Shane Warne vs Dale Steyn

[Sliferxxxx]

Sachin has several top drawer innings but I have critiqued him for lack of mega series.


Then Warne must greater than Imran on this score.


I get defensive of Viv too you know.

Wow I can't believe i have to defend Imran to you of all people. And fwiw, Imran is greater than Warne as well, even if he's one of what 3 atg spinners. And you said Sachin was a trend setter and changed this and that about cricket. I need examples. He wasnt the first teenager to score a 100, he didn't have any monster series or transcendent innings.Consistency across teams and conditions isn't unique to him either: Smith, Kanhai, Viv etc managed that. His major claim to fame is longevity.

 

[subshakerz]

Wow I can't believe i have to defend Imran to you of all people. And fwiw, Imran is greater than Warne as well, even if he's one of what 3 atg spinners. And you said Sachin was a trend setter and changed this and that about cricket. I need examples. He wasnt the first teenager to score a 100, he didn't have any monster series or transcendent innings.Consistency across teams and conditions isn't unique to him either: Smith, Kanhai, Viv etc managed that. His major claim to fame is longevity.

I didn't say trendsetter. His teen 100s especially in Aus and SA were exceptional for that age.

 

[kyear2]

Subz and this is with all due respect no. Let's just ignore the pundits, and all that other bs. I'd rank your list thusly:

Bradman
Sobers
Imran
Hadlee
Marshall
Sachin
Hobbs
Warne/Murali/Viv

My list varies greatly from yours apparently.

My primary philosophy is this. You have to be elite in your primary skill to be in that pantheon. And by elite, I mean in the conversation or consideration to be the greatest bowler ever, Bradman and the batsmen who are legitimately in the conversation to be the best after Bradman.

That leaves me with 8 players.

Bradman
Hobbs
Tendulkar
Richards
Sobers

Marshall
McGrath
Hadlee

Don't think anyone would argue with me on those names.

Warne is an interesting case, top 5 Wisden player of the century and while dead even with Murali on bowling, he is the better cricketer.

Imran also has an interesting argument to be elite, but as an elite AR. But by that argument so is Kallis, and Kallis isn't top 10 worthy. The one who is though as an all round cricketer would be Hammond.

Imran, depending on where I rank O'Reilly is 8th or 9th as a bowler. Hammond 10th as a batsman, comparable no? Neither falls into the top 2 tiers in primary but still legit ATG's.

Imran get's a huge jump from his batting, and he's unarguably the greatest bowling all rounder ever, and best lower order batsman. But as batsman, he's well down the order and not rated overall.
Hammond on the other hand is arguably the greatest slip ever and a very useful 5th bowler, especially for one who played in the least helpful ever era for faster bowlers.

I'm sure we can agree that Hammond and Imran are comparable on primary. CW last year rated Immy 8th in bowling and Hammond 10th in batting.

I know Imran's 30 rpi looks better on paper, but his runs rarely featured in wins, especially the tons, and I'll argue till the day I leave the forum that slip catching is just as vital and important and even more so in contributions to winning.

On top of that, Hammond, when one takes away the ill advised return after the war, has over a wicket per match, including a couple helpings of the most valuable scalp in history.

So while I'll give Imran the slight edge as he was a bowler, Hammond has two skills to one. Including being the GOAT at one of them.

I know the forum holds lower order batting in higher esteem than in general, pundits, historians and even former players, but what's the argument to have Imran over Hammond?

Let's go further, the same way Kallis can't jump 14 batsmen because he was an all rounder (though some for sure), and Hammond doesn't jump 9 batsmen, why does Imran jump 8 bowlers? Hadlee is easily the better in what is their primary skill and responsibility, and away from home it's not close, not to mention he's also no mean mug with the bat.

In any event.

Bradman
Sobers

Marshall
Hobbs
McGrath / Hadlee
Tendulkar
Richards

Warne
Imran / Hammond


Feel free to tell me where I'm objectively wrong.

Hell I'll even unblock @subshakerz and he and Smali can do the same.

All rounder rankings don't correlate directly to player rankings, other wise, where's Kallis, Miller, Hammond?

Anyways, the remainder of the top 20 would be made up of ...

Bowlers
Steyn | Muralitharan | Ambrose

Batsmen
Smith | Lara Hutton | Richards

All rounders
Kallis | Gilchrist

 

[kyear2]

Contribution to the game and legacy donot win you matches. Hadlee carried NZ in the 80s and won them a series vs one of two best teams ever. Sachin has done nothing close to that. Imran almost did the same and helped pioneer reverse swing. Pity NZ is/was such a small market.

Sachin was a great batsman, nothing more and nothing less. He carried India's batting but the other two carried their teams. Their primary skills objectively cancel out Sachins but secondary smokes his. Only thing I'd give Sachin credit for, relatively speaking is his longevity. I'm starting to think Sir Richard Hadlee is severely underrated though.

Hadlee's primary does cancel out Sachin's, both ranking 3rd in my list.

Imran's really doesn't tbh.

I have Hadley tied for 5th or outright 6th, but outside of CW he's not rated nearly as highly. That neither here nor there, but the writers and the historians also don't, which has always been more puzzling.

 

[Xix2565]

Thanks for confirming none of you know how to read properly and have the attention span of goldfishes. Especially when this is about Warne and Steyn, not your personal lists overall.

 

[subshakerz]

Feel free to tell me where I'm objectively wrong.

Well you rated Imran better than Warne as a bowler just a while back. But I don't want to debate your rankings even though as you re aware I always found you rating Marshall no.3 odd given how you view pundit rankings.

 

[kyear2]

Wow. Well then allow me the opportunity to change your mind. You're starting a team tomorrow and you have choice of cricketers to include. Bradman and Sobers are gone. You're telling me you think Sachin would be more valuable over Imran and Paddles??

Sachin no.

But you're choosing a team tomorrow to play the world over, modern rules and regulations and this person is your main strike bowler, and as you said, you already have Sobers and Bradman... Who's your 3rd selection to open your attack?

My selection is the greatest bowler ever, with some consideration given to McGrath, but that's it.

We obviously disagree.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Sachin no.

But you're choosing a team tomorrow to play the world over, modern rules and regulations and this person is your main strike bowler, and as you said, you already have Sobers and Bradman... Who's your 3rd selection to open your attack?

My selection is the greatest bowler ever, with some consideration given to McGrath, but that's it.

We obviously disagree.

Which is fair brother.

 

[kyear2]

It really isn't close. Tbh, the only reason I rate Sobers higher is because he was an atg fielder everywhere which gives him the edge imo.

Sobers was a better batsman than Imran a bowler, he was better as a bowler than Imran the batsman plus the fielder.

A top 4 or 5 batsman all time, a top 5 slip all time, and during his career had a stretch where he was a top 5 bowler.

Not close.

 

[shortpitched713]

Contribution to the game and legacy donot win you matches.

Right, bowlers win matches. Batsmen (barring Bradman) can't compare.

Your team needs to win a Test series to save the universe. Think of a top 15 all-time bowler. Think of a top 15 batsman (barring Bradman). Tell me you're not picking anyone from category 1 over anyone from category 2.

 

[kyear2]

if we're going by primary, Bradman is the greatest, Hobbs is the second greatest, and everyone else is fighting each other as you can't touch those two.

The disrespect.

 

[Bolo.]

I don't think you know what my critique of Murali was. It wasn't on his level of penetration. It was that he wasnt as good a counterattacking bowler as Warne because his way to get wickets was inherently defensive (containment). And I gave examples.

I understand what you were saying. I just don't think defensive is a legitimate criticism of a guy who was the fastest striking highest wicket taking spinner ever. Whatever label you attach to his MO, it was an MO that worked. This is true regardless of whether the label is accurate.

I've picked a position on wicket taking that is consistent for Murali and Imran- it matters a lot. They are both greater than players with better away averages. How much do you think it matters? Can you apply the same principle to both of them?

 

[kyear2]

got it.

Viv (late 1981-1991) [without SL]

77 matches, 4571 @ 43.12, 40.1 Run-per-inning

Sachin (late 2002-2013) [without Ban]

91 matches, 6408 runs @ 45.1, 41 run per inning

Smith (late 2019-2025)

48 matches, 3298 @ 45.1, 40.2 run per inning.

The crazy thing about those numbers is that Sachin had by far the flattest of conditions between the 3.

 

[kyear2]

I've more or less been convinced that Sachin is a greater Batsmen than Viv and always is ranked higher in my lists, for that very reason, longevity as he lasted longer, his prime of 93-2002 lasted longer than Viv's 76-81 and on that factor I've him higher. Viv's light burnt brighter but Sachin's burnt longer, I've made it very clear I don't think there's actually any output gap between the two against test standard sides, I was just comparing a specific timeframe of Viv to a specific timeframe of Sachin, similar in length, instead of comparing their overall careers.

well lol, Okay, though I do find it that you're extremely defensive of Sachin.

Basically that.

 

[subshakerz]

The crazy thing about those numbers is that Sachin had by far the flattest of conditions between the 3.

It's misleading though. Tendulkars dip we mainly injuries and then he had another peak in which he was the best in the world before a decline the end. Viv just declined slowly as soon as his peak was done

 

[kyear2]

Wow I can't believe i have to defend Imran to you of all people. And fwiw, Imran is greater than Warne as well, even if he's one of what 3 atg spinners. And you said Sachin was a trend setter and changed this and that about cricket. I need examples. He wasnt the first teenager to score a 100, he didn't have any monster series or transcendent innings.Consistency across teams and conditions isn't unique to him either: Smith, Kanhai, Viv etc managed that. His major claim to fame is longevity.

Literally arguing against the same argument you just made.

Sachin is Sachin due to longevity.

Think Hobbs is undoubtedly greater, so no argument there.

His advantage over Viv is purely that, though he didn't impact / turn matches and series like I.V.A. did. A hair ahead of the Master Blaster.

Sachin's advantage over Sobers is that he batted in the top order more often, that's somewhat negated by the latter bowling 40 overs a match. So again, minimal.

You said that ATG bowling all rounders are rare, there's Imran, Hadlee, Miller and Pollock, and that's only if we establish a cutoff of 25 runs.

ATG spinners, even more rare, just 3 of them.

At most 5 openers

And the most rare ATG batsmen, who were ATG slips and efficient 5th bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

I understand what you were saying. I just don't think defensive is a legitimate criticism of a guy who was the fastest striking highest wicket taking spinner ever. Whatever label you attach to his MO, it was an MO that worked. This is true regardless of whether the label is accurate.

I've picked a position on wicket taking that is consistent for Murali and Imran- it matters a lot. They are both greater than players with better away averages. How much do you think it matters? Can you apply the same principle to both of them?

So it seems you don't want to address my point on counterattacking ability and just are repeating yourself and want me to talk about away averages.

Here is the point: Murali when attacked by good players of spin often was much easier to manage as his primary way of getting wickets (which was normally very effective hence a good SR) was a defensive approach of containment as attested by his own captain, several opponents and my own watching of him. And that this is an area where Warne was better than him as he was mentally stronger and more tactical.

As for the away averages part, I am not arguing that Murali is worse than Warne because of his away average and SR. I was just bringing that up in response to someone bringing up his overall stats of SR and showing that using this raw stat approach is wrong since his record is obviously tilted by home advantage and he wasnt nearly as good away. But I don't like a raw stat approach without context unless the difference is huge between players. Hence why I won't use this to say Warne is better than Murali or Ambrose better than Imran and will prefer to go into individual countries.

So are we clear?

 

[kyear2]

Right, bowlers win matches. Batsmen (barring Bradman) can't compare.

Your team needs to win a Test series to save the universe. Think of a top 15 all-time bowler. Think of a top 15 batsman (barring Bradman). Tell me you're not picking anyone from category 1 over anyone from category 2.

I agree bowlers are slightly more important and and impactful. But 15 is just hyperbole and a bit ridiculous.

There's a reason SA isn't a great team right now. You still need batting, quality batting.

And what you and everyone else here forgets when discussing the success of great bowlers, they all had great catching support from their keepers and more crucially, their cordons.

Lindwall, Davidson, Lillee, Hadlee, Quartet, Marshall, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Steyn, all had elite support, and Hadlee apart, from elite batsmen.

 

[Bolo.]

So it seems you don't want to address my point on counterattacking ability and just are repeating yourself and want me to talk about away averages.

Here is the point: Murali when attacked by good players of spin often was much easier to manage as his primary way of getting wickets (which was normally very effective hence a good SR) was a defensive approach of containment as attested by his own captain, several opponents and my own watching of him. And that this is an area where Warne was better than him as he was mentally stronger and more tactical.

As for the away averages part, I am not arguing that Murali is worse than Warne because of his away average and SR. I was just bringing that up in response to someone bringing up his overall stats of SR and showing that using this raw stat approach is wrong since his record is obviously tilted by home advantage and he wasnt nearly as good away. But I don't like a raw stat approach without context unless the difference is huge between players. Hence why I won't use this to say Warne is better than Murali or Ambrose better than Imran and will prefer to go into individual countries.

So are we clear?

Averages are incidental. I'm asking you how important you think wicket taking is. You have brought it up a ton of times for Imran away. But it seems to matter less when it comes to Murali, despite there being a huge gap on how many they took.

 

[DrWolverine]

Basically that.

Hogan vs Austin