Where does Dale Steyn stack up historically

[MrPrez]

Folks at PakPassion making same error with h2h records. Cricinfo needs to pull that **** off the site.

Yeah.

I was referring strictly to the wickets/innings stats, ftr.

 

[Daemon]

There's no way those stats are accurate. It's probably Steyn's whole career vs half of McGrath's or something along those lines

Yeah it might be this, sorry guys.

I’ll rework the cricmetrics data again, must’ve erred somewhere.

 

[trundler]

Does anyone know how Steyn’s stats (average and SR) stack up against McGrath and Marshall when compared to the bowlers he played with during their respective time period?

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cri...updated-november-2018-posts-753-755-a-23.html

DoG has his version too and there are others.

 

[Gob]

As has already been mentioned Clarke's 9 times... most of which was when he was Aus best batsmen.

My point is that people love to make definitive statements about something they believe to be true, that does not make it true. We can go down the stats rabbit holes etc to try vindicate our points. You believe McGrath was a better bowler and believe he did better against the best batsmen in opposition team. I don't. I think that Steyn is a better bowler than McGrath and did just as well against the best batsmen of his time. And now we can argue to death our point of views pulling out stats to back our points up in some arbitrary way.

But definitive statements based off personal opinions are amusing to me.

Sure can some one then break up the wicket percentage of each (not you Daemon) from 1 to 4, 5 to 7 and 8 to 11? That will give a good idea since best players usually bat in the first category

 

[trundler]

That's a loaded stat as well tho. It punishes Steyn for being better at mopping up the tail.

 

[Uppercut]

His bowling definitely looked better than any of the other contenders. I reckon his outswinger to the right-hander was the most beautiful fast-bowler stock ball of all time.

Maybe because his run-up was so fast and release point so low. It kind of felt like he was taking wickets by knocking over the stumps while speeding past them on a moped. And the swing always seemed to arrive at the exact moment the batsman decided this one wasn't going to swing.

McGrath was great too of course, it felt like he had the batsman's balls in a vice. It didn't quite get the adrenaline going to the same extent as Steyn though. The taller West Indian bowlers definitely had the adrenaline but lacked Steyn's aesthetics. That leaves Marshall, who was functionally pretty similar to Steyn and was maybe a slightly better bowler but his action still wasn't as pretty.

 

[Gob]

That's a loaded stat as well tho. It punishes Steyn for being better at mopping up the tail.

The argument is to find who does best against the best of their times and the best of their time usually bats in the top 4. You are welcome to come up another meaningful way to judge their performances against the best batsmen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I have no issue with the idea that Steyn was more entertaining to watch, generally speaking. I can definitely see that. McGrath's expertise had a slightly subtler, less exhilarating appeal.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The argument is to find who does best against the best of their times and the best of their time usually bats in the top 4. You are welcome to come up another meaningful way to judge their performances against the best batsmen.

Percentages are a poor way to go about it. I've already posted a stat that showed that the frequency of top 4 wickets Steyn took was basically identical to McGrath's. Taking a percentage hides that and makes Steyn look worse even though he actually isn't.

 

[Gob]

Percentages are a poor way to go about it. I've already posted a stat that showed that the frequency of top 4 wickets Steyn took was basically identical to McGrath's. Taking a percentage hides that and makes Steyn look worse even though he actually isn't.

Well then is there any other statistical exercise to determine their performances against the best batsmen of their time? I've personally watched them both for most of their careers and felt McGrath had a definite stronghold over most of the great batsmen of his time may it be Lara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Sangakkara, KP certinally lot more than Steyn. As mentioned, i'd like to see a statistical measure on this that goes beyond just scratching the surface

 

[trundler]

The argument is to find who does best against the best of their times and the best of their time usually bats in the top 4. You are welcome to come up another meaningful way to judge their performances against the best batsmen.

I don't have any. The more contrived a stat is, usually the more flawed it is. At this level you're better off saying I watched both and X was better because of such and such. Pointless hair splitting.

 

[Gob]

I don't have any. The more contrived a stat is, usually the more flawed it is. At this level you're better off saying I watched both and X was better because of such and such. Pointless hair splitting.

Apparently not good enough for stephen south africa

 

[StephenZA]

Apparently not good enough for stephen south africa

No... because I watched both and X was better because such and such... is a personal opinion. Which I`m perfectly fine with. But don't pretend that there is some higher reason that makes one person more right than another in some definitive manner.

 

[MrPrez]

Apparently not good enough for stephen south africa

Okay Gob Australia.

I probably have McGrath slightly ahead, FWIW.

That said, it's truly interesting to think of whether Steyn would have had a better or worse career bowling with a guy like Warne. It would presumably mean less wickets per match, but not sure about the implication to average and SR.

 

[Gob]

No... because I watched both and X was better because such and such... is a personal opinion. Which I`m perfectly fine with. But don't pretend that there is some higher reason that makes one person more right than another in some definitive manner.

ok

 

[Gob]

Okay Gob Australia.

I probably have McGrath slightly ahead, FWIW.

That said, it's truly interesting to think of whether Steyn would have had a better or worse career bowling with a guy like Warne. It would presumably mean less wickets per match, but not sure about the implication to average and SR.

He had Nicky Boje though

 

[MrPrez]

He had Nicky Boje though

Only for two years, unfortunately, otherwise he would obviously have benefited hugely from bowling alongside the great man.

 

[StephenZA]

So which discussion should we have...

Because of Warne there was less wickets available to McGrath or because Boje was so poor it was easier for the batsmen to see off Steyn under less pressure? Or because Steyn was the best attacking option for SA he was always attacking throughout the day, hence his higher S/R but more runs conceded. Or should we talk about the use of bowlers within the team where McGrath was used as less of strike bowler at times because of the availability of Warne in certain conditions. Or shall we discuss the relevant batting strengths of the teams and the ability of runs on the board to create pressure. Or maybe the fact that pitch conditions changed between McGrath era to Steyn era. Or the quality of the batsmen in general?

What other arbitrary details can we create to decide that this exceptional player was better than this other exceptional player?

 

[Dendarii]

That said, it's truly interesting to think of whether Steyn would have had a better or worse career bowling with a guy like Warne. It would presumably mean less wickets per match, but not sure about the implication to average and SR.

He did play a lot with Philander who would have picked up his fair share of wickets in those matches.

 

[Malcolm]

You mean you sat and manually entered the 150 (or whatever this number is) top order bats steyn bowled at and manually calculated his stats this way?

Yes. 165 top-order batsmen.