Is Steyn as deadly as Lillee?

[Maximus0723]

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.

Yea, I am aware. I watch lot of your videos. I got you down on my subscription list

 

[smash84]

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.

spot on with the Wasim and Waqar analysis. However Wasim has a greater proportion of wickets from the tail ...........but you are right........Waqar was a bowler who depended on rythm (he himself says that in an interview).......those yorkers could be unplayable and he could really finish off a team within 5 to 10 runs when he was on a roll.

Wasim on the other hand depended more on variety,

 

[Burgey]

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.



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.



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.

So tell me mate, if so much in the game changes, explain to me how you can say bowler X today is better than bowler Y from 30 years ago, if their averages are similar, other than using subjective measures? Because that being so, with the factors effecting their stats changing, along with expectations, how does one tell?

It's like people in the interminable threads about Ponting, Kallis and Tendulkar. I don't care if Ponting's average is higher than Tendulkar's as it was for a large part of last decade, IMO Tendulkar was a better player. Just as, IMO it is pure and utter folly to say Kallis is a better test batsman than Ponting, notwithstanding the figures currently say he averages more.

It's an insane definition debate. If the definitions don't align, we will rarely agree. But you insult the intelligence of someone like JBMAC who comes on and voice their opinions by saying he will automatically rate blokes higher just because they played against them. That's frankly unfair of you to make that generalisation, IMO.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yes. Even the varied stuff ive uploaded should convince anyone that I dont just watch and tape Aussie stuff, surely thats obvious???

The quality of the opinions one forms from the watching is the issue rather than merely the variety of the watching, IMO.

 

[smash84]

The quality of the opinions one forms from the watching is the issue rather than merely the variety of the watching, IMO.

now you will have to define quality which will become another subjective debate

 

[centurymaker]

So tell me mate, if so much in the game changes, explain to me how you can say bowler X today is better than bowler Y from 30 years ago, if their averages are similar, other than using subjective measures? Because that being so, with the factors effecting their stats changing, along with expectations, how does one tell?

It's like people in the interminable threads about Ponting, Kallis and Tendulkar. I don't care if Ponting's average is higher than Tendulkar's as it was for a large part of last decade, IMO Tendulkar was a better player. Just as, IMO it is pure and utter folly to say Kallis is a better test batsman than Ponting, notwithstanding the figures currently say he averages more.

It's an insane definition debate. If the definitions don't align, we will rarely agree. But you insult the intelligence of someone like JBMAC who comes on and voice their opinions by saying he will automatically rate blokes higher just because they played against them. That's frankly unfair of you to make that generalisation, IMO.

Top Post!!
Numbers aren't everything!

 

[robelinda]

Yes, obviously a higher class of post than most. One that probably isnt even comprehended by some posters, unfortunately.

 

[G.I.Joe]

now you will have to define quality which will become another subjective debate

That's the beauty of it, don't you see?

 

[smash84]

lol....i see

 

[Migara]

So tell me mate, if so much in the game changes, explain to me how you can say bowler X today is better than bowler Y from 30 years ago, if their averages are similar, other than using subjective measures? Because that being so, with the factors effecting their stats changing, along with expectations, how does one tell?

Did I disagree there? It has a place when records are comparable. That's what I said in my earlier post as well.But the 30 year gap makes even the best of subjective assessments less valid, because the observer changes with time. So in a nutshell, players across eras cannot be compared very well. Even statistically it needs a hefty set of assumptions. Subjective assessments, even worse.

It's like people in the interminable threads about Ponting, Kallis and Tendulkar. I don't care if Ponting's average is higher than Tendulkar's as it was for a large part of last decade, IMO Tendulkar was a better player. Just as, IMO it is pure and utter folly to say Kallis is a better test batsman than Ponting, notwithstanding the figures currently say he averages more.

I am not in that band wagon. I prefer the players to end their careers for a better comparison.

It's an insane definition debate. If the definitions don't align, we will rarely agree. But you insult the intelligence of someone like JBMAC who comes on and voice their opinions by saying he will automatically rate blokes higher just because they played against them. That's frankly unfair of you to make that generalization, IMO.

It's how the human mind works mate. You don't want to except that, but that's the way it is. We overestimate people who have done better against us and underestimates who has failed against us, not only in cricket, even in other activities of life. I don't know whether JBMAC is biased or not, but I am stating possibilities. If JBMAC is biased due to that reason, he won't be the one to point out for sure. And I am perfectly entitled to voice my opinion whether he has played cricket for 1 year or 50 years. Glorifying the past and glorifying the present both happen here in CW. That is why I keep lot of faith on objective records rather than opinions.

 

[Migara]

Top Post!!
Numbers aren't everything!

Numbers tell a greater story than biased opinions. And it's hurting for some to realize that.

 

[ankitj]

What amuses me is the arrogance of people who want to argue without stats. While the anecdotes make for great reading and I always love reading them, when it comes to comparing cricketers, they mean next to nothing. That's the whole point.

 

[Ikki]

What amuses me is the arrogance of people who want to argue without stats. While the anecdotes make for great reading and I always love reading them, when it comes to comparing cricketers, they mean next to nothing. That's the whole point.

I am someone who tends to use stats in his arguments but I think you're being disingenuous there with the above.

I don't think there are too many people trying to say Chris Martin is better than Marshall - no one is using anecdotes to suggest something like that. Once bowlers are in a certain statistical group then they're basically close enough to compare. People may consider Kallis & Tendulkar equal statistically...but I am fairly sure most people will rate Tendulkar higher for some extrinsic reasons - accurately too IMO.

 

[abmk]

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.

sorry, but could you elaborate on how exactly you define deadly ? Consistently being a threat ?

 

[archie mac]

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

No worries

I would actually have Ambrose, Roberts and Marshall as being more deadly than Lillee, and Steyn by some distance..

??? Lillee had a great SR does not suggest he was a dangerous bowler? I watched most of his career and you never knew when he was going to take a wicket. Ask the batsman of his time and they all said you could never relax against him.

And Steyn is similar imo

 

[archie mac]

What amuses me is the arrogance of people who want to argue without stats. While the anecdotes make for great reading and I always love reading them, when it comes to comparing cricketers, they mean next to nothing. That's the whole point.

Where is SJS to tell me to stop arguing with posters making these sort of stupid statements.

No one is saying take no notice of stats, just that they are not the be all and end all of comparing cricketers

 

[ankitj]

Funny how no one noticed that I was responding to a post that audaciously stated that a certain other post is of such high quality that will be beyond comprehension of some.

I continue to be amused by the arrogance and smugness.

 

[ankitj]

Replace 'stats' by 'facts' and you may know what I mean (since 'stats' seems to be such a vilified term). They are for most part the same thing.

 

[Spark]

It's more complicated than that though, because stats are bundled with all kinds of incredibly complicated pieces of context and whatnot which are difficult to factor if you didn't actually see the game.

 

[bagapath]

What amuses me is the arrogance of people who want to argue without stats. While the anecdotes make for great reading and I always love reading them, when it comes to comparing cricketers, they mean next to nothing. That's the whole point.

I dont think you meant to write this post at all. may be someone hacked into your account or you were sleepy while typing this. because what you are saying is that "trumper is a **** batsman because he averaged only 39. samaraweera is a better batter than adam gilchrist. jaywaradene and lara are of the same caliber. gambhir is better than aravinda de silva. ambrose is miles ahead of lillee that they cant even be compared. kallis, sangakara and tendulkar are much much better batsmen than viv richards. greenidge is inferior to hayden and smith."

I am sure you will agree with me that none of those statements is true. but that is what you will end up with if you go for a purely stats based analysis while comparing players.