Yes he did.
Yes, I think Waqar Ver 1 is best comparison to Steyn at this point in time. But that's only in numbers. If one take into account how drastically bat friendly conditions have become, what Steyn has done assumes much more significance. Also to be noted is his astoundingly good record in the subcontinent, and his almost singlehanded contribution in SA having a great run in the last few years there, regardless of some really bowler killer surfaces.
Perhaps part of the reason why he's under-rated on CW is that there are lots of English here, and his record against us is relatively poor. But as this thread demonstrates, his record is absolutely outstanding.
I still believe Waqar's first 38 matches were more incredible than Steyn's 38 matches. Waqar's home grounds were as bad as they can get and Waqar's domination cannot be put in numbers. He brought the *** back into fast bowling. I'll stop now, becuase I'm a Waqar Fanboy and this can go on and on.
But then if we consider all intangibles,then Waqar's home surfaces were not as bowler friendly as steyn's have been .I think even sreesanth would agree with this.
True, but the point is he's not restricted his exploits to favorable good surfaces, but done equally good job in the dreary subcontinent grounds as well.
Obviously the stat isn't the be-all and end-all, but I think it's goo to bring some attention to it, because it's often overlooked. It brings another perspective towards bowlers.
If anything, his performances at home were much much better than away. This flat-track sub-continental argument doesn't go for very much when the bowlers in question were primarily swing bowlers.
I agree. That's particularly why I've a lot of time for someone like Murali. Topped the table on almost every measure, average, sr (for a spinner), wpm and most importantly across 100 plus tests and nearly 800 wickets. Warne too has done not badly either, given he had to compete with Mcgrath, apart from some other very good bowlers as well.
Nah, I don't buy that line of thought. Every bowler tailors their bowling to best exploit their home conditions. Waqar averages 20 in Pakistan, 27 in New Zealand and England and 28 in South Africa. If we're giving him great credit for his exploits in Pakistan, then he deserves criticism for not exploiting more bowler friendly conditions.
I would love to have seen Warne in another era - one where McGrath/Gillespie were not regulars in his team. His heroics in the 2005 Ashes series lead me to believe that he would have had much more... interesting stats. Seeing more overs from the best leggie ever would have been good tooRe the point about missing out on wickets because you're team mate snaffles them - it's certainly a factor - Murali and Hadlee's prominence isn't accidental. That said, I think players like Warne, Marshall, etc, who had other greats around them, make that gap back and more in terms of the extra pressure batsmen are under. Consider Murali - often having to come on after (Vaas notwithstanding) batsmen have got set, and who may very well plan simply to keep him out and score runs at the other end. Compare that to Warne, who would come on with McGrath and Gillespie having made real inroads already, and while he was bowling, Pidge would be on being awesome at the other end.
Just a generalisation for the purposes of illustration btw - obviously there were times when it didn't go down that way. Perhaps if everyone can agree they see the general principle I'm getting at here, we can refrain from this become Warne vs Murali, round 784?
I am more interested in seeing wickets per innings. Bowlers played in weak batting lineups like Hadlee etc. had no control what-so ever in the amount of innings that they played in a match. I still think Barnes will lead, but the huge gaps will be lessened IMO.
Perhaps divide that by the percent of overs bowled by them on total overs bowled by the team as well. Would give an idea as to their 'striking ability'
