Is Dale Steyn the worst ever best fast bowler in the world?

[GIMH]

I have never used ignore lists, but I've been left with no choice. Precambrian is single-handedly wrecking every thread in CW.

Question at hand is a good one. I think since McGrath's retirement fast bowling has been without an absolute top-notch superstar; whether that makes Steyn or Lee the worst best I am on the fence about.

 

[pup11]

I think the thread just indicates how unchallenged Steyn's reign as the best fast-bowler in test cricket has been for the last two years now, he is an awesome bowler even at this point of his career and nobody even comes close to him in terms of wicket taking ability.

The fact that Steyn has no real competition really isn't his fault, he has been bowling really well for sometime now with great success, and even if better fast bowlers were around he still would have been very comfortably in the top bracket.

 

[pskov]

Okay, here's some slapdash research using a combination of statsguru and what I've read and seen on who the best fast bowler in the world was at the time from WW2 to present

45-53 - Ray Lindwall
54-56 - Brian Statham
57-63 - Fred Trueman
64-65 - Peter Pollock
66-68 - Ken Higgs (Not an often cited 'great', but hard to say he wasn't the best considering his record during this period)
69-71 - John Snow
72-75 - Dennis Lillee
76-77 - Michael Holding
78-81 - Ian Botham
82-83 - Imran Khan
84-87 - Richard Hadlee
88-89 - Malcolm Marshall
90-94 - Curtly Ambrose
95-97 - Glenn McGrath
98-00 - Alan Donald
01-05 - Glenn McGrath
2006 - Stuart Clark
07-?? - Dale Steyn

A couple of these choices I've made would be disputable I suppose (Waqar vs Ambrose at the very start of the 90s is a close decsion, as well as Ken Higgs obviously). Where Steyn stacks up in comparison to the others is down to your opinion really, as purely statistically over the years mentioned he matches up with every name on that list over their best period.

 

[Richard]

This thread is dead-set bizarre. Unbelieveable amount of point-missing.

I'd probably agree that Steyn is at worst a contender for the "worst-ever best-seam-bowler-in-World", if you make the distinction that someone clearly was the best. The two periods mentioned - '33 to '39 and '65 to '69 - both probably contain there being no clear-cut best seamer around. John Snow was certainly the best in the latter and he was obviously > Steyn IMO. Ditto, currently and probably for good, Peter Pollock. Garth McKenzie'd have been the next one, and Steyn was clearly superior to him.

'33 to '39, though, as Mr Chandler says (though it might've been lost in the melee), there was obviously no seam-bowler playing who was a patch on Steyn. The best two were almost certainly Constantine and Martindale, who played just 17 Tests between them in that time. Both were terrific bowlers, and might perfectly possibly have been better than Steyn but I myself would say that anyone who tried to put forward a concrete case for any of the three would be guessing in the extreme. The most capped in the time were the Englishmen Farnes, Bowes and Allen and the Australian McCormick. And only Bowes of those even approaches top-class, the others were merely good, and I'm authoritively assured that Bowes was something of a seaming-deck bully, so he'd probably have to go down as inferior to Steyn.

If you make it very clear and obvious, and allow for no misunderstandings, you can make a case for "yes", but not a clear one:
"Including only times when there was one seam-bowler who was obviously the best around (and there'll have been plenty of times in Test history when there was no such thing), is Dale Steyn the worst of them?"

Just as a point of interest, we could perhaps say:
2008 to current - Steyn
2007/08 - Brett Lee
2006/07 - Mohammad Asif
2001 to 2005/06 - McGrath
1991/92 to 2000/01 - one of Waqar Younis, Ambrose, Wasim Akram, Donald and McGrath and never anyone else
1983 to 1991 - Marshall, and maybe sometimes Hadlee and Imran Khan
1970/71 - 1982/83 or so - Lillee and occasionally someone else, such as Roberts, Imran Khan or Holding
1966 to 1969 - at various points Snow and Peter Pollock
1962 to 1965 - Hall
1954 or so to 1961/62 - Trueman
1946 to 1953/54 - Lindwall
1933 to 1939 - Constantine or Martindale, or just possibly Bowes
1926 to 1932/33 - Larwood
And before that I'd not really be able to comment. Wickets were uncovered around The World and spin was almost always more important than seam in those days, so a truly outstanding seamer wasn't always absolutely neccessary for an excellent, never mind good, side.

Just to note - the above is certainly not exact in all cases, and would almost certainly require a nudge around here or there. But it's interesting to see that Lillee was almost certainly #1 for the longest time. Perhaps instructive as to why some people might think he was the best ever.

 

[Richard]

Okay, here's some slapdash research using a combination of statsguru and what I've read and seen on who the best fast bowler in the world was at the time from WW2 to present

45-53 - Ray Lindwall
54-56 - Brian Statham
57-63 - Fred Trueman
64-65 - Peter Pollock
66-68 - Ken Higgs (Not an often cited 'great', but hard to say he wasn't the best considering his record during this period)
69-71 - John Snow
72-75 - Dennis Lillee
76-77 - Michael Holding
78-81 - Ian Botham
82-83 - Imran Khan
84-87 - Richard Hadlee
88-89 - Malcolm Marshall
90-94 - Curtly Ambrose
95-97 - Glenn McGrath
98-00 - Alan Donald
01-05 - Glenn McGrath
2006 - Stuart Clark
07-?? - Dale Steyn

A couple of these choices I've made would be disputable I suppose (Waqar vs Ambrose at the very start of the 90s is a close decsion, as well as Ken Higgs obviously). Where Steyn stacks up in comparison to the others is down to your opinion really, as purely statistically over the years mentioned he matches up with every name on that list over their best period.

Daym, looks like I was half beaten to it as I was writing the above post. I think you need to look not merely at who was the best over 2 years or so, but whether there was someone who was obviously outstanding over a longer period. Interesting that we've gotten quite a few results similar though - me taking no look at all at any form of stats.

 

[fredfertang]

Thinking about it Richard based on what he did in 1937 and 1946 Jack Cowie could legitamately claim the title of the world's best fast bowler throughout that period - shame he never played in between to enable a proper comparison to be made

 

[Richard]

And also a shame his selectors were apparently ignoring most of the best players available besides him, leading to his side being borderline a disgrace to the name of Test cricket. But yes, Cowie was unquestionably a terrific bowler and might very easily have been the best at some point in the gap between Larwood and Lindwall. Both of whom were two of the best ever seen.

 

[Nate]

This thread really sums up everything that's wrong with Cricket Chat atm. So hard to have an intelligent discussion.

 

[nightprowler10]

This thread really sums up everything that's wrong with Cricket Chat atm. So hard to have an intelligent discussion.

Can't believe you're hating on Steyn too....

 

[GIMH]

Can't believe you're hating on Steyn too....

brilliant

 

[pskov]

Daym, looks like I was half beaten to it as I was writing the above post. I think you need to look not merely at who was the best over 2 years or so, but whether there was someone who was obviously outstanding over a longer period. Interesting that we've gotten quite a few results similar though - me taking no look at all at any form of stats.

I thought about that, but I decided to do it over who was the absolute best bowler in the world over a period of two or three years or so, as that is what Steyn has been so far thus it would provide a better analysis regarding the initial question of the thread. I mean for me who the best fast bowler was over the 80s is pretty much a wash between Hadlee, Imran and Marshall, but in the interests of precision I broke it down into who was exactly the best at what time. Obviously Marshall was superb in the early 80s too, it's just that at that particular time Imran and then Hadlee were just a little bit better, then later in the decade vice versa.

I also disagree with you that Snow is clearly better than Steyn. Obviously we will have to wait until the end of the latter's career to make a full judgement, but considering his career to date I would take Steyn ahead of Snow every time.

 

[Nate]

You mean like when they did just before Australia did last year?

Cricinfo - Matches - South Africa in India Test Series, 2007/08

FTR, Steyn took 15 wickets in the 3 matches at an average of 20.

Just ftr, remember Steyn looking reasonably average apart from moments in the Third Test tbh. This is perhaps reflected with well over half his wickets in the Series being tailenders.

 

[silentstriker]

They were there last year - Cricinfo - Records - South Africa in India Test Series, 2007/08 - Most wickets

You mean like when they did just before Australia did last year?

Cricinfo - Matches - South Africa in India Test Series, 2007/08

FTR, Steyn took 15 wickets in the 3 matches at an average of 20.

Just ftr, remember Steyn looking reasonably average apart from moments in the Third Test tbh. This is perhaps reflected with half his wickets in the Series being tailenders.

I don't know, I watched that, and frankly, anyone who took a wicket in Chennai should get a medal. I don't think it deserved the average he got, but he certainly bowled extremely well considering the conditions, and you could easily argue for him being the best pace bowler on show. The second test obviously was made for him, and the third also offered something, but he did well in the first test where it was a bowler's nightmare. Obviously getting only the last four wickets when the score is already 500+ isn't ideal, but he was not nonthreatening before then.

 

[Nate]

I don't know, I watched that, and frankly, anyone who took a wicket in Chennai should get a medal. I don't think it deserved the average he got, but he certainly bowled extremely well considering the conditions, and you could easily argue for him being the best pace bowler on show. The second test obviously was made for him, and the third also offered something, but he did well in the first test where it was a bowler's nightmare. Obviously getting only the last four wickets when the score is already 500+ isn't ideal, but he was not nonthreatening before then.

Point being, an average of 20 flatters him.

 

[Evermind]

What an absurd, absurd thread. No greater evidence of people looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses.

"Oh back in the good ole days, when fast bowlers were 8 feet tall, and slept 3 hours a night, and bowled at 180kph"

Considering how batsman-friendly the pitches these days are and the massive changes in bat construction, I'd say an average of 30 is definitely an average of 26 from a couple of decades ago. Just look at how massively superior Steyn has been to all other bowlers recently. I enjoy watching him bowl and it's ridiculous to use his lack of experience against him - how can he play more matches than he has had a chance to play?

He's got a great action and he's clearly in the uppermost echelon of fast bowlers the world has seen. I think Bond was the best in the recent decade - express pace with superb accuracy made him unplayable at times, and in the long term, he would've ended up with superior stats to McGrath's. Asif was brilliant too, but Steyn is nearly as good and deserves his #1 spot.

 

[funnygirl]

What an absurd, absurd thread. No greater evidence of people looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses.

"Oh back in the good ole days, when fast bowlers were 8 feet tall, and slept 3 hours a night, and bowled at 180kph"

Considering how batsman-friendly the pitches these days are and the massive changes in bat construction, I'd say an average of 30 is definitely an average of 26 from a couple of decades ago. Just look at how massively superior Steyn has been to all other bowlers recently. I enjoy watching him bowl and it's ridiculous to use his lack of experience against him - how can he play more matches than he has had a chance to play?

He's got a great action and he's clearly in the uppermost echelon of fast bowlers the world has seen. I think Bond was the best in the recent decade - express pace with superb accuracy made him unplayable at times, and in the long term, he would've ended up with superior stats to McGrath's. Asif was brilliant too, but Steyn is nearly as good and deserves his #1 spot.

He can .What is or who is stopping him from doing that ?.

According to the thread i agree meaningless thread . Steyn is the best and will finish as one of thefinest .I hope so .My favourite bowler atm by far.

 

[pasag]

What an absurd, absurd thread. No greater evidence of people looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses.

"Oh back in the good ole days, when fast bowlers were 8 feet tall, and slept 3 hours a night, and bowled at 180kph"

Considering how batsman-friendly the pitches these days are and the massive changes in bat construction, I'd say an average of 30 is definitely an average of 26 from a couple of decades ago. Just look at how massively superior Steyn has been to all other bowlers recently. I enjoy watching him bowl and it's ridiculous to use his lack of experience against him - how can he play more matches than he has had a chance to play?

He's got a great action and he's clearly in the uppermost echelon of fast bowlers the world has seen. I think Bond was the best in the recent decade - express pace with superb accuracy made him unplayable at times, and in the long term, he would've ended up with superior stats to McGrath's. Asif was brilliant too, but Steyn is nearly as good and deserves his #1 spot.

Sorry, who has said he doesn't deserve his number one spot or that he's not a fine bowler? Again, the point of comparison is with other number 1s in the past and where he stands in relation to them.

 

[subshakerz]

We should be immensely thankful for Steyn. After so long, we have finally found a world class fast bowler who is a consistent match-winner and doesn't get injured and whose name is not McGrath. My favorite bowler at the moment.

Yes, he is a contender for the worst best fast bowler. But that is hardly an indictment on him but a reflection of the sad state of pace bowling nowadays. In a way, it is high praise for him, that his career is only 30 tests old, he clearly is still learning more about the arts of fast-bowling, yet is already the best in the business, has performed well everywhere he toured, and has amazing stats with an unbelievable strike rate. He has achieved much and is bound to get better.

 

[Xuhaib]

Don't think Steyn is an undisputed numero uno I think guys like Freddie, Ishant and Clark have pretty strong case for the top slot.

 

[roseboy64]

When was the last time we had such an 'ordinary' (comparatively of course) best fast bowler? It's pretty clear he is the best and no one would dispute he's a superb player but is he only the best because of the lack of great bowlers going around currently? Compared to others in recent times he does come up a bit short and one wonders as well if Bond and Asif were still playing would he even have the title?

The reason others are 'missing the point' is because your OP is poor. You claim him to be ordinary in comparison to other #1 fast bowlers. That can only be a subjective statement based on how he bowls because statistically he compares well with the great bowlers of the past since the time he's been brought back into Test cricket and looked the part. Then you wonder if he may only be the best because there's a lack of great fast bowlers. If his figures compare well with the great fast bowlers then this just becomes a rather silly argument. Ifs, ands or buts shouldn't matter. He can't be blamed for Bond and Asif having their problems. he's gone out there and done well. Thus, it clearly seems like an attack on Steyn for being simply not bowling in a time with other great fast bowlers and not as Evermind said "Oh back in the good ole days, when fast bowlers were 8 feet tall, and slept 3 hours a night, and bowled at 180kph".