Can Dale Steyn ever match the greatness of Wasim Akram?

[Stallion__]

Wasim was a trusted bowler for a captain in terms of cleaning up the tail. Secondly he has to share top order wickets with other bowling greats like Waqar, Saqlain, Imran and Qadir. While for lower order, captain would call his or Waqar exclusively to do the job.

Secondly Wasim is not the only bowler to have higher lower order wicket percentage.

Garner has 34% of his total wickets as lower order while that of Warne is 37%! Both were go to bowlers for cleaning up the tail as well.

So it tends to happen when your are bowling with another bowling great in the team.


Secondly, between Steyn and Akram, the difference is only 3% so this isn't something that separates them.

Major chunk of wickets for both bowlers is still comprises of top order.

 

[Chrish]

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

26 in that era is not really a good average.. And that's the whole point I'm making. Test cricket is the only criteria a player can be judged on especially with all the new rule changes in OdI. I find it funny certain posters keep bringing OdI stats to belittle Steyn. I m just pointing out if we go by OdI stats, Imran wouldn't be considered Atg either. He is considered a great bowler entirely based on the virtue of his test perfomences

 

[Chrish]

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.

Wasim and warne were the bowlers I enjoyed watching the most.. But at the end of the day, I rate neither as the top 5 bowlers of past 4 decades.. My personal feelings are irrelevant. Steyn has the most phenomenal strike rate in this era and his average would have been even lower had played a decade earlier Imo. Even if he retires right now, he is easily ahead of Wasim at least for me..

 

[Haroon786]

26 in that era is not really a good average.. And that's the whole point I'm making. Test cricket is the only criteria a player can be judged on especially with all the new rule changes in OdI. I find it funny certain posters keep bringing OdI stats to belittle Steyn. I m just pointing out if we go by OdI stats, Imran wouldn't be considered Atg either. He is considered a great bowler entirely based on the virtue of his test perfomences

Why isn't a good average ? It's not like SC conditions have changed much in terms of pitches, particularly those in Pakistan and UAE where he played a significant portion of his ODI matches - they're either slow, low ones that aid spinners or flat decks that render fast bowling innocuous, in either case hardly productive for IK and yet he still managed a very good just shy of excellent average.

I agree that posters shouldn't use ODI stats to deride Steyn and that's wrong.

I don't agree that we shouldn't use ODIs to judge greatness because they are still important but at a lower pedestal to Tests.

 

[Chrish]

Why isn't a good average ? It's not like SC conditions have changed much in terms of pitches, particularly those in Pakistan and UAE where he played a significant portion of his ODI matches - they're either slow, low ones that aid spinners or flat decks that render fast bowling innocuous, in either case hardly productive for IK and yet he still managed a very good just shy of excellent average.

I agree that posters shouldn't use ODI stats to deride Steyn and that's wrong.

I don't agree that we shouldn't use ODIs to judge greatness because they are still important but at a lower pedestal to Tests.

The ODI rules that heavily favor batsmen over bowlers is the main reason why comparison in that format is meaningless at this point. Yesterday's 26 is much higher today which doesn't help the case of Imran at all.. The same way, Wasim would not have achieved similar stats had playing today in an era that is least bowler friendly since 1930/40s.

 

[Haroon786]

The ODI rules that heavily favor batsmen over bowlers is the main reason why comparison in that format is meaningless at this point. Yesterday's 26 is much higher today which doesn't help the case of Imran at all.. The same way, Wasim would not have achieved similar stats had playing today in an era that is least bowler friendly since 1930/40s.

No one's going to win an argument by pointing to hypothetical scenarios, all we have are the actual career stats of the bowlers and while it is reasonable to probably add 1-2 points onto the average of bowlers of yesteryear, anymore is a disrespect to their skill and effort and IMO if a great can do well exceeding in his era, then why not in other eras ?

 

[hussain123]

The ODI rules that heavily favor batsmen over bowlers is the main reason why comparison in that format is meaningless at this point. Yesterday's 26 is much higher today which doesn't help the case of Imran at all.. The same way, Wasim would not have achieved similar stats had playing today in an era that is least bowler friendly since 1930/40s.

Well one could also argue that batsman of today's era have huge techincal loopholes who would have ben cannon fodder for someone like wasim.even you look at the recent world cup, steyn was probably the weakest link in south african bowling lineup.one can expect a bowler of his repute to atleast defend 14 runs in an over.their are bowlers like mitcheell strac, tahir, etc who are averaging in early 20s and hardly any one are anywhere close to steyn in calibre.stuff about odi rules is a plain excuse.you would expect a bowler like him to average on par with his peers as far odis are concerned.

 

[Chrish]

No one's going to win an argument by pointing to hypothetical scenarios, all we have are the actual career stats of the bowlers and while it is reasonable to probably add 1-2 points onto the average of bowlers of yesteryear, anymore is a disrespect to their skill and effort and IMO if a great can do well exceeding in his era, then why not in other eras ?[/QUOTE]

The thing about this Haroon is, test is the only gold standard where players can be truly compared because:

a) it has remained relatively untouched.. The review system is the only major change I can think of but that can work both ways in either bowler or batsman's favor. So, we can disregard that factor.

b) Bowlers can bowl unlimited overs with far more liberty of bowling bouncers/ short bowls and bowling wider bowls that would otherwise be considered as wide in short-term format. To me this is the ultimate test of both bowler and batsman's skills. I am sorry but ODI format just doesn't offer the same reasonable platform for bowlers with so many restrictions.

Can't speak for others, but I only use test performances when evaluating a player. I can never consider ODI/ T20 performances..

 

[Chrish]

double post deleted

 

[Haroon786]

No one's going to win an argument by pointing to hypothetical scenarios, all we have are the actual career stats of the bowlers and while it is reasonable to probably add 1-2 points onto the average of bowlers of yesteryear, anymore is a disrespect to their skill and effort and IMO if a great can do well exceeding in his era, then why not in other eras ?[/QUOTE]

The thing about this Haroon is, test is the only gold standard where players can be truly compared because:

a) it has remained relatively untouched.. The review system is the only major change I can think of but that can work both ways in either bowler or batsman's favor. So, we can disregard that factor.

b) Bowlers can bowl unlimited overs with far more liberty of bowling bouncers/ short bowls and bowling wider bowls that would otherwise be considered as wide in short-term format. To me this is the ultimate test of both bowler and batsman's skills. I am sorry but ODI format just doesn't offer the same reasonable platform for bowlers with so many restrictions.

Can't speak for others, but I only use test performances when evaluating a player. I can never consider ODI/ T20 performances..

I also place Tests as the premier version of the game, but while it's important to gauge bowlers on their contributions in Tests firstly, performances in ODIs deserve recognition since they show versatility and variety in a player to name but two traits that perhaps not as necessary in ODIs.

 

[Chrish]

Well one could also argue that batsman of today's era have huge techincal loopholes who would have ben cannon fodder for someone like wasim.even you look at the recent world cup, steyn was probably the weakest link in south african bowling lineup.one can expect a bowler of his repute to atleast defend 14 runs in an over.their are bowlers like mitcheell strac, tahir, etc who are averaging in early 20s and hardly any one are anywhere close to steyn in calibre.stuff about odi rules is a plain excuse.you would expect a bowler like him to average on par with his peers as far odis are concerned.

Starc and Tahir are less than mediocre in Test.. Besides, I would like for them to maintain their performance in ODI for few more years before I can accurately rate them. The no. of matches they have played is too low.

 

[hussain123]

Starc and Tahir are less than mediocre in Test.. Besides, I would like for them to maintain their performance in ODI for few more years before I can accurately rate them. The no. of matches they have played is too low.

I agree that starc and tahir are lesser bowlers which makes the record of steyn even more undefensible.both these bwlers proved to be the trump card for their respective teams in world cup while as steyn fizzled and lost sa the world cup.

 

[Chrish]

I agree that starc and tahir are lesser bowlers which makes the record of steyn even more undefensible.both these bwlers proved to be the trump card for their respective teams in world cup while as steyn fizzled and lost sa the world cup.

Wouldn't call them bad bowlers.. They are like runners who can compete in 100 m race but would fail in marathon race

 

[hussain123]

Wouldn't call them bad bowlers.. They are like runners who can compete in 100 m race but would fail in marathon race

But that doesnt diminish the significance of 100 mts race or its popularity.does it?

 

[Chrish]

But that doesnt diminish the significance of 100 mts race or its popularity.does it?

Nope.. As mentioned earlier, starc and Tahir will have to maintain their success for few more years before we can compare them with other players. You can't base your opinion on 40 odd Odis and then call them great or lesser OdI bowlers. Anyways, I have already cited my reasons for rating Steyn higher than Wasim. Test format remains ultimate contest for me. I just don't value OdI or t20 as much.

 

[WrexEverything]

Well one could also argue that batsman of today's era have huge techincal loopholes who would have ben cannon fodder for someone like wasim.even you look at the recent world cup, steyn was probably the weakest link in south african bowling lineup.one can expect a bowler of his repute to atleast defend 14 runs in an over.their are bowlers like mitcheell strac, tahir, etc who are averaging in early 20s and hardly any one are anywhere close to steyn in calibre.stuff about odi rules is a plain excuse.you would expect a bowler like him to average on par with his peers as far odis are concerned.

Right because the 90s had such great batting lineups like England which had Mark Ramprakash, John Crawley, Graeme Hick, and India who had MSK Prasad, SS Das, or NZ who had Ken Rutherford and Shane Thomson. This idea that the current generation is worse than the previous in every way needs to stop. The 90s had lots of weak batsmen as well. Nothing different to anything we see today. In fact in 2000s and 2010s, Aus, Pak, India, SL, NZ, Eng have all had the best batting lineups in their history.

 

[Atif]

People will continue to talk about Wasim and not Steyn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WrexEverything]

People will continue to talk about Wasim and not Steyn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyon'e talking about Steyn.

Anyway, another reason why Steyn is awesome:

Video of him playing football in the rain with random kids: https://instagram.com/p/5hKOtWQk_j/

He's just the coolest cricketer in the world. Atleast that everyone can agree on.

 

[hussain123]

Nope.. As mentioned earlier, starc and Tahir will have to maintain their success for few more years before we can compare them with other players. You can't base your opinion on 40 odd Odis and then call them great or lesser OdI bowlers. Anyways, I have already cited my reasons for rating Steyn higher than Wasim. Test format remains ultimate contest for me. I just don't value OdI or t20 as much.

Well starc has won a world cup for his country in his first stint which steyn couldnt do in his 3 consecutive world cups stints.how much did steyn average after playing that much of odis.also steyn himself has played100 odd one dayers so not much of a difference.he is also extremely poor in t20s where he gets flogged by unknown ranji players which cast doubts on his versatality and adaptibility.you may be not value these formats but that doesnt reduce their utility.

 

[hussain123]

Right because the 90s had such great batting lineups like England which had Mark Ramprakash, John Crawley, Graeme Hick, and India who had MSK Prasad, SS Das, or NZ who had Ken Rutherford and Shane Thomson. This idea that the current generation is worse than the previous in every way needs to stop. The 90s had lots of weak batsmen as well. Nothing different to anything we see today. In fact in 2000s and 2010s, Aus, Pak, India, SL, NZ, Eng have all had the best batting lineups in their history.

This is an era where even the likes of hafeez and shrhzad average in 50s or late 40s.these two wont have made the 2nd string pakistan side of 90s which is more reflective of the bowling standards of today.when these hacks face few geuine fast bowlers like steyn, boult or johnson they go hiding.i would say todays era of cricket is infested with mediocre batsmen andmedopiocre bowlers with some geniune world class cricketers who feast on this mediocrity.

 

[Buffet]

Well starc has won a world cup for his country in his first stint which steyn couldnt do in his 3 consecutive world cups stints.how much did steyn average after playing that much of odis.

Steyn has been among the top 3-4 bowlers in ODI cricket for last few years. Only time India lost a match in 2011 WC was against SA and it was all thanks to Steyn great bowling. In this WC, many forget that a simple catch was dropped in his final over otherwise story would have been different. He didn't bowl well but catch drop was crucial for final outcome.

Now despite all this, if we start calling him not a good ODI bowler then Waqar should never be considered a good ODI bowler. He went for plenty in crucial WC game against your biggest rival. Not just one over but two overs and made the target far above than it should have been.

Steyn is a very good ODI bowler and light years ahead of his peers in the Test format. Steyn doesn't have the same dominance in ODI but still a very good ODI bowler.

 

[WrexEverything]

This is an era where even the likes of hafeez and shrhzad average in 50s or late 40s.these two wont have made the 2nd string pakistan side of 90s which is more reflective of the bowling standards of today.when these hacks face few geuine fast bowlers like steyn, boult or johnson they go hiding.i would say todays era of cricket is infested with mediocre batsmen andmedopiocre bowlers with some geniune world class cricketers who feast on this mediocrity.

You just described every single era of cricket. Mediocre cricketers are always going to be far more in number than the great ones. Always.

 

[Ali1984]

Say what you like the debate is dumb comparing steyn to wasim is plain stupid one regarded as the best ever left arm bowler and easily in the top 5 bowlers of all time universally. Steyn is good and a legend in his own right but I'm afraid he is no wasim, not fit enough to shine his shoes. It's insult to be comparing. Waqar is superior to steyn in my opinion but that would be a good debate. There's always going to be bias in a debate no doubt that's Human instinct, but forget stats for a moment even though wasims stats are extraordinary. Steyn doesn't have the armoury which wasim possessed reverse swinging Yorkers double swing off one ball Etc I could go on but it's pointless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sunzi]

Wasim and warne were the bowlers I enjoyed watching the most.. But at the end of the day, I rate neither as the top 5 bowlers of past 4 decades.. My personal feelings are irrelevant. Steyn has the most phenomenal strike rate in this era and his average would have been even lower had played a decade earlier Imo. Even if he retires right now, he is easily ahead of Wasim at least for me..

As I say, Steyn may surpass Waz statistically - but no other bowler IMHO has matched/matches Waz's artistry.

Comparisons to bowlers from other decades/eras is something I avoid - much in the way that I'd never compare Messi and Maradona.

 

[Sunzi]

As I say, Steyn may surpass Waz statistically - but no other bowler IMHO has matched/matches Waz's artistry.

Comparisons to bowlers from other decades/eras is something I avoid - much in the way that I'd never compare Messi and Maradona.

Just to add because I am unable to edit my original post; statistically, Akram's numbers are beyond reproach - yes, you can analyse his record in minute detail and draw conclusions on his return against lower order batsman (amongst other things that seem to have been highlighted).

However, he is regarded by his peers, some of the best opponents of his era, as one of the best bowlers to have played the game with some citing Akram as the best.

 

[Sunzi]

Steyn is greater than Wasim A Crim Stats wise. Also Steyn gets his wickets by bowling beautiful outswing, where as Wasim would use bottle tops and fingernails to make up for his lack of talent. If Steyn used Wasim's illegal tactics he would probably average 15

Smarting.

Sounds like the English circa 1993 when they were unable to comprehend the banana swing.

Funny, when England used the same techniques during the 'Flintoff-inspired' Ashes - it was all above board.

 

[WrexEverything]

Steyn is greater than Wasim A Crim Stats wise. Also Steyn gets his wickets by bowling beautiful outswing, where as Wasim would use bottle tops and fingernails to make up for his lack of talent. If Steyn used Wasim's illegal tactics he would probably average 15

Ironic because SA have been very smart with their tampering tactics and have used it very well to help Steyn get reverse swing at key moments in matches. They've also been caught 2-3 times in matches where Steyn produced awesome spells of reverse swing. Coincidence? :

 

[Chrish]

Steyn is greater than Wasim A Crim Stats wise. Also Steyn gets his wickets by bowling beautiful outswing, where as Wasim would use bottle tops and fingernails to make up for his lack of talent. If Steyn used Wasim's illegal tactics he would probably average 15

SA has done tempering in the past.. PhilTemperor did that against SL

 

[Chrish]

having to compete against other team members for top order wickets argument makes no sense.. Look at McGrath and Marshalls top order wickets both of whom faced much fierce competition for earning wickets than Wasim

 

[Stallion__]

having to compete against other team members for top order wickets argument makes no sense.. Look at McGrath and Marshalls top order wickets both of whom faced much fierce competition for earning wickets than Wasim

We are talking about Steyn and Wasim buddy.

Both Marshall and McGrath are better than Wasim

 

[as-95]

Everyon'e talking about Steyn.

Anyway, another reason why Steyn is awesome:

Video of him playing football in the rain with random kids: https://instagram.com/p/5hKOtWQk_j/

He's just the coolest cricketer in the world. Atleast that everyone can agree on.

Utterly delusional if you really think everyone is talking about Steyn). If that is really your fallback criteria to try and provenSteyn is greater than Wasim, you have shot yourself in the foot. Currently, and in the next 50 years, people will continue to talk about Wasim and name him in their World XI's. People will continue to laud the genius that was Wasim but Talk of Steyn will unlikely be similar in the future. Steyn will have similar status as his contemporary Allan Donald does. Great, but not in the absolute top tier. His ODI record and his stats against the most dominant sides of his era paint a sloppier picture than the Infian posters on here think .Time will tell you this.

 

[as-95]

Wasim and warne were the bowlers I enjoyed watching the most.. But at the end of the day, I rate neither as the top 5 bowlers of past 4 decades.. My personal feelings are irrelevant. Steyn has the most phenomenal strike rate in this era and his average would have been even lower had played a decade earlier Imo. Even if he retires right now, he is easily ahead of Wasim at least for me..

Your personal feelings are not irrelevant bro... They do matter. It's just that the personal feelings of cricketers, pundits who are more lnoleegable than you and me regarding cricket matter even more!!! Wasim is regarded as one of the VERY BEST pacers of all time and rated by the people with more knowledge than yourself and myself. You can rate Steyn higher if you want as that is
Your personal opinion. But few will agree with you in the cricketing world.

 

[Jo_Don]

Is this thread still going on? Funny how batsmen in today's era are rated lower due to favorable conditions, yet the same does not apply to bowlers. Guess it's those rose-tinted glasses again, the kind that glorifies past cricketers and trashes current ones.

 

[ChachaCricket]

Steyn's bowling is kinda lame tbh. Outswinger, outswinger, outswinger, no variety.

Put them side by side on the field and Wasim will make him look mediocre. Just unfortunate his slip cordon didn't allow him to have the stats he deserved but the batsmen who faced him acknowledged his greatness.

Still if a bowler's underachieved by taking 400 at 22, that just highlights his genius furthermore.

 

[IndianWillow]

Is this thread still going on? Funny how batsmen in today's era are rated lower due to favorable conditions, yet the same does not apply to bowlers. Guess it's those rose-tinted glasses again, the kind that glorifies past cricketers and trashes current ones.

You nailed it. The conclusion - current batsmen and bowlers are both trash.

 

[Sachin136]

Is this thread still going on? Funny how batsmen in today's era are rated lower due to favorable conditions, yet the same does not apply to bowlers. Guess it's those rose-tinted glasses again, the kind that glorifies past cricketers and trashes current ones.

It does not apply to batsman or bowlers in test matches. The changes of conditions to being more favorable for batsman have mainly occurred in ODIs.

However there is a slight change in test matches as well, which is the increase in flat pitches. However in tests or ODIs, in general there were more quality batsman in past eras. So it would be more difficult for bowlers of that era to be successful, evening out the gap for bowlers (at least in tests, in ODIs it doesn't even out completely so bowlers nowadays still should be given a slight "boost" when comparing them to past bowlers).

 

[Buffet]

It does not apply to batsman or bowlers in test matches. The changes of conditions to being more favorable for batsman have mainly occurred in ODIs.

However there is a slight change in test matches as well, which is the increase in flat pitches. However in tests or ODIs, in general there were more quality batsman in past eras. So it would be more difficult for bowlers of that era to be successful, evening out the gap for bowlers (at least in tests, in ODIs it doesn't even out completely so bowlers nowadays still should be given a slight "boost" when comparing them to past bowlers).

How many batsmen showed great skill in entire 90s? I can count them with my fingers. In 00s, we had similar or probably even higher standards when it came to quality of batsmen. In 2010s, we have seen some good batsmen but let's wait for decade to finish and I am sure many will go down as greats of this era. There may be difference here and there but I don't see how can we say that quality of batting has gone down substantially.

 

[ChachaCricket]

How many batsmen showed great skill in entire 90s? I can count them with my fingers. In 00s, we had similar or probably even higher standards when it came to quality of batsmen. In 2010s, we have seen some good batsmen but let's wait for decade to finish and I am sure many will go down as greats of this era. There may be difference here and there but I don't see how can we say that quality of batting has gone down substantially.

I disagree, even the average batsmen in 90s were more technically capable of facing the moving ball hence harder to dismiss. This doesn't show in stats but it is glaringly obvious.

 

[Buffet]

I disagree, even the average batsmen in 90s were more technically capable of facing the moving ball hence harder to dismiss. This doesn't show in stats but it is glaringly obvious.

If you compare the list of batsmen from 90s to 00s, I don't think that we will find substantial difference. 2010s will have batsmen with less skill to play moving balls and that's simply due to nature of pitch in the last 4-5 years.

 

[WrexEverything]

I disagree, even the average batsmen in 90s were more technically capable of facing the moving ball hence harder to dismiss. This doesn't show in stats but it is glaringly obvious.

Doubt there's a big difference. People forget how many very poor batsmen and especially openers there were in the 90s.

 

[WrexEverything]

Is this thread still going on? Funny how batsmen in today's era are rated lower due to favorable conditions, yet the same does not apply to bowlers. Guess it's those rose-tinted glasses again, the kind that glorifies past cricketers and trashes current ones.

Haha this exactly.

 

[ChachaCricket]

Doubt there's a big difference. People forget how many very poor batsmen and especially openers there were in the 90s.

Lol what?

 

[WrexEverything]

Lol what?

You heard me. Apart from the top tier ATGs (ie) Sachin, Waugh, Lara,etc there were as many poor/mediocre batsmen as there are now.

 

[Hawkeye]

If you compare the list of batsmen from 90s to 00s, I don't think that we will find substantial difference. 2010s will have batsmen with less skill to play moving balls and that's simply due to nature of pitch in the last 4-5 years.

You're assuming that pitches, specially Test match pitches, have considerably changed, which is simply NOT true.

If anything, Asian wickets are now producing even more results, we now have a lot more turners, it seams/swings in Sri Lanka and during some months even in the UAE.

 

[WrexEverything]

You're assuming that pitches, specially Test match pitches, have considerably changed, which is simply NOT true.

If anything, Asian wickets are now producing even more results, we now have a lot more turners, it seams/swings in Sri Lanka and during some months even in the UAE.

True. But at the same time, places like Australia have become incredibly flat. Since 2002-03, Aus has had flatter pitches than almost any other country.

 

[ChachaCricket]

You heard me. Apart from the top tier ATGs (ie) Sachin, Waugh, Lara,etc there were as many poor/mediocre batsmen as there are now.

Well then I can only laugh and disagree.

 

[Hawkeye]

True. But at the same time, places like Australia have become incredibly flat. Since 2002-03, Aus has had flatter pitches than almost any other country.

Very much true for ODIs, but Tests have been brutal in Australia. A slight change in pitches maybe, but still they produce sharp bounce and seam movement.

Remember how England just wanted the series to get over.

 

[Flat_Track_Bully]

I have seen Wasim do things with the ball the new generation can only imagine in their dreams.

Overall quality of cricketers has gone done with most of talent pool going towards football. If you look at England, all young budding athletes are headhunted by football scouts offering them riches at age 16. A 16 year old footballer playing at top level can earn up to £6000 a week! How does cricket compete with this?

 

[Sunzi]

You nailed it. The conclusion - current batsmen and bowlers are both trash.

Perhaps, but there is an element of truth to it as far as bowling is concerned IMO. I do not believe current batsman to be trash.

Aside Steyn, who of the current crop actually warrants a mention alongside players such as Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim, McGrath, Brett Lee, Warne, Kumble, Murali, Donald, Pollock? Rose-tinted glasses? I think not.

 

[WrexEverything]

Perhaps, but there is an element of truth to it as far as bowling is concerned IMO. I do not believe current batsman to be trash.

Aside Steyn, who of the current crop actually warrants a mention alongside players such as Ambrose, Waqar, Wasim, McGrath, Brett Lee, Warne, Kumble, Murali, Donald, Pollock? Rose-tinted glasses? I think not.

No one said current bowlers are better than those in 90s. But you can't have it both ways. People are also arguing that batsmen in 90s were better than today;s crop. I think that's false. There are many quality batsmen today.

 

[Sunzi]

No one said current bowlers are better than those in 90s. But you can't have it both ways. People are also arguing that batsmen in 90s were better than today;s crop. I think that's false. There are many quality batsmen today.

Yes, I know; I should perhaps have quoted Jo-don who made the accusation of rose-tinted glasses. You have quoted me agreeing that today's batsman are not trash.

Current bowlers with a few exceptions are not of the same calibre as their contemporaries - the same does not apply to batting IMO. Not everyone is a Sachin, but there are and have been some very, very good bats playing in recent times regardless of the bowling being played.

I think you actually agree with my post.

 

[Jo_Don]

Yes, I know; I should perhaps have quoted Jo-don who made the accusation of rose-tinted glasses. You have quoted me agreeing that today's batsman are not trash.

Current bowlers with a few exceptions are not of the same calibre as their contemporaries - the same does not apply to batting IMO. Not everyone is a Sachin, but there are and have been some very, very good bats playing in recent times regardless of the bowling being played.

I think you actually agree with my post.

Refer to any thread where current batsmen are compared to past ones.

 

[Sunzi]

Yes, I know; I should perhaps have quoted Jo-don who made the accusation of rose-tinted glasses. You have quoted me agreeing that today's batsman are not trash.

Current bowlers with a few exceptions are not of the same calibre as their contemporaries - the same does not apply to batting IMO. Not everyone is a Sachin, but there are and have been some very, very good bats playing in recent times regardless of the bowling being played.

I think you actually agree with my post.

Can't edit!

I forgot to change my original sentence - I basically meant 'current bowlers with a few exceptions are not of the same calibre as those of preceding eras'

 

[Sunzi]

Refer to any thread where current batsmen are compared to past ones.

For the purpose of?

 

[Jo_Don]

For the purpose of?

As to why I made the comment that I did.

 

[Sidilicious]

I have seen Wasim do things with the ball the new generation can only imagine in their dreams.

Overall quality of cricketers has gone done with most of talent pool going towards football. If you look at England, all young budding athletes are headhunted by football scouts offering them riches at age 16. A 16 year old footballer playing at top level can earn up to £6000 a week! How does cricket compete with this?

This was always the case. Footballers in England would always earn more than Cricketers. It comes down to the popularity of the sport. Similarily, cricketers in India/Pak will earn way more than national footballers. So, your comparison using money as a metric to measure talent is flawed.

In the end, there is no arguing about Wasim Akram's superiority in ODIs. But the case for Tests is pretty close, and if Steyn is able to maintain a great level for the next couple of years, I might even say that he would overtake Akram in tests.

Steyn averages 5 wickets per test, as opposed to 4 wickets per test for Akram. Some people could argue that Akram had to share his wickets with Waqar and Saqlain.

In that case, Steyn averages 22, as opposed to 23, in the current era, where the pitches are a lot flatter and the averages of batsman are a lot higher. The only reason I rate Wasim very slightly higher than Steyn is due to him having a longer career. So, if Steyn is able to maintain this consistency and play a 100 tests with the same wickets per match, and a similar average, then I will rate Steyn higher.

In the end, however skilled you may be, if it does not result in wickets, then is that skill useful?
Same with regards to batting. You may be the most skilled batsman, but if you can't score runs then whats the point of all your skill.

 

[Sunzi]

As to why I made the comment that I did.

Thats fine - I recognise that many PP'ers dismiss the quality of current bats against players of past eras but I do not agree, as you may have seen from my earlier posts.

IMO:
- Current bowlers (with exceptions, because there are always exceptions) are not of the same calibre. I think this is pretty obvious, no?

- Current batsmen are not trash. If the likes of AB, Kohli, Amla etc. are trash then I cannot take that person seriously.

These are some of the people that down-play Sangakarra's milestones/achievements etc. ridiculous IMPO.

I generally don't compare players from different eras though (like I mentioned I would never compare Messi or Maradona) - but some things are so obvious the time between has no bearing.

 

[WrexEverything]

Thats fine - I recognise that many PP'ers dismiss the quality of current bats against players of past eras but I do not agree, as you may have seen from my earlier posts.

IMO:
- Current bowlers (with exceptions, because there are always exceptions) are not of the same calibre. I think this is pretty obvious, no?

- Current batsmen are not trash. If the likes of AB, Kohli, Amla etc. are trash then I cannot take that person seriously.

These are some of the people that down-play Sangakarra's milestones/achievements etc. ridiculous IMPO.

I generally don't compare players from different eras though (like I mentioned I would never compare Messi or Maradona) - but some things are so obvious the time between has no bearing.

Agree totally.

 

[Stallion__]

In the end, there is no arguing about Wasim Akram's superiority in ODIs. But the case for Tests is pretty close, and if Steyn is able to maintain a great level for the next couple of years, I might even say that he would overtake Akram in tests.

Steyn averages 5 wickets per test, as opposed to 4 wickets per test for Akram. Some people could argue that Akram had to share his wickets with Waqar and Saqlain.

In that case, Steyn averages 22, as opposed to 23, in the current era, where the pitches are a lot flatter and the averages of batsman are a lot higher. The only reason I rate Wasim very slightly higher than Steyn is due to him having a longer career. So, if Steyn is able to maintain this consistency and play a 100 tests with the same wickets per match, and a similar average, then I will rate Steyn higher.

In the end, however skilled you may be, if it does not result in wickets, then is that skill useful?
Same with regards to batting. You may be the most skilled batsman, but if you can't score runs then whats the point of all your skill.

Simple averages and number of wickets per tests don't tell you full story mate.

You need to see how and when those wickets were taken and on what occasions a player have failed. Waqar, Imran, Pollock, Donald and many have better averages than Wasim, there is a reason Wasim is rated so highly.

Anyways agree with the part that if Steyn manages 100 more wickets with same rate, then he would have clearly superior record than Wasim. In that case, yup his weight of achievements would be enough to overshadow Wasim. You may have reached the correct end result but not sure the reasoning was right.

 

[Sidilicious]

Simple averages and number of wickets per tests don't tell you full story mate.

You need to see how and when those wickets were taken and on what occasions a player have failed. Waqar, Imran, Pollock, Donald and many have better averages than Wasim, there is a reason Wasim is rated so highly.

Anyways agree with the part that if Steyn manages 100 more wickets with same rate, then he would have clearly superior record than Wasim. In that case, yup his weight of achievements would be enough to overshadow Wasim. You may have reached the correct end result but not sure the reasoning was right.

Interesting point. Could you please elaborate, given the circumstances you mentioned, why is Wasim considered better than the other players you mentioned. This is genuinely a question, and by no means is intended to undermine Wasim's superiority.

 

[Stallion__]

Interesting point. Could you please elaborate, given the circumstances you mentioned, why is Wasim considered better than the other players you mentioned. This is genuinely a question, and by no means is intended to undermine Wasim's superiority.

Thats a long discussion dude.

I am actually done with this thread. Have 51 posts in this already.

For Steyn vs Wasim, from post#632 onwards, and the following posts, have enough discussions on this topic. Lengthy ones but you will find the reasons if you go through.

 

[Statsman]

Wasim had more skill and variety in his bowling than Steyn does, but Steyn has left behind most bowlers of the past, easily including Akram. 400 wickets at ~22 a piece in the modern era of flat pitches where most front-line bowlers average 30+.

 

[DOOSRA95]

Steyn can be a bowling Machine, he will never ever come close to Wasim period!!!!!
As for stats it can be manipulated to what ever angles.
Coming to playing conditions , opponents, skills of the batsmen , good players of pace , rules stacked in favour of batsman, new bat size , butter fingers slip folders , dubious team mates, bung taking, game fixers,smaller grounds , what ever else ... Blah blah blah ...... Wasim the pure magician at lethal bounce what a sight.

 

[ChachaCricket]

Thats fine - I recognise that many PP'ers dismiss the quality of current bats against players of past eras but I do not agree, as you may have seen from my earlier posts.

IMO:
- Current bowlers (with exceptions, because there are always exceptions) are not of the same calibre. I think this is pretty obvious, no?

- Current batsmen are not trash. If the likes of AB, Kohli, Amla etc. are trash then I cannot take that person seriously.

These are some of the people that down-play Sangakarra's milestones/achievements etc. ridiculous IMPO.

I generally don't compare players from different eras though (like I mentioned I would never compare Messi or Maradona) - but some things are so obvious the time between has no bearing.

Nobody is denying there are good/great batsmen around. The point in argument was the average batsmen in 90s were more technically equipped to face the moving ball making them harder to dismiss and the teams were stronger generally.

 

[as-95]

Wasim had more skill and variety in his bowling than Steyn does, but Steyn has left behind most bowlers of the past, easily including Akram. 400 wickets at ~22 a piece in the modern era of flat pitches where most front-line bowlers average 30+.

You keep making statements but you can't back them up. You are correct in saying that Wasim was more skilled than Stryn. Nobody will disagree with you in that respect. However, you simply cannot argue that Steyn has left bowlers(including Wasim) behind. Simply because he has not. Steyn may have a better average, but as I pointed out in earlier posts, he simply has not performed against the most Dominant sides of his era. He has been parhetic against England and below par against Australia. Wasim fares better against the respectively most dominant sides. This suggests that his stats have been inflated artificially.

I've said it multiple times and I will say it again... Steyn is no doubt a great bowler. There is no doubt about that... However, until he shows he can perform against the most dominant sides of his era, achieve something in ODI's and the World Stage, he will not be comparable to Wasim.

Wasim is by far the superior ODI bowler and although they are comparable in Tests, I still rate Wasim higher.

 

[WrexEverything]

You keep making statements but you can't back them up. You are correct in saying that Wasim was more skilled than Stryn. Nobody will disagree with you in that respect. However, you simply cannot argue that Steyn has left bowlers(including Wasim) behind. Simply because he has not. Steyn may have a better average, but as I pointed out in earlier posts, he simply has not performed against the most Dominant sides of his era. He has been parhetic against England and below par against Australia. Wasim fares better against the respectively most dominant sides. This suggests that his stats have been inflated artificially.

I've said it multiple times and I will say it again... Steyn is no doubt a great bowler. There is no doubt about that... However, until he shows he can perform against the most dominant sides of his era, achieve something in ODI's and the World Stage, he will not be comparable to Wasim.

Wasim is by far the superior ODI bowler and although they are comparable in Tests, I still rate Wasim higher.

Oh my god this again? From what angle is 69 wickets in 14 matches (almost 5 per match) @27 below par? And both 2008 and 2012 series wins in Australia were won on the back of key spells from Steyn. Totally false to call his performance against Australia sub par.

 

[IndianWillow]

Dale Steyn vs Wasim Akram - test career graph comparison. It may be seen that even Steyn's average years are superior to Wasim's peak years. Wasim was never ranked #1 bowler in tests, but Steyn managed that year after year and was also way ahead of competition in many years. Wasim's highest bowling rating is 830 compared to Steyn's 909. Steyn had more than 830 points for most of his bowling career. Infact Steyn has rarely dipped below 830 since 2008. Wasim was perhaps the more all round bowler, but on sheer performance Steyn would win this contest hands down in tests.

 

[Stallion__]

Dale Steyn vs Wasim Akram - test career graph comparison. It may be seen that even Steyn's average years are superior to Wasim's peak years. Wasim was never ranked #1 bowler in tests, but Steyn managed that year after year and was also way ahead of competition in many years. Wasim's highest bowling rating is 830 compared to Steyn's 909. Steyn had more than 830 points for most of his bowling career. Infact Steyn has rarely dipped below 830 since 2008. Wasim was perhaps the more all round bowler, but on sheer performance Steyn would win this contest hands down in tests.

That has already been discussed in this thread.

ICC rankings are the measure of performances. Once performances are being discussed separately, no need to discuss rankings.

Their accuracy has always been doubtful anyways.

 

[Stallion__]

Btw, he wasn't number 1 but he stayed #2-4 for most part of his career, and Waqar was number 1 during some of that phase.

So that shows how tough was competition those days among bowlers.

 

[ChachaCricket]

Okay this is going nowhere lol.

Here's where I stand: Wasim took 400 at ~22 despite being letdown by his slip cordon, lack of scoreboard pressure, played against stronger opposition, played on unresponsive pitches for majority of his career and dealt with diabetes. All this and still managing to average the same as Steyn who's played in a weaker era and has been fairly average against top sides. Not to mention the countless number of ex-players who've rated him as the greatest or the most difficult to play. He was simply the most skilled to ever play and I can only rate 4 bowlers ahead of him, Mcgrath and Ambrose for their sheer consistency, Imran for his ridiculous peak and Marshall for his unmatched record.

Signing off from this thread.

 

[Buffet]

You're assuming that pitches, specially Test match pitches, have considerably changed, which is simply NOT true.

It may not be considerable but it's noticeable for me in some venues. I was talking about pacers here. Aus is prime example of getting flatter and flatter. It became flatter in 00s when compared to 90s. In 2010s, it became bit too flat and we saw some batsmen having time of their life due to that. NZ is also much more flat now. You get one day for bowlers and 4 days for batsmen. I recall many unplayable pitches in NZ. You don't need that but just putting it in perspective.

yah, you have more turners but even that is not uniform. SL used to produce better pitches earlier. Last 6-7 years, they have relied on wining one game and then put super road to try to win series. SL did that even against BD.

 

[Buffet]

Dale Steyn vs Wasim Akram - test career graph comparison. It may be seen that even Steyn's average years are superior to Wasim's peak years. Wasim was never ranked #1 bowler in tests, but Steyn managed that year after year and was also way ahead of competition in many years. Wasim's highest bowling rating is 830 compared to Steyn's 909. Steyn had more than 830 points for most of his bowling career. Infact Steyn has rarely dipped below 830 since 2008. Wasim was perhaps the more all round bowler, but on sheer performance Steyn would win this contest hands down in tests.

Steyn's consistency to maintain a very high standards are similar to Marshall, McGrath and Ambrose. Their graphs will look similar.

 

[shehwar]

Can Dale Steyn ever match the greatness of Wasim Akram?

Answer: A resounding NO

Wasim was a wizard with the ball. His variation and skills were and still today is second to none.

How many matches did Steyn win for SA? We are talking about Chalk & Cheese here!

 

[soso_killer]

Steyn the test bowler is way superior almost 400 wickets at SR of 41?

 

[ChachaCricket]

Steyn the test bowler is way superior almost 400 wickets at SR of 41?

As misleading as Amla's SR in ODIs.

 

[soso_killer]

As misleading as Amla's SR in ODIs.

lol, how did you get to that conclusion?

 

[as-95]

Oh my god this again? From what angle is 69 wickets in 14 matches (almost 5 per match) @27 below par? And both 2008 and 2012 series wins in Australia were won on the back of key spells from Steyn. Totally false to call his performance against Australia sub par.

Steyn averages over 27 against Australia. You can try to sugarcoat it as much as you want, but the fact of the matter is that this is almost 5 runs greater than his career average. This simply suggests that he was below par against the dominant sides and could have feasted on weaker sides. If this was a one-off, I would be willing to discard it as an anomaly. However, He also averages 32.63 against England. That is simply pathetic for a player who you are desperately trying to compare to the Great Wasim Akram.Having checked the sample size for his matches against England in order to find a reason for this woeful bowling average, it was accumulated in 20 innings so cannot be excused as an outlier. There is no way around this! Against the most dominant sides of Steyn's era, he has fallen short. Wasim has fared far better against the respective dominant sides Of his era. This is why the stats are misleading. Steyn's poor performance against the truly dominant sides suggest that he has feasted upon the weaker sides. That is the reality and it is why you must not just blindly look at stats when desperately trying to compare Steyn to Wasim.

There is no two ways around it pal. He simply has failed to bring his A game against the dominant sides and onto the World Stage. As I said before...Steyn is a superb bowler. He is just not as good as Wasim. But that is no shame since only one or two were. However, Steyn has not retired yet so of he is able to finally perform against the dominant sides of his era, show quality on the World Stage, and improve on his poor ODI form, he may be comparable to Wasim. For now, he remains on the level below.

 

[Abdullah719]

Steyn averages over 27 against Australia. You can try to sugarcoat it as much as you want, but the fact of the matter is that this is almost 5 runs greater than his career average. This simply suggests that he was below par against the dominant sides and could have feasted on weaker sides. If this was a one-off, I would be willing to discard it as an anomaly. However, He also averages 32.63 against England. That is simply pathetic for a player who you are desperately trying to compare to the Great Wasim Akram.Having checked the sample size for his matches against England in order to find a reason for this woeful bowling average, it was accumulated in 20 innings so cannot be excused as an outlier. There is no way around this! Against the most dominant sides of Steyn's era, he has fallen short. Wasim has fared far better against the respective dominant sides Of his era. This is why the stats are misleading. Steyn's poor performance against the truly dominant sides suggest that he has feasted upon the weaker sides. That is the reality and it is why you must not just blindly look at stats when desperately trying to compare Steyn to Wasim.

There is no two ways around it pal. He simply has failed to bring his A game against the dominant sides and onto the World Stage. As I said before...Steyn is a superb bowler. He is just not as good as Wasim. But that is no shame since only one or two were. However, Steyn has not retired yet so of he is able to finally perform against the dominant sides of his era, show quality on the World Stage, and improve on his poor ODI form, he may be comparable to Wasim. For now, he remains on the level below.

Steyn has bowled some awesome spells vs Australia, and some of them in their own backyard (MCG '08 and Perth 2012). His record against them isn't brilliant, but it's not terrible either. It's only natural to take more wickets against weaker teams but he hasn't been bad against top teams. He has also done well in unfavourable conditions (Ind, SL). His average against England is slightly high because his first 3 Tests were all in 04-05 against England when he was very raw as a bowler and he didn't do well at all. He was much improved later on. Wasim even averaged 30+ against England, it's not a huge deal. As Test bowlers, it's very close between the two IMO. ODIs, there's a gap.

 

[WrexEverything]

Wasim avg vs Australia: 26. Dominant against Australia
Steyn avg vs Australia: 27. Sub-par :Steyn:

This is insanely stupid. Yes I know they're Aus in Akram's time were better, but this is easily balanced out by the fact that Australian pitches of today are far flatter.

Also, Steyn has dominated probably the best batting lineup of the era: 63 wickets in 12 matches vs India @ avg of 21. Posters like as95 conveniently ignore this.

 

[WrexEverything]

Steyn averages over 27 against Australia. You can try to sugarcoat it as much as you want, but the fact of the matter is that this is almost 5 runs greater than his career average. This simply suggests that he was below par against the dominant sides and could have feasted on weaker sides. If this was a one-off, I would be willing to discard it as an anomaly. However, He also averages 32.63 against England. That is simply pathetic for a player who you are desperately trying to compare to the Great Wasim Akram.Having checked the sample size for his matches against England in order to find a reason for this woeful bowling average, it was accumulated in 20 innings so cannot be excused as an outlier. There is no way around this! Against the most dominant sides of Steyn's era, he has fallen short. Wasim has fared far better against the respective dominant sides Of his era. This is why the stats are misleading. Steyn's poor performance against the truly dominant sides suggest that he has feasted upon the weaker sides. That is the reality and it is why you must not just blindly look at stats when desperately trying to compare Steyn to Wasim.

There is no two ways around it pal. He simply has failed to bring his A game against the dominant sides and onto the World Stage. As I said before...Steyn is a superb bowler. He is just not as good as Wasim. But that is no shame since only one or two were. However, Steyn has not retired yet so of he is able to finally perform against the dominant sides of his era, show quality on the World Stage, and improve on his poor ODI form, he may be comparable to Wasim. For now, he remains on the level below.

Yes, because Akram's record against Eng was great wasn't it? Oh wait it wasn't. He averaged 30+. And this was against a far worse England team than Steyn had to face. But apparently this pathetic stat can be excused for Wasim. Hilarious double standards there.

Also, as [MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] pointed out , Steyn's initial 3 matches against England in 04-05 when he was very young and very raw skew the numbers. His average vs Eng has nothing to do with him not bowling well vs them.