Is Steyn as deadly as Lillee?

[ankitj]

It's more complicated than that though, because stats are bundled with all kinds of incredibly complicated pieces of context and whatnot which are difficult to factor if you didn't actually see the game.

Yes. So that can be argued that way. You can always filter the numbers. You can always state what it is that carries greater value (not merely averages but number of match winning performances for example). But no comparison IMHO can be done by making arguments like Lillee > Styen because former has "killer instinct".

 

[Burgey]

Yes. So that can be argued that way. You can always filter the numbers. You can always state what it is that carries greater value (not merely averages but number of match winning performances for example). But no comparison IMHO can be done by making arguments like Lillee > Styen because former has "killer instinct".

Nor can you make an argument that Steyn is better than Lillee when he plays in a completely different era and (hopefully) half his career left.

 

[ankitj]

Nor can you make an argument that Steyn is better than Lillee when he plays in a completely different era and (hopefully) half his career left.

Surprise. Surprise. No one is actually saying that.

 

[Debris]

Does this thread even make sense before Steyn retires? Does it not depend on what happens for the rest of his career?

 

[bagapath]

Does this thread even make sense?

Fixed

 

[Burgey]

Surprise. Surprise. No one is actually saying that.

Funny. It's the question posed in the thread, and there are posts on here saying just that, or indeed that he's deadlier.

A look at the statistical evidence of the thread suggests you are mistaken

 

[smash84]

Does this thread even make sense before Steyn retires? Does it not depend on what happens for the rest of his career?

Good question. Maybe you can have a separate thread for that

 

[archie mac]

Funny how no one noticed that I was responding to a post that audaciously stated that a certain other post is of such high quality that will be beyond comprehension of some.

I continue to be amused by the arrogance and smugness.

Perhaps you should quote the posts you are responding to

Yeah I tend to struggle when it comes to posts to do with cricket

 

[Migara]

I dont think you meant to write this post at all. may be someone hacked into your account or you were sleepy while typing this. because what you are saying is that "trumper is a **** batsman because he averaged only 39. samaraweera is a better batter than adam gilchrist. jaywaradene and lara are of the same caliber. gambhir is better than aravinda de silva. ambrose is miles ahead of lillee that they cant even be compared. kallis, sangakara and tendulkar are much much better batsmen than viv richards. greenidge is inferior to hayden and smith."

I am sure you will agree with me that none of those statements is true. but that is what you will end up with if you go for a purely stats based analysis while comparing players.

That is one of the elementary arguments made by the "no-stats" brigade. Trumper averaged 39 when batting averages was what? about 26 or some thing and has scored against every body. Samaraweera has been great in the SC, but hasn't played much outside it.

Question: if Samaraweera manages 50+ everywhere in the world do you consider him a better batsman than Trumper?

no-stats brigade: No! No!! No!! Trumper was so good, player X rated him so much, player Y said he's the best, and Mr. W says his technique was immaculate blah blah blah

But the reality is we never know, because they have played so much apart in the time.

 

[bagapath]

That is one of the elementary arguments made by the "no-stats" brigade. Trumper averaged 39 when batting averages was what? about 26 or some thing and has scored against every body. Samaraweera has been great in the SC, but hasn't played much outside it.

I dont think I belong to the "no stats" crowd. I use as many statsguru filters as anyone else. also, I dont think burgey and archie are against stats either. they are talking about context. something similar to what you are trying to do with samaraweera not doing well outside SL etc.

and, are you going to address my comments on kallis, sangakara, sachin vs richards, lara vs jayawardane, de silva vs gambhir in the next post?

 

[Migara]

I dont think I belong to the "no stats" crowd. I use as many statsguru filters as anyone else. also, I dont think burgey and archie are against stats either. they are talking about context. something similar to what you are trying to do with samaraweera not doing well outside SL etc.

and, are you going to address my comments on kallis, sangakara, sachin vs richards, lara vs jayawardane, de silva vs gambhir in the next post?

I didn't make a particular sterotyping on you, but the point was general. Anyway you are one of the posters who use stats to build solid arguments.

I said earlier, I am not a fan of comparing retired players to active ones. Let's wait till they finish their careers. If SRT decides to hang his boots today, I have no hesitancy to call him a greater batsman than Richards. And on the other hand if Jayawardane gets his average to 45+ everywhere he plays and still managed his 53+ average, and play enough test matches, once again no problems in rating him alongside with Lara.

 

[Tom 1972]

But no comparison IMHO can be done by making arguments like Lillee > Styen because former has "killer instinct".

Bull****, or course you can.

Who was better value as a batsmen? Jacques Kallis or David Gower?
Who was better value as a bowler? Stuart Clark or Jeff Thomson?

Stats are just one measure but if the question has an element of personal opinion or subjectivity, or seeks to tease out what people value, then close down your spreadsheet and watch some footage, listen to someone recount some stories, preferably over a beer.

For the record, I choose Gower & Thommo, by the length of the straight.

Couldn't give a **** about Kallis' stats - he is as boring as bat**** to watch. Same with Stuart Clark.

Gower simply had the most elegant cover drive in Cricket, the shot as a decent club cricketer I respected the most off my bowling. Tommo because he nearly killed people and inspired me to take up bowling.

The more exciting guys (in terms of what excitement means to ME) will get my vote.

Cricket is absolutely not a game purely based on logic.

If you don't get it, then you just don't get it.

 

[Tom 1972]

What amuses me is the arrogance of people who want to argue without stats. While the anecdotes make for great reading and I always love reading them, when it comes to comparing cricketers, they mean next to nothing. That's the whole point.

PS: What doesn't amuse me is the arrogance who those don't respect people's rights to their personal views, opinions, biases. It depends on what you're arguing - but never dismiss the human factor (passion, fear, courage, grace, trust, aggression, dare I say it love), in this forum and in life for what it's worth.

That's the whole point.

 

[Teja.]

Bull****, or course you can.

Who was better value as a batsmen? Jacques Kallis or David Gower?
Who was better value as a bowler? Stuart Clark or Jeff Thomson?


The more exciting guys (in terms of what excitement means to ME) will get my vote.

Cricket is absolutely not a game purely based on logic.

If you don't get it, then you just don't get it.

I don't believe in the entire stats on face value tell you everything argument but I'm sorry I couldn't disagree more. A batsman's job is to score runs in the best way possible not to satisfy the romantic perceptions of how a real test batsman is supposed to bat and all that crap. If a dirty slog of the single slightly loose ball in an over gets me one more run than the effortless punch of backfoot to the seaming full delivery, I'd take the one more run for my team over the pleasure of watching the effortless stroke, thanks.

 

[Migara]

PS: What doesn't amuse me is the arrogance who those don't respect people's rights to their personal views, opinions, biases. It depends on what you're arguing - but never dismiss the human factor (passion, fear, courage, grace, trust, aggression, dare I say it love), in this forum and in life for what it's worth.

That's the whole point.

That is the whole point, when personal bias becomes the deciding factor.

 

[Migara]

Bull****, or course you can.

Who was better value as a batsmen? Jacques Kallis or David Gower?
Who was better value as a bowler? Stuart Clark or Jeff Thomson?

Stats are just one measure but if the question has an element of personal opinion or subjectivity, or seeks to tease out what people value, then close down your spreadsheet and watch some footage, listen to someone recount some stories, preferably over a beer.

For the record, I choose Gower & Thommo, by the length of the straight.

Couldn't give a **** about Kallis' stats - he is as boring as bat**** to watch. Same with Stuart Clark.

Gower simply had the most elegant cover drive in Cricket, the shot as a decent club cricketer I respected the most off my bowling. Tommo because he nearly killed people and inspired me to take up bowling.

The more exciting guys (in terms of what excitement means to ME) will get my vote.

Cricket is absolutely not a game purely based on logic.

If you don't get it, then you just don't get it.

There goes. When you play against people, and when they do well against you, you overrate them. And just found an example.

 

[smash84]

There goes. When you play against people, and when they do well against you, you overrate them. And just found an example.

 

[Smudge]

There goes. When you play against people, and when they do well against you, you overrate them. And just found an example.

One horrendously giant woooooooooooosh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bull****, or course you can.

Who was better value as a batsmen? Jacques Kallis or David Gower?
Who was better value as a bowler? Stuart Clark or Jeff Thomson?

Stats are just one measure but if the question has an element of personal opinion or subjectivity, or seeks to tease out what people value, then close down your spreadsheet and watch some footage, listen to someone recount some stories, preferably over a beer.

For the record, I choose Gower & Thommo, by the length of the straight.

Couldn't give a **** about Kallis' stats - he is as boring as bat**** to watch. Same with Stuart Clark.

Gower simply had the most elegant cover drive in Cricket, the shot as a decent club cricketer I respected the most off my bowling. Tommo because he nearly killed people and inspired me to take up bowling.

The more exciting guys (in terms of what excitement means to ME) will get my vote.

Cricket is absolutely not a game purely based on logic.

If you don't get it, then you just don't get it.

I think you have to be able to make a distinction between the players you enjoy watching and the best players. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[Burgey]

One horrendously giant woooooooooooosh.

That's cos Tom didn't put the decimal point in the right place. It's therefore understandable Migara wouldn't get his point.