Can Steyn test the aussies ?

[Jono]

Ntini was the early destroyer in that first innings actually, and I think the point is, there was still more movement off the pitch than one has seen in Australia as of late.

 

[Johnners]

Well next time say I don't think he will due to the fact at the bottom of your page And Nel adn Ntini aren't even bowling well enough to earn selection at the moment and collymore and dillon don't play anymore so maybe your "facts" should be more in depth and truthful

What this has to do with anything is anyone's guess.

 

[Richard]

Mind you, if you bowl quick and swing the ball away, you're going to take wickets against anyone.

This is the thing. Steyn is pretty one-dimensional, but when your one dimension is the 90mph outswinger, you're going to get people out, however good they are, as long as that weapon is working.

No batsman has the power to resist late outswing at 90mph. I don't care if you're Don Bradman, George Headley, Walter Hammod or Sachin Tendulkar.

The thing is, no bowler can rely on this throughout a game, most of the time. He needs other tricks up his sleeve if he's to have widespread success.

 

[Richard]

collymore and dillon don't play anymore so maybe your "facts" should be more in depth and truthful

Actually they do, both still represent their territories and neither have made themselves unavailable for West Indian selection.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually they do, both still represent their territories and neither have made themselves unavailable for West Indian selection.

Not the the current point of debate is actually in any way relevant to my point. I didn't even suggest otherwise.

 

[Uppercut]

This is the thing. Steyn is pretty one-dimensional, but when your one dimension is the 90mph outswinger, you're going to get people out, however good they are, as long as that weapon is working.

No batsman has the power to resist late outswing at 90mph. I don't care if you're Don Bradman, George Headley, Walter Hammod or Sachin Tendulkar.

The thing is, no bowler can rely on this throughout a game, most of the time. He needs other tricks up his sleeve if he's to have widespread success.

I dunno, over the past year Steyn has seemed to succeed in pretty much all conditions. He's had particular big success on grassy pitches too in SA and India, even when the ball isn't swinging. I don't think you quite do him justice sometimes.

 

[aussie]

I dunno, over the past year Steyn has seemed to succeed in pretty much all conditions. He's had particular big success on grassy pitches too in SA and India, even when the ball isn't swinging. I don't think you quite do him justice sometimes.

Exaclty. Don't see how Richard has come up with the notion that Steyn is a "one dimensional out-swing bowler". Looking forward to your reasoning here Sir Rich, haha

 

[grapedo]

Ntini was the early destroyer in that first innings actually, and I think the point is, there was still more movement off the pitch than one has seen in Australia as of late.

How was Ntini the early destroyer he got jaffer out and styen got sehwag coming off a triple hundred stoner

 

[grapedo]

Actually they do, both still represent their territories and neither have made themselves unavailable for West Indian selection.

Well if they are such great bowlers how come they don't get selected over the likes of edwards who averages in excess of 40

 

[Johnners]

Grapedo
<----------- The Point

 

[grapedo]

Yeah steyn bowls in swingers too thats how he gets wickets. If i refer you back to the second test against india this year he got sehwag out with a top in swinger. I don't know how a one dimensinal bowler has taken 100 odd wickets and 8 5fors in a handful of tests.

 

[Athlai]

Edwards now so much better than he was a little while ago.

 

[grapedo]

Edwards now so much better than he was a little while ago.

Yes he is but he still averages 40. But my point is to richard saying that if Collymore and Dillon are still playing and there terrific bowlers apparently then why aren't they being selected over him

 

[Athlai]

Because Edwards improved so much that he's better and they're not as fit as they once were for the job?

 

[grapedo]

Because Edwards improved so much that he's better and they're not as fit as they once were for the job?

I don't think he is better when he is averaging 40. And he gets injured alot so he isn't too fit himself leave richard to answer please lol

 

[Richard]

OK then, let's see where I said Collymore and Dillon were outstanding bowlers?

Nonetheless, the non-selection of Collymore, who still offers far more than anyone else currently available, is baffling TSTL. A bit like the hounding of Lara into retirement to shore-up the place of Runako Morton and Xavier Marshall.

Answer - West Indian selectors (like selectors at large) are very, very strange animals.

 

[Richard]

Exaclty. Don't see how Richard has come up with the notion that Steyn is a "one dimensional out-swing bowler". Looking forward to your reasoning here Sir Rich, haha

OK then, how many other occasions has Steyn demonstrated wicket-taking skills other than the fast outswinger?

He hasn't really needed to over the course of the last year, as that weapon - which, as I've noted about all my cricket-watching life, is about the best weapon a bowler can have - has worked constantly, and he's had some brittle batting-line-ups which have fallen over easily to bowl at to boot. And some seaming decks as well.

Steyn has no great height, does not have particularly good control of line, does not bowl a conventional inswinger, does not have any particularly appreciable reverse-swing skills, and is merely fast rather than lightening. About the only thing Steyn has developed over his career is to alter his length from the harmless short stuff he often used to bowl to realising that his best interests are served by, like Waqar Younis, pitching ball constantly full. That and he's much less of a serial no-baller now than he once was, though he still bowls the odd one more than I'd like to see.

No-one is saying Steyn is not an excllent bowler who has bowled superbly for most of the last 2 years. However, there is simply no way he is ever going to be the all-time great some seem to suspect. He just doesn't quite have enough natural attributes. He could learn some learnable skills (the inswinger for instance). But he cannot increase his height or his speed, and I don't think he's going to get much more accurate either.

 

[Polo23]

No-one is saying Steyn is not an excllent bowler who has bowled superbly for most of the last 2 years. However, there is simply no way he is ever going to be the all-time great some seem to suspect. He just doesn't quite have enough natural attributes. He could learn some learnable skills (the inswinger for instance). But he cannot increase his height or his speed, and I don't think he's going to get much more accurate either.

That is probably the biggest load of crap i've read on this forum. He is 25, and you are saying he has no scope for improvement? Unreal.

He currently has 128 wickets in 25 matches (after a slow start to his career, might I add)..lets say he plays 10 tests a year for the next 7 years and continues at the rate he is going, he would end up with 486 test match wickets, and you think there is simply no way he will ever be an all time great?

I am amazed you think the best quick bowler in the world has absolutely no scope for improvement, and has no chance of ever being an all time great. Now i'm not saying he definitely will, or that he definitely will take all those wickets...but i'm not stupid enough to rule out the possibility.

The mind boggles

 

[Richard]

That is probably the biggest load of crap i've read on this forum. He is 25, and you are saying he has no scope for improvement? Unreal.

Not really. Not all 25-year-olds are the same, it's not exactly rocket-science. Some 25-year-olds have developed a large portion of their potential; some still have plenty way to go. Steyn has got most of what he can get out of himself by now - the amount of scope for improvement is limited. Instead of making obscure references to how old he is and generalising that 25-year-olds mostly still have plenty of potential improvement to make, how about doing the sensible thing of realising each case is different and assessing each on its own merits?

Early developers (Monty Panesar is another) often fool people. Spectators mistake an excellent player with early development for an exceptional player with "normal" development speeds. But each cricketer's case is not the same. There is no hard-and-fast rule that applies to all.

He currently has 128 wickets in 25 matches (after a slow start to his career, might I add)..lets say he plays 10 tests a year for the next 7 years and continues at the rate he is going, he would end up with 486 test match wickets, and you think there is simply no way he will ever be an all time great?

No. I see no reason to expect this to continue at the pace it's been going for most of the last 2 years. It's not only about number of wickets either - anyone will get wickets if they play. It's how, when and for how many you take them that counts.

 

[NUFAN]

Not really. Not all 25-year-olds are the same, it's not exactly rocket-science. Some 25-year-olds have developed a large portion of their potential; some still have plenty way to go. Steyn has got most of what he can get out of himself by now - the amount of scope for improvement is limited. Instead of making obscure references to how old he is and generalising that 25-year-olds mostly still have plenty of potential improvement to make, how about doing the sensible thing of realising each case is different and assessing each on its own merits?

Early developers (Monty Panesar is another) often fool people. Spectators mistake an excellent player with early development for an exceptional player with "normal" development speeds. But each cricketer's case is not the same. There is no hard-and-fast rule that applies to all.

No. I see no reason to expect this to continue at the pace it's been going for most of the last 2 years. It's not only about number of wickets either - anyone will get wickets if they play. It's how, when and for how many you take them that counts.

I just have to laugh at this Richard.

Do you remember our chat just last week when we were discussing Hilfenhaus, Geeves and you said as a general rule 25 is the age where you consider a player to still be young, but someone at 26 isn't considered young anymore..