Precambrian
Banned
He's a loose nut who has a massive inferiority complex which he tries to hide by bossing people around in the net.Please put me on the ignore list, if my posts are hurting your head that badly...
He's a loose nut who has a massive inferiority complex which he tries to hide by bossing people around in the net.Please put me on the ignore list, if my posts are hurting your head that badly...
Read the posts again please, specifically the part where I called him a superb player then go back and show me where I said again and again 'Styen is not a good enough bowler'. The perhaps you'll realise this thread is asking where the number one bolwer in the world relates to previous number ones. Whether he is better then some, worse than others etc.why are you again and again stating that Styen is not a good enough bowler ?????
he is a very very good bowler for me rite now ..he could go either way but now is performing the best he can as far as i think i don't think he can improve a lot from here.... all he can do and should do is to maintain it for a longer time...
Taylor is the best in my view, styen gets his wickets but he is just too simple for me. His pace is clearly what gets him most of his wickets. There just is not anything special about him.
The question is, why do you think Steyn would struggle to be among the best bowlers during any other period in cricket history??Read the posts again please, specifically the part where I called him a superb player then go back and show me where I said again and again 'Styen is not a good enough bowler'. The perhaps you'll realise this thread is asking where the number one bolwer in the world relates to previous number ones. Whether he is better then some, worse than others etc.
Because 1993-2007 McGrath. Prior to that Ambrose. Prior to that Imran/Lillee. That's until 1970, and Steyn would certainly struggle for the past 40 years. A little before that Wes Hall, and Trueman. And you're already near Bradman's time. There has usually almost always been an all time great fast bowler operating somewhere.The question is, why do you think Steyn would struggle to be among the best bowlers during any other period in cricket history??
All of those players played in era's where significantly less cricket was played than now. The best fast bowlers from the last 10-15 years mostly top 300 and they should because they have way more opportunity to do so. All of the bowlers on that list would have more than 300 (or close enough to) if they played in the last decade.This whole business of him not having 300 wickets being a disqualification is laughable.
Here's the list of the greatest (statistically atleast) bowlers who ended up with between 100 to 200 wickets in their entire career.
and this could be styens decade !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Because 1993-2007 McGrath. Prior to that Ambrose. Prior to that Imran/Lillee. That's until 1970, and Steyn would certainly struggle for the past 40 years. A little before that Wes Hall, and Trueman. And you're already near Bradman's time. There has usually almost always been an all time great fast bowler operating somewhere.
That is the whole point of this thread. No one is saying Steyn sucks.
I am not saying Steyn would get ranked as Number ONE in all eras. But he'd end up being in the top 5 in any era.Because 1993-2007 McGrath. Prior to that Ambrose. Prior to that Imran/Lillee. That's until 1970, and Steyn would certainly struggle for the past 40 years. A little before that Wes Hall, and Trueman. And you're already near Bradman's time. There has usually almost always been an all time great fast bowler operating somewhere.
That is the whole point of this thread. No one is saying Steyn sucks.
So finally it comes down to Steyn simply not having played enough number of tests, rather than any suspicion about his skills or ability right??All of those players played in era's where significantly less cricket was played than now. The best fast bowlers from the last 10-15 years mostly top 300 and they should because they have way more opportunity to do so. All of the bowlers on that list would have more than 300 (or close enough to) if they played in the last decade.
I never said Steyn was a bad bowler at all (he's an awesome bowler). You're taking this as though it's an insult to him as a player and as a bowler, but really, all this thread is discussing is whether there's ever been a time when the clear best bowler in the world was as raw and as unproven over time as Steyn is. It's not questioning his ability to go on and be one of the best.
And no one said it couldn't either. We are talking about right now.and this could be styens decade !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But Ambrose was there. As were Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Walsh...Mcgrath was not the best in the world in 93 -- 95
Yes, and when you create that thread in 2015, that might make sense......so may be one day you will say styen was the best between 2007 -- 2015 ????
And Hadlee.Because 1993-2007 McGrath. Prior to that Ambrose. Prior to that Imran/Lillee.
Jesus, have you actually read the OP?and this could be styens decade !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yea, well, there is no shortage there in the 80s - you can pick at will. You could have the three best fast bowlers out due to injury and the fourth guy would still make a run for an all time side. If Ambrose and Marshall were out, you could have Hadlee or Imran. If they were out, you still had Holding and Roberts, and Garner, and whoever else.And Hadlee.
No one is denying this, or implied this. Now I will though - I'd actually venture that in the early nineties, when you had Marshall, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, he wouldn't make the top five. Probably at various points in the eighties too, with Hadlee, Imran, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, or earlier with Garner, Holding, Marshall, Lillee, Imran.I am not saying Steyn would get ranked as Number ONE in all eras. But he'd end up being in the top 5 in any era.
Was not Allan Donald hailed as the best during the end years of 2000? I don;t think he had truckloads of wickets more than Steyn had...Jesus, have you actually read the OP?
It is utterly irelevant as to whether Steyn is the best fast bowler this decade. The point is that the previous so called best bowlers in the world are debatebaly far superior to Steyn at the current time.
Interesting point. With merits. However I'd rate Steyn above Holding and Wasim of the late 80s and early 90s.No one is denying this, or implied this. Now I will though - I'd actually venture that in the early nineties, when you had Marshall, Ambrose, Wasim, Waqar, Walsh, he wouldn't make the top five. Probably at various points in the eighties too, with Hadlee, Imran, Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, or earlier with Garner, Holding, Marshall, Lillee, Imran.
Indeed.Disappointing thread. Was intrigued by the opening post.
Name Country Matches Innings Wickets Bowav ER SR 5W 10W
DW Steyn South Africa 30 56 154 23.08 3.62 38.20 11 3
CEL Ambrose West Indies 30 57 124 23.12 2.49 55.50 4 1
Imran Khan Pakistan 30 53 119 30.01 2.72 66.00 7 1
Wasim Akram Pakistan 30 51 105 26.75 2.54 63.10 7 2
GD McGrath Australia 30 58 130 24.51 2.68 54.70 7 0
Waqar Younis Pakistan 30 53 169 19.30 3.14 36.70 17 3
AA Donald South Africa 30 53 144 22.88 2.87 47.70 7 2