Jimmy Cliff Posted August 11, 2018 Share Posted August 11, 2018 36 minutes ago, Tibarn said: I agree the 2nd one is better, but those are cartoonish examples: they are so far in the extreme, that they have 0 tangible value in my eyes. The reality is that most of who are considered good bowlers are between 22-28 in average and usually 50-60 in SR. In that case, players like Steyn and Waqar, whose SRs are so far and away better than other great bowlers, while at the same time having comparable averages to other greats, must be elevated above the rest. Otherwise one would be devaluing the ability to take wickets imo. Regarding the idea that Waqar performed worse as he got later in his career: again Waqar has far better stats at every phase of his career than Wasim. Beginning, middle, or end, it doesn't matter. Wasim's best seasons are equal to middle of the pack seasons by Waqar's standards. Wasim just played longer and accumulated a greater volume of wickets, even though he was worse at actually picking them. That's evidently not true. Waqar had an extraordinary peak from 1990-1994 but was pretty ordinary after that. Waqar during 1990-1994. Waqar from 1995-2003 His Avg/SR/WPM all take a huge hit post '95 and he has just 1 5-fer in 43 games against non-minnows. Akram fared much better in the same phase. In fact, in the 1995-2003 phase, only Dillon and Prasad have a worse average than Waqar amongst all seamers with 75+ wickets against non-minnows. zen 1 Link to comment
Tibarn Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 (edited) Off topic but I don't think Zim was really a minnow, not in the way AFG/IRE are now. They are more like a better version of modern Bangladesh. This is the case until at least 2000. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/9.html?class=1;orderby=win_loss_ratio;spanmax2=31+Dec+2003;spanmin2=01+Jan+1998;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team;view=results Notable Zimbabwe series results: In 1998 they won vs India in Zimbabwe In 1998/9 they Won vs Pakistan in Pakistan They even drew vs India as late as 2001 in Zimbabwe. Bangladesh to this day can't get results like above. To me the definition of minnow is murky, or, at least, there are tiers of minnows. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said: That's evidently not true. Waqar had an extraordinary peak from 1990-1994 but was pretty ordinary after that. By removing (Zim and Bang), it makes the comparison more interesting. Waqar Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1995 5 9 146.0 31 482 10 3/15 3/41 48.20 3.30 87.6 0 0 year 1996 4 7 155.0 34 505 21 4/48 8/154 24.04 3.25 44.2 0 0 year 1997 4 7 98.0 17 319 11 3/99 5/143 29.00 3.25 53.4 0 0 year 1998 3 6 105.3 19 354 16 6/78 10/133 22.12 3.35 39.5 1 1 year 1999 3 6 72.0 18 233 4 2/26 2/74 58.25 3.23 108.0 0 0 year 2000 10 18 282.0 48 881 34 4/40 7/79 25.91 3.12 49.7 0 0 year 2001 5 8 177.1 30 554 13 3/85 5/172 42.61 3.12 81.7 0 0 year 2002 8 12 177.0 33 658 20 4/44 4/55 32.90 3.71 53.1 0 0 year 2003 1 1 28.0 4 121 1 1/121 1/121 121.00 4.32 168.0 0 0 Wasim Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1995 7 12 260.3 66 633 32 5/53 7/79 19.78 2.42 48.8 2 0 year 1996 3 5 128.0 29 350 11 3/67 6/150 31.81 2.73 69.8 0 0 year 1997 5 9 147.1 39 408 23 4/42 7/118 17.73 2.77 38.3 0 0 year 1998 3 5 121.0 21 329 8 3/70 3/107 41.12 2.71 90.7 0 0 year 1999 8 15 257.3 42 757 29 4/30 5/69 26.10 2.93 53.2 0 0 year 2000 9 15 273.0 78 629 26 6/61 11/110 24.19 2.30 63.0 3 1 year 2001 2 3 87.0 20 247 5 2/59 3/148 49.40 2.83 104.4 0 0 Wasim only played until 2001 based on this sample, by year who is better 1995: Wasim 1996: Waqar 1997: Wasim 1998: Waqar 1999: Wasim 2000: Waqar 2001: Wasim(Although in this case neither has good numbers for the year and Waqar only played 1 test match) 4-3 in favor of Wasim, but considering both their performances in 2001, I would consider it 3-3. However, Waqar continued playing in 2002-03 against top teams, while Wasim last played vs a non-minnow in 2001. Waqar posted another good season in 2002. (This is in my opinion a good season, as his SR is 53.1, so I don't mind a 32 avg as I personally judge a bowlers ability by their SR. Anyone else is free to have the opposite view and judge it as a poor season) Quote Akram fared much better in the same phase. I think we have different definitions of phase in this case. 8 years from 1995 to 2003 isn't a phase to me, it is greater than half of Waqar's career and it is a bit of chicanery to use 2005 as an arbitrary mark just to exclude Waqar's best seasons and make Wasim look better in comparison(I am not accusing you or trying to say you are trying to mislead @Jimmy Cliff, I am actually talking about fans in general, whenever there is a Wasim-Waqar debate always use the arbitrary 1995 cutoff to downplay Waqar). This is even more troublesome when one takes the 8 years as a whole, rather than the individual years/seasons, imo. I find it misleading as it implies that the 8 years were all the same: 31.5 avg, 57 SR every year, when in reality only his seasons 1995, 1999, and 2001 are bad(however bad they are). The rest are even better than some of Akram's in the same period(as seen above). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just to show what I mean about the chicanery If one looks at Akram's to the same standard, and uses a cutoff of his 5 worst consecutive seasons and choosing to judge him adversely based on his worst stretch (again excluding Zimbabwe and Bangladesh): 1985-1989 Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 unfiltered 1985-2002 104 181 3771.1 871 9779 414 7/119 11/110 23.62 2.59 54.6 25 5 Profile filtered 1985-1989 29 49 1033.5 240 2649 94 6/91 10/128 28.18 2.56 65.9 5 1 Until 1990, Wasim had a 28.2 average and a innocuous 66 SR, taking a whole 11 overs of bowling before he takes a wicket. That doesn't befit anyone who can be considered an all-time great. I can also apply a justification for why this arbitrary cut-off isn't so arbitrary: 1989 was the year Waqar debuted for Pakistan. Thus, when Waqar finally arrived on the picture, Wasim could take a backseat, while the superior bowler did the heavy lifting(taking wickets). Both the arbitrary 5 years sample and the justification are manipulations to show Waqar in a good light and Akram poorly; it's as wrong as purposefully excluding Waqar's best seasons from any debate on who the best bowler is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @Moochad tagging you because I know you will find it interesting The reality is this: Overall career summary(if we exclude Zim and Bang) Waqar Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 unfiltered 1989-2003 87 154 2704.0 516 8788 373 7/76 13/135 23.56 3.25 43.4 22 5 Profile filtered 1989-2003 73 128 2252.5 422 7374 293 7/76 12/130 25.16 3.27 46.1 16 4 Wasim Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 unfiltered 1985-2002 104 181 3771.1 871 9779 414 7/119 11/110 23.62 2.59 54.6 25 5 Profile filtered 1985-2001 92 160 3349.2 770 8728 367 7/119 11/110 23.78 2.60 54.7 21 4 Wasim has a better bowling average; Waqar has a far superior SR(which actually measures wicket taking ability). Both have the same 2.29 wickets/innings( combining it with the SR, it implies that Wasim bowled more deliveries to get the same number of wickets in an innings). Consistency(Excluding Zim and Bang) Using ATG standards, a great season being one in which a bowler has a below 30 avg and below 60 SR(great seasons in red), here are how many great years each bowler had: Waqar Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1989 2 4 58.0 4 237 6 4/80 4/91 39.50 4.08 58.0 0 0 year 1990 9 17 316.4 77 835 49 7/76 12/130 17.04 2.63 38.7 5 2 year 1991 2 2 45.3 6 127 7 5/84 7/127 18.14 2.79 39.0 1 0 year 1992 6 10 204.0 33 709 31 5/52 9/152 22.87 3.47 39.4 4 0 year 1993 4 7 140.2 28 465 28 5/22 9/81 16.60 3.31 30.0 2 0 year 1994 7 14 247.4 40 894 42 6/34 11/119 21.28 3.60 35.3 3 1 year 1995 5 9 146.0 31 482 10 3/15 3/41 48.20 3.30 87.6 0 0 year 1996 4 7 155.0 34 505 21 4/48 8/154 24.04 3.25 44.2 0 0 year 1997 4 7 98.0 17 319 11 3/99 5/143 29.00 3.25 53.4 0 0 year 1998 3 6 105.3 19 354 16 6/78 10/133 22.12 3.35 39.5 1 1 year 1999 3 6 72.0 18 233 4 2/26 2/74 58.25 3.23 108.0 0 0 year 2000 10 18 282.0 48 881 34 4/40 7/79 25.91 3.12 49.7 0 0 year 2001 5 8 177.1 30 554 13 3/85 5/172 42.61 3.12 81.7 0 0 year 2002 8 12 177.0 33 658 20 4/44 4/55 32.90 3.71 53.1 0 0 year 2003 1 1 28.0 4 121 1 1/121 1/121 121.00 4.32 168.0 0 0 9 great years out of 15 counted: 60% Wasim Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1985 5 8 197.3 52 484 20 5/56 10/128 24.20 2.45 59.2 2 1 year 1986 5 9 134.3 40 316 14 6/91 6/96 22.57 2.34 57.6 1 0 year 1987 12 19 380.1 76 979 31 5/96 5/91 31.58 2.57 73.5 1 0 year 1988 3 6 117.0 22 319 11 4/73 7/161 29.00 2.72 63.8 0 0 year 1989 4 7 204.4 50 551 18 5/101 7/142 30.61 2.69 68.2 1 0 year 1990 8 15 320.3 73 778 48 6/62 11/160 16.20 2.42 40.0 4 1 year 1991 2 2 45.0 11 78 1 1/31 1/78 78.00 1.73 270.0 0 0 year 1992 5 9 208.5 46 595 26 6/67 9/103 22.88 2.84 48.1 2 0 year 1993 4 8 161.1 30 469 17 5/45 8/111 27.58 2.91 56.8 1 0 year 1994 7 13 305.5 75 806 47 7/119 11/179 17.14 2.63 39.0 4 1 year 1995 7 12 260.3 66 633 32 5/53 7/79 19.78 2.42 48.8 2 0 year 1996 3 5 128.0 29 350 11 3/67 6/150 31.81 2.73 69.8 0 0 year 1997 5 9 147.1 39 408 23 4/42 7/118 17.73 2.77 38.3 0 0 year 1998 3 5 121.0 21 329 8 3/70 3/107 41.12 2.71 90.7 0 0 year 1999 8 15 257.3 42 757 29 4/30 5/69 26.10 2.93 53.2 0 0 year 2000 9 15 273.0 78 629 26 6/61 11/110 24.19 2.30 63.0 3 1 year 2001 2 3 87.0 20 247 5 2/59 3/148 49.40 2.83 104.4 0 0 9 great years out of 17 counted: 53% Based on my definition of consistency over every phase of their careers. Waqar's 60% > Wasim's 53% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, I am spamming this thread too much, so I will stop posting with this post, as this Waqar-Wasim stuff is somewhat off-topic relative to the subject of the OP's thread. To me the 3 ATG pacers are: Steyn/Waqar/Marshall Edited August 12, 2018 by Tibarn Jimmy Cliff and Moochad 1 1 Link to comment
Straight Drive Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 Hadlee was outstanding. If matches were telecasted as easily in those times as they get telecasted now, he would be more popular. Still he was so great that his performances were frequent and very notable when the newspapers printed cricket coverage in 2 days time. zen 1 Link to comment
Moochad Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 On 8/10/2018 at 10:45 PM, Tibarn said: I agree the 2nd one is better, but those are cartoonish examples: they are so far in the extreme, that they have 0 tangible value in my eyes. The reality is that most of who are considered good bowlers are between 22-28 in average and usually 50-60 in SR. In that case, players like Steyn and Waqar, whose SRs are so far and away better than other great bowlers, while at the same time having comparable averages to other greats, must be elevated above the rest. Otherwise one would be devaluing the ability to take wickets imo. This is fair enough and I agree 1 hour ago, Tibarn said: Off topic but I don't think Zim was really a minnow, not in the way AFG/IRE are now. They are more like a better version of modern Bangladesh. This is the case until at least 2000. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/9.html?class=1;orderby=win_loss_ratio;spanmax2=31+Dec+2003;spanmin2=01+Jan+1998;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team;view=results Notable Zimbabwe series results: In 1998 they won vs India in Zimbabwe In 1998/9 they Won vs Pakistan in Pakistan They even drew vs India as late as 2001 in Zimbabwe. Bangladesh to this day can't get results like above. To me the definition of minnow is murky, or, at least, there are tiers of minnows. Padosis lost a home series to Zimbabwe Zimbabwe had some great fight that era. Their decline is so sad. Flower was such a great player to watch for me. I feel SA will go the Zimbabwe way in a decade or two with how the things are going there, A lot of the stats are dependent on whether Zimbabwe is considered a minnow or not then... 1 hour ago, Tibarn said: Based on my definition of consistency over every phase of their careers. Waqar's 60% > Wasim's 53% The spreads look pretty much the even between the two, both have a bad tail end to their career, as expected b/c they are approaching the end. Wasim has only 2 bad years in that tail, while Waqar has 3 though. However wasim has the 3 year down period iin the late 80s. Otherwise they seem to be more good than bad seasons. Waqar became more of a spraygun when he was bad. wasim became a popgun when he was bad. Overall career stats favor Waqar, Im looking at teh SR, therefore he is better in my eyes. I am surprised wasim reached equal levels of wicket taking by the wickets/innings by the end of his career to waqar, waqar shouldve retired earlier. I guess wasim can be thought of more as a work horse, while waqar more as a strike bowler. Jimmy Cliff and Tibarn 2 Link to comment
Jimmy Cliff Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Tibarn said: Off topic but I don't think Zim was really a minnow, not in the way AFG/IRE are now. They are more like a better version of modern Bangladesh. This is the case until at least 2000. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/9.html?class=1;orderby=win_loss_ratio;spanmax2=31+Dec+2003;spanmin2=01+Jan+1998;spanval2=span;template=results;type=team;view=results Notable Zimbabwe series results: In 1998 they won vs India in Zimbabwe In 1998/9 they Won vs Pakistan in Pakistan They even drew vs India as late as 2001 in Zimbabwe. Bangladesh to this day can't get results like above. To me the definition of minnow is murky, or, at least, there are tiers of minnows. In general, I'd agree. Ideally I would prefer to not exclude Zim during late 90s - early noughties and probably not exclude Bangladeshs while they're playing at home post 2015. I'd also be tempted to exclude Windies post 2009. But that isn't possible via Statsguru and it becomes too tedious to do all of that manually so for the sake of convenience I generally exclude Zim/Bang completely. 2 hours ago, Tibarn said: By removing (Zim and Bang), it makes the comparison more interesting. Waqar Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1995 5 9 146.0 31 482 10 3/15 3/41 48.20 3.30 87.6 0 0 year 1996 4 7 155.0 34 505 21 4/48 8/154 24.04 3.25 44.2 0 0 year 1997 4 7 98.0 17 319 11 3/99 5/143 29.00 3.25 53.4 0 0 year 1998 3 6 105.3 19 354 16 6/78 10/133 22.12 3.35 39.5 1 1 year 1999 3 6 72.0 18 233 4 2/26 2/74 58.25 3.23 108.0 0 0 year 2000 10 18 282.0 48 881 34 4/40 7/79 25.91 3.12 49.7 0 0 year 2001 5 8 177.1 30 554 13 3/85 5/172 42.61 3.12 81.7 0 0 year 2002 8 12 177.0 33 658 20 4/44 4/55 32.90 3.71 53.1 0 0 year 2003 1 1 28.0 4 121 1 1/121 1/121 121.00 4.32 168.0 0 0 Wasim Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1995 7 12 260.3 66 633 32 5/53 7/79 19.78 2.42 48.8 2 0 year 1996 3 5 128.0 29 350 11 3/67 6/150 31.81 2.73 69.8 0 0 year 1997 5 9 147.1 39 408 23 4/42 7/118 17.73 2.77 38.3 0 0 year 1998 3 5 121.0 21 329 8 3/70 3/107 41.12 2.71 90.7 0 0 year 1999 8 15 257.3 42 757 29 4/30 5/69 26.10 2.93 53.2 0 0 year 2000 9 15 273.0 78 629 26 6/61 11/110 24.19 2.30 63.0 3 1 year 2001 2 3 87.0 20 247 5 2/59 3/148 49.40 2.83 104.4 0 0 Wasim only played until 2001 based on this sample, by year who is better 1995: Wasim 1996: Waqar 1997: Wasim 1998: Waqar 1999: Wasim 2000: Waqar 2001: Wasim(Although in this case neither has good numbers for the year and Waqar only played 1 test match) 4-3 in favor of Wasim, but considering both their performances in 2001, I would consider it 3-3. However, Waqar continued playing in 2002-03 against top teams, while Wasim last played vs a non-minnow in 2001. Waqar posted another good season in 2002. (This is in my opinion a good season, as his SR is 53.1, so I don't mind a 32 avg as I personally judge a bowlers ability by their SR. Anyone else is free to have the opposite view and judge it as a poor season) I think what this confirms is that Waqar certainly did not have far better stats than Wasim at every point of their careers. 2 hours ago, Tibarn said: I think we have different definitions of phase in this case. 8 years from 1995 to 2003 isn't a phase to me, it is greater than half of Waqar's career and it is a bit of chicanery to use 2005 as an arbitrary mark just to exclude Waqar's best seasons and make Wasim look better in comparison(I am not accusing you or trying to say you are trying to mislead @Jimmy Cliff, I am actually talking about fans in general, whenever there is a Wasim-Waqar debate always use the arbitrary 1995 cutoff to downplay Waqar). This is even more troublesome when one takes the 8 years as a whole, rather than the individual years/seasons, imo. I find it misleading as it implies that the 8 years were all the same: 31.5 avg, 57 SR every year, when in reality only his seasons 1995, 1999, and 2001 are bad(however bad they are). The rest are even better than some of Akram's in the same period(as seen above). It isn't all that arbitrary though. The first half of the 90s is where the sustained period of excellence ends for Waqar. Prior to '95, the only "bad" year he has statistically is his very first where he averages close to 40. Since '95, the bad years start piling up. And even in some of the years he does relatively well in terms of average/SR, the impact isn't quite there (like 1997 when his WPM is less than 3 or the near absence of 5-wicket hauls throughout the 8 year phase). Waqar in many ways is the more extreme version of Ponting who averaged 71+ during 2002-2006 but averaged less than 42 against non-minnows outside of this phase. Now this doesn't mean Ponting was a Ganguly level batsmen for more than half of his career but it does tell us that his good years outside of the 2002-2006 phase were interspersed with plenty of modest/bad years as well. 2 hours ago, Tibarn said: Until 1990, Wasim had a 28.2 average and a innocuous 66 SR, taking a whole 11 overs of bowling before he takes a wicket. That doesn't befit anyone who can be considered an all-time great. I can also apply a justification for why this arbitrary cut-off isn't so arbitrary: 1989 was the year Waqar debuted for Pakistan. Thus, when Waqar finally arrived on the picture, Wasim could take a backseat, while the superior bowler did the heavy lifting(taking wickets). Both the arbitrary 5 years sample and the justification are manipulations to show Waqar in a good light and Akram poorly; it's as wrong as purposefully excluding Waqar's best seasons from any debate on who the best bowler is. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @Moochad tagging you because I know you will find it interesting The reality is this: Overall career summary(if we exclude Zim and Bang) Waqar Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 unfiltered 1989-2003 87 154 2704.0 516 8788 373 7/76 13/135 23.56 3.25 43.4 22 5 Profile filtered 1989-2003 73 128 2252.5 422 7374 293 7/76 12/130 25.16 3.27 46.1 16 4 Wasim Career averages Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 unfiltered 1985-2002 104 181 3771.1 871 9779 414 7/119 11/110 23.62 2.59 54.6 25 5 Profile filtered 1985-2001 92 160 3349.2 770 8728 367 7/119 11/110 23.78 2.60 54.7 21 4 Wasim has a better bowling average; Waqar has a far superior SR(which actually measures wicket taking ability). Both have the same 2.29 wickets/innings( combining it with the SR, it implies that Wasim bowled more deliveries to get the same number of wickets in an innings). If the argument is that Akram wasn't a great bowler in the 80s or that he took longer to start performing like an ATG bowler compared to Waqar then I don't disagree. Don't agree with the bolded part. The way I see it is that both were excellent in the first half of the 90s as we can see below. If Waqar was performing at 10/10, Wasim was at least 9/10 if not 9.5/10. Outside of this phase, Akram is comfortably ahead. If you ignore both of their numbers from 1990-1994, this is what we get Akram: 66 Matches, 113 Innings, 228 Wickets @ 26.32 with a SR of 60.73 with 10 5-fers and 2 10-fers. Waqar: 45 Matches, 78 Innings, 136 Wickets @ 31.94 with a SR of 57.29 with 1 5-fer and 1 10-fer. So while Waqar had the better peak, Akram was an asset for much longer ending up respectable stats even when he didn't have peak Waqar alongside him. 3 hours ago, Tibarn said: Consistency(Excluding Zim and Bang) Using ATG standards, a great season being one in which a bowler has a below 30 avg and below 60 SR(great seasons in red), here are how many great years each bowler had: Waqar Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1989 2 4 58.0 4 237 6 4/80 4/91 39.50 4.08 58.0 0 0 year 1990 9 17 316.4 77 835 49 7/76 12/130 17.04 2.63 38.7 5 2 year 1991 2 2 45.3 6 127 7 5/84 7/127 18.14 2.79 39.0 1 0 year 1992 6 10 204.0 33 709 31 5/52 9/152 22.87 3.47 39.4 4 0 year 1993 4 7 140.2 28 465 28 5/22 9/81 16.60 3.31 30.0 2 0 year 1994 7 14 247.4 40 894 42 6/34 11/119 21.28 3.60 35.3 3 1 year 1995 5 9 146.0 31 482 10 3/15 3/41 48.20 3.30 87.6 0 0 year 1996 4 7 155.0 34 505 21 4/48 8/154 24.04 3.25 44.2 0 0 year 1997 4 7 98.0 17 319 11 3/99 5/143 29.00 3.25 53.4 0 0 year 1998 3 6 105.3 19 354 16 6/78 10/133 22.12 3.35 39.5 1 1 year 1999 3 6 72.0 18 233 4 2/26 2/74 58.25 3.23 108.0 0 0 year 2000 10 18 282.0 48 881 34 4/40 7/79 25.91 3.12 49.7 0 0 year 2001 5 8 177.1 30 554 13 3/85 5/172 42.61 3.12 81.7 0 0 year 2002 8 12 177.0 33 658 20 4/44 4/55 32.90 3.71 53.1 0 0 year 2003 1 1 28.0 4 121 1 1/121 1/121 121.00 4.32 168.0 0 0 9 great years out of 15 counted: 60% Wasim Career summary Grouping Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10 year 1985 5 8 197.3 52 484 20 5/56 10/128 24.20 2.45 59.2 2 1 year 1986 5 9 134.3 40 316 14 6/91 6/96 22.57 2.34 57.6 1 0 year 1987 12 19 380.1 76 979 31 5/96 5/91 31.58 2.57 73.5 1 0 year 1988 3 6 117.0 22 319 11 4/73 7/161 29.00 2.72 63.8 0 0 year 1989 4 7 204.4 50 551 18 5/101 7/142 30.61 2.69 68.2 1 0 year 1990 8 15 320.3 73 778 48 6/62 11/160 16.20 2.42 40.0 4 1 year 1991 2 2 45.0 11 78 1 1/31 1/78 78.00 1.73 270.0 0 0 year 1992 5 9 208.5 46 595 26 6/67 9/103 22.88 2.84 48.1 2 0 year 1993 4 8 161.1 30 469 17 5/45 8/111 27.58 2.91 56.8 1 0 year 1994 7 13 305.5 75 806 47 7/119 11/179 17.14 2.63 39.0 4 1 year 1995 7 12 260.3 66 633 32 5/53 7/79 19.78 2.42 48.8 2 0 year 1996 3 5 128.0 29 350 11 3/67 6/150 31.81 2.73 69.8 0 0 year 1997 5 9 147.1 39 408 23 4/42 7/118 17.73 2.77 38.3 0 0 year 1998 3 5 121.0 21 329 8 3/70 3/107 41.12 2.71 90.7 0 0 year 1999 8 15 257.3 42 757 29 4/30 5/69 26.10 2.93 53.2 0 0 year 2000 9 15 273.0 78 629 26 6/61 11/110 24.19 2.30 63.0 3 1 year 2001 2 3 87.0 20 247 5 2/59 3/148 49.40 2.83 104.4 0 0 9 great years out of 17 counted: 53% Based on my definition of consistency over every phase of their careers. Waqar's 60% > Wasim's 53% He also has more poor years though (if we consider a year with an average > 35 as poor). Waqar has 5 (1989, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003) bad years out of 15: 33% Akram has 3 (1991, 1998, 2001) bad years out of 17: 18% Tibarn 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now