• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Warne vs Steyn (Test bowling)

Greater Test bowler?

  • Dale Steyn

  • Shane Warne

Results are only viewable after voting.
S

subshakerz

International Coach
Sunil1z said:
So , better longevity.
Click to expand...
Steyn has a notably better average and SR and was simply more penetrative in the time he played. Longevity only really counts if you are more or less in the same level of effectiveness as bowlers, just that one played longer.

But it's not the case. Warne was more condition dependent, more innings dependent (basically was only worldclass for 3rd and 4th innings) and more easy to get on top of.
 
Sunil1z

Sunil1z

International Regular
subshakerz said:
Steyn has a notably better average and SR and was simply more penetrative in the time he played. Longevity only really counts if you are more or less in the same level of effectiveness as bowlers, just that one played longer.

But it's not the case. Warne was more condition dependent, more innings dependent (basically was only worldclass for 3rd and 4th innings) and more easy to get on top of.
Click to expand...
Leg spinners don’t depend on conditions.
 
S

subshakerz

International Coach
Sunil1z said:
Leg spinners don’t depend on conditions.
Click to expand...
Yes they do. He ain't working his magic on greentops.

And look at his innings averages per games. He averages 27 and 28 in the 1st and 2nd innings respectively. He is essentially only worldclass in half of the matches he plays unless the pitch wears out.
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
It’s pretty obviously Warne because of the 700 wickets

when you’re forced to separate two of the best to everplay the game, totality of output matters
 
S

subshakerz

International Coach
ma1978 said:
It’s pretty obviously Warne because of the 700 wickets

when you’re forced to separate two of the best to everplay the game, totality of output matters
Click to expand...
Not obvious at all. Why does longevity matter for Warne and not Anderson?

If longevity can overcome a less effective record then Warne should be ahead of Marshall too.
 
Coronis

Coronis

International Coach
subshakerz said:
Not obvious at all. Why does longevity matter for Warne and not Anderson?

If longevity can overcome a less effective record then Warne should be ahead of Marshall too.
Click to expand...
It does. Why do you think Anderson is rated so much higher than he deserves?
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
subshakerz said:
Not obvious at all. Why does longevity matter for Warne and not Anderson?

If longevity can overcome a less effective record then Warne should be ahead of Marshall too.
Click to expand...
I could make a strong case that Shane Warne (or Murali) is the GOAT and a lot of the cricket world would support that argument
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
ma1978 said:
The voters in wisden felt that way about Warne before the longevity

The argument comes down to style, impact
Click to expand...
Warne getting that votes in that Wisden pole was far from the only only farcical thing, but it was probably the most farcical.

That said, I did just vote Warne in at number 2 on the voting thread, so I think he's earned some respect since.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

International Captain
Sunil1z said:
A good spin bowler will win you more games than good fast bowler . This is also indicated by no. Of 5 wkt haul View attachment 39794
Click to expand...
I mean, this is the whole argument boils down to, right?

Is a great bowler, leveraged more by low SR, or by the volume metrics?

I think there are more mitigating factors in this case, which help Steyn in this comparison, but simply pointing out that Warne took more 5 wicket hauls doesn't really tilt things too far here, although I will agree it's a small point in Warne's favor.

That's because, in fact the WPM difference isn't even that great, given the number of 5 w hauls Warne has an advantage in. It's 4.88 for Warne and 4.72 for Steyn. Which means that although there are more games which Warne won primarily on his own, there are also more matches where he is little more than a passenger in the attack, compared to more consistent contributions from Steyn.
 
Sunil1z

Sunil1z

International Regular
shortpitched713 said:
I mean, this is the whole argument boils down to, right?

Is a great bowler, leveraged more by low SR, or by the volume metrics?

I think there are more mitigating factors in this case, which help Steyn in this comparison, but simply pointing out that Warne took more 5 wicket hauls doesn't really tilt things too far here, although I will agree it's a small point in Warne's favor.

That's because, in fact the WPM difference isn't even that great, given the number of 5 w hauls Warne has an advantage in. It's 4.88 for Warne and 4.72 for Steyn. Which means that although there are more games which Warne won primarily on his own, there are also more matches where he is little more than a passenger in the attack, compared to more consistent contributions from Steyn.
Click to expand...
What you are saying is right . But I believe Warne or Murali are the only 2 spinners in last 50 years which are undoubtedly considered ATG . So , I am giving them preference like people give benefit to openers here .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top