Can Dale Steyn ever match the greatness of Wasim Akram?

[Neferpitou]

It can be admitted that Wasim suffered from dropped catches (compared to some of his contemporaries), but an arbitrary figure cannot be made up. 150 is a huge figure. Literally applied, those extra wickets would take Akram's career bowling average to 17! More realistic figure would be 50 wickets (which are not half chances).

Hardly arbitrary buddy, it's just 1-2 regulation catches per game which even our mediocre bowlers create to this day and Wasim was obviously head and shoulders above them. 150 is an approximate number but I argued that even if they take half of them(75) which is more than a realistic number in 104 games, Wasim would average 20.

I've no doubt Wasim would've averaged 20 if he enjoyed the scoreboard pressure, fielding of the great Aus, Windies and the current SA team and would've went down as the greatest.

 

[CricFan2012]

*** kind of comparison is this? Akram has won a World Cup for his team while steyn hasnt. Even when comparing eras Akram comes out as a better bowler due to his many match winning performances

Steyn has had a bad World Cup recently as well

 

[Chrish]

*** kind of comparison is this? Akram has won a World Cup for his team while steyn hasnt. Even when comparing eras Akram comes out as a better bowler due to his many match winning performances

Steyn has had a bad World Cup recently as well

Due to rule changes favoring slog-fest, ODI performances are no longer relevant when evaluating a player..

 

[Neferpitou]

Due to rule changes favoring slog-fest, ODI performances are no longer relevant when evaluating a player..

Steyn was mediocre in ODIs even before the new rules.

 

[Chrish]

Steyn was mediocre in ODIs even before the new rules.

Wasim is without a doubt better OdI bowler.. However one can't say akram > Steyn based on OdI /WC perfomences alone like what op was implying

 

[WrexEverything]

It can be admitted that Wasim suffered from dropped catches (compared to some of his contemporaries), but an arbitrary figure cannot be made up. 150 is a huge figure. Literally applied, those extra wickets would take Akram's career bowling average to 17! More realistic figure would be 50 wickets (which are not half chances).

Yup, exactly this. 150 is a completely arbitrary figure pulled out of thin air. No one has any reason to believe it.

 

[Neferpitou]

Yup, exactly this. 150 is a completely arbitrary figure pulled out of thin air. No one has any reason to believe it.

Read response above. You just don't want to accept it because all your arguments will be nullified.

 

[Mamoon]

Seems like there is no middle ground here - one side believes with conviction that around 150 catches were dropped of Wasim's bowling, while the other side thinks it is pure fiction.

Hope we can get the actual figures somehow, at least one side will look like utter fools. Too bad we'll never know.

 

[WrexEverything]

Seems like there is no middle ground here - one side believes with conviction that around 150 catches were dropped of Wasim's bowling, while the other side thinks it is pure fiction.

Hope we can get the actual figures somehow, at least one side will look like utter fools. Too bad we'll never know.

Actially, I've said from the beginning that I am in the middle. I have no doubt whatsoever that catches many were dropped off his bowling. But a figure of 150 is just based on no proof and is a wild guess.

Everyone knows Wasim would have had better figures if he had better fielders in his team. There's no need to quantify it by giving imaginary figures. If someone can give me proof of the stat, I will happily accept it and say I was wrong.

 

[IndianWillow]

Hardly arbitrary buddy, it's just 1-2 regulation catches per game which even our mediocre bowlers create to this day and Wasim was obviously head and shoulders above them. 150 is an approximate number but I argued that even if they take half of them(75) which is more than a realistic number in 104 games, Wasim would average 20.

I've no doubt Wasim would've averaged 20 if he enjoyed the scoreboard pressure, fielding of the great Aus, Windies and the current SA team and would've went down as the greatest.

That could be true of the entire team. If 1-2 regulation catches were dropped off Wasim's bowling every match, then how many catches in all were dropped off other Pakistani bowlers - it was a strong bowling team with Waqar, Shoaib, Saqlain et al? I guess that tally is 5 or 6 regulation catches per match?

 

[WrexEverything]

Lol, it's now gone from 150 catches to 150 regulation catches. This goes from absurd to nonsensical.

 

[as-95]

Due to rule changes favoring slog-fest, ODI performances are no longer relevant when evaluating a player..

Steyn has always been a poor ODI bowler

 

[WrexEverything]

Yes in ODIs there is zero argument. Wasim is leagues ahead of Steyn.

 

[rollingstoned]

Steyn hasn't played anywhere near as many ODIs as Wasim though and you have to factor in the T20 slogging era. Even Wasim would have somewhat struggled in this period.

 

[Jo_Don]

Steyn has always been a poor ODI bowler

So was Marshall, but he's consistently rated along the best ever. Proving that test match performances are what counts, especially since you need to take 20 wickets to win a test, whereas you need to chase down a total to win an ODI.

 

[Buffet]

So was Marshall, but he's consistently rated along the best ever. Proving that test match performances are what counts, especially since you need to take 20 wickets to win a test, whereas you need to chase down a total to win an ODI.

Steyn has hardly been poor though. He has been consistently ranked among the top 3-4 bowlers in ODI format.

 

[Jo_Don]

Steyn has hardly been poor though. He has been consistently ranked among the top 3-4 bowlers in ODI format.

Also, Wasim played ODI in an era where rules and conditions didn't heavily favour the batsman. For Steyn to have a similar ODI record to Marshall in the current era, especially combined with his economy rate, is pretty impressive.

 

[tempus123]

Also, Wasim played ODI in an era where rules and conditions didn't heavily favour the batsman. For Steyn to have a similar ODI record to Marshall in the current era, especially combined with his economy rate, is pretty impressive.

Had ODI cricket been better balanced between bat and ball, we would have had a true picture of Steyn's potential.

 

[tempus123]

Steyn has always been a poor ODI bowler

It depends on the team dynamics too sometimes. In today's world it is extremely difficult to be at the best in all three formats, so players choose 1 of the formats and be the best in it while trying to be just good enough in other formats.

In the previous generation, the number of matches were less, and same skill set would have been enough to excel in both the formats (with little variations and adjustments). Today, Test and ODI cricket require much wider spectrum of skills.

 

[Neferpitou]

That could be true of the entire team. If 1-2 regulation catches were dropped off Wasim's bowling every match, then how many catches in all were dropped off other Pakistani bowlers - it was a strong bowling team with Waqar, Shoaib, Saqlain et al? I guess that tally is 5 or 6 regulation catches per match?

Yep that was pretty much the norm. There are around 180 overs in a test and 5-6 regulation catches dropped in a test was nothing out of the ordinary for Pakistan.

 

[Stallion__]

You agree with this?

Ok...see post #719



Steyn trumps McGrath when it comes to average in wins and average in wins and draws.

And McGrath played for the invincible Aussies, had Warne for support too.

When Steyn doesn't perform, SA gets screwed.

Steyn has his issues but when it comes to impact, he is right up there bro.

He is nowhere as good as Wasim in Tests quality wise but he has a better output because when he gets all charged up, he destroys all the lineups and wins games.

Average in wins and draws

1. I am aware of comparing average in wins but I am NOT using it as a main thing. Its supplementary data and not primary data. Plus a bowler controls the test match (but he is also dependent on batsmen).

Steyn trumps McGrath.

5. Then AFTER ALL THIS, even when comparing with a monster (McGrath), Steyn comes out on top

Sorry bro, didn't want to open this pandora box again, but couldn't resist myself

Just found out this stat


Top Leading Wicket Takers in Tests (Sub-25 Average) and Their Averages in Wins

McGrath is remarkably lower in the list despite playing in ATG batting line-up and have Warne to support him.

On top of the tree are Hadlee and Imran, who arguably have worst batting line-ups to support them.

So comparing Steyn with McGrath in averages in wins hardly proves anything.


Not that I wanted to start the discussion again, or want you to explain this,

just wanted to make a point here that averages in wins here shows random pattern, nothing conclusive.


So, so, so sorry again, couldn't stop myself from doing this when I know the discussion have been done and dusted.

You don't even need to reply

 

[WrexEverything]

Average in wins is a silly statistic that tells us nothing. No meaningful conclusions can be drawn. It's one of the most misleading statistic out there.

 

[Bilal7]

I would pick Wasim over Steyn. They are quite close in the test format but Wasim is the GOAT as far as ODIs go.

Bowling on totally dead tracks for the vast majority of your career and still having great stats is something remarkable.

 

[Bilal7]

Average in wins is a silly statistic that tells us nothing. No meaningful conclusions can be drawn. It's one of the most misleading statistic out there.

It tells us how crucial a player was to their team's victories.

 

[Buffet]

^

McGrath has around 65-70% of his total matches in wins so it's simply impossible for him to have very low average in wins.

Just to put it in scale - McGrath has 84 tests in wins.

Hadlee, IK and Steyn(top 3 in this list) have a combined 90 tests in wins.

Simply said - a bowler is not going to average mid teens for 80-90 tests no matter what kind of batsmen he has to support him.

 

[WrexEverything]

Sorry bro, didn't want to open this pandora box again, but couldn't resist myself

Just found out this stat


Top Leading Wicket Takers in Tests (Sub-25 Average) and Their Averages in Wins

McGrath is remarkably lower in the list despite playing in ATG batting line-up and have Warne to support him.

On top of the tree are Hadlee and Imran, who arguably have worst batting line-ups to support them.

So comparing Steyn with McGrath in averages in wins hardly proves anything.


Not that I wanted to start the discussion again, or want you to explain this,

just wanted to make a point here that averages in wins here shows random pattern, nothing conclusive.


So, so, so sorry again, couldn't stop myself from doing this when I know the discussion have been done and dusted.

You don't even need to reply

You do realise why that is don't you? Average in wins is a twisted and meaningless stat.

For guys like Hadlee and Steyn and Murali, they are pretty much the only ATG bowler in their attack. A win is very, very highly dependant on their performance. If they donot perform well, their team loses, thus keeping their "average in wins" relatively low, as many of their below par performances are out of the picture.

But for guys like McGrath who was part of a much better lineup, his below par performances (which were rare anyway) would many times still end up as wins for the team because his attack had other bowlers who could win games on their own. Further, his average of 19.9 in wins is spread over far, far more tests than any of the others on the list. It's just a disingenuous comparison.

 

[WrexEverything]

It tells us how crucial a player was to their team's victories.

That's more a reflection of the quality of the attack, not how good the bowler actually was.

 

[WrexEverything]

^

McGrath has around 65-70% of his total matches in wins so it's simply impossible for him to have very low average in wins.

Just to put it in scale - McGrath has 84 tests in wins.

Hadlee, IK and Steyn(top 3 in this list) have a combined 90 tests in wins.

Simply said - a bowler is not going to average mid teens for 80-90 tests no matter what kind of batsmen he has to support him.

Exactly.

 

[Buffet]

You can average mid teens for 10, 20 or even 40 tests but to do that for 80-90 tests is simply unrealistic. McGrath has an average of 19 in tests wins simply because majority of his tests were in wins.

 

[WrexEverything]

If anything the fact that he averages that low in so many test wins for Australia is a point in his favour. Another way to look at it is that he has been a massive contributor to over 90 test match victories.

 

[Stallion__]

You do realise why that is don't you? Average in wins is a twisted and meaningless stat.

For guys like Hadlee and Steyn and Murali, they are pretty much the only ATG bowler in their attack. A win is very, very highly dependant on their performance. If they donot perform well, their team loses, thus keeping their "average in wins" relatively low, as many of their below par performances are out of the picture.

But for guys like McGrath who was part of a much better lineup, his below par performances (which were rare anyway) would many times still end up as wins for the team because his attack had other bowlers who could win games on their own. Further, his average of 19.9 in wins is spread over far, far more tests than any of the others on the list. It's just a disingenuous comparison.

I don't think I have ever used that stat to prove my point.

During the discussion with SIF, I said that unless batting strengths are similar, you can't compare averages in wins. Then he compared Steyn in McGrath considering my logic. But by the looks of the table, I got that wrong. Averages in wins are not directly proportional to batting strengths of the team.

Its actually a totally random trend.

 

[WrexEverything]

I don't think I have ever used that stat to prove my point.

During the discussion with SIF, I said that unless batting strengths are similar, you can't compare averages in wins. Then he compared Steyn in McGrath considering my logic. But by the looks of the table, I got that wrong. Averages in wins are not directly proportional to batting strengths of the team.

Its actually a totally random trend.

Yup, I agree. The stat is meaningless and is dependant on far more factors than just the quality of that bowler, and even the batting lineup. I've tried figuring out some conclusions for "average in wins", "centuries in wins", "5-fers in wins" and similar stats. It always end sup giving random results and is pretty useless.

 

[Stallion__]

You can average mid teens for 10, 20 or even 40 tests but to do that for 80-90 tests is simply unrealistic. McGrath has an average of 19 in tests wins simply because majority of his tests were in wins.

For guys like Hadlee and Steyn and Murali, they are pretty much the only ATG bowler in their attack. A win is very, very highly dependant on their performance. If they donot perform well, their team loses, thus keeping their "average in wins" relatively low, as many of their below par performances are out of the picture.

But for guys like McGrath who was part of a much better lineup, his below par performances (which were rare anyway) would many times still end up as wins for the team because his attack had other bowlers who could win games on their own. Further, his average of 19.9 in wins is spread over far, far more tests than any of the others on the list. It's just a disingenuous comparison.

Both of these are pretty decent explanations of the trend.

But yeah, overall, I agree simply averages in victories (both for batsman and bowler), don't show something like match-winning ability of a particular player.

Its quite a complex stat depends on whole lot of factors.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Sorry bro, didn't want to open this pandora box again, but couldn't resist myself

Just found out this stat


Top Leading Wicket Takers in Tests (Sub-25 Average) and Their Averages in Wins

McGrath is remarkably lower in the list despite playing in ATG batting line-up and have Warne to support him.

On top of the tree are Hadlee and Imran, who arguably have worst batting line-ups to support them.

So comparing Steyn with McGrath in averages in wins hardly proves anything.


Not that I wanted to start the discussion again, or want you to explain this,

just wanted to make a point here that averages in wins here shows random pattern, nothing conclusive.


So, so, so sorry again, couldn't stop myself from doing this when I know the discussion have been done and dusted.

You don't even need to reply

Buddy...I am not using averages in win to prove anything bro. Its a misleading stat anyway.

When you play for good teams, your averages in wins won't be as good (Ponting averages 59 or so in wins) cos others wll perform and win games even when you don't. But that doesn't mean you aren't an impact player (Ponting being the biggest impact batsman post 2000 - not that you said anything about impact).

I wrote these 2 posts which were made in certain contexts:

you made a point that its valid to compare bowlers with similar quality of batting.

I did.

Steyn trumps McGrath.

Here I won't take Akram's stats cos he was in a weak batting team and its hard to deduce anything from it.

Bowlers control a lot of test match results but they are dependent on their batsmen too. Can't deny that.

So let's compare Steyn with McGrath on matches lost (since both teams had good batting lineups over the years):

Steyn averages 34 when SA loses.
McGrath averages 23 when Australia loses.

Both sides have quality batting but look at how one team is dependent on Steyn and how he delivers over the years.

Steyn averages 16 when SA wins.
McGrath averages 19 when Australia wins.

Steyn averages 20 when SA wins or draws.
McGrath averages 21 when Australia wins or draws.

 

[Stallion__]

Buddy...I am not using averages in win to prove anything bro. Its a misleading stat anyway.

When you play for good teams, your averages in wins won't be as good (Ponting averages 59 or so in wins) cos others wll perform and win games even when you don't. But that doesn't mean you aren't an impact player (Ponting being the biggest impact batsman post 2000 - not that you said anything about impact).

I wrote these 2 posts which were made in certain contexts:

I later mentioned this as well

During the discussion with SIF, I said that unless batting strengths are similar, you can't compare averages in wins. Then he compared Steyn in McGrath considering my logic. But by the looks of the table, I got that wrong. Averages in wins are not directly proportional to batting strengths of the team.

But you can safely cut the 5th point of your list now

1. Averages in countries
2. Averages in wins/draws
3. Stable rankings at the top for majority of his career
4. Winning matches and series for SA and stats are there which confirm
5. Then AFTER ALL THIS, even when comparing with a monster (McGrath), Steyn comes out on top
.

All clear now I guess.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I later mentioned this as well



But you can safely cut the 5th point of your list now





All clear now I guess.

Fair enough.

Done.

 

[Enforcer]

Fair enough.

Done.

So after such a prolong discussion and trillions of 'stats - war' what you and [MENTION=59284]stallion[/MENTION] have concluded. Who is better? or You both are still in disagreement

 

[Stallion__]

Fair enough.

Done.

Sorry again mate.

The discussion was over so I shouldn't have done that. But the urge of mentioning that stat got better of me.

Hope you won't mind.

 

[Stallion__]

So after such a prolong discussion and trillions of 'stats - war' what you and [MENTION=59284]stallion[/MENTION] have concluded. Who is better? or You both are still in disagreement

Haha. We both still stick to our own views.

A lot many facts been put forward by both sides, so its upto others to go through them and make a judgement according to their own consciousness

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Sorry again mate.

The discussion was over so I shouldn't have done that. But the urge of mentioning that stat got better of me.

Hope you won't mind.

I don't mind at all bro.

 

[theariezman]

I think we should not consider the players of an to a different era...both are playing in different condition and different circumstances and both could be good in their own eras.

People whoever is saying wasim played in bowler friendly pitches they need to consider he do not have big totals to defend as well while in the batting friendly pitches styne has big totals to defend.

For that matter I will always pick wasim but styne is not bad either.

Sent from my SM-G900FD using Tapatalk

 

[Stallion__]

An alternative look


Man of the Series Awards

Wasim

7 awards in 43 series i-e 6.14 series/award


Steyn

4 awards in 33 series i-e 8.25 series/award



Man of the Match Awards

For Steyn, its 9 awards in 79 matches i-e 8.67 matches/award

 

[IndianWillow]

An alternative look


Man of the Series Awards

Wasim

7 awards in 43 series i-e 6.14 series/award


Steyn

4 awards in 33 series i-e 8.25 series/award



Man of the Match Awards

For Steyn, its 9 awards in 79 matches i-e 8.67 matches/award

MOMs aren't a reliable method of comparing players across different eras and teams. They are reliable for comparing two players who played for the same team during the same period.

 

[Stallion__]

MOMs aren't a reliable method of comparing players across different eras and teams. They are reliable for comparing two players who played for the same team during the same period.

Why not btw??

I can think of certain reasons but I want you to explain yours first.

 

[Ali1984]

No comparison. Kahan raja boch kahan gangu tehli. Wasim is miles ahead off what he could do with the ball compared to steyn. On dead subcontinent pitches new ball or old.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stallion__]

MOMs aren't a reliable method of comparing players across different eras and teams. They are reliable for comparing two players who played for the same team during the same period.

Actually the reason I can think off, that would put Steyn under disadvantage is not era dependent.

Its about Wasim's batting skills.

Wasim must have earned few of those MoMs on his batting performances like his 257 etc.

 

[WrexEverything]

An alternative look


Man of the Series Awards

Wasim

7 awards in 43 series i-e 6.14 series/award


Steyn

4 awards in 33 series i-e 8.25 series/award



Man of the Match Awards

For Steyn, its 9 awards in 79 matches i-e 8.67 matches/award

Doesn't really tell us much though. It's an impressive statistic for sure, but doesn't seem as great when you consider of those MotM awards were against Zim, and 3 others against the one of the worst NZ batting lineups in their history. The team consisted of guys like Andrew Jones and Greatbatch (who were the only two good batsmen in the team), Rutherford, Shane Thomson,Bryan Young, Pocock, etc.

I'm being harsh on him, sure, and many players do have man of match performances against weak teams, and is nothing unique to Wasim, but the stat isn't as impressive as it seems on the surface.

 

[WrexEverything]

Actually the reason I can think off, that would put Steyn under disadvantage is not era dependent.

Its about Wasim's batting skills.

Wasim must have earned few of those MoMs on his batting performances like his 257 etc.

That's true. He got a few important runs in 92 series vs England too. A good case for Wasim > Steyn on basis of all round skills.

 

[Stallion__]

That's true. He got a few important runs in 92 series vs England too. A good case for Wasim > Steyn on basis of all round skills.

Come on mate. Its an easy choice considering both as an all-round player. You can be a bit more explicit in saying that

All this thread, the discussions are about Wasim the bowler vs Steyn the bowler.

Just like in ODIs, Dhoni and Gilly are far better overall players than many others because of their keeping ability.

 

[WrexEverything]

Come on mate. Its an easy choice considering both as an all-round player. You can be a bit more explicit in saying that

All this thread, the discussions are about Wasim the bowler vs Steyn the bowler.

Just like in ODIs, Dhoni and Gilly are far better overall players than many others because of their keeping ability.

Yeah of course I agree, considering his batting, Wasim is easily a better overall cricketer.

He could've been far better with the bat than he turned out to be though...had so much more talent than a 22 average. Lacked Imran's dedication towards batting.

 

[Stallion__]

Doesn't really tell us much though. It's an impressive statistic for sure, but doesn't seem as great when you consider of those MotM awards were against Zim, and 3 others against the one of the worst NZ batting lineups in their history. The team consisted of guys like Andrew Jones and Greatbatch (who were the only two good batsmen in the team), Rutherford, Shane Thomson,Bryan Young, Pocock, etc.

I'm being harsh on him, sure, and many players do have man of match performances against weak teams, and is nothing unique to Wasim, but the stat isn't as impressive as it seems on the surface.

Its tough to analyze from that angle.

For instance, he has 2 MoM against Zim while 4 against NZ.

Against NZ, one of them was when they had in form Crowe, Wright and Hadlee in the team so that too in NZ, so that wasn't a weak team by any means.

And once, Pakistan were defending only 127, so any effort defending that much smaller total can't be ignored. For the rest of the two, yeah we can let them go.

And don't forget Zim of 90s wasn't the same as it is of now. They beat Pakistan a Test series in Pakistan and on other occasion, they beat Pakistan by an innings.


By the same token, in Steyn's case three of his MoMs are against NZ as well, which weren't much strong team his his period either having top 3 batsman as Michael Papps, Lou Vincent and Craig Cummings. And unlike Wasim, they are all in his home country.

And that Jo'berg match against Pakistan, having Hafeez and Jamshed as an openers, and most of the others playing outside Asia for the first time having no idea where there off-stump is.


Mom awards is an award after all mate, where you are not only competing with opposition but your own team mates, which in Wasim case have been ATGs on some occasions (like Waqar, Imran).


Anyways, this MoM stat is not a tie breaker or something between them, its just one way of looking at the things.

But one thing is for sure for a player having highest frequency of MoM awards. Wasim was by no means a lesser match-winner.

 

[in_cutter]

Can't compare. Wasim was a artist, Dale is destructive...in the mould of Waqar.

 

[eradicator]

Steyn easily , especially in Tests . Look at the gap between him and his peers in the current era of flat tracks and depleting bowling conditions.

Wasim's era was bowling friendly .

 

[Enforcer]

This is a never ending thread.

 

[as-95]

Some of the Indians in this thread are relentless... Just give it up already. Wasim is by far the superior ODI bowler. No comparison at all. In Tests, its closer but down to personal preference although Steyn has been worse than Wasim against the respectively most dominant sides of their era's. My preference is Wasim in Test's also but its down to preference. Let's just leave it at that guys!

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Some of the Indians in this thread are relentless... Just give it up already. Wasim is by far the superior ODI bowler. No comparison at all. In Tests, its closer but down to personal preference although Steyn has been worse than Wasim against the respectively most dominant sides of their era's. My preference is Wasim in Test's also but its down to preference. Let's just leave it at that guys!

Yeah agree.

ODIs, there is no comparison. Tests, we can debate.

 

[WrexEverything]

Some of the Indians in this thread are relentless... Just give it up already. Wasim is by far the superior ODI bowler. No comparison at all. In Tests, its closer but down to personal preference although Steyn has been worse than Wasim against the respectively most dominant sides of their era's. My preference is Wasim in Test's also but its down to preference. Let's just leave it at that guys!

No one is even arguing Steyn is as good or even close to Wasim in ODIs.

Debate in tests is very pertinent, as the two are at basically the same level of greatness.

 

[Ali1984]

Why would you debate it Anyway how the hell can you lot even try to compare dale steyn to Wasim, wasim
Was a magician who could do things with the ball that steyn couldn't even dream of, Wasim bowled to a lot better batting teams and there was more draws then compared to more results now so stop this stupid debate like I said before kaha raja boch kaha gangu tehli


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WrexEverything]

Why would you debate it Anyway how the hell can you lot even try to compare dale steyn to Wasim, wasim
Was a magician who could do things with the ball that steyn couldn't even dream of, Wasim bowled to a lot better batting teams and there was more draws then compared to more results now so stop this stupid debate like I said before kaha raja boch kaha gangu tehli


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nonsense. Rubbish like this is why the debate needs to continue. I see no one disrespecting Wasim like this.

 

[Ali1984]

Because you cannot disrespect an old time great who has top pundits critics and ex legends like Lara kallis etc who say he's the best bowler they have faced. A man who could bowl 6 different balls in over get double swing of one ball and reverse swing on flattest of pitches vs a man who is known to swing with new ball mainly and have good pace that's what he really got
Going for him compare him to McGrath not Wasim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheNightWatchman]

He already has...

 

[Hawkeye]

Steyn easily , especially in Tests . Look at the gap between him and his peers in the current era of flat tracks and depleting bowling conditions.

Wasim's era was bowling friendly .

Huh? So that's your logic?

That era had many great batsmen too - Gilchrist, Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Bevan, Waugh bros - list goes on. Tougher opponents. Flat pitches were still there, we're not talking about 1920.

Also, Tendu had SO many of his peers close to him/better than him, why do you still consider him as the greatest then?

 

[Ali1984]

How many results did we get in the 80s and 90s? Compared to the last 15 years I'd say there's a lot more tests results now then before. Go do some stats checks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hawkeye]

Some of the Indians in this thread are relentless... Just give it up already. Wasim is by far the superior ODI bowler. No comparison at all. In Tests, its closer but down to personal preference although Steyn has been worse than Wasim against the respectively most dominant sides of their era's. My preference is Wasim in Test's also but its down to preference. Let's just leave it at that guys!

Correct and balanced post. Some bitterness indeed brewed here.

Thread title: "Can Steyn ever match the greatness of Wasim"?

How can he when he's a far inferior ODI bowler?

The gap in Tests is simply too close, if any - people would choose based on personal choice. Similar to Lara/Tendulkar/Ponting, all three are too close.

Overall package: Wasim by far and Steyn can't match him.

 

[Chrish]

i find it laughable prople bring OdI stats into discussion like this.. Imran was also poor OdI bowler in a much more bowler friendly era. It's easier to bring stats that suit your argument while conveniently neglecting them otherwise.. On topic, Steyn has already suppressed Wasim imo. He is easily in top 5 Atg list at least for me..

 

[Hawkeye]

How many results did we get in the 80s and 90s? Compared to the last 15 years I'd say there's a lot more tests results now then before. Go do some stats checks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, that's an objective point of view to look at things. If anything, pitches now are producing more results in Test matches, though the difference isn't much AFAIR.

The neighbors who claim that era was vastly in favor of batsmen and had green mambas everywhere wouldn't counter this argument.

Plus the gap in peers, Steyn doesn't have a great Test bowler to match him is not Wasim's fault. If anything, quality of opposition was much greater in Wasim's era, had many batsmen of Tendulkar's caliber.

 

[Ali1984]

What you have to look at
Is the eras they played in the quality of teams and the results tests had way more draws then today and to play most of your tests on subcontinent in which two decades 80s,90s played out so many draws Not to Mention the greats he bowled too in 80s and 90s. I can't see a comparison one was a magician and one is just a good fast bowler with a good in and outswinger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ali1984]

Yep, that's an objective point of view to look at things. If anything, pitches now are producing more results in Test matches, though the difference isn't much AFAIR.

The neighbors who claim that era was vastly in favor of batsmen and had green mambas everywhere wouldn't counter this argument.

Plus the gap in peers, Steyn doesn't have a great Test bowler to match him is not Wasim's fault. If anything, quality of opposition was much greater in Wasim's era, had many batsmen of Tendulkar's caliber.

Precisely finally someone who understands logic and facts!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IndianWillow]

How many results did we get in the 80s and 90s? Compared to the last 15 years I'd say there's a lot more tests results now then before. Go do some stats checks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What has this to do with "Akram vs Steyn?". Whether a match produces results or not has nothing to do with how well an individual bowler can perform. Matches are producing results because teams are scoring faster these days - this is giving modern bowlers a nightmare because one bad session can cause your match stats to go from terrific to pathetic. It is difficult to be a test match bowler nowadays, because batsmen are not looking to accumulate runs. More and more batsmen are now playing test matches like ODIs were played in the 90s. The room for error is very low for the modern bowler.

 

[Ali1984]

What has this to do with "Akram vs Steyn?". Whether a match produces results or not has nothing to do with how well an individual bowler can perform. Matches are producing results because teams are scoring faster these days - this is giving modern bowlers a nightmare because one bad session can cause your match stats to go from terrific to pathetic. It is difficult to be a test match bowler nowadays, because batsmen are not looking to accumulate runs. More and more batsmen are now playing test matches like ODIs were played in the 90s. The room for error is very low for the modern bowler.

I tell you what it has to do with it! If you read most of the comments your fellow compatriots arguing that pitches are much flatter and steyn is achieving a lot more then what Wasim was friendlier pitches in wasims era where as the results beg to differ!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ali1984]

I tell you what it has to do with it! If you read most of the comments your fellow compatriots arguing that pitches are much flatter and steyn is achieving a lot more then what Wasim was friendlier pitches in wasims era where as the results beg to differ!

Also batsmen playing a lot quicker is the cause of more results doesn't that mean more risks taken? And more chances given to bowlers like steyn?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chrish]

Correct and balanced post. Some bitterness indeed brewed here.

Thread title: "Can Steyn ever match the greatness of Wasim"?

How can he when he's a far inferior ODI bowler?

The gap in Tests is simply too close, if any - people would choose based on personal choice. Similar to Lara/Tendulkar/Ponting, all three are too close.

Overall package: Wasim by far and Steyn can't match him.

Imran was even more inferior OdI bowler in a bowling friendly era.. What do you have to say about that?

 

[Buffet]

pitches are much flatter and steyn is achieving a lot more then what Wasim was friendlier pitches in wasims era where as the results beg to differ!

In the last 10-12 years, Tests getting more results have absolutely nothing to do with nature of pitches being better for bowlers. Go and check average runs scored by batting units and compare it with earlier periods.

Batsmen are scoring more runs and bowlers are likely to give more runs per wicket. One thing is working for getting results is the pace of batting. Batsmen are scoring more runs and also quicker. That leaves enough time to force a result. Earlier batsmen used to look to bat time and that's hardly the case with most batting units now. 400 runs in 4 session is more likely to produce results when compared to 400 runs in 5 sessions.

 

[Bilal7]

Steyn easily , especially in Tests . Look at the gap between him and his peers in the current era of flat tracks and depleting bowling conditions.

Wasim's era was bowling friendly .

This would be true if Wasim was an Australian, English or South African bowler. He wasn't. Wasim had to bowl on the flattest of tracks for the majority of his test matches where this argument of "bowling friendly conditions" is completely nullified.

Steyn plays his home matches in a country that is very supportive towards pace bowlers.

 

[theariezman]

Well we do need to consider wasim played 356 ODI matches along with 104 Test matches.

What if he would reduce his ODI matches and extend his Test Career, Dale would never able to touch his record.

Sent from my SM-G900FD using Tapatalk

 

[Chrish]

The issue I have with wasims record is too many of his wickets consisted of lower order batsmen.. He had a lethal yorker and was particularly effective at dislodging tailenders.. Steyn on the other is much more effective against top order batsmen just like Marshall, McGrath, Lillie etc and that puts him comfortably ahead of Wasim.. And the whole argument of Wasim playing in sc makes little sense since he hasn't actually performed well on so call "bowler friendly" wickets whenever he toured away. Moreover, Steyn has done well in sc against some really strong batting units. So I can't buy this theory at all..

 

[IndianWillow]

The issue I have with wasims record is too many of his wickets consisted of lower order batsmen.. He had a lethal yorker and was particularly effective at dislodging tailenders.. Steyn on the other is much more effective against top order batsmen just like Marshall, McGrath, Lillie etc and that puts him comfortably ahead of Wasim.. And the whole argument of Wasim playing in sc makes little sense since he hasn't actually performed well on so call "bowler friendly" wickets whenever he toured away. Moreover, Steyn has done well in sc against some really strong batting units. So I can't buy this theory at all..

Indeed, Wasim has a higher share of lower order wickets, compared to other leading bowlers.

Percentage of lower order wickets (#8-#11 batsmen)
Akram = 35% (145/414 wickets)
McGrath = 27% (150/563)
Lillee = 27% (97/355)
Steyn = 32% (129/399)
Marshall = 26% (99/376)
Waqar = 29% (109/373)

 

[Sunzi]

Steyn may surpass Wasim statistically but Wasim stands alone in artistry - there isn't/hasn't been another bowler with Wasim's ability/skill to make the ball talk at the speed he bowled at.

Steyn is comfortably the best quick of the last decade or so though.

 

[Haroon786]

Imran was even more inferior OdI bowler in a bowling friendly era.. What do you have to say about that?

IIRC he has an ODI bowling average of 26, yep I can see how that's inferior to 27.

 

[Haroon786]

Indeed, Wasim has a higher share of lower order wickets, compared to other leading bowlers.

Percentage of lower order wickets (#8-#11 batsmen)
Akram = 35% (145/414 wickets)
McGrath = 27% (150/563)
Lillee = 27% (97/355)
Steyn = 32% (129/399)
Marshall = 26% (99/376)
Waqar = 29% (109/373)

Wasim had to share wickets with bowlers such as Imran, Waqar, Mushtaq, Saqlain and Shoaib - playing alongside these greats would restrict any bowler's haul of top order wickets.

Steyn on the other hand, has only really had Philander for the last 3-4 years to contend with.