Who's the better bowler, Mk II?

[BhupinderSingh]

Really, how did he do against Australia or India?

He never toured Australia or India at his peak & when he was at his peak,the best team in the world was West Indies(not Australia).

 

[funnygirl]

Also Akhtar has played more in the era of flat pitches and his figures are much better than Waqar's.

[/QUOTE]

Subcontinental pitches were always flat ,those were never sportive . If yes ,it is in this era ..Also batting techniques of batsmen are so poor . On his day a bowler like Sreesanth could run through any side . Quite an influence of ODIs . If 20/20 gets more popular . The techniques will be even more poorer .

Talking abt Akhtar's figures . If pitch is not responsive or more favourable to batsmen ,that moment Akhtar gets injured and go back to the pavilion . If Waqar had such attitude of playing ''selectively or according to his convenience'' ,he would have ended up with much better statistics . Even then Akhtar who played such a less numbver of matches ,his stats are not a match .

Against Aus his average is 35 and India a similar one .Waqar had 33 ,against India a poor average that he just played 4 tests .Never played India at his prime which Akhtar had .

 

[Richard]

Really, how did he do against Australia or India?

He played one Test against Australia in said period, taking 7-144. He played 0 against India.

This is the period in question.

 

[Ikki]

He never toured Australia or India at his peak & when he was at his peak,the best team in the world was West Indies(not Australia).

He played one Test against Australia in said period, taking 7-144. He played 0 against India.

This is the period in question.

Wrong. The period in question is longer than that. Go till his 35-40th test where he is still averaging 19-20 and he plays Australia a further 5-6 times. He gets hit around quite a bit.

You're shifting the goal posts Richey boy.

Anyway, as I said, Shoaib is just as successful against the better sides if not moreso.

 

[Ikki]

Subcontinental pitches were always flat ,those were never sportive . If yes ,it is in this era ..Also batting techniques of batsmen are so poor . On his day a bowler like Sreesanth could run through any side . Quite an influence of ODIs . If 20/20 gets more popular . The techniques will be even more poorer .

Talking abt Akhtar's figures . If pitch is not responsive or more favourable to batsmen ,that moment Akhtar gets injured and go back to the pavilion . If Waqar had such attitude of playing ''selectively or according to his convenience'' ,he would have ended up with much better statistics . Even then Akhtar who played such a less numbver of matches ,his stats are not a match .

Against Aus his average is 35 and India a similar one .Waqar had 33 ,against India a poor average that he just played 4 tests .Never played India at his prime which Akhtar had .

Yes, but teams DO play away? And I think, when I was checking, Akhtar does better in this period than before it, whilst Waqar does worse.

As for the breakdown you seem to have for Waqar's career, I don't accept it. He was still a good bowler; he was averaging in the 20s and a with a very low strike rate (50). He wasn't performing that great against the better sides.

 

[Richard]

Wrong. The period in question is longer than that. Go till his 35-40th test where he is still averaging 19-20 and he plays Australia a further 5-6 times. He gets hit around quite a bit.

You're shifting the goal posts Richey boy.

No I'm not - the later Tests are notably unsuccessful. If you start from the Test after the last one in the period I showed his average is 30 or 40 for a time.

The goalposts shift themselves - I simply spot them shifting. It's very obvious to me that one Waqar period finishes exactly where I placed the end of it at (otherwise, amazingly, I'd not have placed it there). Everything from the next game onwards is part of a different period where Waqar's bowling took on a different outcome.

 

[Ikki]

No I'm not - the later Tests are notably unsuccessful. If you start from the Test after the last one in the period I showed his average is 30 or 40 for a time.

The goalposts shift themselves - I simply spot them shifting. It's very obvious to me that one Waqar period finishes exactly where I placed the end of it at (otherwise, amazingly, I'd not have placed it there). Everything from the next game onwards is part of a different period where Waqar's bowling took on a different outcome.

Sorry, I don't buy that. I start counting when his cumulative average starts hitting 20 and not coming back down. I don't see any reason to use another sample. Yours is way too small and you're saying that his form abruptly ended and he was essentially a different person when he met the Aussies later. I don't subscribe to that, my opinion. Essentially, he had to play those teams, he got whacked around and such is his stature IMO. I rate Waqar highly, but not that highly. You're shifting goal-posts at when we should start judging him onwards, and conveniently that's only a handful or so of test matches before the period he gets hit around I don't see how he could have had such a black & white case.

For me, Waqar was at his best until his 37-38th test and from then on he starts declining. And his figures in tests after that, until retirement, are pretty good still. No big black and white there, he just wasn't as good against the better teams - which isn't to say he was poor.

 

[Sanz]

You're shifting goal-posts at when we should start judging him onwards, and conveniently that's only a handful or so of test matches before the period he gets hit around.

27 tests out of 87 which is less than 1/3rd.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, I don't buy that. I start counting when his cumulative average starts hitting 20 and not coming back down. I don't see any reason to use another sample. Yours is way too small and you're saying that his form abruptly ended and he was essentially a different person when he met the Aussies later. I don't subscribe to that, my opinion. Essentially, he had to play those teams, he got whacked around and such is his stature IMO. I rate Waqar highly, but not that highly. You're shifting goal-posts at when we should start judging him onwards, and conveniently that's only a handful or so of test matches before the period he gets hit around I don't see how he could have had such a black & white case.

For me, Waqar was at his best until his 37-38th test and from then on he starts declining. And his figures in tests after that, until retirement, are pretty good still. No big black and white there, he just wasn't as good against the better teams - which isn't to say he was poor.

In the time he was doing poorly against the "better" teams (that's certainly not black-and-white either) he was also doing poorly against the weaker ones too. It makes no sense to say he was worked-out by stronger sides.

For me, Waqar's career splits into 4 parts. I don't like to take any notice of anything from previous phases when considering the next one, and I think it's pretty poor to try and do so. So what if his overall career average was still 19 after the first three of the spell of poor games? It means nothing. Once a poor period starts, a good one must be ignored completely when judging it, and vice-versa.
Phase one (superlative almost every game)
Phase two (awful for a very short time against everyone, weak and strong)
Phase three (the only one you can make any case for him being far better against weak oppo than strong, and even here he didn't bowl much against stereotypically stronger sides)
Phase four (pretty much awful against everyone, accross a wide spectrum of calibre of oppo)
Anyone trying to blur these periods together, for me, is just using unrelated material to try and make their case.

 

[Ikki]

27 tests out of 87 which is less than 1/3rd.

Huh? Maybe I don't understand what you're implying here or you don't understand what I mean by the above.

The period Richard cuts off Waqar and then says "in this period, he didn't play enough against Australia, for e.g." only 5 test matches later they play actually play Australia. A few test matches more ahead - not many - he plays them again and is routinely hit. I'm not going to be convinced that in the space of 5 test matches he suddenly lost his superpowers. The more likely reason is he played a better team.

 

[Sanz]

In the time he was doing poorly against the "better" teams (that's certainly not black-and-white either) he was also doing poorly against the weaker ones too. It makes no sense to say he was worked-out by stronger sides.

For me, Waqar's career splits into 4 parts. I don't like to take any notice of anything from previous phases when considering the next one, and I think it's pretty poor to try and do so. So what if his overall career average was still 19 after the first three of the spell of poor games? It means nothing. Once a poor period starts, a good one must be ignored completely when judging it, and vice-versa.
Phase one (superlative almost every game)
Phase two (awful for a very short time against everyone, weak and strong)
Phase three (the only one you can make any case for him being far better against weak oppo than strong, and even here he didn't bowl much against stereotypically stronger sides)
Phase four (pretty much awful against everyone, accross a wide spectrum of calibre of oppo)
Anyone trying to blur these periods together, for me, is just using unrelated material to try and make their case.

Any reason why you didn't include Waqar's first two series ? How about a category for 'Waqar should not have been picked for those two series because it was his debut series".

Long story short, A bowler should never be picked for his debut series.

 

[Ikki]

In the time he was doing poorly against the "better" teams (that's certainly not black-and-white either) he was also doing poorly against the weaker ones too. It makes no sense to say he was worked-out by stronger sides.

For me, Waqar's career splits into 4 parts. I don't like to take any notice of anything from previous phases when considering the next one, and I think it's pretty poor to try and do so. So what if his overall career average was still 19 after the first three of the spell of poor games? It means nothing. Once a poor period starts, a good one must be ignored completely when judging it, and vice-versa.
Phase one (superlative almost every game)
Phase two (awful for a very short time against everyone, weak and strong)
Phase three (the only one you can make any case for him being far better against weak oppo than strong, and even here he didn't bowl much against stereotypically stronger sides)
Phase four (pretty much awful against everyone, accross a wide spectrum of calibre of oppo)
Anyone trying to blur these periods together, for me, is just using unrelated material to try and make their case.

You don't seem to get it. The phase where he gets hit around is the same one when he is playing the best in the world. True, he wasn't flash in 1 game against Zimbabwe, but that is hardly a trend. What is discernible is that when he played good sides, he didn't do as well.

Then he goes back to facing weaker teams, relatively, and does well again - your phase 3. At the end, THEN the wheels fall off and regardless who he was facing he was poor.

And then, when you put this side argument aside, I'd still not judge Waqar based on 27 tests and for that say he was better than Akhtar. Akhtar has the same records against the same countries. To those that scoff the comparison, I find more debatable things brought up here everyday than this one.

I mean, what next? Do we start arguing said players can't be judged on their bad form?

 

[Sanz]

Huh? Maybe I don't understand what you're implying here or you don't understand what I mean by the above.

The period Richard cuts off Waqar and then says "in this period, he didn't play enough against Australia, for e.g." only 5 test matches later they play actually play Australia. A few test matches more ahead - not many - he plays them again and is routinely hit. I'm not going to be convinced that in the space of 5 test matches he suddenly lost his superpowers. The more likely reason is he played a better team.

Actually It was in support of your argument. I agreed with you on that point.

 

[Ikki]

Actually It was in support of your argument. I agreed with you on that point.

Ah ok. The ticker is winding down, 2:16am.

 

[Richard]

Any reason why you didn't include Waqar's first two series ? How about a category for 'Waqar should not have been picked for those two series because it was his debut series".

Long story short, A bowler should never be picked for his debut series.

Err, no. But many players (not just bowlers) don't perform in their first few Tests, so mostly it makes sense to exclude them if not.

 

[Sanz]

Err, no. But many players (not just bowlers) don't perform in their first few Tests, so mostly it makes sense to exclude them if not.

If they perform in the first few tests - then I will include the stats, If they dont perform, I will not include their stats.

It makes perfect sense.

 

[Richard]

You don't seem to get it. The phase where he gets hit around is the same one when he is playing the best in the world. True, he wasn't flash in 1 game against Zimbabwe, but that is hardly a trend. What is discernible is that when he played good sides, he didn't do as well.

Zimbabwe were not the only weak side in phase two, he also faced New Zealand and Sri Lanka and was every bit as poor as he was against Australia. This tells me that it was not to do with who the opposition was but rather with how he was bowling.

What is discernible to me is that when he came-up against good sides, it happened to be at a time when he wasn't bowling very well. Nothing more.

Then he goes back to facing weaker teams, relatively, and does well again - your phase 3.

He doesn't, though, many of those sides were strong. Your argument seems to be "if Waqar did well, the oppo was weak; if he did poorly it was strong". I've disproved everything else.

And then, when you put this side argument aside, I'd still not judge Waqar based on 27 tests and for that say he was better than Akhtar. Akhtar has the same records against the same countries. To those that scoff the comparison, I find more debatable things brought up here everyday than this one.

I mean, what next? Do we start arguing said players can't be judged on their bad form?

None of my comments in this thread pertain to a comparison between Waqar and Shoaib. I am purely arguing against the talking down of Waqar from certain parties.

 

[Richard]

If they perform in the first few tests - then I will include the stats, If they dont perform, I will not include their stats.

It makes perfect sense.

Yes, it does actually. If they perform in their first few Tests, they've done something not that many do, and deserve credit for it.

If they don't, however, they're only doing what most do, and don't really deserve much criticism for it.

Provided, obviously, that they become, later in their career, good performers. Many do poorly in their first few Tests and continue to do poorly in later ones.

For a good player, though, to judge anything whatsoever on 1 or 2 early Tests of failure is, well... completely unfair, frankly.

 

[nightprowler10]

Benazir Bhutto is a better politician than Imran Khan

Yeah, but that one is probably true.

 

[nightprowler10]

Why? They end up with similar figures and then you should factor in that Akhtar did just as good, if not better, than Waqar against the best sides. Also Akhtar has played more in the era of flat pitches and his figures are much better than Waqar's.

I think you may have missed my point, though my fault as I didn't go into too much detail about it anyway. The point I was trying to make was that Waqar did as well (or better) than Shoaib when you look at his whole career, which includes those long years when he was completely washed up. If Shoaib gets to go on playing for Pakistan, his figures will be nowhere near as good as Waqar's when he retires after being washed up and what not.