I don't see why the reputations of their playing peers when they debuted and played is relevant. Their records vs those around them say enough.so the case for Steyn being "easily" better is him debuting in an era with no ATG pacers while Viv debuted in an era with ATG batters...Very interesting argument for one of the top ten Pacers being easily superior to one of the Top Ten bats.
Get your IQ above Room temperature before giving me any **** tbh, you should write a public apology in shame for saying something that stupid.
@kyear2 @subshakerz this is how you beefWhen you get yours past 0, we can talk.
That doesn't work when one is surrounded by Allan Borders/Gavaskars/Chappels while one is surrounded by Johnsons/Zaheers/SoutheesI don't see why the reputations of their playing peers when they debuted and played is relevant. Their records vs those around them say enough.
And Viv wasn't as far ahead of them as Steyn was ahead of his peers. Viv also didn't have to play the best attacks of his time all that often, since they were on his team.That doesn't work when one is surrounded by Allan Borders/Gavaskars/Chappels while one is surrounded by Johnsons/Zaheers/Southees
Viv was considered to be the best of his era by everyone when he was surrounded by ATGs and 50+ avg bats while Steyn was by far the best of an era where there was no great bowler, as I said, your metric is far too dependant on who you're playing alongside, if Courtney Walsh was playing in 2008-2015 he would also be considered the best fast bowler by far but in his own era he wasn't even top 5, too dependent on eras.And Viv wasn't as far ahead of them as Steyn was ahead of his peers. Viv also didn't have to play the best attacks of his time all that often, since they were on his team.
Why does reputation matter more than the records and relative comparisons? Reputation doesn't score runs or take wickets.Viv was considered to be the best of his era by everyone when he was surrounded by ATGs and 50+ avg bats while Steyn was by far the best of an era where there was no great bowler, as I said, your metric is far too dependant on who you're playing alongside, if Courtney Walsh was playing in 2008-2015 he would also be considered the best fast bowler by far but in his own era he wasn't even top 5, too dependent on eras.
yeah because 2008-14 SA definitely wasn't a packed batting side too that Steyn didn't have to bowl to lol.
Nobody said it does? relative comparisions are too era dependent and any ATG bowler, or even high tier ATVGs like Statham would be far ahead of Steyn's contemporaries during Steyn's career's timeframe because Steyn didn't have a single ATG bowler to compete with, and hence, they're flawed.Why does reputation matter more than the records and relative comparisons? Reputation doesn't score runs or take wickets.
You can still adjust for eras and conditions though, and it's a far better metric than looking at the reputations of players which are quite often subjective and subject to feelings rather than assessment of performances. I don't see why Viv competing with the likes of Border and Gavaskar is enough to say he's better when there's a strong case that either of those two were better players than him when you look at the numbers and oppositions played. You can't really say that for Steyn even with him benefiting from having favourable home conditions in South Africa relative to the rest of the world.Nobody said it does? relative comparisions are too era dependent and any ATG bowler, or even high tier ATVGs like Statham would be far ahead of Steyn's contemporaries during Steyn's career's timeframe because Steyn didn't have a single ATG bowler to compete with, and hence, they're flawed.
Record wise, Steyn vs Viv is debateable.
I never claimed that him competing with Border/Gavaskar/Chappel is what makes him better....? you claimed that Steyn's relative performance makes a case for him above Viv, frankly it doesn't, because what your flawed argument ignored was that Viv's relative performance is impacted by playing with multiple ATGs while Steyn had no ATG bowler around, that's it, Steyn's superiority to his contemporaries being higher than Viv's is entirely a resultant of Viv having far more competent contemporaries while Steyn's era was filled with 27-30 averaging bowlers whom any ATG bowler would decently outperform.You can still adjust for eras and conditions though, and it's a far better metric than looking at the reputations of players which are quite often subjective and subject to feelings rather than assessment of performances. I don't see why Viv competing with the likes of Border and Gavaskar is enough to say he's better when there's a strong case that either of those two were better players than him when you look at the numbers and oppositions played. You can't really say that for Steyn even with him benefiting from having favourable home conditions in South Africa relative to the rest of the world.
I mean this ignores that Steyn's era was noticeably better for batting than Viv's though. It wasn't like all the bowlers in Viv's era bowled on as many flat tracks as they did in Steyn's era. The only point you seem to be making is that Viv is better because we called more of his peers ATGs and he did reasonably well. That's a horrific argument.I never claimed that him competing with Border/Gavaskar/Chappel is what makes him better....? you claimed that Steyn's relative performance makes a case for him above Viv, frankly it doesn't, because what your flawed argument ignored was that Viv's relative performance is impacted by playing with multiple ATGs while Steyn had no ATG bowler around, that's it, Steyn's superiority to his contemporaries being higher than Viv's is entirely a resultant of Viv having far more competent contemporaries while Steyn's era was filled with 27-30 averaging bowlers whom any ATG bowler would decently outperform.
neither Border nor Gavaskar are better batters than Viv or particularly have a strong argument to be, Border lacks the output and Sunny lacks the away greatness.
Regardless, I believe Viv better because I find his record more well rounded and find him more tested, I just think your argument of relative performance is complete bunk when you consider the contemporaries both of them had. It's like Tyson vs Ali.
Again, you missed the point, I'm saying Viv having so many ATG contemporaries while Steyn having none is the reason Steyn has superior relative performance, contemporaries doesn't effect comparisions in any logical way anyway, if Steyn was bowling with ATG pacers and was a level above then sure that's a huge and probably decisive point for him, but he wasn't, he was leagues above average-very good pacers...duh, that's not an argument for him.I mean this ignores that Steyn's era was noticeably better for batting than Viv's though. It wasn't like all the bowlers in Viv's era bowled on as many flat tracks as they did in Steyn's era. The only point you seem to be making is that Viv is better because we called more of his peers ATGs and he did reasonably well. That's a horrific argument.
Border and Gavaskar especially have extremely strong arguments once the nostalgia goggles are off to be frank.
Viv regardless wasn't as outstanding as Steyn though. And he did so without having the same sort of challenges as his peers. That's not a point for him regardless of reputations. Steyn was so good that he merits comparisons with the very elite despite his competition.Again, you missed the point, I'm saying Viv having so many ATG contemporaries while Steyn having none is the reason Steyn has superior relative performance, contemporaries doesn't effect comparisions in any logical way anyway, if Steyn was bowling with ATG pacers and was a level above then sure that's a huge and probably decisive point for him, but he wasn't, he was leagues above average-very good pacers...duh, that's not an argument for him.
Viv's era's was much tougher for batting, cancels out Steyn's tougher era for bowling.
Nostalgia goggles is just a cheap Jab, Gavaskar and Border are amazing batters but above Viv is not reflected in anything.
Yeah I'm sick of posting warnings and deleting posts now, gave them both an infraction.So do you guys ever want to discuss Steyn vs Viv again? Please don't act like you've forgotten how to read.
Viv till his 37th birthday was a 53 averaging bat, that's pretty much compareable to a 23 averaging bowler (Steyn retired at 36). I'm not really much into hypotheticals but Viv bashed Akram/Imran in low scoring tours, I don't know how he would've done against Windies pacers in internationals same way I don't know how Steyn would do against Kallis/De Villiers/Amla/Smith in international cricket but I'm confident some of the weaker Windies attacks like 1971 and 76 he would've bashed to oblivion, I don't really know how windies would impact his stats.Viv regardless wasn't as outstanding as Steyn though. And he did so without having the same sort of challenges as his peers. That's not a point for him regardless of reputations. Steyn was so good that he merits comparisons with the very elite despite his competition.
The rest is just your opinion though, based on how you feel. Nostalgia goggles is a fine description of it, not a cheap jab.
Viv's era's was much tougher for batting, cancels out Steyn's tougher era for bowling.
Hint — all these Batsmen are better than Steyn's contemporary bowlers.Dale Steyn’s era was much tougher to bowling and it is not even debatable.
Dale Steyn(2006-2015)
12 fast bowlers took 150+ wickets between 2006-2015.
Between 2006-2015, Steyn took 398 wickets at an average of 21.9 and SR of 41.
No other pacer had an average below 25 or a strike rate below 50.
Viv Richards
Between 1976-1985, 13 batsmen scored more than 4000 runs.
Viv averaged 57.6
Miandad averaged 56.9
Chappell averaged 54.9
Greenidge averaged 52.1
Border averaged 51.6