Steven Smith vs Dale Steyn

[Coronis]

We're at ad hominem attacks now, great. For the past 10 years you've maintained that he makes your team for his catching, just pointing that out. Considering you took the exact opposite view in a thread just two days ago because you thought it was better to be a dick.

This is how I know that you have no interest to have an intellectually honest discussion and just here to criticize without actually contributing anything of your own.

I said if Viv retired the same time as Chappell, meaning after the same amount of tests, the numbers are similar. You didn't seem to understand, so I said after 87, as in 87 tests, the same number that Chappell played.

Sangakkara nor Kallis has the quality of series that Viv had, changed the game the way Viv did, faced and succeeded against the level of bowling that Viv did, won matches the way Viv did. None of them was rated as no 1 in the world for any period of time remotely comparable to Sir Richards.

So tell me the argument for them being better. Riding out the ends of careers in the flattest eras for tests vs bowlers Viv would have slaughtered.

The end of one's career, as you pointed out for Smith, does not diminish the quality of same.

Come again

I’ve always said he’s there for his bowling and fielding, you choose to ignore that I’ve said bowling because its convenient for your recent arguments.

I didn’t take the exact opposite stance? If all other things are equal then sure I’ll take the better slip. Most people would and that’s not controversial. The part people do disagree with is picking someone they clearly rate lower based just on their slip fielding.

All I did was call you out for pushing your argument by contriving a ridiculous scenario, which apparently you couldn’t handle.

Didn’t realise the 87 was in reference to Chappell since it was in a post mentioning 3 other batsmen. My bad.

And yes there records are comparable at the least after that point. No I don’t think it diminishes a player. But you can definitely increase your rating after the fact by continuing successful for a lengthy period of time, as both Kallis and Sanga did. I wouldn’t rate either of them above Viv if they’d retired after 87 tests.

But its what Kallis and Sanga added to their records and legacies in their remaining tests that has me rank them higher. You can disagree sure, but I don’t think its an illogical position to take.

 

[kyear2]

I’ve always said he’s there for his bowling and fielding, you choose to ignore that I’ve said bowling because its convenient for your recent arguments.

I didn’t take the exact opposite stance? If all other things are equal then sure I’ll take the better slip. Most people would and that’s not controversial. The part people do disagree with is picking someone they clearly rate lower based just on their slip fielding.

All I did was call you out for pushing your argument by contriving a ridiculous scenario, which apparently you couldn’t handle.

Didn’t realise the 87 was in reference to Chappell since it was in a post mentioning 3 other batsmen. My bad.

And yes there records are comparable at the least after that point. No I don’t think it diminishes a player. But you can definitely increase your rating after the fact by continuing successful for a lengthy period of time, as both Kallis and Sanga did. I wouldn’t rate either of them above Viv if they’d retired after 87 tests.

But its what Kallis and Sanga added to their records and legacies in their remaining tests that has me rank them higher. You can disagree sure, but I don’t think its an illogical position to take.

No I ignored it, bevause for a team like this it's barely relevant and not enough on its own to shift the needle.

Well the example was your 3rd and 4th greatest batsmen of all time, not exactly clearly lower, and even a Hammond who you rate 5th ish would be a good substitute if you were struggling in that area. This isn't a new concept in the sport. Let's use Hooper for example, as long as he was catching like that, he wasn't getting dropped.

Re the Viv argument. Very simple question, at any point in either of their careers were they better than Viv?

That's the point of these longevity beats quality scenarios. At any point in Kallis's or Sangakkara's careers, were they as good, as proven, as tested?
The answer to that is clearly and objectively no. So if that's the case, how does playing longer make any difference what so ever.

 

[subshakerz]

And Tendulkar,.even supposedly looking more assured didn't do much better. For goodness sake, prime Tendulkar averaged 27 and 40 (overall 30 odd vs Donald) in back to back series. I wish lara would've faced Donald at any point at home in his prime (90s).

Lara did in 98. Donald took his wicket 5 times that series. He was owned.

Perfect?

What was his record again vs Donald and Pollock and the WWs, specifically compared to said Lara?

Tendulkar has objectively a better record.

Let's assume they had the exact same average as both. Tendulkar at least has tons against Donald and the 2Ws and over each series he played didn't struggle against any of them. He probably had more trouble with Cronje and Saqlain than the pacers.

In 99 for example he didn't get out to Wasim or Waqar once. The other time he played them was his debut series as a teen.

Lara sucked against them when he toured SA in 98 and Pakistan in 97. He never scored a ton against them.

And let's not forget Sachin scored against WI in 97 and against Steyn as well.

 

[kyear2]

Lara did in 98. Donald took his wicket 5 times that series. He was owned.


Tendulkar has objectively a better record.

Let's assume they had the exact same average as both. Tendulkar at least has tons against Donald and the 2Ws and over each series he played didn't struggle against any of them. He probably had more trouble with Cronje and Saqlain than the pacers.

In 99 for example he didn't get out to Wasim or Waqar once. The other time he played them was his debut series as a teen.

Lara sucked against them when he toured SA in 98 and Pakistan in 97. He never scored a ton against them.

And let's not forget Sachin scored against WI in 97 and against Steyn as well.

So in other worlds you're not going to say then.

 

[subshakerz]

So in other worlds you're not going to say then.

Huh? I answered your question.

I never argued Tendulkar had a perfect record against these pacers. Better than Lara though. And I know you yourself would choose Tendulkar out of these two records.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Lara did in 98. Donald took his wicket 5 times that series. He was owned.


Tendulkar has objectively a better record.

Let's assume they had the exact same average as both. Tendulkar at least has tons against Donald and the 2Ws and over each series he played didn't struggle against any of them. He probably had more trouble with Cronje and Saqlain than the pacers.

In 99 for example he didn't get out to Wasim or Waqar once. The other time he played them was his debut series as a teen.

Lara sucked against them when he toured SA in 98 and Pakistan in 97. He never scored a ton against them.

And let's not forget Sachin scored against WI in 97 and against Steyn as well.

If Sachin scored tons but still ended up averaging less vs Donald and similarly vs the Wws that just shows to me that lara was more consistent. Lara sucked when he toured in 1997 but did just fine at home to the Wws in 1993 and Waqar was at his peak. He also averaged 40 odd vs Donald in 2001. "Oh Donald was past it." Well Sachin averaged 36 a year earlier vs the same Donald at home.

He does not have an objectively better record. Sachin averages less vs the great fast bowlers they both faced: Donald, McGrath, slightly more vs Wasim.

 

[subshakerz]

If Sachin scored tons but still ended up averaging less vs Donald and similarly vs the Wws that just shows to me that lara was more consistent. Lara sucked when he toured in 1997 but did just fine at home to the Wws in 1993 and Waqar was at his peak. He also averaged 40 odd vs Donald in 2001. "Oh Donald was past it." Well Sachin averaged 36 a year earlier vs the same Donald at home.

Would you agree that at no point can we say Sachin was struggling against these bowlers whereas we would say that about Lara in 97/98?

And that all else equal, you prefer the bat who has tons against these bowlers?

He does not have an objectively better record. Sachin averages less vs the great fast bowlers they both faced: Donald, McGrath, slightly more vs Wasim.

Has more to say how they did against those teams then those bowlers.

 

[Coronis]

No I ignored it, bevause for a team like this it's barely relevant and not enough on its own to shift the needle.

Well the example was your 3rd and 4th greatest batsmen of all time, not exactly clearly lower, and even a Hammond who you rate 5th ish would be a good substitute if you were struggling in that area. This isn't a new concept in the sport. Let's use Hooper for example, as long as he was catching like that, he wasn't getting dropped.

Re the Viv argument. Very simple question, at any point in either of their careers were they better than Viv?

That's the point of these longevity beats quality scenarios. At any point in Kallis's or Sangakkara's careers, were they as good, as proven, as tested?
The answer to that is clearly and objectively no. So if that's the case, how does playing longer make any difference what so ever.

So basically yes I heard what you said but I’ll ignore it so you didn’t say it so it doesn’t matter I’m right and you picked him because of what I say not because of the reasons you say.

Again, I said I don’t disagree with equal batsmen but one being a great slip vs not, I called you out regarding the way you went about it and you can’t handle it apparently.

Sure lets use Hooper. Were there actually many talented batsmen knocking at the door at that time? Is his bowling also completely ignored so he was only picked for his fielding?

Yes, I think so. Otherwise I wouldn’t put them ahead. Not sure how anyone can categorically say “clearly and objectively” regarding any comparison across great players from different eras who didn’t directly compete against one another but to each their own. I’m not going to change my mind, lets move on.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Would you agree that at no point can we say Sachin was struggling against these bowlers whereas we would say that about Lara in 97/98?

And that all else equal, you prefer the bat who has tons against these bowlers?


Has more to say how they did against those teams then those bowlers.

30 +30+30+30= 120(÷4)=30
100+10+5+5= 120(÷4)=30.
Yeah I'd probably go with the one who tonned up more. But I'd still concede that that person who tonned up wasnt particularly better than the other guy. One reason most favor Sachin over Lara (myself included) was that he was more consistent. So there you go....

 

[OverratedSanity]

They're going to say context and other bs.

Kinda yeah

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Kinda yeah

I'd really like to see the context. Averaged 27 and 40 at his peak vs Donald. Then 36 in 2000. 30 odd over 3 tests vs Wasim and co in late 90s (2 test series and 1 test Asian championship) all at home.

He did do fine vs WI in 97 but as you know, Subz showed me the light earlier this year when he kept preaching that late 90s Ambrose was nothing special and lacked "penetration " therefore that attack wasn't anything special.

What context?

 

[sayon basak]

Peak : Smith > Sachin
Prime : Sachin > Smith
Okay

Always thought Peak and prime were the same thing.

 

[sayon basak]

Yeah, I think Hobbs, Sobers, Viv and Sachin are all about the exact same level as each other, just don't think one has a statistical edge as blunt as people make it out to be.

These are the exact players I have in my tier 2, maybe could make a case for Lara.

 

[sayon basak]

View attachment 43194

Shakib was class, as always.

 

[centurymaker]

If Sachin scored tons but still ended up averaging less vs Donald and similarly vs the Wws that just shows to me that lara was more consistent. Lara sucked when he toured in 1997 but did just fine at home to the Wws in 1993 and Waqar was at his peak. He also averaged 40 odd vs Donald in 2001. "Oh Donald was past it." Well Sachin averaged 36 a year earlier vs the same Donald at home.

He does not have an objectively better record. Sachin averages less vs the great fast bowlers they both faced: Donald, McGrath, slightly more vs Wasim.

Tendulkar isn't just playing against Wasim and Waqar, there's also Saqlain and others. He isn't just playing Donald. There's 3+ other bowlers.

Just because he averages 30-40 in the series against Pak or SA, doesn't mean he is averaging 30-40 against WWs or Donald. He is averaging that against 'Pakistan' or 'South Africa'. So stop pinning it as Sachin v Donald or Sachin v Wasim/Waqar. Because Tendulkar wasn't even getting out to WWs or Donald!!

It means, in those short series, he was inconsistent against their other bowlers while doing relatively well against their main bowlers. Get it? So you are wrong, he objectively does have a better record against the premier bowlers specifically. Not to mention the hundreds he has scored against their attacks.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Tendulkar isn't just playing against Wasim and Waqar, there's also Saqlain and others. He isn't just playing Donald. There's 3+ other bowlers.

Just because he averages 30-40 in the series against Pak or SA, doesn't mean he is averaging 30-40 against WWs or Donald. He is averaging that against 'Pakistan' or 'South Africa'. So stop pinning it as Sachin v Donald or Sachin v Wasim/Waqar. Because Tendulkar wasn't even getting out to WWs or Donald!!

It means, in those short series, he was inconsistent against their other bowlers while doing relatively well against their main bowlers. Get it? So you are wrong, he objectively does have a better record against the premier bowlers specifically. Not to mention the hundreds he has scored against their attacks.

Oh so he didn't get out to the Ws but still scored the same as lara (more or less) but got out to lesser bowlers so that makes him better? I see. Can I also therefore conclude that since Donald dismissed lara mostly in one series, that lara dominated him in the other. Ditto Wasim seeing that lara only got dismissed by him in the 97 series and not the 93 one.

 

[centurymaker]

you are clubbing together the 2 test series vs Pakistan and the 1 test in the Asian championship.. In the Asian championship he was obstructed by Akhtar or someone and imo wrongly given run out at the start of his innings in a crucial match. In such a small sample size one innings is the difference between averaging 30 or 40 or 50. For example, had he got a ton, he'd have averaged 50+ vs Pakistan in these 3 tests. That was an era where decisions weren't always fair. As we know one bad decision can derail an entire match or series for a team. Back then sometimes multiple decisions would go against certain batters from time to time. So you can't take stats at face value everytime. Same applies to Lara Viv Gavaskar etc. Now DRS has brought in uniformity and eliminated all the howlers so we can be more confident in the stats of the modern players.

In the 2 test series he averaged 42.75 vs Pakistan.

In the one off Asian championship test he got 0 and obstructed run out on 9 vs Akhtar and co.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

you are clubbing together the 2 test series vs Pakistan and the 1 test in the Asian championship.. In the Asian championship he was obstructed by Akhtar and wrongly given run out at the start of his innings in a crucial match. In such a small sample size one innings is the difference between averaging 30 or 40 or 50. For example, had he got a ton, he'd have averaged 50+ vs Pakistan in these 3 tests. That was an era where decisions weren't always fair. As we know one bad decision can derail an entire match or series for a team. Back then sometimes multiple decisions would go against certain batters from time to time. So you can't take stats at face value everytime. Same applies to Lara Viv Gavaskar etc. Now DRS has brought in uniformity and eliminated all the howlers so we can be more confident in the stats of the modern players.

In the 2 test series he averaged 42.75 vs Pakistan.

In the one off Asian championship test he got 0 and obstructed run out on 9 vs Akhtar and co.

That stuff about wrong decisions I agree with. I remember in the 95 series Lara was destroying McWarne in Barbados and wasn't wrongfully given out to a Waugh catch when he dropped the ball. Ditto the first test run out when on 60 odd in the 99 series when Healey didn't even have the ball in hand.

 

[ankitj]

Tendulkar had no troubles against Wasim Akram from memory. When I checked, Akram got Tendulkar out total of 3 times in international games across formats. Fair to say Tendulkar owned Akram.

Edit: 4 times actually in 31 games, only once in tests.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah I'd probably go with the one who tonned up more.

Great thanks for that concession.

I'd really like to see the context. Averaged 27 and 40 at his peak vs Donald. Then 36 in 2000. 30 odd over 3 tests vs Wasim and co in late 90s (2 test series and 1 test Asian championship) all at home.

He did do fine vs WI in 97 but as you know, Subz showed me the light earlier this year when he kept preaching that late 90s Ambrose was nothing special and lacked "penetration " therefore that attack wasn't anything special.

What context?

Bro, what I find annoying in your argument is that folks watching the series will get a completely different impression.

For example, in the 96/97 series in SA, Donald got Tendulkar with a jaffa in the first test. But for the rest of the series, he handled Donald and Pollock fairly comfortably, adjusting well for the bounce and never seeming rushed or bounced out. Had more trouble with part timers like Cronje by his own admission.

In the 99 series against Pakistan, anybody who watched it knows Tendulkar fairly safely negotiated Wasim and Waqar but was having genuine trouble with Saqlain and his doosra.

Contrast that to Lara at the time in the 97 and 98 series against 2Ws and Donald when he was consistently getting out playing flashy strokes to them and had genuine trouble with their pace, especially Wasim who had his last sharp series against WI and Donald who would just bounce him out.

In summary, you can claim Tendulkar never dominated those bowlers like Viv. But that is a different claim to say he actively struggled at points like Lara did in their prime. He just didn't.

Oh so he didn't get out to the Ws but still scored the same as lara (more or less) but got out to lesser bowlers so that makes him better?

It doesn't make him better versus those teams but it doesn't support your argument he struggled against those bowlers.

I see. Can I also therefore conclude that since Donald dismissed lara mostly in one series, that lara dominated him in the other. Ditto Wasim seeing that lara only got dismissed by him in the 97 series and not the 93 one.

Lara didn't dominate Donald in 2001 and you already agreed Donald was late career.

Yes Lara had a good series against Pakistan in 93, before he developed his eye issue that meant his technique against high pace would remain faulty since he saw the ball late.