Shane Warne vs Dale Steyn

[Coronis]

**** it, I've been laying off because I don't like disrespecting the dead, but here's why imo Warne isn't in the upper pantheon of ATG bowlers.

Everyone knows that in the comparison between Warne and Murali once you take out the minnows the stats are pretty comparable (let's put aside the fact that those minnow wickets are pretty essential for SL to convert those matches into wins). Warne gets the better away SR, and Murali has a higher WPI.

The problem is those are just silly raw numbers that don't take into account the context. It's not Marshall or Gilly, or anyone else who might have had great team support, but Warne is the biggest downhill skier of all time, and that's propped up his legacy. Being the spinner on a team with an ATG pace attack, he's getting a disproportionate amount of bowling load skewed towards the second innings, and that basically guarantees 9/10 times he's working in a lot of already favorable positions. To add to that, batsmen in those days were really hindered from going into counterattack when their teams were behind, in the chance of saving draws, and this also happened to play right into Warne's hands. He was much better at attacking defensive batsmen, and didn't like being under the cosh of a more attacking approach, part of the reason he didn't favor and had to leave ODIs, whether it's admitted to or not. Everything ended up playing into perfect scenarios for him to succeed thae vast majority of the time. Put him against more aggressive modern batsmen, or on a different team and i don't think he ends up with quite as low of an average. Legendary player still, but I don't think there's any comparison to Murali, who imo rightly takes a place right alongside the big five pacers (Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn).

I know this will be taken as nothing more than a rallying cry for this den of convicts to circle around their man, but the facts are the facts and I have to state it like it is. (In case you think I only single out Warne, among deceased past legends, I also think Kobe is overrated, as a rather too inefficient but highly talented player, who got rather enamored with the green light to be his team's late shot clock low percentage shooter).

Is this the real reason you don’t rate older players? Too squeamish?

 

[Johan]

I assure that Sri Lanka did not need 8WPM 10 averaging bowlers to beat Bangaldesh in the 2000s.

 

[Bolo.]

The problem with all this is that he was the lead bowler in the team in the early 90s before he had worldclass bowling support.

And your critiques apply even moreso to Murali who had more supportive home pitches but also was less effective in the start of games. And Murali went into a defensive shell once he was sufficiently attacked as Lara said. Even his own captain Jaya called Murali a defensive bowler.

At least Warne even when getting smacked still could occasionally get the wickets of bats. He rarely stopped attacking.

Having said that, I agree top tier pacers are ahead, but not pacers with little varied success cross conditions.

Murali had a (slightly) better SR than Warne. Not everything belongs in neat little boxes.

You criticise Murali for trying to dry up the run when bats are going well. You criticise Steyn for trying to attack under the same circumstances. Which aporoach do you prefer?

 

[Coronis]

Murali had a (slightly) better SR than Warne. Not everything belongs in neat little boxes.

Murali being punished for striking faster and leaking fewer runs. For some reason

 

[Bolo.]

Murali being punished for striking faster and leaking fewer runs. For some reason

Sign of weakness. Better bowlers assert dominance by giving away runs first and setting up more satisfying wins.

 

[subshakerz]

Murali had a (slightly) better SR than Warne. Not everything belongs in neat little boxes.

You criticise Murali for trying to dry up the run when bats are going well. You criticise Steyn for trying to attack under the same circumstances. Which aporoach do you prefer?

I think Warne and Murali are so close that the difference between them isn't really determined by overall stats.

And please understand my criticisms. I do not compromise on wickettaking.

I am not criticizing Murali for being miserly. So was Warne. I am criticizing him for not looking for wickets once he has been attacked and just focusing on containment, whereas Warne rarely let go of looking for wickets even when he was being tonked. Its not just my criticism btw. Lara and Sidhu have both said as such. It's a minor difference between them.

As for Steyn, I rate him ahead of Ambrose a more miserly bowler since I value his wickettaking penetration more. But I think compared to McGrath who was both penetrative and miserly, I prefer keeping it cheaper.

 

[Coronis]

I think Warne and Murali are so close that the difference between them isn't really determined by overall stats.

And please understand my criticisms. I do not compromise on wickettaking.

I am not criticizing Murali for being miserly. So was Warne. I am criticizing him for not looking for wickets once he has been attacked and just focusing on containment, whereas Warne rarely let go of looking for wickets even when he was being tonked. Its not just my criticism btw. Lara and Sidhu have both said as such. It's a minor difference between them.

As for Steyn, I rate him ahead of Ambrose a more miserly bowler since I value his wickettaking penetration more. But I think compared to McGrath who was both penetrative and miserly, I prefer keeping it cheaper.

How is he focusing on containment if he’s still taking wickets more often?

 

[subshakerz]

How is he focusing on containment if he’s still taking wickets more often?

I don't think you can expect Warne to have the same SR as Murali given their respective home wickets. Warne has a vastly better SR than Murali away from home.

But you are missing my point. This is for those select circumstances when Murali actually got some stick and how he responded, which was rare.

 

[Coronis]

I don't think you can expect Warne to have the same SR as Murali given their respective home wickets. Warne has a vastly better SR than Murali away from home.

But you are missing my point. This is for those select circumstances when Murali actually got some stick and how he responded, which was rare.

Give some actual valid examples. Otherwise like saying Kallis lost his team matches, you’re just talking out of your ass based on a perception of these players.

 

[subshakerz]

Give some actual valid examples. Otherwise like saying Kallis lost his team matches, you’re just talking out of your ass based on a perception of these players.

Btw please just admit you were wrong about the SR point.

Kallis costing games has plenty of examples it's just that you are wed to your views.

I watched Muralis and Warnes entire career and I know that the former was worse of a counterattacking bowler. Younis Khan for example in the 2000 and 2006 series in SL when chasing scores would come to the crease with Murali having kept things tight and hit a few over his head and suddenly Murali became much more manageable. Whereas with Warne when he flighted it and got hit I often saw miscues following that even from our best bats. Also recall Cronje doing the same to Murali in 1998 when Murali seemed to have SA chasing in a spot of bother and Cronje wrecked him totally.

Sidhu talks about how once he hit Murali a bit he would immediately call in mid on and mid off to stop the runs whereas Warne always kept them open to invite him to try. Even in the famous bashing Warne got in 1997 by Sidhu he took his wickets in the final test, he had that competitive spirit. That's a difference in mindset.

Here is Muralis own captain telling how Murali wasn't the type to go full on attack and take risks.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/had-to-convince-muttiah-muralitharan-to-attack-says-mahela-jayawardene-1039995

 

[Coronis]

Btw please just admit you were wrong about the SR point.

Kallis costing games has plenty of examples it's just that you are wed to your views.

I watched Muralis and Warnes entire career and I know that the former was worse of a counterattacking bowler. Younis Khan for example in the 2000 and 2006 series in SL when chasing scores would come to the crease with Murali having kept things tight and hit a few over his head and suddenly Murali became much more manageable. Whereas with Warne when he flighted it and got hit I often saw miscues following that even from our best bats. Also recall Cronje doing the same to Murali in 1998 when Murali seemed to have SA chasing in a spot of bother and Cronje wrecked him totally.

Sidhu talks about how once he hit Murali a bit he would immediately call in mid on and mid off to stop the runs whereas Warne always kept them open to invite him to try. Even in the famous bashing Warne got in 1997 by Sidhu he took his wickets in the final test, he had that competitive spirit. That's a difference in mindset.

Here is Muralis own captain telling how Murali wasn't the type to go full on attack and take risks.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/had-to-convince-muttiah-muralitharan-to-attack-says-mahela-jayawardene-1039995

Ok you actually gave some evidence, good for you.

I’m and I’m not going to rehash the incorrectness of the Kallis argument, we’ve just to agree to disagree there.

 

[shortpitched713]

I assure that Sri Lanka did not need 8WPM 10 averaging bowlers to beat Bangaldesh in the 2000s.

Someone had to get the wickets. No guarantee if Murali didn't do it that the rest of the team would pick up the slack. It was Vaas and nobody...

 

[shortpitched713]

And your critiques apply even moreso to Murali who had more supportive home pitches but also was less effective in the start of games. And Murali went into a defensive shell once he was sufficiently attacked as Lara said. Even his own captain Jaya called Murali a defensive bowler.

You've said this many times, but I don't think this is the case.

Even Lara's words he considered Murali the more unpredictable and impossible to pick out of him and Warne. To me, he may not have been as tactical and adaptable in his game approach as Warne, but that's because his style didn't really need to adapt as much. He was always equal parts hard to pick, hard to get away, and threatening to your wicket.

 

[subshakerz]

You've said this many times, but I don't think this is the case.

Even Lara's words he considered Murali the more unpredictable and impossible to pick out of him and Warne. To me, he may not have been as tactical and adaptable in his game approach as Warne, but that's because his style didn't really need to adapt as much. He was always equal parts hard to pick, hard to get away, and threatening to your wicket.

Lara gave Warne the edge for the same reason I did.

Murali was definitely harder to pick than Warne since he had the doosra and a more confusing action.

But I do think Warne was simply a better counterattacking bowler since Muralis entire game plan was based on containment and trapping the bat with his variations. I gave examples above to illustrate.

 

[Bolo.]

I think Warne and Murali are so close that the difference between them isn't really determined by overall stats.

And please understand my criticisms. I do not compromise on wickettaking.

I am not criticizing Murali for being miserly. So was Warne. I am criticizing him for not looking for wickets once he has been attacked and just focusing on containment, whereas Warne rarely let go of looking for wickets even when he was being tonked. Its not just my criticism btw. Lara and Sidhu have both said as such. It's a minor difference between them.

As for Steyn, I rate him ahead of Ambrose a more miserly bowler since I value his wickettaking penetration more. But I think compared to McGrath who was both penetrative and miserly, I prefer keeping it cheaper.

You very much can split them on stats. Just depends what type of stats you like. You like bowlers who take more wickets. Murali takes nearly an extra WPI. That's about the difference between Kallis and Pollock. And has nearly 100 extra wickets, despite playing for a team that played fewer tests. That's about the difference between Kallis and Marshall.

Maybe this doesn't make Murali a better bowler. But it matters a lot in the context of comparing them to quicks. There are plenty of quicks I'd rather have bowling a few overs than either. The wickets the spinners took (and how far ahead of the other spinners they are) set them apart.

Steyn and Mcgrath are not at all alike in terms of being attacking. Mcgrath intentionally slowed right at the start of his career. Steyn only did it in patches when he was worried about his body packing up, late career. Before that (and the related adjustment to sometimes bowling channel) he was pure attack, going at the stumps a lot. Channel was the most attacking Mcgrath got. When he was being negative, he occasionally went 6th or 7th stump line.

 

[subshakerz]

You very much can split them on stats. Just depends what type of stats you like. You like bowlers who take more wickets. Murali takes nearly an extra WPI. That's about the difference between Kallis and Pollock. And has nearly 100 extra wickets, despite playing for a team that played fewer tests. That's about the difference between Kallis and Marshall.

Muralis greater WPI is obvious from having less competition.

Maybe this doesn't make Murali a better bowler. But it matters a lot in the context of comparing them to quicks. There are plenty of quicks I'd rather have bowling a few overs than either. The wickets the spinners took (and how far ahead of the other spinners they are) set them apart.

Ok

Steyn and Mcgrath are not at all alike in terms of being attacking. Mcgrath intentionally slowed right at the start of his career. Steyn only did it in patches when he was worried about his body packing up, late career. Before that (and the related adjustment to sometimes bowling channel) he was pure attack, going at the stumps a lot. Channel was the most attacking Mcgrath got. When he was being negative, he occasionally went 6th or 7th stump line.

My point is that McGrath was still taking wickets at a great rate while being miserly and I prefer that to Steyn taking wickets at a better rate but being hittable and expensive. Whereas Ambrose didn't take wickets often at a great rate though he was miserly and I rate him last of the three.

 

[Johan]

Someone had to get the wickets. No guarantee if Murali didn't do it that the rest of the team would pick up the slack. It was Vaas and nobody...

Vaas and nobody are outbowling those Bangladeshi bowling lineups to kingdom come bruh, Even Jaya would.

 

[Coronis]

My point is that McGrath was still taking wickets at a great rate while being miserly and I prefer that to Steyn taking wickets at a better rate but being hittable and expensive. Whereas Ambrose didn't take wickets often at a great rate though he was miserly and I rate him last of the three.

What would you think of player x who took wickets at a better rate than player y and was also more miserly than them?

 

[kyear2]

**** it, I've been laying off because I don't like disrespecting the dead, but here's why imo Warne isn't in the upper pantheon of ATG bowlers.

Everyone knows that in the comparison between Warne and Murali once you take out the minnows the stats are pretty comparable (let's put aside the fact that those minnow wickets are pretty essential for SL to convert those matches into wins). Warne gets the better away SR, and Murali has a higher WPI.

The problem is those are just silly raw numbers that don't take into account the context. It's not Marshall or Gilly, or anyone else who might have had great team support, but Warne is the biggest downhill skier of all time, and that's propped up his legacy. Being the spinner on a team with an ATG pace attack, he's getting a disproportionate amount of bowling load skewed towards the second innings, and that basically guarantees 9/10 times he's working in a lot of already favorable positions. To add to that, batsmen in those days were really hindered from going into counterattack when their teams were behind, in the chance of saving draws, and this also happened to play right into Warne's hands. He was much better at attacking defensive batsmen, and didn't like being under the cosh of a more attacking approach, part of the reason he didn't favor and had to leave ODIs, whether it's admitted to or not. Everything ended up playing into perfect scenarios for him to succeed thae vast majority of the time. Put him against more aggressive modern batsmen, or on a different team and i don't think he ends up with quite as low of an average. Legendary player still, but I don't think there's any comparison to Murali, who imo rightly takes a place right alongside the big five pacers (Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose, McGrath, Steyn).

I know this will be taken as nothing more than a rallying cry for this den of convicts to circle around their man, but the facts are the facts and I have to state it like it is. (In case you think I only single out Warne, among deceased past legends, I also think Kobe is overrated, as a rather too inefficient but highly talented player, who got rather enamored with the green light to be his team's late shot clock low percentage shooter).

Well at least fully agree with the last point.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Warne is miles away from Murali, and find them quite comparable.

If one wants to say that Murali is minutely ahead as a bowler, while Warne edges ahead as a cricketer, then fine.

I don't find Warne to be horrendously overrated outside of the scope where he's seen as a Wisden top 5 player.

Warne may have had significantly more help from McGrath and xo, but Murali also had tremendous assistance from his home pitches. It kinda equals out to some extent.

 

[subshakerz]

What would you think of player x who took wickets at a better rate than player y and was also more miserly than them?

Again I would need to evaluate their records to make sure the overall comparison makes sense.

I rarely just base things off overall stats.