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

[funnygirl]

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.

Exactly and not a boring metronome .A very exciting fast bowler

 

[Evermind]

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.

I addressed the points about comparing him with top bowlers of the past too. Please read again.

 

[Evermind]

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

BCCI

Literally, this time.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

All three bowlers who have the magical ability to bowl well yet without the wickets to show for it. I prefer the guy with the wickets to his name.

 

[pskov]

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.

I wouldn't go that far, but I do agree in some respects. It has always puzzled me that people are happy to downplay many post-2000 batsmen's records due to flatter pitches, bat technology etc. yet don't then apply the same logic when looking at post-2000 bowlers. You can't really have it both ways.

 

[Evermind]

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

An analysis of great bowlers at the end of their 30th test.

No responses to this? Very surprising. I thought it's pretty much all the proof one needs that Steyn is definitely in the uppermost echelon of fast bowlers. Only Waqar has a better record.

 

[Richard]

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.

It's funny, Snow is someone who very often seems to slip under the radar. He always used to do with me until fairly recently, when I've done a bit of reading around and examined the facts closer. Snow looks, on first glance, like a merely very good bowler. Yet on closer inspection he was capable of being, and for a decent while was, one of the best you'll see. Snow played Tests for longer than he should have and missed a good few Tests he should have played in the prime of his careerHe was, in the latter respect, similar to Fred Trueman (ie, that he missed them because he was perceived to be a rebel of sorts), but Trueman was so good he was still better than almost anyone by the very end of his Test career. Snow also needed motivation, and sometimes did not have this. The reason he tends to rate so highly with fellow seam-bowlers of the time and just after is that when he slipped himself into top gear, he was dynamite. Unfortunately, there were times when he didn't.

As I say, I feel Steyn's success of the past 2 years does not prove him to be on track to be one of the best there's ever been, and I reckon he'll finish his career merely as akin to someone like Waqar Younis (indeed, I think his best hope is to do so) - a bowler who just attacked and attacked and had no other approach, meaning that when his attacking weapons weren't available (as inevitably happens to almost all bowlers sometimes) and on the occasions he was having an off day (as happens to absolutely all bowlers sometimes) he'd sometimes be quite horrible, but when they were (and when he was on song) he'd be truly devastating.

Waqar Younis, however, finished-up a merely excellent bowler - one who had phases of magnificence and phases of ineffectiveness. Snow, had he had more luck with selectorial whims and had someone found a way to keep him motivated more often, might just be in the very top category of all. I've said it 100 times, I don't believe Steyn can ever be that, though there's precious little question he will be in the second tier unless something goes very severely wrong.

 

[Richard]

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.

What an absurd, absurd comment.

Indeed.

 

[Richard]

No responses to this? Very surprising. I thought it's pretty much all the proof one needs that Steyn is definitely in the uppermost echelon of fast bowlers. Only Waqar has a better record.

Not neccessarily. Not all cricketers develop at the same rate. Some bowlers achieve their best early on in their careers; some get better and better. The former types are relatively unusual, but they when they occur they often tend to be big-swinging, short, skiddy, "shock" bowlers. Waqar Younis and Ian Botham are the best other examples.

No-one should presume that because someone has started their career sensationally that this means they'll get even more sensational as time goes on. Far from it.

 

[funnygirl]

No responses to this? Very surprising. I thought it's pretty much all the proof one needs that Steyn is definitely in the uppermost echelon of fast bowlers. Only Waqar has a better record.

Yeah based on that it is safe to assume that Imran was indeed mediocre ,Av of 30..

And Hirwani is the greatest spinner that never played.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't go that far, but I do agree in some respects. It has always puzzled me that people are happy to downplay many post-2000 batsmen's records due to flatter pitches, bat technology etc. yet don't then apply the same logic when looking at post-2000 bowlers. You can't really have it both ways.

Pitches are irrelevant when considering swing bowlers. Steyn is no better than Waqar Younis in my view - in fact, he's a fair bit inferior.

The fact of the matter is there haven't been that many good swing bowlers recently, and Steyn is one. Lack of good swing bowlers + flat pitches = very easy batting conditions. In any case, the flatness of pitches isn't a complete blanket thing. There have still been some seaming decks since 2001/02 and in fact they've become fractionally less hard to find since 2006/07 (especially in South Africa) - exactly when Steyn came into the side.

Look through Steyn's Tests, you'll find there's a decent number of seamers in there. Not, of course, that every Test of his has been on a rank greentop, and not by any stretch that he's a greentop bully (as I say above, really good swing bowlers take the pitch out of the equation). But I'd bet he's played on proportionally a huge number more greentops than, say, Andrew Flintoff or Matthew Hoggard did\have.

 

[Jono]

Most people, even if it wasn't as disputed as Steyn is now (as Pasag suggested), thought Brett Lee was the best fast bowler in the world in 2007. Right after the SL in Aus series people were pretty much saying he was the best, and even after the Ind in Aus series, he was still being touted that.

So really, whilst an interesting thread, 18 months ago would have probably been a better time to raise the question.

For me, Lee was the worst "#1 fast bowler in the world" ever.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Glen was not a better bowler than walsh and ambrose, the only time he went atop the best bowler rankings was after both walsh and ambrose stopped playing. Glen mcgrath only had one trick which was to bowl solely on half stump. In the days when batsmen were patient he could not survive. This is why today more people talk about ambrose than they talk about glen. The W.I pair had much more to offer than just accuracy. Walsh and Ambrose were able to reverse swing the new ball, they produced bounce, and bowled fast. They are true legends of fast bowling, bowlers who created chances instead of waiting for mistakes.

If they were good enough to reverse swing the new ball, then I'm Miles Davis.

 

[bagapath]

No responses to this? Very surprising. I thought it's pretty much all the proof one needs that Steyn is definitely in the uppermost echelon of fast bowlers. Only Waqar has a better record.

the only issue with steyn's record (or waqar's for that matter; also lee, shoiab and ntini's among the current lot) is the high economy rate. a good bowler needs to concede not more than 3 runs per over, esp in test cricket. if steyn could become a little more parsimonious there is nothing else in his record that can prevent him from being ranked with the truly greats.

 

[vic_orthdox]

the only issue with steyn's record (or waqar's for that matter; also lee, shoiab and ntini's among the current lot) is the high economy rate. a good bowler needs to concede not more than 3 runs per over, esp in test cricket. if steyn could become a little more parsimonious there is nothing else in his record that can prevent him from being ranked with the truly greats.

Really not sure that, when you are striking that quickly, you care all that much about an economy rate above three.

 

[kingkallis]

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?

No, its not becuse of the lack of the quality bowlers BUT, the way he takes the wicket. If he was BEST because of the unavailability of other good quicks then he wouldnt have taken 5-6 wickets a game for over 2 years now.

If Bond was fit, it would have been a solid competition but I DONT rate Asif that high!

 

[bagapath]

Really not sure that, when you are striking that quickly, you care all that much about an economy rate above three.

but dont we all subconsciously rate stingier bowlers higher? mcgill has a better strike rate than warne or kumble. but concedes more runs per over. in fact, his average must be very close to, and could even be better than, anil's. but he is always ranked below the two of them because of his un-economical bowling.

and, waqar younis has a superior strike rate compared to marshall, hadlee, donald, lillee, imran, wasim and ambrose. he is very rarely going to be considered on par with them; and definitely never ranked better. same with shoab akhthar. he has a superior strike rate and a similar average in comparison with andy roberts. and that too in a batsman friendly era. but who would call a better bowler? it again boils down to those extra decimals in the economy rate.

we will feel steyn's waywardness every time he gives boundary balls more frequently than, say, a shaun pollock. and we will rate him below shaun despite him having a better average and a far, far superior strike rate. and we will call him "erratic" "inaccurate"l. econ rate does play a role, obvious and otherwise, when we rate bowlers.

 

[Johnners]

Dear Pasag,

I'm sorry to hear about the passing of your credible question that had the potential to provide some interesting, non-trollish discussion. It is with deepest sympathies that I send this card.

Yours Truly,

Clapo

 

[BoyBrumby]

No responses to this? Very surprising. I thought it's pretty much all the proof one needs that Steyn is definitely in the uppermost echelon of fast bowlers. Only Waqar has a better record.

Raises more questions than it addresses for mine. How many people rate Waqar above the other bowlers in that list?*

Probably too early in Steyn's career to make a call on whether he's fit to stand comparison to the demi-gods listed; like Younis he could fall away (comparitively) in the latter half of his career. Which, I suppose, means we can only really answer pasag's Q in retrospect.

*I'll answer my own question: I do. At his peak he was the best I've seen. Others have better career stats, but Waqar at the zenith was an absolute joy to behold, even when he was bowling my team to defeat.

 

[pup11]

Most people, even if it wasn't as disputed as Steyn is now (as Pasag suggested), thought Brett Lee was the best fast bowler in the world in 2007. Right after the SL in Aus series people were pretty much saying he was the best, and even after the Ind in Aus series, he was still being touted that.

So really, whilst an interesting thread, 18 months ago would have probably been a better time to raise the question.

For me, Lee was the worst "#1 fast bowler in the world" ever.

I think first it should be made clear on what basis are we rating a bloke as the #1 fast bowler in the world, is it on the basis of the number of wickets he has taken, or on the basis of what the rankings at that time.

I think Lee stepped-up brilliantly after retirements of McGrath and Warne, bowled beyond his ability and virtually bowled himself into the ground, but still despite that, i think its pretty arguable whether he was the best fast bowler even in 2007.