "Oh, he's hit him, he's hurt him, I've often wondered why he doesn't wear the proper protection; [distinct note of satisfaction enters voice] that one may have broken his jaw".

I loved watching Smith bat against the Windies. Seeing him getting duffed up - and just avoiding bouncers - was part of made him such an easy batsman to love.

It must've been really something seeing Gooch, Lamb and Smith in that series - especially the early part of it. Undoubtedly the three best England batsmen (even if two of them were South African-raised) against that type of bowling, the type that had been battering most of the country's best batsmen for 14 years.

As for Smith, well there's a bit of him in Kevin Pietersen, I think. As well as a bit of the anthesis. Pietersen seems to get injured relatively easily, Smith the only time that comes to mind was that broken jaw - courtesy of none other than Ian Bishop - in 1995. But there's that real maximisation of everything that can possibly be maximised to make things more theatrical. Half the time I think it's deliberate, half the time I think it's just natural.

 

[zaremba]

Well my view, for what it's worth, is that if you've an attacking bowler who'll take 5-40 in 10 overs, that's always a better bet than a defensive bowler who takes 5-40 in 20 overs.

On reflection, this may be bollocks. Depends what mood I'm in when I'm asked the question I suppose.

 

[funnygirl]

Ah, I see your point. Well my view, for what it's worth, is that if you've an attacking bowler who'll take 5-40 in 10 overs, that's always a better bet than a defensive bowler who takes 5-40 in 20 overs. Makes for more entertaining cricket. And boy, Waqar was an entertaining bowler to watch. I'd far rather watch a Waqar splattering stumps with fast swinging yorkers than a McGrath inducing ill-judged edges to remorseless back-of-a-length bowling.

Quite a sight that was

Bishop was also a fantastic bowler to watch.

 

[Richard]

Ah, I see your point. Well my view, for what it's worth, is that if you've an attacking bowler who'll take 5-40 in 10 overs, that's always a better bet than a defensive bowler who takes 5-40 in 20 overs. Makes for more entertaining cricket. And boy, Waqar was an entertaining bowler to watch. I'd far rather watch a Waqar splattering stumps with fast swinging yorkers than a McGrath inducing ill-judged edges to remorseless back-of-a-length bowling.

While not disagreeing at all about the entertainment nature of things, you've always got to make a distinction between what's best to watch and what's best (ie, what's most effective in helping to get results).

Of course, Waqar circa '90/91-'94/95 was better than McGrath, absolutely no doubts. But that sort of style is almost never something that can last. And it doesn't surprise me - injury or no injury - that McGrath ended-up being undoubtedly a better bowler. However, I'd still have the Waqar of '96-'00 over McGrath for entertainment's sake. McGrath by then was the better bowler, but Waqar was still quite excellent and certainly far more thrilling.

 

[funnygirl]

Two bowlers who had the ability to end as a top 5 test bowler of all time had it not been for the injuries. Overall Waqar more then Bishop but that was because Bishop was hit by injuries in his career much earlier then Waqar.

So who do you think was a much superior bowler?

Thats some thing which cannot be avoided by a human being .What if any of the bowlers able to bowl always at their fastest.It is an impossible scenario .

How one bowler comes after the injury is the key to the greatness .If a bowler doesn't solely depends on pace,he can very well.

 

[zaremba]

Thats some thing which cannot be avoided by a human being .What if any of the bowlers able to bowl always at their fastest.It is an impossible scenario .

How one bowler comes after the injury is the key to the greatness .If a bowler doesn't solely depends on pace,he can very well.

Yeah this is true, but it rather detracts from the point of this particular thread.

 

[Richard]

Thats some thing which cannot be avoided by a human being .

Not neccessarily. Some bodies are just naturally more durable than others; some people suffer unfortunate accidents while others don't (for instance, most people get told to be careful diving on the outfield of Woolongabba, Brisbane - sadly, Simon Jones was not).

It's as much an inevitability that Ian Bishop was born with a weak back as that he was born with an unusual talent for bowling fast outswingers from a great height. So from that POV, he was never going to become a long-term great. But there'll always be the hypothesis of "if he wasn't so injury-prone". And even though it's not fair that some are born with the ability to bowl at 90mph without out-of-the-ordinary (by seam-bowler standards - bowling is hard work full-stop) effort and some can try their damndest and the best they can do is 70mph, it's also not at all fair that some are blessed with bodies that can take the strain of bowling while others are not.

So from time to time we try to remove some of the unfairnesses and inequalities and work-out who'd have been better with all things equal.

 

[funnygirl]

Okay Richard i get the point .But almost all the quicks had to adjust their pace for longevity .

 

[zaremba]

Okay Richard i get the point .But almost all the quicks had to adjust their pace for longevity .

This is true. And Dennis Lillee is a great example (tired though I am of hearing people bang on about it!).

 

[Richard]

Okay Richard i get the point .But almost all the quicks had to adjust their pace for longevity .

Of course they did - that only emphasises that speed is not the most important part of a bowler's armoury. Bowlers who were "fast" (say, 85mph+) for more of their careers than not then slowed down were more often than not doing the same thing, they just did it a bit slower later in their careers.

Of course, some learnt even more new tricks and as a result a few even became better despite becoming slower. No truly good, never mind outstanding, bowler is extraordinarily reliant on the ability to bowl genuinely fast - it merely makes them that bit better still. But you can be about as good as it'll get bowling at 82-83mph, if you've got the skill. However, obviously all else equal at 91mph > all else equal at 83mph.

 

[Matt79]

Hard question, Waqar by achievement no doubt, but by initial quality/ potential??

These two form half the pace quartet of my 'if only they hadn't been blighted by injury' XI, with Jeff Thompson and one of Jack Gregory or Shane Bond.

The problem with that team is that there are stacks of options for the quicks and everything else is hard work.