Warne vs Steyn (Test bowling)

[subshakerz]

I have yet to see an argument against the fact that Warne averaged 27 and 28 respectively in the 1st and 2nd innings of games. Steyn, like McGrath, on the other hand is excellent in every innings.

I can understand one subpar innings but in Warne's case, it's basically clear he was only regularly dangerous in the latter half of games.

 

[ma1978]

I have yet to see an argument against the fact that Warne averaged 27 and 28 respectively in the 1st and 2nd innings of games. Steyn, like McGrath, on the other hand is excellent in every innings.

I can understand one subpar innings but in Warne's case, it's basically clear he was only regularly dangerous in the latter half of games.

But extraordinarily dangerous in those innings. That’s why we have averages. One inning is not more important than another.

 

[subshakerz]

But extraordinarily dangerous in those innings. That’s why we have averages. One inning is not more important than another.

No, not extraordinary by ATG pacers standards.

 

[ma1978]

No, not extraordinary by ATG pacers standards.

average isn’t everything, spinners bowl a lot more overs, etc.

there’s a reason why Warne has the reputation he has

 

[kyear2]

average isn’t everything, spinners bowl a lot more overs, etc.

there’s a reason why Warne has the reputation he has

Walsh, Garner, Sobers all played a spinners role in various capacities and to varying levels of success, holding down an end while the pacers rest or rotate.

 

[ma1978]

Walsh, Garner, Sobers all played a spinners role in various capacities and to varying levels of success, holding down an end while the pacers rest or rotate.

And your point is?

 

[kyear2]

And your point is?

Doesn't always have to be a spinner.

 

[subshakerz]

average isn’t everything, spinners bowl a lot more overs, etc.

there’s a reason why Warne has the reputation he has

Even if we accept that Warne was more dangerous than ATG pacers like Steyn in the latter half of tests (for which there isn't any strong evidence I have seen), it's actually more effective for a bowling unit to regularly perform and secure an advantage in the 1st half of a test and set up a game than play catchup.

We kind of saw this in the 2005 Ashes, where in McGrath's absence, the entire attack including Warne lost its menace in the 1st innings and England were on top before Warne in the second innings tried to pull things back but it wasn't enough.

 

[subshakerz]

One of my critiques of Steyn in the first half of his career was that he seemed for whatever reason to fail to perform in the 4th innings to bowl out sides. This was especially an issue around 2009/10 where England got away with two draws with a wicket left, Aus chased 300 plus and India comfortably played out a draw on the last day, all in SA.

However, he rectified this in his last few years with some notable 4th innings performances.

 

[subshakerz]

That’s just not true at all. In first or second innings that series Warne took 20 wickets @ 22.9 at a strike rate of 39.7

Look at the scorecards, buddy. Those were all high scoring hauls where he was also tonked around a fair bit compared to the cleanup job he did in the second innings.

 

[shortpitched713]

Because he played half of his career in SA. He probably has a higher share of bowler friendly wickets he played on than most bowlers.

And dead pitches away, specifically just to neutralize him. Teams were always much more afraid of him skittling them out, than they were of Kallis, G Smith, ABD, and Amla piling it on. To me, that says a lot.

 

[shortpitched713]

He didn’t need McGrath . A lot of people believe that Warne wouldn’t be that great bowler without McGrath . And although Stuart Clark did very well in SA , he was no McGrath .

I would never say that Warne needs McGrath. He was damn devastating on his own, especially in spin helpful conditions ( because yes he is a spinner, and although more versatile than 99% of spinners in history, will have that counted against him when you compare to one of the undisputed ATG seamers). However, McGrath helped him a lot by getting rid of plenty of pesky top order targets with consistency.

And a minor point, not really relevant in my mind to the bowlers debate, but Clark was something of an underrated gun. Obviously not as great as McGrath because he had no longevity, but for the short stint he did play it was downright uncanny how much of a like for like replacement for McGrath he ended up being.

 

[subshakerz]

And dead pitches away, specifically just to neutralize him. Teams were always much more afraid of him skittling them out, than they were of Kallis, G Smith, ABD, and Amla piling it on. To me, that says a lot.

Yeah but it's not like previous era bowlers didn't face flat pitches. The suggestion is that Steyn faced them more which isn't really true IMO.

 

[shortpitched713]

However, I will admit that Warne was much more consistent than Steyn as a bowler.

I don't see this, honestly. They were both really resilient in their own ways. And I think it gets obscured because when we don't see a strike bowler taking wickets every other over we start to think he's being an expensive waste, but for me there's always a risk/reward cat and mouse game you play when you take on such an attacking approach.

Steyn and Warne to me were the mental masters of this for seam/spin respectively. Both more likely than some to get tonked, but they accepted that as the cost of helping their team in their best way.

 

[subshakerz]

I would never say that Warne needs McGrath. He was damn devastating on his own, especially in spin helpful conditions ( because yes he is a spinner, and although more versatile than 99% of spinners in history, will have that counted against him when you compare to one of the undisputed ATG seamers). However, McGrath helped him a lot by getting rid of plenty of pesky top order targets with consistency.

And a minor point, not really relevant in my mind to the bowlers debate, but Clark was something of an underrated gun. Obviously not as great as McGrath because he had no longevity, but for the short stint he did play it was downright uncanny how much of a like for like replacement for McGrath he ended up being.

Warne definitely did need McGrath in India otherwise he would be hammered like in 97/98.

Let's also be frank here, in the 2000s, if McGrath didn't do the heavy lifting in the 1st and 2nd innings of tests in Australia, Warne's home average would balloon

 

[subshakerz]

I don't see this, honestly. They were both really resilient in their own ways. And I think it gets obscured because when we don't see a strike bowler taking wickets every other over we start to think he's being an expensive waste, but for me there's always a risk/reward cat and mouse game you play when you take on such an attacking approach.

Steyn and Warne to me were the mental masters of this for seam/spin respectively. Both more likely than some to get tonked, but they accepted that as the cost of helping their team in their best way.

Steyn is literally the only ATG bowler I could expect to look awesome in one game and ordinary in the very next. He was like that most of his career, blowing hot and cold.

Warne was mostly tight.

 

[Bolo.]

And dead pitches away, specifically just to neutralize him. Teams were always much more afraid of him skittling them out, than they were of Kallis, G Smith, ABD, and Amla piling it on. To me, that says a lot.

Why do you think teams prepared pitches to neutralize him? I can't recall hearing about this, and it makes little sense that anyone would- the deck made very little difference to him in relation to his opponents.

Just an era of flat decks in general IMO. Plus good bats and bad bowlers that made the decks look even more docile than they were.

 

[subshakerz]

Why do you think teams prepared pitches to neutralize him? I can't recall hearing about this, and it makes little sense that anyone would- the deck made very little difference to him in relation to his opponents.

Just an era of flat decks in general IMO. Plus good bats and bad bowlers that made the decks look even more docile than they were.

The idea that England in 2012 would prepare batting wickets and neutralise Anderson just to stop Steyn seems like a stretch.

Aussie flat tracks in 2008 and 2012 had nothing to do with Steyn IMO.

 

[Bolo.]

The idea that England in 2012 would prepare batting wickets and neutralise Anderson just to stop Steyn seems like a stretch.

Aussie flat tracks in 2008 and 2012 had nothing to do with Steyn IMO.

England was unusually flat, even for the era. It's possible England did it to neutralise Philander, which would actually make sense. Does seem like a stretch without some info though. And even if it happened, it's one series in a career.

Aus was just a flat era. And when CA had previously gone the route of flattening pitches to neutralize quicks vs RSA, they announced it.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

His record isnt really qualitatively different than Imran's. The only reason he gets ranked ahead of him is the whole 'succeeded in a flat era' silly argument.

It’s not silly, Steyn was a genius in Aus, and a big matchwinner for his team. WPM of 5, fantastic SR and averaged 28(which would get retrospectively adjusted to 24/25). And he was good in Eng as well, outperforming Broad and Anderson by a huge margin and turning up when required(2012). And we know he was amazing at home and in India. Imran was amazing at home, WI, but only good in Aus and Eng. And Imran’s home record will not grant him any plus points in this comparison, since Steyn already proved himself in in SC like tracks against batting that was godly on them.