Is Steyn as deadly as Lillee?

[smash84]

waqar had a great killer instinct. Steyn seems similar to me. Except that maybe Steyn has more variety but lacks that inswinging yorker.

 

[Burgey]

I wouldnt say Lillee has the most killer instinct of fast bowlers ive seen, and i'm sure there's guys from before his era that were awesome but not many of us have seen them.

Can safely say that of every poster on this forum, JBMAC has seen more of those blokes than anyone.

In fact, he's faced a few of them too, iirc.

 

[ankitj]

I think that because ive watched enough of both of them bowl, and can form my own opinion with resorting to being a 'stats warrior'. I dont care about stats. They mean close to nothing. Can be completely misleading and can be interpreted however one seems fit to suit their agenda.

I don't agree with this high handedness of posters who ignore stats. As I said before, you can write great stories about any of the 15-20 great fast bowlers. And when we are comparing between those greats we really are splitting hairs and stats are only objective measre. This doesn't automatically mean that we follow all our cricket on statsguru.

 

[Migara]

I think that because ive watched enough of both of them bowl, and can form my own opinion with resorting to being a 'stats warrior'. I dont care about stats. They mean close to nothing. Can be completely misleading and can be interpreted however one seems fit to suit their agenda.

Subjective descriptions and opinions usually means much less than that. If you have an opinion better back it up with facts, objective ones at that. Otherwise it's only a unproven "theory". Steyn's low SR shows he has the killer instinct (not the "blood on the pitch" killer instinct). McGrath also had that, but never tried to kill batsmen as Ambrose or Marshall. So did Waqar, but never bowled even close to the style of Lillee or Holding, but effectively the best strike bowler in last 50 years. Love for your generation is perfectly valid, but never should marr the judgements or opinions based on that. I've only seen Lillee in his twilight years, but has seen Marshall, Hadlee, Ambrose, Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Imran and McGrath. They were different to each other, and fantasizing on one particular type of bowling style doesn't go a long way.

 

[Migara]

Can safely say that of every poster on this forum, JBMAC has seen more of those blokes than anyone.

In fact, he's faced a few of them too, iirc.

That will effectively skew and bias the judgments for sure. If you were floored by a certain bowler then you'll have a higher regard for him.

 

[Maximus0723]

One reason why I favour stats over statless opinion is because one or two clutch performances in clutch games can have lasting impact on one's opinion and that impact would hide the player's performances in other games. Stat looks at a player with an unbiased perspective. That's the neat thing about it.

Secondly, no one watches all the games. No one. Mostly we only watch games of our favourite countries. Rest we pay very little attention to. So that is where statless opinion fails. When you don't watch the player play then your opinions regarding that player don't hold much weight.

 

[smash84]

That will effectively skew and bias the judgments for sure. If you were floored by a certain bowler then you'll have a higher regard for him.

lol..........Migara I must say that you can really turn around a point on its head. You too have this Ikki-ish talent

 

[robelinda]

Secondly, no one watches all the games. No one. Mostly we only watch games of our favourite countries. Rest we pay very little attention to. So that is where statless opinion fails. When you don't watch the player play then your opinions regarding that player don't hold much weight.

I watch all games. Speak for yourself, what a massive generalisation. I agree with that latter half of your post though!

 

[robelinda]

Subjective descriptions and opinions usually means much less than that. If you have an opinion better back it up with facts, objective ones at that. Otherwise it's only a unproven "theory".

Are you threatening me? I dont have to do anything you say, do you think your'e Chuck Norris or something??? Thats your opinion and yours only. Its not my fault you havent seen the best of Lillee, what gives you the right to even enter this thread with seemingly no knowledge at all of BOTH bowlers invloved? If you want to be a stats warrior then thats your right, good luck to you.

 

[Migara]

Are you threatening me? I dont have to do anything you say, do you think your'e Chuck Norris or something??? Thats your opinion and yours only. Its not my fault you havent seen the best of Lillee, what gives you the right to even enter this thread with seemingly no knowledge at all of BOTH bowlers invloved? If you want to be a stats warrior then thats your right, good luck to you.

Sorry if it meant as a threat or a personal thing, I've not meant it in that way.

Although I quoted you, it was aimed at all people who rubbish stats and ponder on subjective descriptions and opinions without any basis other than their bias. Whether you have seen Lillee or not is nor important. Because twenty years down the line when you see Steyn you have also changed. On no account it becomes a fair comparison. Stats don't change that way, and it's objective. When stats are close enough, yes, then we'll have room for subjective comments or opinions. People fear stats because their subjective crap gets found out by using them.

And for the bolded part, I just ask you to shut up, because I don't need your permission to enter any of threads here.

 

[Burgey]

That will effectively skew and bias the judgments for sure. If you were floored by a certain bowler then you'll have a higher regard for him.

So Migara, born 1980ish (I'm guessing) with the aid of statsguru, must know more than someone who's watched and played cricket for >50 years (and I may be being kind to JB in citing only 50).

Ok. The screen and keyboard are that way mate. I'm done here. Migara knows best. That fella averaging 1 run per wicket less just MUST be better. it has to be so. Seriously mate, you dot need to watch the game, just have a kook at the score sheets.

 

[Migara]

So Migara, born 1980ish (I'm guessing) with the aid of statsguru, must know more than someone who's watched and played cricket for >50 years (and I may be being kind to JB in citing only 50).

Ok. The screen and keyboard are that way mate. I'm done here. Migara knows best. That fella averaging 1 run per wicket less just MUST be better. it has to be so. Seriously mate, you dot need to watch the game, just have a kook at the score sheets.

Typical "I have seen and played for long, so I know better" syndrome.

Bias takes place in various ways. Playing the game with some one is obviously one. I have bowled to Kumar few occasions in late 90s, and had come better of him. That makes me think that de Silva is the best test batsman SL had, because my experience with Kumar is always under estimating him. But looking at their records it's obvious who is the best.

Watching the game is different, and I never said watching the games will skew your judgment in a short term. But comparing what you have seen 30 years back to now and taking judgments out of it is rubbish. Because in 30 years your thinking pattern changes, judgments change, values change, your sensations diminish, but yet you don't want to accept that it has happened, hence thinking your comparison is unbiased and perfect, which is far fro the truth. If somebody gives me an account of Lillee vs Hadlee I would give a lot of importance to that account because they played in same era and the judgment was made by a person who has changed a little. But somebody comparing Trueman to McGrath doesn't carry that weight, because the bias of change has crept in.

That fella averaging 1 run per wicket less just MUST be better.

The sarcasm is used by lot of the people with above syndrome when they have run out of arguments. It's like after eating everything on the plate muttering and banging the plate. And it does show in this instance Burgery don't want to read before posting. For his benefit here is what I've said about the particular instance.

When stats are close enough, yes, then we'll have room for subjective comments or opinions

So mate, watch the game and form opinions, it is fine. But back up them with suitable evidence or otherwise they'll be termed delusions.

 

[archie mac]

That will effectively skew and bias the judgments for sure. If you were floored by a certain bowler then you'll have a higher regard for him.

I would put more stock in that, then someone 20 years later looking over some stats

One reason why I favour stats over statless opinion is because one or two clutch performances in clutch games can have lasting impact on one's opinion and that impact would hide the player's performances in other games. Stat looks at a player with an unbiased perspective. That's the neat thing about it.

Secondly, no one watches all the games. No one. Mostly we only watch games of our favourite countries. Rest we pay very little attention to. So that is where statless opinion fails. When you don't watch the player play then your opinions regarding that player don't hold much weight.

A couple of clutch performances? He did take 300+ wickets. Stats miss so much the state of the pitch the quality of the batsman, the state of the match, is it a dead rubber Test? Is it claiming the wicket of the opp. best bat, is it keeping up pressure from one end, so the batsman takes risks with the other bowlers. I could go on and on.

Stats are a guide and that is all, read, watch, compare stats and then decide

 

[Migara]

I would put more stock in that, then someone 20 years later looking over some stats

Yeah, after being floored by Mohammed Sami makes him a better bowler than say Asif, who has not done that to you.

A couple of clutch performances? He did take 300+ wickets. Stats miss so much the state of the pitch the quality of the batsman, the state of the match, is it a dead rubber Test? Is it claiming the wicket of the opp. best bat, is it keeping up pressure from one end, so the batsman takes risks with the other bowlers. I could go on and on.

Stats are a guide and that is all, read, watch, compare stats and then decide

Stats is not just averages or sums. There are more to it. The states of the matches (like dead rubber) is also statistical data. It's a question of analysis tool you use and it's validity.

Stats will guide you, in the right direction. Subjective descriptions and opinions alone won't indicate you which way they are guiding you. They may well be guiding you in the wrong direction.

 

[archie mac]

Yeah, after being floored by Mohammed Sami makes him a better bowler than say Asif, who has not done that to you.

Yeah that is what was said in the original post

Stats is not just averages or sums. There are more to it. The states of the matches (like dead rubber) is also statistical data. It's a question of analysis tool you use and it's validity.

Stats will guide you, in the right direction. Subjective descriptions and opinions alone won't indicate you which way they are guiding you. They may well be guiding you in the wrong direction.

I think you just said the same thing as I did

 

[Blaze 18]

i dont care about stats. They mean close to nothing. Can be completely misleading and can be interpreted however one seems fit to suit their agenda.

+1

 

[Maximus0723]

A couple of clutch performances? He did take 300+ wickets. Stats miss so much the state of the pitch the quality of the batsman, the state of the match, is it a dead rubber Test? Is it claiming the wicket of the opp. best bat, is it keeping up pressure from one end, so the batsman takes risks with the other bowlers. I could go on and on.

Stats are a guide and that is all, read, watch, compare stats and then decide

Mate, my comments were intended for general purposes.
They weren't intended to downgrade likes of Lillee or Steyn.
Btw, I got man crush on Lillee so yea

 

[Maximus0723]

I watch all games. Speak for yourself, what a massive generalisation. I agree with that latter half of your post though!

Aight. I doubt that but I will respect and accept your opinion.
Just out of curiosity, since when have you regularly started watching cricket? '82?

 

[robelinda]

I would actually have Ambrose, Roberts and Marshall as being more deadly than Lillee, and Steyn by some distance. I do like watching Steyn, dont get me wrong, he's fabulous. Even someone like Waqar was amazingly deadly, but could go 20 overs doing nothing, then wipe out the last 5 for 2 runs. Not that he just a tail basher, but he kinda got on a roll so many times with those killer yorkers, the rest of his bowling didnt impress me much. Wasim Akram always looked like taking a wicket, Waqar not so IMO. Great bowler though, loved watching him.

 

[robelinda]

Aight. I doubt that but I will respect and accept your opinion.
Just out of curiosity, since when have you regularly started watching cricket? '82?

Yes. Even the varied stuff ive uploaded should convince anyone that I dont just watch and tape Aussie stuff, surely thats obvious??? I uploaded Kapil Dev vs England in 1982 today, and Brian Lara vs Pakistan in WI and in South Africa in 1993 yesterday.