Dale Steyn vs Muralitharan

[subshakerz]

I'll lay it our for you clearly.


In 17 games vs Australia, Steyn picked up 70 wickets and averaged 27.

In 17 games vs South Africa, McGrath picked up 57 wickets and averaged 27.

Steyn vs Australia has been regularly brought up as an apparently weak or less than great spot on his record (not just by you). McGrath vs South Africa is almost never brought up as a weak spot on his record despite being worse statistically. Very clear double standard there. Aspects of some players' records are glossed over because people have already decided for other reasons that they're better.

Yes this is true. @kyear2 never brings up the blemishes in McGraths record, though they are relatively less than Steyn.

But there is nothing weak about Steyn vs Australia. Taking 5 wickets a test @27 should be perfectly acceptable a top tier pacers vs a country because these are small sample. I do consider Steyn vs England slightly below par though.

Of course, we know he does the same with Imran in WI, downplaying a great record. And then considers Ambrose taking 13 wickets in 4 tests in SA as 'ATG standard' because of average because of blind stat reading.

Just so we are clear, averaging in the mid 20s is fine for a top tier pacers for small country samples as long as WPM and SR are good and you have won matches.

However, for larger career samples, high averages are a problem.

 

[kyear2]

I consider Steyn in Australia as good/very good. I think that's fair. Just saying we should count the other performances too. ATG means exceptional.


Neither performance is ATG. However, in Australia it's still impressive. In England, it is good at best because he did win a couple of key games awhile getting smacked quite a bit more.

We can contextualise those games but the problem is that folks here don't contextualise that for other bowlers in other era.

However, they are right to say your definition of ATG is too myopic and average-focused. I would rather take Steyn in Aus over Ambrose in SA that you consider 'ATG'.

I don't recall if I called it ATG, but I vaguely recall the argument where even though he lost a bit of penetration, he still managed to have a decent average, at least he kept it tight in-between the wickets.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't recall if I called it ATG, but I vaguely recall the argument where even though he lost a bit of penetration, he still managed to have a decent average, at least he kept it tight in-between the wickets.

The argument was in the context of what is considered ATG standard and you refused to call Ambrose's performance as non-ATG.

Which is just baffling. I am all for keeping it tight, but I would never prioritize that over achieving a wicket standard.

 

[Coronis]

I agree, worldclass isn't ATG. Your problem is you are cribby and don't bother to give your definitions first to help for better understanding.

Worldclass refers to premium international standard. An ATG maintains worldclass standards long enough that he builds his reputation as one.

You have your own definitions, which is fine.

And Bumrah doesn't need to be worldclass in every metric to be worldclass overall. And if he maintain his worldclass performance long enough he will end up as a minimum ATVG or ATG.

So yes, for a pacer over a career, 26 is below worldclass standards.

Mate you’re the one with problems. You make ridiculous claims, followed by constantly shifting goalposts when confronted with evidence that contradicts them.

You also have little to no idea what you’re talking about half the time.

 

[subshakerz]

Mate you’re the one with problems. You make ridiculous claims, followed by constantly shifting goalposts when confronted with evidence that contradicts them.

You also have little to no idea what you’re talking about half the time.

I'll ignore your ad hominem. What do you disagree with what I said?

 

[Bolo.]

I don't recall if I called it ATG, but I vaguely recall the argument where even though he lost a bit of penetration, he still managed to have a decent average, at least he kept it tight in-between the wickets.

For a premier bowler, keeping it tight is going to be a far inferior result to taking a bunch of wickets in the vast majority of games. Keeping things tight is a nice consolation prize, but it's still a consolation prize.

 

[Coronis]

I'll ignore your ad hominem. What do you disagree with what I said?

I don’t have the kind of time for this thread alone.

 

[Prince EWS]

Mate you’re the one with problems. You make ridiculous claims, followed by constantly shifting goalposts when confronted with evidence that contradicts them.

You also have little to no idea what you’re talking about half the time.

Tell us what you really think.

 

[subshakerz]

I don’t have the kind of time for this thread alone.

You have time for jibes just not actual arguments.

 

[Coronis]

Tell us what you really think.

I don’t wanna get banned tho.

 

[Coronis]

You have time for jibes just not actual arguments.

I mean look at the posts I’ve made where I disagree with multiple points of yours if you want to. I’m not gonna search them up or repost **** just to please you.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean look at the posts I’ve made where I disagree with multiple points of yours if you want to. I’m not gonna search them up or repost **** just to please you.

Lol somebody is having a bad day. Take it easy buddy.

 

[Coronis]

Lol somebody is having a bad day. Take it easy buddy.

Actually I’ve been having an awesome day.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually I’ve been having an awesome day.

#winning #tigerblood

 

[honestbharani]

Tell us what you really think.

Yeah.. only half the time? Come on, @Coronis

 

[subshakerz]

For a premier bowler, keeping it tight is going to be a far inferior result to taking a bunch of wickets in the vast majority of games. Keeping things tight is a nice consolation prize, but it's still a consolation prize.

@kyear2 is so reductionist when it comes stop this method. He rated Ambrose getting 15 wickets in 5 tests in Pakistan @25 as ATG material. Imran getting 28 wickets in 10 tests@28 is poor.

Fact is that average is important but it isn't everything.

 

[kyear2]

I'll lay it our for you clearly.


In 15 games vs Australia, Steyn picked up 70 wickets and averaged 27.

In 17 games vs South Africa, McGrath picked up 57 wickets and averaged 27.

Steyn vs Australia has been regularly brought up as an apparently weak or less than great spot on his record (not just by you). McGrath vs South Africa is almost never brought up as a weak spot on his record despite being worse statistically. Very clear double standard there. Aspects of some players' records are glossed over because people have already decided for other reasons that they're better.

McGrath had a tougher go at home and did pretty well against SA in SA. SA was also quite possibly the 3rd best team of my lifetime and to add, playing them on the flat pitches of Australia.

Steyn also had a rough go of it vs England, home and away.

And as much as he gets credit for dominating the flat pitches era, outside of his performances in India, he really did most of his damage at home.

Then there's the fact that he was more "hittable" that some of the other guys in this tier, and could be more expensive.

And for the record I love Steyn and rate him higher than most here, I was probably the only one who had him in my first team and was ridiculed for it. I think he's the 4th best bowler to have played the game and know he had some great performances in Australia, but the cost of the wickets makes it hard for me to call it an overall ATG performance.

 

[smash84]

McGrath had a tougher go at home and did pretty well against SA in SA. SA was also quite possibly the 3rd best team of my lifetime and to add, playing them on the flat pitches of Australia.

Steyn also had a rough go of it vs England, home and away.

And as much as he gets credit for dominating the flat pitches era, outside of his performances in India, he really did most of his damage at home.

Then there's the fact that he was more "hittable" that some of the other guys in this tier, and could be more expensive.

And for the record I love Steyn and rate him higher than most here, I was probably the only one who had him in my first team and was ridiculed for it. I think he's the 4th best bowler to have played the game and know he had some great performances in Australia, but the cost of the wickets makes it hard for me to call it an overall ATG performance.

McGrath Did pretty well against SA in SA. What does that mean? He is averaging about 3.5 wickets per test. Steyn is averaging closer to 5 wpm in Australia but he didn't do pretty well?

 

[subshakerz]

McGrath had a tougher go at home and did pretty well against SA in SA. SA was also quite possibly the 3rd best team of my lifetime and to add, playing them on the flat pitches of Australia.

Steyn also had a rough go of it vs England, home and away.

And as much as he gets credit for dominating the flat pitches era, outside of his performances in India, he really did most of his damage at home.

Then there's the fact that he was more "hittable" that some of the other guys in this tier, and could be more expensive.

And for the record I love Steyn and rate him higher than most here, I was probably the only one who had him in my first team and was ridiculed for it. I think he's the 4th best bowler to have played the game and know he had some great performances in Australia, but the cost of the wickets makes it hard for me to call it an overall ATG performance.

As usual you sidestep the actual point that is addressed to you.

Would you rate McGrath vs SA better or Steyn vs Aus? It was a simple question.

 

[kyear2]

For a premier bowler, keeping it tight is going to be a far inferior result to taking a bunch of wickets in the vast majority of games. Keeping things tight is a nice consolation prize, but it's still a consolation prize.

At the end of a career or after a major surgery as was the case with Ambrose, he had lost a bit of pace and penetration. He was no longer the player that he was before the surgery and by that point was considering retirement.
I'm not arguing if it was all time great or not, I'm saying if he's playing, that average means he's keeping it right and applying pressure when he's on.

And I rate Steyn above Ambrose (even if by one spot), so don't know why this is even being brought up.