Can Steyn test the aussies ?

[Richard]

I do. Youth and development aren't the same thing, didn't I just say that?

 

[Manee]

Steyn's wickets

Batsmen 1-3
31.3%
Batsmen 4-7
34.4%
Batsmen 8-11
34.4%

You would expect an opening bowler to take 39/40% of the top order batsmen and about 25/26% of the tail. There won't be much tail wagging for Australia as Morkel also likes the tail (37.5%), but I expect Morkel to get injured at some time during the Tests. Kallis and Ntini to get the majority of the wickets because there won't be the swing and reverse swing that Steyn would be looking for.

I don't buy this as a deficiency of Steyn. The fact is that he takes more than an adequate amount of top and middle order wickets. The tally of wickets is so great that the %s become misleading.

 

[NUFAN]

I do. Youth and development aren't the same thing, didn't I just say that?

Yes but then why couldn't a 26 year old still have plenty way to go while the 25 year old had developed a large portion of their potential. No worries anyways.

Steyn is going to be lethal against the lower order, reckon there are going to be some 4/20, 5/30 style collapses this summer, unless we pick a specialist batsmen at 8 again.

 

[Richard]

Yes but then why couldn't a 26 year old still have plenty way to go while the 25 year old had developed a large portion of their potential.

They could. The "young"ness is irrelevant to how much of a bowler's potential they've achieved.

Bryce McGain hasn't been cricketing-young for a loooooong time but it was only last year he started to bowl to his potential.

I wasn't making any point about Geeves having achieved his potential or not in the previous post - I know next to nothing about him. The comment was solely related to Fuller suggesting I was lumping "young" and "old" bowlers in together, which, well, I wasn't.

Dirk Nannes isn't young at all but it's perfectly possible he's developed far more at 30-31 than Johnson, Geeves or any other second-half-of-20s bowler will do for the rest of their career. As I say, there's no hard-and-fast rule.

 

[Polo23]

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.

Another load of crap. The bull**** just keeps coming with you doesnt it?

You think I am making obscure statements? You are mad, or you have a blind hatred for Steyn, or you are Australian, which would pretty much explain everything.

As far as I can see, Steyn has as much development left in him as any other 25 year old, how could you possibly know that he has no development left in him? That is probably the dumbest comment anyone could make about a cricketer, unless perhaps you know them personally and have watched their development from Micky Arthur's point of view, and even then, it would be a pretty stupid comment.

Steyn has been developing nicely over the last 2 years, from someone who was erratic as hell to someone who produced multiple wicket taking balls per spell (if not per over) and became as accurate as the other express bowlers going around (Lee, Johnson)...I see absolutely no reason for this development to suddenly stop for no reason.

To say Steyn has no scope for improvement is like me saying Krejza or Johnson has no scope for improvement.

I'm sure you'll make up some half-arsed argument as to why Krejza and Johnson have miles of scope for improvement, but Steyn simply doesnt...unless by some miracle you arent Australia, and you just hate Steyn.

 

[Richard]

Another load of crap. The bull**** just keeps coming with you doesnt it?

You think I am making obscure statements? You are mad, or you have a blind hatred for Steyn, or you are Australian, which would pretty much explain everything.

Hahahaha, "the bull**** just keeps coming" followed by that... none of which could really be more idiotic if you tried.

FTR, I have no blind hatred of ANY player, and I'm most certainly not Australian, nor an Australian fan - first time I've been mistaken for such for a long time in fact. Far more often I'm mistaken for someone with blind hatred of Australians. I have, however, had many reasons to think that South Africa are actually my favourite cricket team, though I'm certainly not South African either.

As far as I can see, Steyn has as much development left in him as any other 25 year old, how could you possibly know that he has no development left in him? That is probably the dumbest comment anyone could make about a cricketer, unless perhaps you know them personally and have watched their development from Micky Arthur's point of view, and even then, it would be a pretty stupid comment.

Steyn has been developing nicely over the last 2 years, from someone who was erratic as hell to someone who produced multiple wicket taking balls per spell (if not per over) and became as accurate as the other express bowlers going around (Lee, Johnson)...I see absolutely no reason for this development to suddenly stop for no reason.

Well you might not, but I'm afraid that won't stop it happening. Because there's something called a "limit". You don't have to either know a player personally or have watched their development from 5 metres away rather than 1,000 miles away to know either that a limit exists to what ANY player can achieve, or roughly what such a limit for certain players is.

Steyn is not going to get taller than he is now, and he's not going to be able to bowl any faster than he can now. I see little reason to suspect his control of line will get much better either, because it's always been poor, and is no better now than ever, though his length has improved no end the last 2 years.

Steyn has made much of the improvement available to him. There are still things he could do, like learning to bowl a conventional inswinger and improving his reverse-swing skills. However, he's gone as far as he can in other respects. He has done this at an earlier age than most people. However many times you try saying it, all 25-year-olds are not the same.

To say Steyn has no scope for improvement is like me saying Krejza or Johnson has no scope for improvement.

I'm sure you'll make up some half-arsed argument as to why Krejza and Johnson have miles of scope for improvement, but Steyn simply doesnt...unless by some miracle you arent Australia, and you just hate Steyn.

Krejza obviously has much scope for improvement, though I think it highly unlikely he'll make much of such a thing, he's one of the worst bowlers to play Test cricket in recent times, though he is probably better than Nathan Hauritz, and to get better than that will take quite some doing.

BTW, saying Steyn has as much scope for improvement as Johnson or Krejza is pretty silly as well - Steyn is far better than either at the current time, so therefore has less that he can do to get better.

And well done again on making yourself look like a first-class pratt by accusing me of being a biased Australian. It's nice to have someone go completely against the grain from time to time though, useful evidence for those who accuse me of being biased against all that is Australian.

 

[Top_Cat]

Steyn is not going to get taller than he is now, and he's not going to be able to bowl any faster than he can now. I see little reason to suspect his control of line will get much better either, because it's always been poor, and is no better now than ever, though his length has improved no end the last 2 years.

I dispute the speed one. Brett Lee is a perfect example of a bloke who started off quick and got quicker, just have to look at his average speeds from, say 1999 to when he was at his speed peak around 2003 or so. Most quicks only get faster until they get to about 29 or 30, then it starts to decline a bit.

Again, fully expect his line and length to get better. If Lee can do it, anyone can.

Personally, I don't think Steyn shoudl worry too much about his line-and-length. If I was his coach, I'd be encouraging him to keep throwing it up there and swinging the ball at pace. He might have some off days but he'll run through heaps of sides too.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bryce McGain hasn't been cricketing-young for a loooooong time but it was only last year he started to bowl to his potential.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. His figures in grade cricket were good; he just wasn't getting picked for Victoria. It's quite possible that he's been bowling to the same standard for longer than just last year.

 

[Richard]

I dispute the speed one. Brett Lee is a perfect example of a bloke who started off quick and got quicker, just have to look at his average speeds from, say 1999 to when he was at his speed peak around 2003 or so. Most quicks only get faster until they get to about 29 or 30, then it starts to decline a bit.

Again, fully expect his line and length to get better. If Lee can do it, anyone can.

Personally, I don't think Steyn shoudl worry too much about his line-and-length. If I was his coach, I'd be encouraging him to keep throwing it up there and swinging the ball at pace. He might have some off days but he'll run through heaps of sides too.

His length is good as it is, as I say. He's never going to be, due to his height, a bowler who can both attack and defend with an in-between length, so he's best-served trying to attack to the maximum extent and not worry about giving a few runs away (Waqar Younis style) by constantly bowling a very full length. In the last 2 years, he's done this, having pitched too short too often at the start of his career. His lines have never been great and he's pitched too wide and drifted onto the pads plenty often enough, but this isn't the end of The World at all if you swing it like he does, because this can also be an attacking weapon.

As regards Lee and his improvement in accuracy, I'm led to believe he always had it in him to bowl accurately but was simply not told to do so. That in the nets he was repeatedly knocking the off-bail off but in matches was just told "don't hold back", something which made little sense and resulted in Lee being a pretty useless bowler.

And as regards speeds, I'm sure I recall Lee being clocked at 97mph in either his debut season or his second one. He's never been any quicker than that, and in fact in 2003/04 was down on speed (as well as being worse than ever) as he was recovering from injury.

 

[Top_Cat]

And as regards speeds, I'm sure I recall Lee being clocked at 97mph in either his debut season or his second one. He's never been any quicker than that, and in fact in 2003/04 was down on speed (as well as being worse than ever) as he was recovering from injury.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap6cZwJk42M

Lee's first ball here was quicker than that. He bowled a few overs in this match quicker than that.

Anyway, I was more talking about his average speed. Early days, he's let go the occasional one 150km/h+ but post 2002, he was more consistently quicker with the occasional one past 155km/h.

 

[Richard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap6cZwJk42M

Lee's first ball here was quicker than that. He bowled a few overs in this match quicker than that.

No bowler's ever been timed at much more than 97mph. 99-100 is the limit, and most of that has been in the thin air of South Africa.

Anyway, I was more talking about his average speed. Early days, he's let go the occasional one 150km/h+ but post 2002, he was more consistently quicker with the occasional one past 155km/h.

I see. Well as I say, I never watched much live Test cricket in Australia (didn't have the chance) until 2003/04, so I can only go off reports. But I remember very clearly him being talked of as absolutely lightning from the moment he hit the Test scene.

 

[grapedo]

QUOTE] That is a load of bull**** Steyn has great control he has to with the ammount of swing he gets if he couldn't control the ball than he would not be anywhere near as good. And Lee was always told to bowl slowly by captains in the middle of the game steyn is a much better bowler than Lee and I think their bowling averages show that. Lee has lost alot of pace and the ability to swing the ball so he willl mot trouble the south african's like he did last time.

 

[grapedo]

No bowler's ever been timed at much more than 97mph. 99-100 is the limit, and most of that has been in the thin air of South Africa.

I see. Well as I say, I never watched much live Test cricket in Australia (didn't have the chance) until 2003/04, so I can only go off reports. But I remember very clearly him being talked of as absolutely lightning from the moment he hit the Test scene.

Well if you watched south africas tour of india you would see that Morkel and steyn were constantly bowling 145-150 KM/H and at the moment in India Lee is bowling 140 KM/H. So it isn't because of the thin south african air. STONER RICH !

 

[Polo23]

And as regards speeds, I'm sure I recall Lee being clocked at 97mph in either his debut season or his second one. He's never been any quicker than that, and in fact in 2003/04 was down on speed (as well as being worse than ever) as he was recovering from injury.

I'm sorry, but that is just blatantly false.

I remember in the 2005 Chappell/Hadlee series he clocked 161km/h and 160km/h in the same game in New Zealand, and was consistently bowling 150km/h+ for the entire game.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm sorry, but that is just blatantly false.

I remember in the 2005 Chappell/Hadlee series he clocked 161km/h and 160km/h in the same game in New Zealand, and was consistently bowling 150km/h+ for the entire game.

Oh yeah, forgot about that one. Lee was absolutely terrifying that game, James Marshall looked like a tail-ender against him. Most of the top-order did. Lee wasn't really swinging the ball much either, was just beating them with sheer pace.

 

[Polo23]

That was when Lee was at his quickest..soon after that he slowed down and with it gained more accuracy and started hitting a better length, and with it became a better bowler. He has never really swung the ball, not for long periods anyway.

 

[TT Boy]

What is this bollocks that Steyn has no control and has never had control? Got better control than the so called metronome, Johann Louw...

Also, I can vividly remember Dale bowling with an injury against the West Indies in a test off about five pacers generating not much than 80mph yet still owning them and not going for a run. He did the same against the Indians as well…

 

[Uppercut]

What is this bollocks that Steyn has no control and has never had control? Got better control than the so called metronome, Johann Louw...

Also, I can vividly remember Dale bowling with an injury against the West Indies in a test off about five pacers generating not much than 80mph yet still owning them and not going for a run. He did the same against the Indians as well…

Agree with this to some extent. His poor economy rate is more to do with the extremely attacking line he chooses to bowl than him being erratic. I can't think of another bowler who regularly tries to swing the ball away from the right hander after pitching on leg stump.

 

[Manee]

Agree with this to some extent. His poor economy rate is more to do with the extremely attacking line he chooses to bowl than him being erratic. I can't think of another bowler who regularly tries to swing the ball away from the right hander after pitching on leg stump.

Definately, he tends to pitch the ball quite far up to the bat too which also causes the high economy rate, but also the exceptional strike rate.

 

[Richard]

I'm sorry, but that is just blatantly false.

I remember in the 2005 Chappell/Hadlee series he clocked 161km/h and 160km/h in the same game in New Zealand, and was consistently bowling 150km/h+ for the entire game.

That's no quicker than the sorts of speeds I was talking about. 97mph is 155kph or so.