Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
No its called manipulation of stats to win an argument which you cant other wise. For example in this link http://stats.cricinfo.com/guru?sdb=...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype (your link 1) you have deliberately ignored the second test Waqar Played against Australia in 1994-95 series to prove your point that he was highly successful against all oppositions.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.
Not to forget you also excluded the series against Aus in 1989-90 because it suits your argument.