South Africa in Australia 2008-09

[Top_Cat]

The bowling attack is aweswome Steyn morkel Ntini nel dosen't make the team anymore. And I think u need to realise that those series happened ages ago south afriac have improved now. Amla bats like a sub continent player. Mckenzie has a very patient skillful game smith is an absolute gun and back to ihs best. Kallis needs to recapture the form he had last calendar year where he hit over 1000 runs. And the team in 2001 was very similar to the worl dcup team so get ya facts wright you wan****

Soooo......

The point of your existence on this site is to hype South Africa to the rafters and tell everyone who doesn't think they're awesome or dares to criticise them even slightly they're idiots? Because that's pretty much the sum of your posts thus far.

It's called free speech, champ. We're all entitled to our opinion even if it's 'South Africa won't win against Australia' or Richard's irrational man-crush on Andre Nel (you know it's true, Rich). Deal with it or tell your story walking.

 

[grapedo]

I'm sorry, but I think you dismissing Steyn as a one-trick pony is pretty baseless. He's done as well as one can expect from his first tours to the subconinent, while Brett Lee has yet to impress there. What I don't understand is you adamant assertion that he will simply NOT improve, at all. Based on what?

You say that accuracy cannot be learnt. But it took Brett Lee seven years to transform from a reckless tearaway to the well-rounded fast bowler he is. Richard Hadlee was all over the place when he started, and later developed into the most accurate bowler of all time. How many greats have started as tearaways but became more organized later on? The fact that Steyn is a successful tearaway now is merely to his credit.

And far from what you say, he has more than just the deadly outswinger. He also has displayed pace, a sharp bouncer, a penetrative yorker and inswing as well. It's harder to see him slipping now to the Brett Lee of old than building on his gifts.

Steyn will get heaps nbetter the reason why he didn't bowl well agains pakistan and sri lanka was beacuase he had come back from injury and couldn't find his rythym your a ******** muppet mate

 

[grapedo]

Soooo......

The point of your existence on this site is to hype South Africa to the rafters and tell everyone who doesn't think they're awesome or dares to criticise them even slightly they're idiots? Because that's pretty much the sum of your posts thus far.

It's called free speech, champ. We're all entitled to our opinion even if it's 'South Africa won't win against Australia' or Richard's irrational man-crush on Andre Nel (you know it's true, Rich). Deal with it or tell your story walking.

No Il do wat I want learn to know cricket instead of saying dumb stuff like that.

 

[Top_Cat]

No Il do wat I want learn to know cricket instead of saying dumb stuff like that.

I strongly suggest you make yourself familiar with this thread;

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=6154

 

[grapedo]

I strongly suggest you make yourself familiar with this thread;

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?t=6154

Okay soz mate

 

[Burgey]

"What ever, what ever - I do what I want"

 

[subshakerz]

Steyn will get heaps nbetter the reason why he didn't bowl well agains pakistan and sri lanka was beacuase he had come back from injury and couldn't find his rythym your a ******** muppet mate

Did you even read my post? I was defending Steyn...

 

[Top_Cat]

Ah, but Steyn has little that can be developed the way Donald did. He's about as good now as he could be, really. Well, he could learn an inswinger and he could get better with reverse-swing, but that's something you almost expect of a bowler these days.

Bit of rosy-eyed nostalgia for Donald there. In his early days, he was a guy who could swing the ball at pace and later in his career he was........a bowler who could swing the ball at pace. Sure he picked up a bit of seam movement later on and improved his accuracy but his primary weapons were always the ones he started with and when he lost a fair chunk of pace, his lack of penetration was exposed. Donald wasn't all that accurate early on, much like Steyn. There's no reason why Steyn can't develop some variation like Donald, though.

Steyn will always remain a vulnerable bowler, subject to wild inaccuracies. Virtually no bowler has ever cured that tendency. Donald may have been less accurate in his early days than he was later on - near enough everyone has said that (though he wasn't playing Test cricket at the time, fortunately). But he wasn't, couldn't, ever have been as wayward as Steyn can be not irregularly.

Oh come on. Donald was pretty damn wayward early on and only really ameliorated that in the late 90's.

I don't think Roberts, Larwood, Donald or several others were giants, but they sure as delivered the ball from a greater height than Steyn does. Not only is Steyn fairly short, but he has very short levers and a low-slung action. Donald sent the ball down from a fairly considerably greater height due to longer levers and a perfect high arm and leg action. Roberts and Larwood gave a similar impression, too, though I can't say I've ever undertaken extensive analysis of their actions.

Larwood was 5'8" at his peak and was definitely slightly round-arm, as was Roberts (a little taller) who got very round-arm on occasions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz1MVQjXPQw

That was when he was at his quickest. In the 80's when he slowed down, he was quite round-armed and was always known for his low-trajectory delivery style. Steyn, from what I've seen, is more upright than either of those two.

 

[Richard]

I'm sorry, but I think you dismissing Steyn as a one-trick pony is pretty baseless. He's done as well as one can expect from his first tours to the subconinent, while Brett Lee has yet to impress there.

What's Brett Lee to do with anything?

As I said, Steyn performed decently in India (not so well in Pakistan or Sri Lanka) but that India tour was hardly what you'd regard as classic subcontinent material.

What I don't understand is you adamant assertion that he will simply NOT improve, at all. Based on what?

His height, bowling action and what he currently bowls. He has about all someone like him can expect to have.

You say that accuracy cannot be learnt. But it took Brett Lee seven years to transform from a reckless tearaway to the well-rounded fast bowler he is. Richard Hadlee was all over the place when he started, and later developed into the most accurate bowler of all time. How many greats have started as tearaways but became more organized later on?

Not very many. Hadlee and Donald's inaccuracies are overstated. They went from relatively poor to good or excellent. It wasn't like either were repeatedly being smashed round the park in their earlier days, the way the Devon Malcolms and Uton Dowes were.

Lee, meanwhile, apparently always had the ability to bowl accurately, and routinely did so in the nets, but simply had the wrong instructions. So he bowled all over the place in Tests. Apparently as soon as he was given the seemingly basic instruction of "bowl accurately", he's done so.

And far from what you say, he has more than just the deadly outswinger. He also has displayed pace, a sharp bouncer, a penetrative yorker and inswing as well. It's harder to see him slipping now to the Brett Lee of old than building on his gifts.

As I said - Steyn's deadly ball is the fast outswinger. It can be a Yorker, it can be a length ball. I've yet to see him bowl inswing and of course the Bouncer is almost never a wicket-taking weapon for any bowler, however tall, batsmen mostly play it too easily. Yes, he bowls a decent one but the Bouncer is only something to attempt (often unsuccessfully) to push the batsman back and stop him coming forwards so as a real attacking weapon (eg the fast outswinger) is more effective.

 

[Richard]

The bowling attack is aweswome Steyn morkel Ntini nel dosen't make the team anymore. And I think u need to realise that those series happened ages ago south afriac have improved now. Amla bats like a sub continent player. Mckenzie has a very patient skillful game smith is an absolute gun and back to ihs best. Kallis needs to recapture the form he had last calendar year where he hit over 1000 runs. And the team in 2001 was very similar to the worl dcup team so get ya facts wright you wan****

I think someone whose facts are so all-over-the-place is barely worth conversing with.

 

[Richard]

Yes thay have they will be better than donald and pollock steyn especially

No, they won't.

 

[Richard]

Bit of rosy-eyed nostalgia for Donald there. In his early days, he was a guy who could swing the ball at pace and later in his career he was........a bowler who could swing the ball at pace. Sure he picked up a bit of seam movement later on and improved his accuracy but his primary weapons were always the ones he started with and when he lost a fair chunk of pace, his lack of penetration was exposed. Donald wasn't all that accurate early on, much like Steyn. There's no reason why Steyn can't develop some variation like Donald, though.

Donald lost penetration when he lost pace? Can't say it's something I ever noticed. Aside from the fact he was still capable of registering 90mph well into his early-30s (was still the best bowler going around and one of the quickest at 33 in the 1999 WC). In 1999/2000 and 2000/01 he was still a damn good bowler even though he wasn't quite as quick as he was for most of his career.

And yes, his primary weapon was always swing, same as Steyn, but he got bounce Steyn can only ever dream of, which made his swing even more deadly and also meant he was much more difficult to get on top of in between taking wickets.

Sure, Steyn can and hopefully for his sake will develop a conventional inswinger and the ability to reverse-swing the ball well (he has it in rudimentary fashion currently), but even that won't make him the equal of Donald, because of the crucial height factor that Donald will always outdo him on.

Oh come on. Donald was pretty damn wayward early on and only really ameliorated that in the late 90's.

I don't really think he gave runs away as easily as Steyn tends to though. As I said, he wasn't as accurate earlier as he became later, but Steyn can be seriously bad. I simply cannot conceive Donald was ever that bad.

Larwood was 5'8" at his peak and was definitely slightly round-arm, as was Roberts (a little taller) who got very round-arm on occasions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz1MVQjXPQw

That was when he was at his quickest. In the 80's when he slowed down, he was quite round-armed and was always known for his low-trajectory delivery style. Steyn, from what I've seen, is more upright than either of those two.

Larwood round-arm? Larwood's bowling-action when I've laid eyes on it (admittedly that's virtually exclusively Bodyline-series footage) was always as perfect as a bowling-action could wish to be. I also imagine he was probably a bit quicker than Steyn (which on the pitches of his day was an even more fearsome prospect than now).

And regards Roberts - well, post-Packer, he was always said to be far less than the bowler he had been previously, wasn't he? While still a good force, not any longer best-going-around material.

 

[Precambrian]

Steyn actually cleaned-up the Indian tail after someone had surged to 319, then cashed-in on a green wicket that was considerably less subcontinent-like than it was South Africa-like, then bowled relatively moderately in the one true subcontinent-esque surface of the series.

Crap. The fact remains that, Chennai pitch was virtually one on which a Boeing could land on. And on that he took 4 wickets at an economy rate of 3.21 in 32 overs. He was NEVER dominated by Sehwag in that innings, which adds to his credit. And cleaning up tail is a reward for consistent bowling. Wickets are wickets, taken anywhere. As to Ahmedabad, his phenomenal 5-23 was in helpful conditions, and how easy of you to discount that by saying they were in helpful conditions? Can you say any English man would have done the same there with conviction? Kanpur was subcontinental, it was a spin-den, and there he bowled superbly for a fast bowler, taking 3-71, including that of Sehwag and (eventual MoM) Ganguly, call that moderately? Series Tally 15 wickets - Avg 20.20 - SR 34.0

Steyn's performances in Pakistan and Sri Lanka were notably poor, really, though in both two-Test series' he managed one withering burst.

In Sri Lanka - He was expensive - Economy rate of 4.72. averaged 36.5 for his 8 wickets but the SR of 46.3 was still impressive. However overall it was poor by his standards I agree.

In Pakistan - 9 wickets @ 24 avg and Strike rate of 37. I'd say that's brilliant. Though I thought he was a bit underbowled. Poor? U must be joking!!! I saw both matches live and the pitches were Chennai, plain Roads, and the heat was withering. Could be that a reason for the underbowling.

He performed well though not exceptionally in his stop-start 2006/07 summer at home to India and Pakistan.

I don't know what is the criteria of "Exceptional" for you. Perhaps, you tend to move goalposts to your liking. Here are the stats anyway.

Vs India

Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR
2 3 44.1 15 114 6 4/30 6/88 [B]19.00[/B] 2.58 44.1

Vs Pakistan

Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR
1 2 24.0 6 87 4 3/47 4/87 [B]21.75[/B] 3.62 36.0

The rest of his wickets, and the figures which were phenomenal, have come against the weak batting-line-ups of New Zealand and West Indies on seaming, uneven and sometimes both surfaces. And he bowled distinctly moderately in his truncated series in England.

Agreed to the facts that WI and NZ have weak batting lineups, but they had against other teams also right? Why other bowlers couln't then take advantage of them like Steyn did? Steyn ripped NZ apart - 20 wickets @ less than 10, and did well against WI also 20 again Vs WI @ 19.20. That's what World class quality bowlers do, what do you expect? Just because they have lesser lineups, reduce firepower?

Steyn will very probably be a very fine Test bowler, but the next Allan Donald or Shaun Pollock? Not a chance.

Another motherhood statement. Tired of seeing such ga-ga. Won't be replying to such crass judgemental crap again.

Nope. Wasim and Waqar when at their best were slightly more deadly, sure, but over the course of their careers Donald and Pollock's achievements equalled the Ws's at worst.

I construe the above statement in this fashion - Donald and Pollock at best = WWs at worst. OK, a bit sensational!

Well no-one becomes the greatest seamer on their Test debut, and while Marshall's maiden Test series wasn't good at all, it's hardly surprising given he was basically playing for West Indies' Second XI and clearly wasn't much chop yet. As soon as he was picked post-Packer, it was very obvious that here was a bowler of rare skill and his results were instantly excellent. He was also likely slightly quicker than Steyn and was very, very obviously far more accurate.

What's the proof? What's the proof that he was far more accurate and skilled than Steyn was then? Can you give some links where some authoritative analysis in this regard has been performed? All your statements are so vague and contain "obvious", "likely" etc.

Steyn will not only improve with time. Steyn is about as good now as he can be, really. I don't see him getting all that much more accurate. He certainly isn't going to get any taller. He will never have Marshall's accuracy, and that's what made Marshall the greatest of them all.

Another so-so judgemental piece of crap. If I'd been SA captain, I'd be more than glad, if Steyn continues to deliver what he's been delivering now. I don't want Steyn to try hard and become some other bowler. Simply because Steyn being Steyn, he is doing a fantastic job. However I won't want him to lose his focus on the job. Because that's the only thing at this age he can probably lose. All other things he can gain.

As regards height, it's simply crap. As other posters showed, there are a fine lot of bowlers who were shortish who did a fantastic job. And Steyn is 6 feet one. And doing fantastically well. Thank you.

 

[Jamee999]

I know it does, because one cannot understand something that one does not oneself possess.

I do not own an abacus. I understand how an abacus works.

 

[Richard]

Mentalities =| objects.

 

[Top_Cat]

Donald lost penetration when he lost pace? Can't say it's something I ever noticed. Aside from the fact he was still capable of registering 90mph well into his early-30s (was still the best bowler going around and one of the quickest at 33 in the 1999 WC). In 1999/2000 and 2000/01 he was still a damn good bowler even though he wasn't quite as quick as he was for most of his career.

I barely remember Donald breaching 85mph (only quoting imperial because, being in England, that was the unit of measurement, as backward as it it). Even in the match against the Aussies he took 4, was fast-medium at best. There were a good 5 quicks who were bowling quicker and one of them, incidentally, was Glenn McGrath.

I don't really think he gave runs away as easily as Steyn tends to though. As I said, he wasn't as accurate earlier as he became later, but Steyn can be seriously bad. I simply cannot conceive Donald was ever that bad.

He was. And lacked stamina. In the 1993/94 series, the Aussie commentators made a big deal out of measuring his speed over the course of an over and without fail, the first two or so balls were quick but by the end of just about every over he bowled, was barely touching 125km/h.

Larwood round-arm? Larwood's bowling-action when I've laid eyes on it (admittedly that's virtually exclusively Bodyline-series footage) was always as perfect as a bowling-action could wish to be. I also imagine he was probably a bit quicker than Steyn (which on the pitches of his day was an even more fearsome prospect than now).

Slightly round-arm still.

And regards Roberts - well, post-Packer, he was always said to be far less than the bowler he had been previously, wasn't he? While still a good force, not any longer best-going-around material.

The footage above is him in his pomp. Notice the round-arm.

 

[Richard]

Crap. The fact remains that, Chennai pitch was virtually one on which a Boeing could land on. And on that he took 4 wickets at an economy rate of 3.21 in 32 overs. He was NEVER dominated by Sehwag in that innings, which adds to his credit. And cleaning up tail is a reward for consistent bowling. Wickets are wickets, taken anywhere.

Nonsense. Tail-end wickets are very clearly far less worthy than top-order wickets. And Steyn was as ineffective as anyone, even if he contained Sehwag better than others, on that pitch while bowling at the top-order. It is not like he was able to extract something from it that others could not.

As to Ahmedabad, his phenomenal 5-23 was in helpful conditions, and how easy of you to discount that by saying they were in helpful conditions? Can you say any English man would have done the same there with conviction?

What's Englishmen to do with anything? Fact is, you expect a good seam-bowler to take wickets in such helpful conditions - to do so is no exceptional performance.

Kanpur was subcontinental, it was a spin-den, and there he bowled superbly for a fast bowler, taking 3-71, including that of Sehwag and (eventual MoM) Ganguly, call that moderately? Series Tally 15 wickets - Avg 20.20 - SR 34.0

Yes, it is moderate. Exceptional seam-bowlers are supposed to be able to prosper, well, in all conditions. Allan Donald, for one, did. Steyn merely did reasonably.

In Sri Lanka - He was expensive - Economy rate of 4.72. averaged 36.5 for his 8 wickets but the SR of 46.3 was still impressive. However overall it was poor by his standards I agree.

In Pakistan - 9 wickets @ 24 avg and Strike rate of 37. I'd say that's brilliant. Though I thought he was a bit underbowled. Poor? U must be joking!!! I saw both matches live and the pitches were Chennai, plain Roads, and the heat was withering. Could be that a reason for the underbowling.

In both series', Steyn bowled well in 1 spell out of 4. Overall figures are utterly irrelevant. It's to his credit that he produced a decent burst in both series', but 1 out of 4 is still poor.

I don't know what is the criteria of "Exceptional" for you. Perhaps, you tend to move goalposts to your liking.

Nope, people do like to try and move them for me though.

Here are the stats anyway.

Vs India

Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR
2 3 44.1 15 114 6 4/30 6/88 [B]19.00[/B] 2.58 44.1

Vs Pakistan

Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR
1 2 24.0 6 87 4 3/47 4/87 [B]21.75[/B] 3.62 36.0

Yes, this is well but not exceptional. 10 wickets in 3 Tests at a good average is not exceptional.

Agreed to the facts that WI and NZ have weak batting lineups, but they had against other teams also right? Why other bowlers couln't then take advantage of them like Steyn did? Steyn ripped NZ apart - 20 wickets @ less than 10, and did well against WI also 20 again Vs WI @ 19.20. That's what World class quality bowlers do, what do you expect? Just because they have lesser lineups, reduce firepower?

Thought about the fact that NZ were even worse than normal? Or, in 1 of the 3 Tests, WI were likewise? Because that's what they were. You'll have to go a long way to find batting that bad again. Once more, good for Steyn for cashing-in, but to do so exceptionally was no collossal achievement.

Another motherhood statement. Tired of seeing such ga-ga. Won't be replying to such crass judgemental crap again.

Such statements of obvious more like.

I construe the above statement in this fashion - Donald and Pollock at best = WWs at worst. OK, a bit sensational!

Let's try again, it's not really that difficult. Donald and Pollock at best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WWs at worst. Understand?

Meanwhile, Wasim\Waqar at best >> Donald\Pollock at best. Donald\Pollock not at at best >>>>>> Wasim\Waqar not at best.

Hence, Donald\Pollock > Wasim\Waqar.

What's the proof? What's the proof that he was far more accurate and skilled than Steyn was then? Can you give some links where some authoritative analysis in this regard has been performed? All your statements are so vague and contain "obvious", "likely" etc.

It's pretty blatatantly obvious. Read some stuff about Malcolm Marshall, then come back to me.

Another so-so judgemental piece of crap. If I'd been SA captain, I'd be more than glad, if Steyn continues to deliver what he's been delivering now. I don't want Steyn to try hard and become some other bowler. Simply because Steyn being Steyn, he is doing a fantastic job. However I won't want him to lose his focus on the job. Because that's the only thing at this age he can probably lose. All other things he can gain.

He can't, though. He's got about all he can get. If he carries-on as he's been going, then that'll be excellent, but virtually no-one has ever managed to do that. Everyone has their ups and downs. No-one can continue to bowl well game after game, year after year.

As regards height, it's simply crap. As other posters showed, there are a fine lot of bowlers who were shortish who did a fantastic job. And Steyn is 6 feet one. And doing fantastically well.

Height is not all there is to it - it's what you make of your height. Steyn is notably low-slung, it's very obvious without recourse to exact measurements of unreliable methods like outright height.

Steyn delivers the ball with a much lower trajectory than most bowlers. Hence he's never going to be one of the very best, merely excellent.

Thank you.

Indeed.

 

[Richard]

I barely remember Donald breaching 85mph (only quoting imperial because, being in England, that was the unit of measurement, as backward as it it). Even in the match against the Aussies he took 4, was fast-medium at best. There were a good 5 quicks who were bowling quicker and one of them, incidentally, was Glenn McGrath.

I don't know his exact speeds from that match, but I assure you, he was definately clocking over 90 as regularly as anyone bar Shoaib Akhtar and Javagal Srinath in the Super Six stage (the speedos weren't used in the first two group-stages).

He was. And lacked stamina. In the 1993/94 series, the Aussie commentators made a big deal out of measuring his speed over the course of an over and without fail, the first two or so balls were quick but by the end of just about every over he bowled, was barely touching 125km/h.

Speeds? In 1993/94? No, they can't be reliable - the technology hadn't been introduced then.

The footage above is him in his pomp. Notice the round-arm.

So it is - I'd presumed it was 1980, as the sun wasn't shining, which it did for most of 1976 (which is where it's actually from - having watched further in you see David Steele and Tony Greig, making it obvious).

I'm surprised how round his arm was TBH. Had never actually looked with real closeness before. I'll give you that, but even so, Roberts circa 1970s wasn't the greatest bowler who ever lived (much as his protege Michael Holding likes to paint it that he was).

 

[Precambrian]

Nonsense. Tail-end wickets are very clearly far less worthy than top-order wickets. And Steyn was as ineffective as anyone, even if he contained Sehwag better than others, on that pitch while bowling at the top-order. It is not like he was able to extract something from it that others could not.

What's Englishmen to do with anything? Fact is, you expect a good seam-bowler to take wickets in such helpful conditions - to do so is no exceptional performance.

Yes, it is moderate. Exceptional seam-bowlers are supposed to be able to prosper, well, in all conditions. Allan Donald, for one, did. Steyn merely did reasonably.

In both series', Steyn bowled well in 1 spell out of 4. Overall figures are utterly irrelevant. It's to his credit that he produced a decent burst in both series', but 1 out of 4 is still poor.

Nope, people do like to try and move them for me though.

Yes, this is well but not exceptional. 10 wickets in 3 Tests at a good average is not exceptional.

Thought about the fact that NZ were even worse than normal? Or, in 1 of the 3 Tests, WI were likewise? Because that's what they were. You'll have to go a long way to find batting that bad again. Once more, good for Steyn for cashing-in, but to do so exceptionally was no collossal achievement.

Such statements of obvious more like.

Let's try again, it's not really that difficult. Donald and Pollock at best >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WWs at worst. Understand?

Meanwhile, Wasim\Waqar at best >> Donald\Pollock at best. Donald\Pollock not at at best >>>>>> Wasim\Waqar not at best.

Hence, Donald\Pollock > Wasim\Waqar.

It's pretty blatatantly obvious. Read some stuff about Malcolm Marshall, then come back to me.

He can't, though. He's got about all he can get. If he carries-on as he's been going, then that'll be excellent, but virtually no-one has ever managed to do that. Everyone has their ups and downs. No-one can continue to bowl well game after game, year after year.

Height is not all there is to it - it's what you make of your height. Steyn is notably low-slung, it's very obvious without recourse to exact measurements of unreliable methods like outright height.

Steyn delivers the ball with a much lower trajectory than most bowlers. Hence he's never going to be one of the very best, merely excellent.

Indeed.

The dog's chasing it's own tail. The debate (if it's one!) is going round in circles. I bet with you today that Steyn will end up being one of all time greats produced by SA. (Barring exceptional Bondesque injuries, or calamities). And with added proof I shall counter you in perhaps a year's time. Till then hopefully no more "Steyned" debate with you, cause you seems to be afflicted with some deep dislike for the guy.

 

[Richard]

Nonsense, Steyn seems a perfectly nice lad to me and I certainly don't dislike him. Nor do I doubt he can be one of SA's best bowlers. But he is not and cannot be as good as Donald, or probably Shaun Pollock and Neil Adcock either.