Can Dale Steyn ever match the greatness of Wasim Akram?

[vandokkum]

Steyn- 65 tests 332 wickets avg 22, strike rate 41
Wasim- 104 tests 414 wickets avg 23, strike rate 54

Everything else is subjective, but in reality there is no difference between them as test bowlers and Steyn is statistically better. Wasim is clearly the better bowler overall if you include tests and odis.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Steyn- 65 tests 332 wickets avg 22, strike rate 41
Wasim- 104 tests 414 wickets avg 23, strike rate 54

Everything else is subjective, but in reality there is no difference between them as test bowlers and Steyn is statistically better. Wasim is clearly the better bowler overall if you include tests and odis.[/QUOTE]


That's what I have been trying to say for the past 3 pages.

Wasim is the best left arm fast bowler in both Tests and ODI's.

Wasim is the best fast bowler in ODIs only

Steyn is better than Wasim as a test bowler , if left arm and right arm are excluded from the picture.


Why is this so hard for most PP'ers to comprehend?

 

[Mamoon]

Steyn- 65 tests 332 wickets avg 22, strike rate 41
Wasim- 104 tests 414 wickets avg 23, strike rate 54

Everything else is subjective, but in reality there is no difference between them as test bowlers and Steyn is statistically better. Wasim is clearly the better bowler overall if you include tests and odis.[/QUOTE]


That's what I have been trying to say for the past 3 pages.

Wasim is the best left arm fast bowler in both Tests and ODI's.

Wasim is the best fast bowler in ODIs only

Steyn is better than Wasim as a test bowler , if left arm and right arm are excluded from the picture.


Why is this so hard for most PP'ers to comprehend?

That is what I've been saying, Wasim is the better bowler overall by a good margin because he was a beat in both formats.

But the highly insecure Steyn heads come out of their dungeons as soon as they find someone rating someone more than Steyn.

 

[IndianWillow]

It was the average of average of their averages, since their complete averages can not be calculated as that data is not available, but i didn't expect you to read all of my posts carefully because i mentioned this clearly in my previous posts.

Really making up the figures an lying?

What kind of pathetic nonsense is that, accusing me of lying?
That's only what you do to try to make our players look bad, i don't need to lie to do that, that rubbish article you posted has no relevance or credibility. Next time before accusing someone of lying do think again.

Both of you should be the last persons to question someones integrity.

WASIM:

MCGRATH:

I guess that clears that then?
Or you still want to make pathetic claims accusing people of lying?

This was due to misunderstanding on your writing. It wasn't (isn't) obvious what this "average of averages" means for a bowler.

Please again note that Wasim was never ranked no:1 in test cricket. His peak test rating was only 830. Many other ATG bowlers reached 900+ or close to it. Wasim was best in ODIs and he was the king here.

A 20-30 point difference in the peak ratings could be attributed good reasons, but McGrath was some 90 points higher for 2 years in a row and was ahead in several other years also. Also Wasim never achieved no 1 ranking in ICC test bowlers ratings, while all of Steyn, McGrath, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock etc did reach no 1 at some stage. You will also find that the bowlers shortlisted by this method have all been no 1 at various periods, which should add credibility to the method.

Moreover, you have not given any technical reason for dismissing the credibility of that article, this is just hand waving. Do you find problem with the data or the method? If it is the method, you can easily see that it is an improvement over comparing bowlers using their bowling average alone. To summarize it here -

1. Bowling averages measure how good the bowler is, at cheaply removing batsmen.

2. But bowling averages do not tell us, what kind of batsmen were more frequently removed by the bowler. Dismissing Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh cannot be considered equivalent by any stretch of imagination ( except under some unusual match circumstances). Hence, one more parameter is added - the strength of the batsmen dismissed by the bowler. The higher this figure is, the better the bowler because in addition to cheapness of the wicket, it is also mean higher quality wickets of batsmen with higher batting averages.

3. Thirdly, a more accurate measure would be obtained by combining both 1 and 2, which will measure both value for wicket as well its cheapness.

I fail to see why this is inferior to comparing bowlers on their bowling average alone. What exactly is rubbish in it - please pin point. You can explain and I am all ears.

A similar article was posted on cricketweb also, which comes to the same conclusion -
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

 

[amax]

there is more to cricket than just stats

 

[amax]

This was due to misunderstanding on your writing. It wasn't (isn't) obvious what this "average of averages" means for a bowler.

Please again note that Wasim was never ranked no:1 in test cricket. His peak test rating was only 830. Many other ATG bowlers reached 900+ or close to it. Wasim was best in ODIs and he was the king here.

A 20-30 point difference in the peak ratings could be attributed good reasons, but McGrath was some 90 points higher for 2 years in a row and was ahead in several other years also. Also Wasim never achieved no 1 ranking in ICC test bowlers ratings, while all of Steyn, McGrath, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock etc did reach no 1 at some stage. You will also find that the bowlers shortlisted by this method have all been no 1 at various periods, which should add credibility to the method.

Moreover, you have not given any technical reason for dismissing the credibility of that article, this is just hand waving. Do you find problem with the data or the method? If it is the method, you can easily see that it is an improvement over comparing bowlers using their bowling average alone. To summarize it here -

1. Bowling averages measure how good the bowler is, at cheaply removing batsmen.

2. But bowling averages do not tell us, what kind of batsmen were more frequently removed by the bowler. Dismissing Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh cannot be considered equivalent by any stretch of imagination ( except under some unusual match circumstances). Hence, one more parameter is added - the strength of the batsmen dismissed by the bowler. The higher this figure is, the better the bowler because in addition to cheapness of the wicket, it is also mean higher quality wickets of batsmen with higher batting averages.

3. Thirdly, a more accurate measure would be obtained by combining both 1 and 2, which will measure both value for wicket as well its cheapness.

I fail to see why this is inferior to comparing bowlers on their bowling average alone. What exactly is rubbish in it - please pin point. You can explain and I am all ears.

A similar article was posted on cricketweb also, which comes to the same conclusion -
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

By the way what is Tendulker's highest test rankings and Is Botham a better bowler than wasim(based on rankings)?? Finally as an Indian you must be harping against Waqar in any comparison while his exceptional test ranking suggest otherwise or it is just selective filtering.

 

[fusebulb]

i hate people throwing stats at our faces.... i have watched Wasim bowl from the time Kris Shrikant was his bunny.... and he was unplayable at times .... miles better skill wise naturally talented... i still feel he did not do justice to his talent....

Was suspected for match fixing..... but clearly way more exciting and fun to watch than Steyn...

Steyn is a hard working bowler .... limited skills but sticks to it well disciplined ....

But Wasim anyday....

 

[IndianWillow]

there is more to cricket than just stats

Agree with that, but without any stats it boils down to "my favourite player versus yours" without any objective means to verify it.

 

[James]

there is more to cricket than just stats

You're quite right - but conversely there is also more to cricket than intangibility, which is what the Akram supporters seem to be clinging onto these days in the face of Steyn's noticeably superior record.

 

[IndianWillow]

By the way what is Tendulker's highest test rankings and Is Botham a better bowler than wasim(based on rankings)?? Finally as an Indian you must be harping against Waqar in any comparison while his exceptional test ranking suggest otherwise or it is just selective filtering.

Botham at his peak was not just a terrific bowler but a terrific all rounder as well. Botham's second half was extremely mediocre that is why he is not generally regarded highly. Wasim on the other hand was more consistent throughout his career ( he was top 5 bowler for a significant portion of his carrer and a top 10 bowler all through his career), but still never found that indomitable peak characteristic of some other ATGs.

Yes, Waqar at his peak was much more devastating than Wasim ever was, and this is accepted by many Pakistanis on this forum as well. I too have no problems with this assessment.

I have the same problem with Tendulkar as well, who like Wasim was consistent throughout his career, but at no point of time rose to Everestine heights that he was capable of. not even in 1998 he could scale the Everest of batting. It is not without reason that Tendulkar could not amass 500 runs in any single series he played and he did not do this even in 1998, widely considered his best year.

 

[IndianWillow]

i hate people throwing stats at our faces.... i have watched Wasim bowl from the time Kris Shrikant was his bunny.... and he was unplayable at times .... miles better skill wise naturally talented... i still feel he did not do justice to his talent....

Was suspected for match fixing..... but clearly way more exciting and fun to watch than Steyn...

Steyn is a hard working bowler .... limited skills but sticks to it well disciplined ....

But Wasim anyday....

All ATGs were unplayable at times, not just Wasim. Marshall was unplayable most of the time even on unhelpful wickets. How do you distinguish between ATGs if you ignore all stats?

 

[IndianWillow]

That is what I've been saying, Wasim is the better bowler overall by a good margin because he was a beat in both formats.

But the highly insecure Steyn heads come out of their dungeons as soon as they find someone rating someone more than Steyn.

I don't have a problem if Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath etc ( and a few others) are rated ahead of Steyn because it is almost readily obvious. But Akram vs Steyn is not such a shallow contest as is made out by Akram fans here, because Akram's test records are inferior to Steyns.

 

[Varun]

there is more to cricket than just stats

A couple of Afridi fans around here allege the same thing.

 

[testcricketisbest]

would take Wasim over steyn any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Yes Steyn is good but Akram was complete package and if not for butter fingers of Pakistani fielders he would have had lot more wickets.

Steyn is backed up by best fielding and catching side and where as Akram was backed by lousiest fielding side.

One more thing everyone forgets Steyn can go all out in tests as he is given large scores to defend most of time.People tend to forget how much a big score by their batsmen gives freedom for bowlers to attack and experiment in test matches.

Akram played with batsmen who were a non entity when playing on non sub continent wickets and always had low scores to defend.

Where as Steyn is backed by one of best batting lineups in the history of the game.

 

[ahmed778]

This was due to misunderstanding on your writing. It wasn't (isn't) obvious what this "average of averages" means for a bowler.

Please again note that Wasim was never ranked no:1 in test cricket. His peak test rating was only 830. Many other ATG bowlers reached 900+ or close to it. Wasim was best in ODIs and he was the king here.

A 20-30 point difference in the peak ratings could be attributed good reasons, but McGrath was some 90 points higher for 2 years in a row and was ahead in several other years also. Also Wasim never achieved no 1 ranking in ICC test bowlers ratings, while all of Steyn, McGrath, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock etc did reach no 1 at some stage. You will also find that the bowlers shortlisted by this method have all been no 1 at various periods, which should add credibility to the method.

Moreover, you have not given any technical reason for dismissing the credibility of that article, this is just hand waving. Do you find problem with the data or the method? If it is the method, you can easily see that it is an improvement over comparing bowlers using their bowling average alone. To summarize it here -

1. Bowling averages measure how good the bowler is, at cheaply removing batsmen.

2. But bowling averages do not tell us, what kind of batsmen were more frequently removed by the bowler. Dismissing Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh cannot be considered equivalent by any stretch of imagination ( except under some unusual match circumstances). Hence, one more parameter is added - the strength of the batsmen dismissed by the bowler. The higher this figure is, the better the bowler because in addition to cheapness of the wicket, it is also mean higher quality wickets of batsmen with higher batting averages.

3. Thirdly, a more accurate measure would be obtained by combining both 1 and 2, which will measure both value for wicket as well its cheapness.

I fail to see why this is inferior to comparing bowlers on their bowling average alone. What exactly is rubbish in it - please pin point. You can explain and I am all ears.

A similar article was posted on cricketweb also, which comes to the same conclusion -
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

Sorry, i do not believe in the credibility of those articles, they in my opinion are rubbish because the initial stats aren't posted, if you can find me an article that has the inital stats aswell than that can be taken seriously but this is invalid.

Well, i do not care about the ratings nor do i care about this comparison i have admitted that Steyn is better than Wasim, but what i do question is the credibility of your article.

Actually Averages are the best way to judge a Bowlers skill, for example if Younis Khan keeps on bowling at Number 1-6 Batsmen where as Wasim never bowls at them than Wasim will end up with less wickets than Younis against the Top 6, but Younis will have a pathetic average showing he was rather ineffective against them, the averages are the best way to judge a bowlers skill against someone, in this case these are the Top 6,
and my argument is not that Steyn is not better than Wasim i have said that Steyn is better than Wasim in one of my earliest posts, but it is that your claims that Wasim was a Tail End Basher are rubbish as proven by the stats that i posted.

 

[Varun]

Yes Steyn is good but Akram was complete package and if not for butter fingers of Pakistani fielders he would have had lot more wickets.

Steyn is backed up by best fielding and catching side and where as Akram was backed by lousiest fielding side.

So in your opinion, that alone relegates Wasim over Steyn?

 

[testcricketisbest]

So in your opinion, that alone relegates Wasim over Steyn?

That would have surely helped in making up for the difference in SR and also lowering the AVG.

Wasim and Steyn in odis is no contest.

so how is Steyn better than Akram???

 

[testcricketisbest]

This was due to misunderstanding on your writing. It wasn't (isn't) obvious what this "average of averages" means for a bowler.

Please again note that Wasim was never ranked no:1 in test cricket. His peak test rating was only 830. Many other ATG bowlers reached 900+ or close to it. Wasim was best in ODIs and he was the king here.

A 20-30 point difference in the peak ratings could be attributed good reasons, but McGrath was some 90 points higher for 2 years in a row and was ahead in several other years also. Also Wasim never achieved no 1 ranking in ICC test bowlers ratings, while all of Steyn, McGrath, Ambrose, Donald, Pollock etc did reach no 1 at some stage. You will also find that the bowlers shortlisted by this method have all been no 1 at various periods, which should add credibility to the method.

Moreover, you have not given any technical reason for dismissing the credibility of that article, this is just hand waving. Do you find problem with the data or the method? If it is the method, you can easily see that it is an improvement over comparing bowlers using their bowling average alone. To summarize it here -

1. Bowling averages measure how good the bowler is, at cheaply removing batsmen.

2. But bowling averages do not tell us, what kind of batsmen were more frequently removed by the bowler. Dismissing Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh cannot be considered equivalent by any stretch of imagination ( except under some unusual match circumstances). Hence, one more parameter is added - the strength of the batsmen dismissed by the bowler. The higher this figure is, the better the bowler because in addition to cheapness of the wicket, it is also mean higher quality wickets of batsmen with higher batting averages.

3. Thirdly, a more accurate measure would be obtained by combining both 1 and 2, which will measure both value for wicket as well its cheapness.

I fail to see why this is inferior to comparing bowlers on their bowling average alone. What exactly is rubbish in it - please pin point. You can explain and I am all ears.

A similar article was posted on cricketweb also, which comes to the same conclusion -
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48524-how-valuable-wicket.html

That is most ridiculous piece of crap I have ever read, Peak rating is not an indicator bowler/batsmen ability or greatness .

Ewen Chatfield has the sixth best ever rating as an ODI bowler which is better than Malcom Marshall, Dennis Lillee, and Akram.

Even if you ask Chatfield himself who would he take in his playing eleven, he would say all the players above before putting his name on the list.


Similarly Mohd Yousuf has higher best rating than Brian Lara, Greg Chappell, Sachin, Sunil or Javed.

He was good batsmen but he is the league of the above players.

 

[Bewal Express]

You still haven``t explained why a purported ATG was never ranked top for any of his 18 yrs(let me give you a hint-not enough top order wickets). For me he is def an ATG as ODI bowler(because he got top orders out on a very regular basis) but as a test bowler i would rank him in the top 15 at best.

 

[soso_killer]

There is more to cricket than variation. A bowlers job is to actually get batsmen out (cheap too). The quicker you do that the better.
Everything else is irrelevant

 

[James]

There is more to cricket than variation. A bowlers job is to actually get batsmen out (cheap too). The quicker you do that the better.
Everything else is irrelevant

Agreed. Steyn and McGrath are the best fast/fast-medium bowlers that I've seen. There are bowlers I'd rather watch, but my feelings are arbitrary. Only the facts matter.

 

[ahmed778]

You still haven``t explained why a purported ATG was never ranked top for any of his 18 yrs(let me give you a hint-not enough top order wickets). For me he is def an ATG as ODI bowler(because he got top orders out on a very regular basis) but as a test bowler i would rank him in the top 15 at best.

Since you hold the Rankings in such High Regard, Please Explain why Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar were not rated better than Yousuf?

Going by your logic that makes Yousuf better than Sachin and Sunil?

Its good to see we have a better Batsman than Sachin and Sunil.

 

[Bewal Express]

Yousef went through a purple patch and quite rightly earnt his rating and his purple patch was greater than many other great cricketers over a period of a yr or so. But all great cricketers have been ranked first for a period of time. BTW are you saying that Tendulkar and Gavaskar have never been ranked best in the world at anytime in their careers? Maybe they will join Wasim in that club!

 

[ahmed778]

Yousef went through a purple patch and quite rightly earnt his rating and his purple patch was greater than many other great cricketers over a period of a yr or so. But all great cricketers have been ranked first for a period of time. BTW are you saying that Tendulkar and Gavaskar have never been ranked best in the world at anytime in their careers? Maybe they will join Wasim in that club!

They haven't been ranked better than Yousaf, so by your and indianwillows logic, Yousaf is better than Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[Buffet]

By the way what is Tendulker's highest test rankings and Is Botham a better bowler than wasim(based on rankings)?? Finally as an Indian you must be harping against Waqar in any comparison while his exceptional test ranking suggest otherwise or it is just selective filtering.

Since you hold the Rankings in such High Regard, Please Explain why Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar were not rated better than Yousuf?
Going by your logic that makes Yousuf better than Sachin and Sunil?

They haven't been ranked better than Yousaf, so by your and indianwillows logic, Yousaf is better than Sunil Gavaskar and Sachin Tendulkar.

BTW are you saying that Tendulkar and Gavaskar have never been ranked best in the world at anytime in their careers? Maybe they will join Wasim in that club!

I think some posters are mixing ratings with rankings here. Two are different thing. Akram was not ranked number 1 even once in his career and that was the point raised by many here.

Now for SRT, he was ranked number one first time in 1994 itself(at the age of 21). He was ranked number one many times in his career. At times, it was for an extended period. Same is true for Gavaskar as well. He was ranked number one for straight 3-4 years. On top of that both were ranked in top 5 for very long portion of their career.

Highest rating is one time thing. It means you did very well in short period and reached to very high rating points. Unless you spend majority of your time in top ranking( doing better than your most of your peers) you are not even close to ATG players. You are simply known as having a great purple patch which peaked in very short time and helped you to accumulate rating points. MoYo was not ranked even in top 10 for majority of his career. That explains why MoYo is not considered ATG player and SRT/Gavaskar are considered ATG despite having lower 'highest rating points' than Moyo.

Rating and rankings are not same thing. Wasim was often ranked in top 5 bowlers during his career otherwise he won't be even ATG. Criticism is about him not being better than his peers even once during his long career let alone doing so for an extended period. He did play with many ATG bowlers so that was working against him.

I hope this will stop people mixing rating and ranking.

 

[ahmed778]

I think some posters are mixing ratings with rankings here. Two are different thing. Akram was not ranked number 1 even once in his career and that was the point raised by many here.

Now for SRT, he was ranked number one first time in 1994 itself(at the age of 21). He was ranked number one many times in his career. At times, it was for an extended period. Same is true for Gavaskar as well. He was ranked number one for straight 3-4 years. On top of that both were ranked in top 5 for very long portion of their career.

Highest rating is one time thing. It means you did very well in short period and reached to very high rating points. Unless you spend majority of your time in top ranking( doing better than your most of your peers) you are not even close to ATG players. You are simply known as having a great purple patch which peaked in very short time and helped you to accumulate rating points. MoYo was not ranked even in top 10 for majority of his career. That explains why MoYo is not considered ATG player and SRT/Gavaskar are considered ATG despite having lower 'highest rating points' than Moyo.

Rating and rankings are not same thing. Wasim was often ranked in top 5 bowlers during his career otherwise he won't be even ATG. Criticism is about him not being better than his peers even once during his long career let alone doing so for an extended period. He did play with many ATG bowlers so that was working against him.

I hope this will stop people mixing rating and ranking.

Ratings decide the Rankings, i hope you knew that.
Someone with a rating of 930 will be ranked above someone with a rating of 900.

Ratings and Rankings go hand by hand, and if we make a complete list of rankings of all players than Yousaf will be ranked higher than Sachin and Sunil both.



So by your logic, Yousaf is an ATG and is also better than Sachin and Sunil.

 

[Buffet]

Ratings decide the Rankings, i hope you knew that.
Someone with a rating of 930 will be ranked above someone with a rating of 900.

Ratings and Rankings go hand by hand, and if we make a complete list of rankings of all players than Yousaf will be ranked higher than Sachin and Sunil both.



So by your logic, Yousaf is an ATG and is also better than Sachin and Sunil.

LOL, talk about missing the whole point of my post. I will try again.

Again you are mixing two things by saying that the complete list of ranking will have MoYo higher than SRT/Gavaskar. You should say that the complete list of highest rating will have MoYo higher than SRT/Gavaskar. He hit a purple patch and he got very high rating and that was higher than highest rating achieved by SRT/Gavaskar. At same time he was also ranked number one but for a brief period.

But key point - For majority of his playing career, he was not ranked even in top 10. But SRT/Gavaskar occupied top spots for an extended period. They were ranked number 1 for long time and were also ranked in top 5 for most of their career. That's why Moyo is Pakistani Great and SRT/Gavaskar are ATG. Being best in the world for 4 months is good achievement but being best in the world for 4 years and remaining in top 5 for majority of your career makes you an ATG.

Hope you got it now and won't ask for ranking list of players and put MoYo higher. In highest rating list, yes, he will come higher. Clearly, rating and ranking are related but they are not the same. They shouldn't be used interchangeably. That's what I was pointing out.

Hope this explains it now and there shouldn't be any confusion regarding rating and ranking.

 

[ahmed778]

Re: Steyn vs Akram

LOL, talk about missing the whole point of my post. I will try again.

Again you are mixing two things by saying that the complete list of ranking will have MoYo higher than SRT/Gavaskar. You should say that the complete list of highest rating will have MoYo higher than SRT/Gavaskar. He hit a purple patch and he got very high rating and that was higher than highest rating achieved by SRT/Gavaskar. At same time he was also ranked number one but for a brief period.

But key point - For majority of his playing career, he was not ranked even in top 10. But SRT/Gavaskar occupied top spots for an extended period. They were ranked number 1 for long time and were also ranked in top 5 for most of their career. That's why Moyo is Pakistani Great and SRT/Gavaskar are ATG. Being best in the world for 4 months is good achievement but being best in the world for 4 years and remaining in top 5 for majority of your career makes you an ATG.

Hope you got it now and won't ask for ranking list of players and put MoYo higher. In highest rating list, yes, he will come higher. Clearly, rating and ranking are related but they are not the same. They shouldn't be used interchangeably. That's what I was pointing out.

Hope this explains it now and there shouldn't be any confusion regarding rating and ranking.

Can you stop with your Rubbish, Yousaf was in the top 3 for more than 3 years and was in the Top 10 for more than 5.
So could you stop with your Rubbish lies?


No ratings decide the ranking.

If there ever was a list of Top Rankings than Yousaf would be ranked higher than Sachin and Sunil because he had a higher rating, thus by your logic as Yousaf is ranked higher than Sachin and Sunil, he is also better than them.




Feels good to see an Indian implying that Yousaf was better than Sachin and Sunil

 

[Buffet]

Can you stop with your Rubbish, Yousaf was in the top 3 for more than 3 years and was in the Top 10 for more than 5.
[/B]

Stop acting childish and grow up a bit. I said Moyo has not been ranked in top 10 for majority of his career, that's all. Here is how he was ranked till 2010 and he has still not retired,



He debuted in 1998 and Now it is 2013. Please list periods to show how he was ranked in top 10 in majority( more than 50%) of his career. Go , look at graphs of Steyn, SRT etc to see how it looks when a player spend majority of his career in top spots.

Now for about you mixing rating and rankings, carry on.... You used to be a reasonably good poster. Don't know what happened with you.

 

[Liverpool_Faizan]

i cant believe this is being debated.....

 

[Liverpool_Faizan]

I think if you were to ask all pros playing cricket and the experts 95% will say Akram. The other 5% will be Mohammad Hafeez like cricketers.

 

[Buffet]

I think if you were to ask all pros playing cricket and the experts 95% will say Akram. The other 5% will be Mohammad Hafeez like cricketers.

I would say that it's not fair to compare a retired player with another player who is still playing. One to one comparison of an ATG with another should be done when both have hanged their boots unless some one is comparing bowlers like Anderson and Steyn.

 

[ahmed778]

Stop acting childish and grow up a bit. I said Moyo has not been ranked in top 10 for majority of his career, that's all. Here is how he was ranked till 2010 and he has still not retired,

View attachment 33435

He debuted in 1998 and Now it is 2013. Please list periods to show how he was ranked in top 10 in majority( more than 50%) of his career. Go , look at graphs of Steyn, SRT etc to see how it looks when a player spend majority of his career in top spots.

Now for about you mixing rating and rankings, carry on.... You used to be a reasonably good poster. Don't know what happened with you.

Mohammad Yousaf attained a Career Best Rating of 9 on 29/11/2005, and he stayed in the Top 10 till 03/01/2010.

He Stayed in the Top 3 during 2006-09.

You see i don't need to Lie, in order to prove a point.

And Ratings determine the Rank of a Batsman, Yousaf's best rating is better than Sunil and Sachin, and if there was a an All time ICC Ranking than Yousaf would be ranked higher than Sachin and Sunil.

 

[Buffet]

Wasim's & McGrath's cost of top order [1-6] or tails is not reflected in screenshot discussed in this thread. I took a quick look at whatever screenshot a fellow poster was using to arrive at conclusion that Wasim is more efficient in taking top 6 and tails both when compared to McGrath.

Two major flaws the way we are using that screenshot. Here is link for screenshot http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=5807895&postcount=394

--------------------------------

First Flaw: Wasim's efficiency is not reflected there for block of 1-6 batsmen or RHB or LHB.

screenshots doesn't tell anything about how many runs Wasim gave while dismissing those batsmen ( RHB, LHB, 1st position, 2nd position ..... ). It doesn't tell you anything about Wasim efficiency in dismissing those batsmen. It only tells you the average score of each batsmen when they were dismissed.

In screenshot, Wasim has below 20 avg listed for RHB & LHB, both. If he gave sub 20 runs to take wickets against Right hand bats and also sub 20 runs to take wickets against left hand bats then his career average for taking each wicket should have been sub 20 but that's not the case. So screenshot doesn't show how many runs Wasim gave to take those wickets ( RHB, LHB, 1st position, 2nd position .....)

I can see why poster got confused here. Cricinfo should have been more clear while putting such headers but if you hover your mouse on top of 'avg' you will notice the description. It says average score upon dismissal.


Second Flaw - An average of average should never be used even if we know how many runs Wasim gave for each wickets at different batting positions. We have two blocks of wickets here. 1-6 and then tails. We can't use average of average to determine how cheaply McGrath and Wasim took wickets in two blocks. Why? Let me explain with one simple example.

Example to show why we shouldn't use average of average:

A bowler takes , only 1 wicket each for batting position 1-5. He takes 95 wickets at batting position 6. He has total 100 wickets for batting position 1-6.

1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting position 1
1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting position 2
1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting position 3
1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting position 4
1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting postion 5
95 wicket at avg of 20 for batting position 6

Average of average will give you misleading idea that 100 wickets of block 1-6 was taken at an average of (10+10+10+10+10+20) / 6 = 11.66. In reality situation is lot different. Bowler gave total 1950 runs to get 100 wickets in 1-6 block. His each wicket in block 1-6 costed 19.50. To see how cheaply bowler took wickets, we need to take total runs and total wickets for block of 1-6 batting order.

So average of average is not meaningful at all. I used extreme example to make my point but it still holds true if you have some different distribution of wickets in each batting position. This point is a mute point due to screenshot having first flaw but just pointing out why we should not use it.

--------------------------




For Moyo, I posted in other thread. Please see below.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=5812669&postcount=145

Let's keep this discussion for Steyn vs Wasim only.

Cost of taking top 6 or tails are difficult to calculate unless we know how many runs was given by bowler to take wickets at each position. Screenshot was misleading due to the way Cricinfo labeled the headers so we still don't have such data.

 

[ftbno1]

Baap re !Yeh thread itna lumba chala gaya .

 

[Bilal7]

I think if you were to ask all pros playing cricket and the experts 95% will say Akram. The other 5% will be Mohammad Hafeez like cricketers.

This. It won't be that one-sided by most experts would pick Wasim and Waqar over Steyn.

 

[Mamoon]

This. It won't be that one-sided by most experts would pick Wasim and Waqar over Steyn.

Yep.

There is a reason why every legend of the game rates Wasim incredibly highly.

Ponting didn't even have Steyn in his all time XI.

Matter of fact is, greats of the game who have watched faced all the legendary bowlers we only watch on Youtube now, don't rate Steyn as a great.

 

[James]

I've noticed above that Akram supporters seem quite frightened to form their own independent opinions.

Wonder why.

 

[Mamoon]

I've noticed above that Akram supporters seem quite frightened to form their own independent opinions.

Wonder why.

We are tired of doing so but Steyn heads can't get their heads around it.


Wasim was a beast in both tests and ODIs. Steyn a best in tests only hence Wasim > Steyn. Simple logic really.

ODIs may not matter to some but nobody tells Steyn to under-perform. When he goes in to bowl, he doesn't think that okay this doesn't matter I ain't giving my best. he still gives his all but he doesn't possess the skill-set and versatility to do well in ODIs.


Adding opinions of the legends adds weight to the argument; the likes of Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Donald know a TRILLION times more than PakPassion arm chair critics.

 

[James]

Serious fans of cricket are only really discussing Tests in threads like this. Let's be honest.

I don't see why we should put fundamental trust in the opinion of any ex-cricketer, particularly. It's a weak position of argument: what if another ex-cricketer comes out tomorrow and comments that Steyn is the better bowler? Waqar Younis himself may have just done so this week. Do we suddenly not trust the opinion of that ex-cricketer because it shows us that we might be wrong? Follow the logic.

 

[ahmed778]

OK, As promised I took a quick look at whatever screenshot you were using to arrive at conclusion that Wasim is more efficient in taking top 6 and tails both when compared to McGrath.

Two major flaws the way you are using that screenshot. Here is link for your screenshot which prompted some other posters to think that you were making it up (about Wasim's efficiency to take wickets at each batting position) but you simply misunderstood and I don't think it was too much of your fault.

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=5807895&postcount=394

--------------------------------

First Flaw: Wasim's efficiency is not reflected there for block of 1-6 batsmen or RHB or LHB.

Your screenshots doesn't tell anything about how many runs Wasim gave while dismissing those batsmen ( RHB, LHB, 1st position, 2nd position ..... ). It doesn't tell you anything about Wasim efficiency in dismissing those batsmen. It only tells you the average score of each batsmen when they were dismissed.

In your screenshot, Wasim has below 20 avg listed for RHB & LHB, both. If he gave sub 20 runs to take wickets against Right hand bats and also sub 20 runs to take wickets against left hand bats then his career average for taking each wicket should have been sub 20 but that's not that case. So your screenshot doesn't show how many runs Wasim gave to take those wickets ( RHB, LHB, 1st position, 2nd position .....)

I can see why you got confused here. Cricinfo should have been more clear while putting such headers but if you hover your mouse on top of 'avg' you will notice the description. It says average score upon dismissal.

You clearly have some issues understanding English, because everything you posted is absolutely wrong.

Do you even know what the word Average means?

The meaning of "Average score upon dismissal" is the average of the number of runs that the Batsmen scored against Wasim before getting out.

If he averages 28 runs, than that means that he took his wickets after giving away 28 runs?

Do you have some problem understanding English?


Do you know what the word "Score" means?
Score as in runs, meaning that if Wasim averages 14 than on an average he gave away 14 runs before he took the wicket?

If you actually used your brain before posting this, you would have realized that, "Average score upon dismissal" means the runs the Batsman had scored against Wasim before he got him out.

And the "CAREER BOWLING AVERAGE" in Wasim's case which is 23 reflects the same thing because,


Bowling average = Runs conceded/Wickets taken = Runs Conceded per Wicket.

Please do try to use your brain before posting, you will save yourself a lot of time and embarrassment.

Do you perhaps understand such a simple concept explained in simple English now?

Second Flaw - An average of average should never be used even if you know how many runs Wasim gave for each wickets at different batting positions. We have two blocks of wickets here. 1-6 and then tails. You can't use average of average to determine how cheaply McGrath and Wasim took wickets in two blocks. Why? Let me explain you with one simple example.

Example to show why we shouldn't use average of average:

A bowler takes , only 1 wicket each for batting position 1-5. He takes 95 wickets at batting position 6. He has total 100 wickets for batting position 1-6.

1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting position 1
1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting position 2
1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting position 3
1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting position 4
1 wicket at avg of 10 for batting postion 5
95 wicket at avg of 20 for batting position 6

Average of average will give you misleading idea that 100 wickets of block 1-6 was taken at an average of (10+10+10+10+10+20) / 6 = 11.66. In reality situation is lot different. Bowler gave total 1950 runs to get 100 wickets in 1-6 block. His each wicket in block 1-6 costed 19.50. To see how cheaply bowler took wickets, we need to take total runs and total wickets for block of 1-6 batting order.

So average of average is not meaningful at all. I used extreme example to make my point but it still holds true if you have some different distribution of wickets in each batting position. This point is a mute point due to screenshot having first flaw but just pointing out why we should not use it.

--------------------------

I was only pointing out that It's not possible for Wasim to be more efficient in picking top 6 + tails , both than McGrath otherwise Wasim would have had better career record. I didn't even had to look at anything else to make that statement.

I patiently looked at your screenshot to find out why you were confused. I tried my best to explain it to you as well. If you have any question here, just ask and I will try to answer it but more often than not most people don't have that much time to explain line by line. You don't want to offer an apology then it's fine but in future don't accuse people for doing random things due to mistake of mixing posters.

Please, i don't think you are capable of answering any question, your posts are full of baloney.
If anything you need some help understand English.
I'll try me best to explain it to you.

The word efficiency means how cheaply a Batsman got a bowler out, the word EFFICIENCY OR HOW CHEAPLY HE GOT THE BATSMAN OUT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AMOUNT OF BATSMAN HE GOT OUT.

When you say how cheaply Wasim got a Batsman out you see how much runs he conceded before getting them out, there is no link whatsoever to the number of times he got them out.

Say

Bowler A gets the Top 3 Batsmen out 10 times like this,

Number 1. 1 wicket for 30 runs, average = 30
Number 2. 4 wicket for 120 runs, average = 30
Number 3. 5 wickets for 1 run, average= 0.50
His average of averages is 20.16

Bowler B gets the Top Batsmen out 100 times like this.

Number 1. 50 wickets, 1000 runs, average = 20
Number 2. 20 wickets 500 runs, average= 25
Number 3. 30 wickets 500 runs, average= 16.67
Average of averages= 20.5.

As you can see it tells us accurately that Bowler A was more efficient even though Bowler B averaged better than him against 2 Batsmen, but Bowler A was much better against the Third and that difference was enough to make up for the other 2 and thus he averaged better than him.

Bowler B gets the Top 3 Batsmen out 1000 times giving away 100000 runs he averages 100 against them.

Bowler A will be considered more efficient against the Top 3 as he got them out cheaply whereas Bowler B got more wickets he conceded more runs.

And The average of the averages against the Top 6 means the Average number of runs that a Bowler conceded on average against the Top 6.

What you have shown by this post is a complete lack of knowledge and also that you are unable to comprehend simple English.

Try and read what you post before you post, you'll save yourself some time and respect.

 

[Mamoon]

Serious fans of cricket are only really discussing Tests in threads like this. Let's be honest.

I don't see why we should put fundamental trust in the opinion of any ex-cricketer, particularly. It's a weak position of argument: what if another ex-cricketer comes out tomorrow and comments that Steyn is the better bowler? Waqar Younis himself may have just done so this week. Do we suddenly not trust the opinion of that ex-cricketer because it shows us that we might be wrong? Follow the logic.

it could be wrong but like I said it just adds more weight to the argument.

Well when you compare two individuals, why ignore ODIs?

Versatility is a key component.

If you compare tests only than Cook is a better batsman than de Villiers. However, de Villiers is a rare cricketer who excels in all three formats of the game something Cook isn't capable of. That is why it would be highly unfair to say that Cook is a better batsman than de Villiers because he does better in the format that matters.

Pretty sure Cook would love to be awesome in all formats similarly, the fact that Steyn has a mediocre ODI record surely bothers him because he is a competitive cricketer. The way he was pissed off with his effort yesterday in a nothing warm up game really highlighted his passion for the game.


However in tests ONLY I'll rate Steyn more and his record speaks for itself.

One could say that he has bowled on better pitches with better fielders around but that isn't conclusive evidence.

Stats aren't everything but they don't lie. They are hard facts.

 

[ahmed778]

Steyn is better than Wasim in Tests.
Wasim is better than Steyn in ODI's.
Steyn is better in T20i's as Wasim hasn't played T20 cricket, so he wins by forfeit.

 

[Buffet]

Try and read what you post before you post, you'll save yourself some time and respect.

I trie to be very nice so far with you and tried to explain. Now forget about any yada yada,

Tell me one simple thing. In your screenshot Wasim is depicted as having sub 20 avg against RHB and LHB both? Do you think your screenshot shows the reality? Don't go anywhere else with asnwer, only answer to this. A simple yes or no will do here.

 

[ahmed778]

I trie to be very nice so far with you and tried to explain. Now forget about any yada yada,

Tell me one simple thing. In your screenshot Wasim is depicted as having sub 20 avg against RHB and LHB both? Do you think your screenshot shows the reality? Don't go anywhere else with asnwer, only answer to this. A simple yes or no will do here.

Yes, it does.

Cricinfo has far more credibility than a rubbish article, written by an Indian trying to slander Pakistani Players with no proof or credibility whatsoever.

 

[Buffet]

Yes, it does.

Cricinfo has far more credibility than a rubbish article, written by an Indian trying to slander Pakistani Players with no proof or credibility whatsoever.

LOL, based on your screenshot Wasim took,

• 320 test wickets at 16.60 avg against RHB
• 94 wickets at 19.18 avg against LHB

And still managed to have 414 [ 320 + 94] wickets at career average of 23+, LOL


Here is portion of your screenshot which you are wrongly using ,



Question is not about cricinfo credibility here. It's about your ability to understand even after I tried explaining the reason for your confusion. In wicket summary , Cricinfo have average score at which batsmen were dismissed and it has absolutely no relationship with how cheaply Wasim took wickets against RHB & LHB. Cric info should have done better job at labeling this. I tried to explain you earlier as well but failed miserably.

Anyway, you can use your screenshot to prove that Wasim averaged sub 20 against RHB and LHB both. Continue living in your parallel universe where Wasim averages below 20 against all batsmen in these two sets( LHB & RHB). Logical extension of your parallel universe is Wasim career average being sub 20, LOL.

 

[ahmed778]

LOL, based on your screenshot Wasim took,

• 320 test wickets at 16.60 avg against RHB
• 94 wickets at 19.18 avg against LHB

And still managed to have 414 [ 320 + 94] wickets at career average of 23+, LOL


Here is portion of your screenshot which you are wrongly using ,

View attachment 33472

Question is not about cricinfo credibility here. It's about your ability to understand even after I tried explaining the reason for your confusion. In wicket summary , Cricinfo have average score at which batsmen were dismissed and it has absolutely no relationship with how cheaply Wasim took wickets against RHB & LHB. Cric info should have done better job at labeling this. I tried to explain you earlier as well but failed miserably.

Anyway, you can use your screenshot to prove that Wasim averaged sub 20 against RHB and LHB both. Continue living in your parallel universe where Wasim averages below 20 against all batsmen in these two sets( LHB & RHB). Logical extension of your parallel universe is Wasim career average being sub 20, LOL.

What kind of idiotic post is this?

Are you acting to be that dumb?

Or you don't like to use your brain.


No actually it is YOUR INABILITY to comprehend SIMPLE ENGLISH.

Average score upon dismissal is the runs that THE BATSMAN HAS SCORED OF HIS BAT AGAINST A BOWLER.

DO YOU GET THAT PART?

THE BOWLING AVERAGE IS TOTAL RUNS CONCEDED DIVIDED BY THE WICKETS, THE TOTAL RUNS CONCEDED INCLUDE THE EXTRA RUNS CONCEDED BY THE BOWLER AND THE RUNS THAT A BATSMAN HAS SCORED OF HIM,

DO YOU GET THAT PART?

AVERAGE SCORE UPON DISMISSAL = RUNS SCORED BY THE BATSMAN OF HIS BAT/TOTAL WICKETS TAKEN AGAINST THE BATSMAN.

CAREER BOWLING AVERAGE= TOTAL RUNS CONCEDED/ TOTAL WICKETS


DO YOU GET THIS I PUT IT IN CAPS AND BOLD SO AND SIMPLE ENGLISH SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, although i doub't it since you are incapable of understand simple english.

PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN BEFORE POSTING.

 

[Momin Baig]

Bump. Almost 2 years later. Is this still true?

 

[Hitman]

The guy is still not 32 years old yet, and has already 396 wickets. Will easily get 500 Test wickets (minimum) if he remains free from severe injuries.

 

[Kianig89]

Wasim the greatest left armer in the history of cricket can we say the same about Steyn (Marshall says hi)

Add to it Wasim was a beast in both test and ODI cricket can we say the same about Steyn (no)

Hence Wasim > Steyn

although Steyn is one heck of a great bowler and I admire n rate him highly

 

[TigerRoars]

A stupid, very stupid comparison. With due respect to Steyn, he is nowhere near as good as Wasim..
No way

 

[Chrish]

Wasim is better if we combine ODI and Test but Steyn is slightly better in Test IMO. Also considering all the batting friendly rules/ flat wickets/ smaller grounds etc., I rate them as equal.

 

[Neferpitou]

Wasim is better if we combine ODI and Test but Steyn is slightly better in Test IMO. Also considering all the batting friendly rules/ flat wickets/ smaller grounds etc., I rate them as equal.

Forget Wasim, Steyn is better than Mcgrath.

 

[Chrish]

Forget Wasim, Steyn is better than Mcgrath.

Other than Marshall, no other bowler is better than Mcgrath in my book.. It's subjective of course. Steyn is a fine bowler indeed and an ATG of game though.

 

[tempus123]

Wasim the greatest left armer in the history of cricket can we say the same about Steyn (Marshall says hi)

So ? It just means most of the ATG bowlers were right handed, and hence Wasim got it easy in left handed competition wise.

 

[tempus123]

Other than Marshall, no other bowler is better than Mcgrath in my book.. It's subjective of course. Steyn is a fine bowler indeed and an ATG of game though.

Lillee was better, also I rate Ambrose better than McGrath too. In fact, McGrath won't make most of the people's all time XI, which has place for 3 fast bowlers.

 

[WrexEverything]

Lillee was better, also I rate Ambrose better than McGrath too. In fact, McGrath won't make most of the people's all time XI, which has place for 3 fast bowlers.

Speak for yourself.

 

[WrexEverything]

Steyn definitely better in tests. Wasim definitely better in ODIs. That is all.

 

[Chrish]

Lillee was better, also I rate Ambrose better than McGrath too. In fact, McGrath won't make most of the people's all time XI, which has place for 3 fast bowlers.

Marshall and Mcgrath have the most all-round record for any pace bowlers.. They performed everywhere against everyone on every surface imaginable.. Lillee failed in SC.. And Ambrose was a moody bowler.. He didn't seem to give his 100% when pitch wasn't assisting to pace bowling.

Regarding bolded part, it's pretty absurd.. Mcgrath will easily walk into any all time XI without a shadow of the doubt.

 

[tempus123]

Speak for yourself.

You can exclude yourself from "most" if you want.. I am talking sense here.

 

[tempus123]

Marshall and Mcgrath have the most all-round record for any pace bowlers.. They performed everywhere against everyone on every surface imaginable.. Lillee failed in SC.. And Ambrose was a moody bowler.. He didn't seem to give his 100% when pitch wasn't assisting to pace bowling.

Regarding bolded part, it's pretty absurd.. Mcgrath will easily walk into any all time XI without a shadow of the doubt.

No it's not absurd.. name me one expert who picked him in his all time XI, even if a few do, my statement holds true (I said most, not all). Even cricinfo jury didn't have him in their first XI (and probably not even in second XI if I am not wrong, but you can confirm). Cricinfo jury isn't all correct, but represents a fair set of experts rated highly for their opinion worldwide.

 

[tempus123]

Marshall and Mcgrath have the most all-round record for any pace bowlers.. They performed everywhere against everyone on every surface imaginable.. Lillee failed in SC.. And Ambrose was a moody bowler.. He didn't seem to give his 100% when pitch wasn't assisting to pace bowling.

Regarding bolded part, it's pretty absurd.. Mcgrath will easily walk into any all time XI without a shadow of the doubt.

You have to check Ambrose's record everywhere.. he didn't play in India but he averages less than 25-26 everywhere. Moody ? Not sure.. it's very subjective.. and people playing against him rated him as the best bowling machine.

McGrath's buddy Warne had rated Ambrose higher than him too.. just saying.

 

[corned_tiger_fan]

wasim toe crushing swinging yorkers...steyn outswinging length delivery in wc semi final and gone for 6

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Steyn is up there with Lillee and Marshall as one of the greatest fast bowlers to play cricket. I'd only pick McGrath above any of these guys for his inhuman consistency.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Wasim stayed on for too long . Should have retired from tests around 99 and focused on ODI's only. Still an ATG and a top 10 fast bowler and my favourite but Steyn is a bit better no doubt.

 

[Madplayer]

Wasim is better. He was more talented as well. His bowling figures got screwed (still a beastly average of 23) due to continuing playing when he was way past his prime (traditional problem with Pakistani players) . Not to mention he performed both in tests and ODIs, was a wayyyy better batsman and could captain the side as well.

 

[Robert]

Looking back on this thread: Steyn is the better bowler in tests, Wasim the better bowler in ODIs.

 

[Stallion__]

What kind of idiotic post is this?

Are you acting to be that dumb?

Or you don't like to use your brain.


No actually it is YOUR INABILITY to comprehend SIMPLE ENGLISH.

Average score upon dismissal is the runs that THE BATSMAN HAS SCORED OF HIS BAT AGAINST A BOWLER.

DO YOU GET THAT PART?

THE BOWLING AVERAGE IS TOTAL RUNS CONCEDED DIVIDED BY THE WICKETS, THE TOTAL RUNS CONCEDED INCLUDE THE EXTRA RUNS CONCEDED BY THE BOWLER AND THE RUNS THAT A BATSMAN HAS SCORED OF HIM,

DO YOU GET THAT PART?

AVERAGE SCORE UPON DISMISSAL = RUNS SCORED BY THE BATSMAN OF HIS BAT/TOTAL WICKETS TAKEN AGAINST THE BATSMAN.

CAREER BOWLING AVERAGE= TOTAL RUNS CONCEDED/ TOTAL WICKETS


DO YOU GET THIS I PUT IT IN CAPS AND BOLD SO AND SIMPLE ENGLISH SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, although i doub't it since you are incapable of understand simple english.

PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN BEFORE POSTING.

Just saw this and it was a terrible post. An unworthy attempt to prove a point. How can extras increase an average of a bowler by more than 25 percent?

 

[Kakar]

What kind of idiotic post is this?

Are you acting to be that dumb?

Or you don't like to use your brain.


No actually it is YOUR INABILITY to comprehend SIMPLE ENGLISH.

Average score upon dismissal is the runs that THE BATSMAN HAS SCORED OF HIS BAT AGAINST A BOWLER.

DO YOU GET THAT PART?

THE BOWLING AVERAGE IS TOTAL RUNS CONCEDED DIVIDED BY THE WICKETS, THE TOTAL RUNS CONCEDED INCLUDE THE EXTRA RUNS CONCEDED BY THE BOWLER AND THE RUNS THAT A BATSMAN HAS SCORED OF HIM,

DO YOU GET THAT PART?

AVERAGE SCORE UPON DISMISSAL = RUNS SCORED BY THE BATSMAN OF HIS BAT/TOTAL WICKETS TAKEN AGAINST THE BATSMAN.

CAREER BOWLING AVERAGE= TOTAL RUNS CONCEDED/ TOTAL WICKETS


DO YOU GET THIS I PUT IT IN CAPS AND BOLD SO AND SIMPLE ENGLISH SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, although i doub't it since you are incapable of understand simple english.

PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN BEFORE POSTING.

Total number of runs conceded by a bowler is runs scored by right handers against him + runs scored by left handers scored against him + extras. From the data, taking 320 wickets at 16.60 per wicket, Wasim has conceded 5312 runs against them and taking 94 wickets at 19.18 runs per wicket, he has conceded 1803 runs against them. That adds up to 7115 runs. And total number of runs conceded by Wasim in his career are 9779. Now 9779-7115 = 2664 runs. I really doubt that Wasim has conceded 2664 extras in 3771.1 overs that he has bowled in test cricket.

 

[iiqbal]

wasim have natural talent , Steyn on the other hand v hard working cricketer, Please donot compare on the basis of statistics , to match wasim class some one must have some natural talent. As per statistics basis Misbah is better than so many legeng of all time and younis is on top of three

 

[Hawkeye]

Wasim is better. He was more talented as well. His bowling figures got screwed (still a beastly average of 23) due to continuing playing when he was way past his prime (traditional problem with Pakistani players) . Not to mention he performed both in tests and ODIs, was a wayyyy better batsman and could captain the side as well.

Correct.

Plain stats can't be compared like that - One averages 22, other 23, so 22 averaging is automatically better.

Steyn is one of the greats in Tests no doubt, but those who have seen BOTH bowl, honestly, who would you not bat against? Who had more varieties? Who was more skilled?

There's your answer. Wasim Akram. The guy could move the ball any direction he wanted, inswing, outswing, seam, you name it. Then the yorkers.

Steyn too is great with his consistent outswing that he bowls in a good channel. But honestly, not better than Wasim.

 

[Hawkeye]

This is somewhat like saying Kallis is better than Tendulkar because Kallis has a better average.

Or Sangakkara > SRT.

 

[Kakar]

Ok this is what 'average score upon dismissal' means:

Wasim dismisses three batsman: Player A who had scored 35 runs, Player B who had scored 20 runs, Player C, who had scored 5 runs. These are not the runs these batsmen scored against Wasim, rather these were the scores they were batting at when they were dismissed. So, average score upon dismissal would be 35+20+5 = 60/3 = 20 runs.

 

[as-95]

Why are there so many jealous Indians here on Pakpassion lately? Was im is no doubt the superior bowler in all formats and is in the Top 3 All time fast bowlers. Stern is a great fast bowler, but Wasim is in a class of his own at the top.

 

[as-95]

Steyn is up there with Lillee and Marshall as one of the greatest fast bowlers to play cricket. I'd only pick McGrath above any of these guys for his inhuman consistency.

Wasim stayed on for too long . Should have retired from tests around 99 and focused on ODI's only. Still an ATG and a top 10 fast bowler and my favourite but Steyn is a bit better no doubt.

Lillee flopped in the Subcontinent and does not compare to the top tier of Atg's. If you took you blue tinted glasses off, you would acknowledge that Wasim is superior but your bias against Pakistan won't let you do so. Steyn along with Lillee are a level below Marshall,Wasim.

 

[Hawkeye]

Why are there so many jealous Indians here on Pakpassion lately? Was im is no doubt the superior bowler in all formats and is in the Top 3 All time fast bowlers. Stern is a great fast bowler, but Wasim is in a class of his own at the top.

Can't understand the bitterness by some.

I mean, there's a clear difference in the skill-set of both. Opposition and quality of batsmen faced is also different. Yet, because Steyn averages 22 and Wasim averages 23, Steyn is better.

Now I dare you open a thread that Kallis or Sangakkara are better than Tendulkar because they average more (or someone else who averages more than SRT). I double dare you.

 

[as-95]

Forget Wasim, Steyn is better than Mcgrath.

No chance. McGrath AND Wasim are superior to Steyn.

 

[as-95]

Can't understand the bitterness by some.

I mean, there's a clear difference in the skill-set of both. Opposition and quality of batsmen faced is also different. Yet, because Steyn averages 22 and Wasim averages 23, Steyn is better.

Now I dare you open a thread that Kallis or Sangakkara are better than Tendulkar because they average more (or someone else who averages more than SRT). I double dare you.

Neither can I. Most of the posters vouching for Steyn are indeed Indians. The only explanation is an inferiority complex that forces them to downplay anything in Pakistan cricket;even if they know deep down that they are wrong.

 

[zabalestmsm]

No he cant! Wasim Akram was equally ATG in both formats! D Steyn is only a Test great!

 

[sajeebmcj]

steyn' sr is far superior to that of wasim.