How overrated are the two W's

[sensible-indian]

22 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Prime Waqar was a force 33 tests and 190 wickets . Is Bumrah not a choker in important matches.Steyn was not a choker?

 

Why is choking held against Waqar only.

 

Not everyone will win world cup or do well in important matches, it should not take away the greatness of any player.

Choking is held against Bumrah and Kohli too.

 

Problem is waqar had two different careers pre and post injury so that gets forgotten.

[deathmonger]

1 hour ago, straighttalk said:

We are **** in other sports and can win nothing in odi cricket in your high economic growth scenario . there are far poorer countries who  are winning soccer world cups.. so economy helps but doesnt make sporting culture.. it enhances and makes talent better

Absolute rubbish. Which poor country has won a soccer world cup?

 

All rich first world European countries or near first world Brazil and Argentina.

 

India isn't reaching current Brazil level until the 2040s and Argentina until late 2050s-60s.

Edited February 5 by deathmonger

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, sensible-indian said:

Choking is held against Bumrah and Kohli too.

 

Problem is waqar had two different careers pre and post injury so that gets forgotten.

When you take 190 wickets at 18, you don't need to do much rest of the career to end up as ATG.A decline after injury is normal.

 

Waqar is ATG , so no way he is overrated.

[sensible-indian]

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Put it this way- i do not believe that 'prime waqar' would have those numbers, if not for a 'prime wasim'  at the other end. He simply didnt have the control to go it alone in test cricket like bumrah or imran did. A prime waqar took a lot of wickets, but also got carted around a lot. he was never an economical bowler and that is why even in his prime waqar averaged 34 vs Australia and 25 vs England - not exactly great numbers. He also didnt face South Africa or India in his prime, who were the two strong batting lineups back then. 
West Indies batting in the 90s was very fragile, especially in the early 90s, before the emergence of Chanderpaul. Their opening was a declining but still good Haynes, their middle order was pretty much just Lara, with a much more diminished Richardson and perinneal under-achiever hooper as their best guys. 

 

Waqar wasnt good enough in Aus and likely SA even if he had played there in his prime.

 

He was better in pitches which didnt bounce as much.

 

There is an element of luck and fortune required for every player to shine. Cant disregard waqars performance just cos wasim was at the other end.

 

No one plays in vacuum.

[sensible-indian]

6 minutes ago, putrevus said:

When you take 190 wickets at 18, you don't need to do much rest of the career to end up as ATG.A decline after injury is normal.

 

Waqar is ATG , so no way he is overrated.

 

Waqar is an ATG.

 

Bumrah took his name in the press conference. Some players leave a mark on the game and Waqar is one of them.

 

Problem is Waqar's career saw a steep decline post injury and the ball tampering claims has led to a few question marks.

 

We cant sidestep that too.

 

But personally, i believe Prime waqar would still have been a force even without ball tampering.

[sensible-indian]

Take Shami.

 

27 average.

 

If he had access to ball tampering, what would be his numbers?

 

A case of what ifs.

 

But with that being said, sometimes you just gotta move forward.

 

Waqar is known for his fiery spells.

 

He isnt in the same level as some of the other top ATG bowlers.

[deathmonger]

waqar is atg but second tier like dravid, chanderpaul etc

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, sensible-indian said:

Waqar wasnt good enough in Aus and likely SA even if he had played there in his prime.

 

He was better in pitches which didnt bounce as much.

 

There is an element of luck and fortune required for every player to shine. Cant disregard waqars performance just cos wasim was at the other end.

 

No one plays in vacuum.

I am not disregarding it, i am tempering it. reason being, in test cricket, fast bowlers never really succeed as a solo bowler without being really tight. Bowlers who bowl a lot of 'hit me' balls - like Waqar, Lee, etc. require a McGrath or a Wasim at the other end to bottle up the runs and keep creating chances for them to succeed and as we saw with Lee, once McGrath retired, he was not capable of leading the attack by himself. This is because when you are loose, the batsmen will hit you for a four and then lose interest in the next 5 balls and your inability to make them play shots will restrict your impact. 

 

Waqar did do well at low bouncing wickets, because Waqar's strategy was atypical. Normally, the stock ball of all great fast bowlers is the 4th stump line on a good length/short of good length- this is the bread and butter line of McGrath,Bumrah,Marshall, Ambrose, Donald, Steyn, etc., where they create indecision from the batter as to play or leave. Waqar on the other hand, preferred full length at the off &middle stump line. he relied on raw pace and late reverse swing to have a ' you miss, i hit' type of bowling plan. 
This also meant that when the batsmen did not miss, he got absolutely butchered and if the pitch was bouncy, his length was negated ( as full length would bounce above wicket and take the lbw out of the equation). 
This is why, rather interestingly, Waqar was quite ineffective on traditional pacer's wickets like Bridgetown, Sabina Park, Brisbane, Perth, Cape Town, Durban etc. 

Waqar's natural length also meant that he was highly ineffective in the 15-60 overs range, where the ball isnt new enough to swing at full lengths or old enough to reverse. 

 

 

This is why i rate Waqar so low - because as a bowler, he did not have the required capacity to be effective without strong pace support at the other end. Same reason why i rate Lee so low as well. 

 

All in all, a very interesting and vexing bowler, because if you delve into his numbers and remember his actual performances, they lead to conflicting conclusions - one of the most effective pace bowlers on pattas who was very Venky Prasad level of effectiveness on bouncing, seaming green tops. 

 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, sensible-indian said:

Take Shami.

 

27 average.

 

If he had access to ball tampering, what would be his numbers?

 

A case of what ifs.

 

But with that being said, sometimes you just gotta move forward.

 

Waqar is known for his fiery spells.

 

He isnt in the same level as some of the other top ATG bowlers.

 

Shami wouldnt benefit much from ball tampering, same as to why Ambrose never even considered it - ball tampering lets you reverse the ball prodigiously,which requires you to have a naturally full legnth and off & mid stump line. Shami is also a 4th stump short of good length bowler as his bread and butter. These type of pacers do not benefit much from a tampered ball. 

 

Imagine if Umesh could bowl killer yorkers. Thats waqar younis. The kind of bowler who will have 15-2-50-5 one match and follow it up with 20-2-85-2 kinda numbers. And like Waqar, Umesh also struggled on traditional pace bowler friendly wickets. 

 

[sensible-indian]

14 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I am not disregarding it, i am tempering it. reason being, in test cricket, fast bowlers never really succeed as a solo bowler without being really tight. Bowlers who bowl a lot of 'hit me' balls - like Waqar, Lee, etc. require a McGrath or a Wasim at the other end to bottle up the runs and keep creating chances for them to succeed and as we saw with Lee, once McGrath retired, he was not capable of leading the attack by himself. This is because when you are loose, the batsmen will hit you for a four and then lose interest in the next 5 balls and your inability to make them play shots will restrict your impact. 

 

Waqar did do well at low bouncing wickets, because Waqar's strategy was atypical. Normally, the stock ball of all great fast bowlers is the 4th stump line on a good length/short of good length- this is the bread and butter line of McGrath,Bumrah,Marshall, Ambrose, Donald, Steyn, etc., where they create indecision from the batter as to play or leave. Waqar on the other hand, preferred full length at the off &middle stump line. he relied on raw pace and late reverse swing to have a ' you miss, i hit' type of bowling plan. 
This also meant that when the batsmen did not miss, he got absolutely butchered and if the pitch was bouncy, his length was negated ( as full length would bounce above wicket and take the lbw out of the equation). 
This is why, rather interestingly, Waqar was quite ineffective on traditional pacer's wickets like Bridgetown, Sabina Park, Brisbane, Perth, Cape Town, Durban etc. 

Waqar's natural length also meant that he was highly ineffective in the 15-60 overs range, where the ball isnt new enough to swing at full lengths or old enough to reverse. 

 

 

This is why i rate Waqar so low - because as a bowler, he did not have the required capacity to be effective without strong pace support at the other end. Same reason why i rate Lee so low as well. 

 

All in all, a very interesting and vexing bowler, because if you delve into his numbers and remember his actual performances, they lead to conflicting conclusions - one of the most effective pace bowlers on pattas who was very Venky Prasad level of effectiveness on bouncing, seaming green tops. 

 

His limitations are why he isnt among the elite list of top of the topline bowlers.

 

Leading an attack is a special skill.

 

Not every bowler has it.

 

I remember a few hears back, some were arguing Broad is as good as Anderson or better.

 

He wasnt.

 

Its one thing to be good...and a totally another thing to be good enough to lead an attack.

 

Anderson can lead attacks.

 

Bumrah can lead attacks.

 

Mcgrath can lead attacks.

 

Wasim can lead attacks.

 

There is a lot of pressure and responsibility on your shoulders when you know your team can sink without you.

 

But with that said ..

 

Broad is still special.

 

Waqar too.

 

And so many others.

 

They wouldn't be spoken in the same breath as leaders of attack but they have their own niche.

 

What makes hadlee so good is not only was he a leader of the attack...but he was probably the only good bowler of his attack.

 

And still he averaged so low.

 

If theres one bowler who always amazes me...its Hadlee.

Edited February 5 by sensible-indian

[sensible-indian]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Shami wouldnt benefit much from ball tampering, same as to why Ambrose never even considered it - ball tampering lets you reverse the ball prodigiously,which requires you to have a naturally full legnth and off & mid stump line. Shami is also a 4th stump short of good length bowler as his bread and butter. These type of pacers do not benefit much from a tampered ball. 

 

Imagine if Umesh could bowl killer yorkers. Thats waqar younis. The kind of bowler who will have 15-2-50-5 one match and follow it up with 20-2-85-2 kinda numbers. And like Waqar, Umesh also struggled on traditional pace bowler friendly wickets. 

 

Shami would totally benefit from ball tampering.

 

Check his debut game in Kolkata i believe.

 

10fer reversing the ball.

 

Stumps uprooted..

 

Lbw and bowled galore.

 

Trust me, Shami with reverse would attack the stumps all day and would be a menace.

 

Check his 10fer.

 

 

[nevada]

7 hours ago, goose said:

going to play spoilsport, aesthetically speaking waqar's toecrushers were beyond compare.

I agree. Peak Waqar was quite a sight - steaming in like a runaway train, he would charge in and bowl Yorkers that batsmen could do nothing about. 

[raki05]

11 hours ago, putrevus said:

When you take 190 wickets at 18, you don't need to do much rest of the career to end up as ATG.A decline after injury is normal.

 

Waqar is ATG , so no way he is overrated.

Waqar was biggest beneficiary of ball tampering, he has just one wkt taking ball fast inswinging yorker , thats the reason he has most wkts against team who has bad and meek batters like eng, nz, bd and sl. Against good batting teams his performance is not good inspite of heavily tampered balls because those batsmen’s were fully aware what kind of ball is incoming.

[SRT100]

5 minutes ago, raki05 said:

Waqar was biggest beneficiary of ball tampering, he has just one wkt taking ball fast inswinging yorker , thats the reason he has most wkts against team who has bad and meek batters like eng, nz, bd and sl. Against good batting teams his performance is not good inspite of heavily tampered balls because those batsmen’s were fully aware what kind of ball is incoming.

 

IIRC it was with those Pepsi metal caps he used to tamper the ball.

[Rightarmfast]

Haven't read comments on 2nd and 3rd page. If people remember, I had spoken on the same subject about 3-4 yrs ago. Here's my take:

 

As great a bowler Wasim was, people need to check how many top tier wickets did he take in his career. One would find that he feasted on lower order batsmen. Even Waqar to a sufficient effect.

Wasim's stats in the initial overs with new ball will not come out impressive. I am going to add one more thing. Wasim at times was like Rahul Dravid. He was a magician with the ball. But during the process of coming up with magic balls that would bamboozle the batsmen but not even touch the bat, he forgot that the primary objective was to take wickets. His test stats are very good, but not great. 

When you compare Wasim and Bumrah pace wise, Bumrah is way quicker than Wasim even on his slower days.

Coming to Waqar, he feasted on the laurels of his initial pace and performances. And many performances against the weaker teams. His stats against the tougher teams is nothing to write home about.

 

As the post by ' @Muloghonto states, you need a good bowling partner to spice up your stats and value. Srinath didnt have that. If Srinath had a bowler or 2, just as good as Srinath himself, we might have had a version of Waqar in 90's itself.

[BacktoCricaddict]

One thing is clear from this thread:  We over-rate our understanding of the word "over-rated."

 

"Over-rated" is not an absolute judgement. When we say someone is "over-rated" we don't mean they are trash. We just mean they are not as good as someone may think they are.

 

"The two Ws are GOATS!! WY is the GOAT of RHFB, WA is the GOAT, full-stop." 

Over-rated.

 

"Waqar was an excellent bowler in his initial days but his skills dropped off precipitously and he was just OK for a good part of his career. Overall, an above-average career.

Not over-rated.

 

"Wasim is one of the best swing bowlers ever, and perhaps the GOAT LHFB."  Overall, a superb career.

Not over-rated.

 

 

Edited February 6 by BacktoCricaddict

[putrevus]

19 hours ago, sensible-indian said:

 

Waqar is an ATG.

 

Bumrah took his name in the press conference. Some players leave a mark on the game and Waqar is one of them.

 

Problem is Waqar's career saw a steep decline post injury and the ball tampering claims has led to a few question marks.

 

We cant sidestep that too.

 

But personally, i believe Prime waqar would still have been a force even without ball tampering.

Waqar post injury lost considerable pace.

 

19 5fers  and 4 10fers in 33 tests is  already among the best.Bumrah has 10 5fers and 0 10fers in same amount of tests. Do we know Bumrah will be great like this for next 30 tests.He already has slowed down a lot.

 

Argument against Waqar  not taking wickets against great teams. What great teams did Bumrah take his wickets.

 

Which great batting unit has Bumrah dismantled again.Is this England team a great batting unit with only Root's avg above 50. Is anyone in this England team avg over 40 other than Root.

 

SA  other than ABDV in his debut series also does not have any batsman over 50 either.In later SA series they were almost playing no names.

 

Aussies series did not have either Steve Smith or Warner when he took his lone 5fer in Australia.

 

There is no need to take the credit away from other great fast bowlers in order to make Bumrah look great.

 

He has taken 150 wickets not 550.

 

Ball tampering is a question but even without Ball tampering . They both would be great.

Edited February 6 by putrevus

[zen]

None of the two Ws are over-rated as they are correctly rated as "greats". Wasim, of course is the sultan of swing, while Waqar at his peak, bowing at pace, was special.

 

Brilliant from Wasim below:

 

 

 

Waqar to Lara,who is widely seen as the test best batsman of his generation:

 

 

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

Welcome back @zen. Hope all is well.

[BacktoCricaddict]

36 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Bumrah has 10 5fers and 0 10fers

From an average and SR standpoint, Bumrah truly stands out, but it would be great if he owned a line-up completely in a match.

 

 

36 minutes ago, putrevus said:

There is no need to take the credit away from other great fast bowlers in order to make Bumrah look great.

Word.