Cricket

The Man Himself said:
Define feeling dead
Click to expand...

I feel like the matches are pointless. Past 5-6 years I've been noticing a cycle: team x starts winning then starts losing to team y and then team x starts its downfall.

It has become really predictable to me in that way. I don't see a lot of quality cricketers out there either right now. Add to that how poorly the viewership has been recently just gives me a feeling it's dead - not like it used to be.

I could be wrong though, which is why I asked why it feels that way. Maybe it's the IPL. The whole T20 baseball wannabeism really put me off.
 
shamans said:
I feel like the matches are pointless. Past 5-6 years I've been noticing a cycle: team x starts winning then starts losing to team y and then team x starts its downfall.

It has become really predictable to me in that way. I don't see a lot of quality cricketers out there either right now. Add to that how poorly the viewership has been recently just gives me a feeling it's dead - not like it used to be.

I could be wrong though, which is why I asked why it feels that way. Maybe it's the IPL. The whole T20 baseball wannabeism really put me off.
Click to expand...

I don't I agree with it. One part is T20 effect taking over and the 'pure form' of Cricket getting pushed back and there are good proportion of fans who don't like it. Plus there is IPL element, fixing etc which has done some harm but overall Cricket doesn't feel dead.

On quality of players: There are lot of good quality players around in all teams. If I break eras in a period of 10 years and try to look back that way, batting has got better. Bowling probably has got poorer as a whole but I am not sure whether to blame it on bowlers or flat pitches and the rule changes favouring batsmen more than ever. Even then it is not that bad. Last decade was lucky maybe to have likes of Akram, Mcgrath, Murali, Warne all at same time.

On predictability: There have been lot of unpredictable results in last few years including the whole series results. Just look at world cup and how new teams are doing well. Bangladesh beat Pak, India, SA in a row in ODI series and beat NZ too not long ago. Ashes results have not been that predictable. Many were expecting England win last time when Australia went on to sweep 5-0. What has happened is, no team right now is as dominant as Australia's golden era a decade or so ago. So there are ups and downs periods.
 
The Man Himself said:
I don't I agree with it. One part is T20 effect taking over and the 'pure form' of Cricket getting pushed back and there are good proportion of fans who don't like it. Plus there is IPL element, fixing etc which has done some harm but overall Cricket doesn't feel dead.

On quality of players: There are lot of good quality players around in all teams. If I break eras in a period of 10 years and try to look back that way, batting has got better. Bowling probably has got poorer as a whole but I am not sure whether to blame it on bowlers or flat pitches and the rule changes favouring batsmen more than ever. Even then it is not that bad. Last decade was lucky maybe to have likes of Akram, Mcgrath, Murali, Warne all at same time.

On predictability: There have been lot of unpredictable results in last few years including the whole series results. Just look at world cup and how new teams are doing well. Bangladesh beat Pak, India, SA in a row in ODI series and beat NZ too not long ago. Ashes results have not been that predictable. Many were expecting England win last time when Australia went on to sweep 5-0. What has happened is, no team right now is as dominant as Australia's golden era a decade or so ago. So there are ups and downs periods.
Click to expand...


I suppose. I wish I felt the same. Bangladesh always get these periods of wins BTW. It usually amounts to nothing. Of course, I hope I'm wrong about it. There are definitely good quality players but I don't see players that are either world class or you just want to watch them play for their quality. Even after the Akram, Murali, Mcgrath era we've had some world class players around.

But like I said, it could just be because I'm not following it anymore and see no point in it (since the rankings also seem so weirdly measured). Just reading about the viewership falling led me to believe I might be right.
 
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cricket/33718065
Dale Steyn: South Africa bowler fastest to 400 Test wickets
South Africa pace bowler Dale Steyn has become the fastest player to take 400 Test wickets, in terms of balls bowled.

Steyn's 400th scalp was Bangladesh opener Tamim Iqbal, caught at slip by captain Hashim Amla on the first day of the second Test in Mirpur.

Steyn, 32, is also the joint second quickest to 400, along with Sir Richard Hadlee, in terms of matches played.

On a day for milestones, Australia's Mitchell Johnson took his 300th Test wicket - England's Jonny Bairstow.

No two players have taken their 300th wicket in the same match, but this will happen if Stuart Broad - currently on 298 - takes two in Australia's second innings in the third Ashes Test at Edgbaston.

Steyn in numbers
  • Dale Steyn took 16,634 balls to reach 400 Test wickets - the fewest in history.
  • He reached the mark in his 80th Test, as did New Zealand's Sir Richard Hadlee. Only Sri Lanka's Muttiah Muralitharan (72) managed it in fewer matches.
  • Steyn is the second highest South Africa Test wicket-taker, with only Shaun Pollock (421) ahead of him.
  • He is the 13th man to take 400 Test wickets.
  • Of those 13, only Curtly Ambrose, Glenn McGrath and Hadlee have a better bowling average than Steyn.
  • His strike-rate (41.6 balls per wicket before this Test) is comfortably the best of any bowler with more than 200 Test wickets. The next best is Pakistan's Waqar Younis (43.4).
Click to expand...

Greatest fast bowler of all time?
 
Skills said:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cricket/33718065


Greatest fast bowler of all time?
Click to expand...
THE greatest is debatable as conditions have changed so much over the years and it is difficult to compare across eras. All changes have been mostly in favour of batsmen though and hence Steyn with his very impressive record stands out. Without doubt one of the very best.

MJJ said:
:lol: Not even close.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is so much of a 'lol' claim and particularly 'not even close' bit from you is wrong. As said above, not 'THE' best but among the very best of all time.
 
The Man Himself said:
THE greatest is debatable as conditions have changed so much over the years and it is difficult to compare across eras. All changes have been mostly in favour of batsmen though and hence Steyn with his very impressive record stands out. Without doubt one of the very best.


I don't think it is so much of a 'lol' claim and particularly 'not even close' bit from you is wrong. As said above, not 'THE' best but among the very best of all time.
Click to expand...

It is laughable if you call him THE greatest fast bowler of all time. Compare that with the fact that all teams play more test matches so he played them at his peak rather than them being spread across his whole career which happened to the past greats.
 
MJJ said:
It is laughable if you call him THE greatest fast bowler of all time. Compare that with the fact that all teams play more test matches so he played them at his peak rather than them being spread across his whole career which happened to the past greats.
Click to expand...

The Man Himself said:
THE greatest is debatable as conditions have changed so much over the years and it is difficult to compare across eras. All changes have been mostly in favour of batsmen though and hence Steyn with his very impressive record stands out. Without doubt one of the very best.


I don't think it is so much of a 'lol' claim and particularly 'not even close' bit from you is wrong. As said above, not 'THE' best but among the very best of all time.
Click to expand...

....


The 2nd sentence doesn't make much sense as well. He has played for 11 years and played 80 tests. If anything, he has played lesser tests on an average than many. There are no bowlers in 400+ club with less than 100 tests other than Steyn, Ambrose and Hadlee. Ambrose played 98 tests in 12 years, so more matches per year than Steyn. How come Steyn has played more at his peak then? There are some greats with average of 5-6 tests per year compared to ~7 for Steyn in 300+ wickets club but it is not a big difference. It can also be said that since Steyn made his debut, conditions for batting have increasingly became easier, which was not the case even during some recent greats like Ambrose, Mcgrath and Wasim. Bowling in 90's still had some assistance, particularly in tests.

I am pretty much impartial in Cricket (except for you guys winning, lolz) and love fast and swing bowling spectacle way more than batting, so I don't want to disrespect so many greats by calling anyone 'THE' greatest. But will maintain than Steyn is one among the all time ones.

So, List me all the bowlers who are so better than Steyn which made you claim that it is 'not even close.' I have time and mood for long arguments today, plus stupid Australia have spoiled what could have been entertaining weekend with 4th and 5th days of 3rd test. Come at me bro :devil:
 
Steyn is definitely in the discussion of who is 'the greatest of all time'. Terrific bowler, he's the best of the bunch for his generation.
 
MJJ said:
It is laughable if you call him THE greatest fast bowler of all time. Compare that with the fact that all teams play more test matches so he played them at his peak rather than them being spread across his whole career which happened to the past greats.
Click to expand...

lolwut?

Are you sure you're not confusing him with James Anderson?
 
The Man Himself said:
....


The 2nd sentence doesn't make much sense as well. He has played for 11 years and played 80 tests. If anything, he has played lesser tests on an average than many. There are no bowlers in 400+ club with less than 100 tests other than Steyn, Ambrose and Hadlee. Ambrose played 98 tests in 12 years, so more matches per year than Steyn. How come Steyn has played more at his peak then? There are some greats with average of 5-6 tests per year compared to ~7 for Steyn in 300+ wickets club but it is not a big difference. It can also be said that since Steyn made his debut, conditions for batting have increasingly became easier, which was not the case even during some recent greats like Ambrose, Mcgrath and Wasim. Bowling in 90's still had some assistance, particularly in tests.

I am pretty much impartial in Cricket (except for you guys winning, lolz) and love fast and swing bowling spectacle way more than batting, so I don't want to disrespect so many greats by calling anyone 'THE' greatest. But will maintain than Steyn is one among the all time ones.

So, List me all the bowlers who are so better than Steyn which made you claim that it is 'not even close.' I have time and mood for long arguments today, plus stupid Australia have spoiled what could have been entertaining weekend with 4th and 5th days of 3rd test. Come at me bro :devil:
Click to expand...

Lets define a fast bowler peak from say 24 to 29? Thats when his body will still be at his peak and he would have learned some tricks as well.

Number of matches played during this period:-

Steyn 54
Akram 38
Lillee 23
McGrath 50
Holding 28
Marshall 39
Ambrose 36
Walsh 44
Waqar 35

Only Mcgrath comes close and he didnt rely on his pace like the others. I would probably rate lillee, walsh, akram, marshall, mcgrath and maybe holding above him.
 
Skills said:
lolwut?

Are you sure you're not confusing him with James Anderson?
Click to expand...

See above.
ha_rooney said:
Steyn is definitely in the discussion of who is 'the greatest of all time'. Terrific bowler, he's the best of the bunch for his generation.
Click to expand...

Discussion yes but wont call him the greatest of all time. Would probably put him on par with waqar and a step above the likes of lee.
 
Steyn is right up there with the greatest of all time. By far the greatest of his generation and the fact he's been class on flat track in an era where batsmen have dominated elevates him further.

I consider him in the same tier as the likes of Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee, McGrath, Imran and the likes. Great fighter on the pitch as well. He'd fit right in with the rest of the greats of the Packer era.
 
MJJ said:
Lets define a fast bowler peak from say 24 to 29? Thats when his body will still be at his peak and he would have learned some tricks as well.

Number of matches played during this period:-

Steyn 54
Akram 38
Lillee 23
McGrath 50
Holding 28
Marshall 39
Ambrose 36
Walsh 44
Waqar 35

Only Mcgrath comes close and he didnt rely on his pace like the others. I would probably rate lillee, walsh, akram, marshall, mcgrath and maybe holding above him.
Click to expand...
That's being very selective and if you look at different varieties and skills of each bowler, it is not just age 24-29 which defines them. For ex.Anderson became better somewhat later.
Walsh too, like McGrath was able to bowl till late 30s. Walsh made his debut in 1984 when he was around 21. His peak and him becoming the main spearhead happened later. Now if you pick bowler in 70s, obviously they played lesser. But conditions for fast bowling were lot better. You can also say that Steyn has bowled to probably the golden generation of batting and still has a average and SR record to match very best of all time.

You can have those 5 above Steyn as your personal choice but as a bowler there isn't much in them. Some in fact will have him above few in your list and that would be OK too.

It also needs to be seen if the selected age you selected for above 5-6 bowlers, what is their avg, SR, economy combo. If it is similar, playing less no. of tests only means total wickets will be less. We are not calling Steyn all time great just because he hit 400. It is because of the avg and SR he has maintained in doing so.
 
MJJ said:
Lets define a fast bowler peak from say 24 to 29? Thats when his body will still be at his peak and he would have learned some tricks as well.

Number of matches played during this period:-

Steyn 54
Akram 38
Lillee 23
McGrath 50
Holding 28
Marshall 39
Ambrose 36
Walsh 44
Waqar 35

Only Mcgrath comes close and he didnt rely on his pace like the others. I would probably rate lillee, walsh, akram, marshall, mcgrath and maybe holding above him.
Click to expand...

You can't define cutoffs like that unless there's some kind of definitive proof to show that the players would've maintained the same level by playing more matches. If everyone was playing 50+ matches in that 5 year period in the 80s and 90s, maybe you wouldn't even be arguing for 24-29 being the prime age for bowlers.

There's really no way to 'argue' this point.

Plus, I took a quick look at the stats you mentioned:

Lillee:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...3;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Walsh:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Looks like their averages in the filtered period are similar to their averages in the overall. That means the fact that they played less games 24-29 had no impact on their overall numbers.


I don't have a particular opinion on this debate because I have not seen a lot of cricket pre 2000s, but given the amount of adjustment we do for batsmen when talking about inflated batting averages(which we would need to directly deduct from the overall bowling averages as well), Steyn would be the winner on that list purely on statistical terms.
 
If you guys want to compare the numbers over any other period, am sure the results would be the same. I picked the 24-29 number arbitrarily(based on football actually), wasnt sure what the results would be before searching for it. I agree that some bowlers peak earlier while some did later but those eight would be in any discussion over the greatest fast bowler of all time and all of them played lesser matches.

@zing are the results the same if you do a before 24, 24-29 and after 29 analysis?
 
MJJ said:
If you guys want to compare the numbers over any other period, am sure the results would be the same. I picked the 24-29 number arbitrarily(based on football actually), wasnt sure what the results would be before searching for it. I agree that some bowlers peak earlier while some did later but those eight would be in any discussion over the greatest fast bowler of all time and all of them played lesser matches.

@zing are the results the same if you do a before 24, 24-29 and after 29 analysis?
Click to expand...

Too lazy to do that :)
 
MJJ said:
:lol: Same here. @The Man Himself you are free right?
Click to expand...
:lol: Yes but was about to go out. No worries, it will be interesting comparison, will be glad to do it sometime later today when I return. I love this kind of stuff. Just list me the top 10 fast bowlers we want to do this comparison on.
 
Comparing stats over eras in a game where so many factors such as pitches, rules, and what not have changed drastically is nigh on impossible.

Another thing I love about Steyn is that he has a wonderful cricketing brain which puts him on another level from the likes of Holding and Waqar who relied mainly on pace. The way he has set up the likes of Sachin and others has been awesome to watch. Such a complete fast bowler.
 
I will split age group from 19 or debut, which ever earlier, till 24, 24-29, 29-34 and 34 till retirement. Will also mention bowler's debut age for reference. Avg-SR and Econ will be the metrics used.
 
Aldo said:
Comparing stats over eras in a game where so many factors such as pitches, rules, and what not have changed drastically is nigh on impossible.

Another thing I love about Steyn is that he has a wonderful cricketing brain which puts him on another level from the likes of Holding and Waqar who relied mainly on pace. The way he has set up the likes of Sachin and others has been awesome to watch. Such a complete fast bowler.
Click to expand...



I think you can get a pretty reasonable measure by just comparing averages of batsmen against fast bowlers in the 2 time periods and doing a % adjustment in the other direction for bowling averages.

Not easy to do, of course..
 
zing said:
I think you can get a pretty reasonable measure by just comparing averages of batsmen against fast bowlers in the 2 time periods and doing a % adjustment in the other direction for bowling averages.

Not easy to do, of course..
Click to expand...

Oh yea, I will try to fit in overall batting average during that period while I make table. Probably batting SR too has it has gone up considerably. It might complicate though. Let's see.
 
I'd ignore everything from an era where even English players were averaging over 50 batting wise and below 25 as bowlers as some sort of anomaly. There was definitely something fishy going on then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.