Dale Steyn vs Muralitharan

[subshakerz]

That's too gross an oversimplification and I don't agree with. A target of the range of the 100-250 can be chaseable or not largely dependent on bowling attacks. One with Murali having a much better go.

Common sense. 1st innings defines the course of the game and you bowl more then.

Murali averages over 26 in the 1st innings, bowled 69 times.

Averages 21 in 4th innings, bowled 35 times.

He isn't even the best in the 4th innings. McGrath and Marshall average notably better.

 

[subshakerz]

Interesting. I feel like Steyn keeps sneaking up in rankings because of how explosive and ***y he was, and obviously the stats help too, but always reckoned him half a rung below McGrath, Hadlee, and Marshall in terms of bowling nous. Why do you think he's right alongside the other two you mentioned?

Yeah Steyn definitely didn't feel that top tier a bowler watching him during his career. I can't get behind that inconsistency. However depending on what you value, you could rank him anywhere below Marshall.

 

[shortpitched713]

It's just the time in your life you watched Steyn, compared to the others.

Objectively, he was a force of nature who has everything on his resume you could want.

 

[subshakerz]

It's just the time in your life you watched Steyn, compared to the others.

Objectively, he was a force of nature who has everything on his resume you could want.

Yes he was the best matchwinner I have seen. But he also was incredibly ordinary on his day, which was too often for my liking. I rarely saw Wasim, McGrath or Ambrose have that many off days.

I would say Steyn could bowl so poor he could lose you games too.

 

[kyear2]

Imo Marshall also belongs with that group not in one ahead, due to longevity.

Jim Brown is still better than Emmitt Smith and leagues above Curtis Martin.

Longevity isn't the gate keeper to greatness.

Marshall played effectively from 1980 to 1991, Hadlee played for 17 years but basically the same amount of tests. Imran played much longer but the 70's is basically thrown out the window.

Not suggesting that he's in a tier by himself, but believe he's ahead of the pack.

 

[kyear2]

That's too gross an oversimplification and I don't agree with. A target of the range of the 100-250 can be chaseable or not largely dependent on bowling attacks. One with Murali having a much better go.

A pacer sets the tone during the match and can be the closer, that's a clear distinction.

 

[kyear2]

Common sense. 1st innings defines the course of the game and you bowl more then.

Murali averages over 26 in the 1st innings, bowled 69 times.

Averages 21 in 4th innings, bowled 35 times.

He isn't even the best in the 4th innings. McGrath and Marshall average notably better.

Exactly.

 

[subshakerz]

Exactly.

Warne is even worse, averages 27 and 28 in the first two innings. Likely because of Aussie pitches.

Posters underestimate the degree to which this is a handicap. Even with Murali and Warne, you don't have a worldclass level bowler until likely Day 3 of the game unless it's an unusually spinning wicket.

If Warne was as effective in the 1st innings as 3rd or 4th, Australia would have won the 2005 Ashes.

 

[Coronis]

Warne is even worse, averages 27 and 28 in the first two innings. Likely because of Aussie pitches.

Posters underestimate the degree to which this is a handicap. Even with Murali and Warne, you don't have a worldclass level bowler until likely Day 3 of the game unless it's an unusually spinning wicket.

If Warne was as effective in the 1st innings as 3rd or 4th, Australia would have won the 2005 Ashes.

You do realise almost every bowler averages less in the 4th innings right? Because pitches are inevitably worse and scores are generally lower?

 

[subshakerz]

You do realise almost every bowler averages less in the 4th innings right? Because pitches are inevitably worse and scores are generally lower?

Duh. Way to miss the point.

But guys like McGrath, Hadlee, Marshall and even Steyn maintain worldclass standards across innings, 1st to 4th.

Just saw, Hadlee averages 15 in the 4th innings. Awesome.

 

[capt_Luffy]

A pacer sets the tone during the match and can be the closet, that's a clear distinction.

Yeah, but spinners controls the middle overs and bowls longer spells.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Common sense. 1st innings defines the course of the game and you bowl more then.

Murali averages over 26 in the 1st innings, bowled 69 times.

Averages 21 in 4th innings, bowled 35 times.

He isn't even the best in the 4th innings. McGrath and Marshall average notably better.

I think it's pretty suffice to say going pure average isn't the best course here. In a 4th/5th day pitch, Murali will be more threatening than anyone given decent support. Yes you ball more in the 1st innings, but games are won/lost many times in the 4th.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Jim Brown is still better than Emmitt Smith and leagues above Curtis Martin.

Longevity isn't the gate keeper to greatness.

Marshall played effectively from 1980 to 1991, Hadlee played for 17 years but basically the same amount of tests. Imran played much longer but the 70's is basically thrown out the window.

Not suggesting that he's in a tier by himself, but believe he's ahead of the pack.

I have no idea who Brown, Smith and Martin are. Can say of cricket though, longevity is largely the reason Tendulkar, Hobbs and Sobers are such goliaths.

Re Marshall, the only gripe I have with him is pretty much that his career was highly concentrated between 1983-90. Before that he hardly, he hardly played. Though he played around equal matches to Hadlee and Imran, that's not necessarily a good measure of longevity, that means Cook has one of the best in the business. Now compare that 7 year stretch to 17 for Hadlee, McGrath and Murali; and I think it's an honest big weakness. I will still have Marshall ahead, but not by any noticeable difference between these 4 (and Barnes, but that's for another time).

 

[subshakerz]

I think it's pretty suffice to say going pure average isn't the best course here. In a 4th/5th day pitch, Murali will be more threatening than anyone given decent support. Yes you ball more in the 1st innings, but games are won/lost many times in the 4th.

Nah bro. Games are won and lost in the first half of the match the vast majority of the time. That's the very reason why there are less overs they bowl in the 3rd and 4th innings because the matches are often wrapping up by that point.

And I think pure average in 1st innings is just supplementary evidence for basic cricket knowledge that spinners aren't going to come into the game much on Day 1.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Nah bro. Games are won and lost in the first half of the match the vast majority of the time. That's the very reason why there are less overs they bowl in the 3rd and 4th innings because the matches are often wrapping up by that point.

And I think pure average in 1st innings is just supplementary evidence for basic cricket knowledge that spinners aren't going to come into the game much on Day 1.

I don't fully agree here. As I said, between two equal teams, more often than not the game will be very alive in the 4th innings.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't fully agree here. As I said, between two equal teams, more often than not the game will be very alive in the 4th innings.

Yeah but cricketers aren't going to face always equal teams the majority of the time. If you face a better team, you want to gain an early advantage on Day 1 knowing they will come back later in the game, like the 1st test of Ind NZ.

Similarly, if you face a weaker team, you want to crush them up front so they have no chance of returning.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah but cricketers aren't going to face always equal teams the majority of the time. If you face a better team, you want to gain an early advantage on Day 1 knowing they will come back later in the game, like the 1st test of Ind NZ.

Similarly, if you face a weaker team, you want to crush them up front so they have no chance of returning.

If you have to face a weaker team, it's unlikely you will have problems much often. For a stronger team, ofcourse getting the ball up in the 1st innings is good, but still you can expect them to chase anything from 50-300. It's where a bowler like Murali comes in, he can win matches single handedly.

 

[honestbharani]

India sucked balls and had shocking collapses in the first two tests' first innings and yet probably only lost the game coz of poor catching and bowling efforts.

I actually think its what makes test cricket so awesome. The fact that you can have a shocker of an innings once and still can put together 3 good to very good innings and win the game.

 

[subshakerz]

If you have to face a weaker team, it's unlikely you will have problems much often. For a stronger team, ofcourse getting the ball up in the 1st innings is good, but still you can expect them to chase anything from 50-300. It's where a bowler like Murali comes in, he can win matches single handedly.

Yes but just admit that against stronger teams, the times when you have a chance to win in the 4th innings would be far less than after gaining an upfront advantage on Day 1.

How many times would Murali get the opportunity to bowl Australia out for 150 or less in the 4th innings, assuming the rest of the team has done all their work to get them a defendable target against a stronger team, versus just the opportunity to bowl them out cheaply in the 1st innings.

Obviously the latter is more common.

 

[subshakerz]

India sucked balls and had shocking collapses in the first two tests' first innings and yet probably only lost the game coz of poor catching and bowling efforts.

I actually think its what makes test cricket so awesome. The fact that you can have a shocker of an innings once and still can put together 3 good to very good innings and win the game.

Yes but I think these two tests demonstrate how critical it is for weaker teams to bowl the strong team out cheaply in their first innings to win.

I can't think of many tests where the weaker team was competitive the entire tests and then bowled out the stronger one.