Dale Steyn vs Imran khan

[ZK$]

Yes. For example, Wasim averages 28 in England. Definitely, its an underachievement, but I dont believe for a second that he would average that if his home career was in England.

Yeah. It’s dumb logic. Amla and Cook are definitely averaging higher playing their home games in a nation with better pitches/balls for batting imo.

 

[trundler]

My point was that 6 ba difference is not huge in the context of a match. McGrath and Steyn have a 10 delivery difference in strike rate and yet both were incredible match winners.

Strike rate depends way too much on conditions and era to compare that way. Philander has virtually the same strike rate as Steyn and Rabada's is better.

A bowler having a 20% worse average for more wickets is more valuable than a guy that has an average of 20 but only picks up 2 wickets a match imo. In real life, that's usually the result of bowling the unlucky length. You pitch it up, you go for runs but you take wickets. It's an ATG comparison so of course it looks like we're blowing things out of proportion because we are nitpicking.

 

[subshakerz]

Strike rate depends way too much on conditions and era to compare that way. Philander has virtually the same strike rate as Steyn and Rabada's is better.

A bowler having a 20% worse average for more wickets is more valuable than a guy that has an average of 20 but only picks up 2 wickets a match imo. In real life, that's usually the result of bowling the unlucky length. You pitch it up, you go for runs but you take wickets. It's an ATG comparison so of course it looks like we're blowing things out of proportion because we are nitpicking.

Yeah but Steyn bowls less overs on average per match than most ATGs perhaps because of his high ER which neutralizes his better SR somewhat.

So in practical terms, on most occasions, Steyn would end up with two wickets per innings as would Ambrose and McGrath, but the latter would just have bowled longer spells and given less runs.

 

[Ashes81]

A really tough one but I'd probably just give it to Imran.

At his best I think he just edges Steyn although Steyn's peak probably lasted longer.

 

[BazBall21]

Genuine question. Is there any ATG player who struggled in England? Pretty much any great player from last 40-50 years bullied the English. Ponting and Kallis have okish and not great records there iirc but nothing as bad as Warne & Murali in India.

Sunny wasn’t good in England on the whole. Had one gun tour but very mid returns across the other four. Sangakkara was quite mid in England too across his career.

 

[trundler]

Yeah but Steyn bowls less overs on average per match than most ATGs perhaps because of his high ER which neutralizes his better SR somewhat.

So in practical terms, on most occasions, Steyn would end up with two wickets per innings as would Ambrose and McGrath, but the latter would just have bowled longer spells and given less runs.

For the vast majority of his career Steyn took 5 wickets per match. McGrath was there or thereabouts for a bit but not Ambrose. Steyn is likely to give you a whole extra wicket over a match compared to Ambrose.

 

[BazBall21]

English pitches in 2008 and 2012 soft and flat. Bit like NZ in this era. Was a tough gig for Steyn against a very strong batting lineup. Ambrose was elite against the best batting lineup of his era but as has been pointed out, in a more pace-friendly era. Imran was very good against WI on the flat Pakistan wickets though.

 

[subshakerz]

For the vast majority of his career Steyn took 5 wickets per match. McGrath was there or thereabouts for a bit but not Ambrose. Steyn is likely to give you a whole extra wicket over a match compared to Ambrose.

Ambrose in his peak would likely have got to 5 wickets a test if he didnt bowl with Marshall, Bishop and Walsh.

Steyn overall would get you around half a wicket more per test but concede around 20 plus more runs in less overs as well.

 

[subshakerz]

English pitches in 2008 and 2012 soft and flat. Bit like NZ in this era. Was a tough gig for Steyn against a very strong batting lineup. Ambrose was elite against the best batting lineup of his era but as has been pointed out, in a more pace-friendly era. Imran was very good against WI on the flat Pakistan wickets though.

Imran doesnt get enough credit for his WI records in these conversations IMO. Even Hadlee couldnt really succeed in the WI.

 

[BazBall21]

If you regard aggressive batsmen as more valuable and impactful, than preferring economic bowlers makes sense.

 

[trundler]

Ambrose in his peak would likely have got to 5 wickets a test if he didnt bowl with Marshall, Bishop and Walsh.

Steyn overall would get you around half a wicket more per test but concede around 20 plus more runs in less overs as well.

Steyn played in very strong attacks too. Anyway, I wasn't talking generally. I was talking about batting friendly conditions generally. Economic bowling on an unlucky length is less valuable approach from a strike bowler than Steyn's MO.

 

[BazBall21]

Imran doesnt get enough credit for his WI records in these conversations IMO. Even Hadlee couldnt really succeed in the WI.

Imran’s record against WI to me is what really hammers him home as the greatest cricketer since Sobers. An all-rounder with such an elite record that also turned up to that extent against arguably the greatest team of all time is hard to look past.

 

[Daemon]

Yes totally agreed. Subcontinent pacers succeed in spite of home conditions more than because of them. Which is why I find the 'succeeded in a batting era' argument wrong for Steyn.

I’ve seen you post this a few times now and I’m starting to come round to it. He did play on some tough wickets away from home and did well on them but fair enough that he shouldn’t get any bonus points for it given he played so much at home.

 

[The Sean]

Strike rate depends way too much on conditions and era to compare that way. Philander has virtually the same strike rate as Steyn and Rabada's is better.

Philander's strike rate fell away over his career - by the end it was considerably inferior to Steyn's (though still outstanding by comparison to most bowlers).

 

[BazBall21]

Yes totally agreed. Subcontinent pacers succeed in spite of home conditions more than because of them. Which is why I find the 'succeeded in a batting era' argument wrong for Steyn.

Yeah the subcontinent greats are monsters at home but that is indicative of their immense skillsets. And also it got mentioned somewhere higher up in the chat but agree with the theory that there are some batsmen or bowlers can perform better at home in their careers but were likely to have done better if they had their home conditions elsewhere.

 

[subshakerz]

Steyn played in very strong attacks too. Anyway, I wasn't talking generally. I was talking about batting friendly conditions generally. Economic bowling on an unlucky length is less valuable approach from a strike bowler than Steyn's MO.

I disagree. If you are an ATG with a SR within the quality range of 55 or less, than the low ER turns up the pressure and is better for team success. In a real test match scenario, control is very important and it is worth it to wait an extra over or two for a wicket. The psychological impact of a boundary in the middle of a spell shouldn't be underestimated.

As mentioned by others, a low ER bowler also creates opportunities for pressure that bowlers on the other end benefit from. Even in Steyn's best spells, I have seen him spray it a bit.

In 80 percent of situations, Steyn and other ATG bowlers will be thick in the wickets, Steyn taking them quicker but the other ATGs slower while giving less runs.

In 20 percent of situations, Steyn will be absolutely hammered though while the other ATGs can get away with decent wicketless spells. A wicketless spell from McGrath or Ambrose >> wicketless spell from Steyn.

 

[subshakerz]

Another point in Imran's favor is destructiveness. He took two eight-fers and three seven-fers in his career, compared to Steyn's single seven-fer. So when on song, Imran was more likely to run through a side on his own.

 

[BazBall21]

Another point in Imran's favor is destructiveness. He took two eight-fers and three seven-fers in his career, compared to Steyn's single seven-fer. So when on song, Imran was more likely to run through a side on his own.

Very king-like energy especially at home running through sides for fun.

 

[trundler]

Nah, Steyn will pick up more wickets despite going for more runs. He's doing the dirty work that an economical bowler will, at best, play second fiddle to. Imran went for runs in the West Indies but he took big hauls. No way is that worse than 15 wickets across a 5 match series at an average of 20.

 

[subshakerz]

I disagree. If you are an ATG with a SR within the quality range of 55 or less, than the low ER turns up the pressure and is better for team success. In a real test match scenario, control is very important and it is worth it to wait an extra over or two for a wicket. The psychological impact of a boundary in the middle of a spell shouldn't be underestimated.

As mentioned by others, a low ER bowler also creates opportunities for pressure that bowlers on the other end benefit from. Even in Steyn's best spells, I have seen him spray it a bit.

In 80 percent of situations, Steyn and other ATG bowlers will be thick in the wickets, Steyn taking them quicker but the other ATGs slower while giving less runs.

In 20 percent of situations, Steyn will be absolutely hammered though while the other ATGs can get away with decent wicketless spells. A wicketless spell from McGrath or Ambrose >> wicketless spell from Steyn.

To build on this point, Steyn took his wickets in clumps, moreso than most ATGs. And in between he would go missing in dry spells in which he copped a lot of stick.