Is it too early to declare Dale Steyn as an all-time great?

[stephen]

Dale Steyn | South Africa Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

Steyn has performed everywhere and against everyone (except perhaps England). He has a ridiculous strike rate (under 43 FFS) a great average (under 24) and takes over 5 wickets per match, in a team which has generally had more than capable bowlers in it. He has done so in an era that has arguably had the flattest pitches in history. His peak rating sits at 22 on the ICC all time rankings chart and has been #1 in the world for some time now. His rating has barely dropped below 800 over the last three years or so.

At 27 years of age, I really can't see him getting any worse over the next 3-4 years either.

What do you all think? Where will he end up in the pantheon of greats?

 

[_Ed_]

I think it is a bit too soon - injury could still get in the way at some point. I hope it doesn't, of course.

 

[stephen]

I think it is a bit too soon - injury could still get in the way at some point. I hope it doesn't, of course.

224 wickets so far in his 6 year career.

Where would we place him if he got a career-ending injury tomorrow I wonder?

 

[Jono]

This is a really good thread. I had a great discussion with a mate of mine today about this very subject.

I reckon he is already a great of his era. He's maybe already an all-time great, or may be just one year away.

You don't need much more than 7 years of awesomeness as a fast bowler to qualify IMO.

 

[kingpin]

ya he's a ATG imo.....

 

[popepouri]

I think it is a bit too soon - injury could still get in the way at some point. I hope it doesn't, of course.

He knows how to manage his body and he's been relatively injury-free in his fast bowling career missing a few here and there. Apparently he takes 5 ice baths every day during a test.

 

[Lostman]

Border line ATG for me right now just because he doesn't have enough wickets yet. (~350 in a year or two should do it)
Among bowlers currently playing he is pretty much a sure thing to achieve ATG status.

 

[Lostman]

You don't need much more than 7 years of awesomeness as a fast bowler to qualify IMO.

Personally prefer a decade for all players for ATG status.

 

[Jono]

Yeah but you have to take modern day wickets into account.

Steyn never had the benefits of what Ambrose and Wasim got for most if not their whole test career.

So whilst they have longevity claims, Steyn has "bowled on ridiculously flat beds" claims.

 

[stephen]

244 wickets puts him 48th in the all-time wicket takers list. Another six years at this rate will have him as the third highest wicket taking fast bowler ever, behind McGrath and Walsh.

 

[Blaze 18]

Nah, it is not too early. He is already an all-time great for mine.

 

[_Ed_]

Where would we place him if he got a career-ending injury tomorrow I wonder?

Fourth best post-Apartheid SA bowler behind Pollock, Donald and Ntini, IMO.

Expect him to improve that placing if he carries on at this rate for another 3-4 years.

 

[stephen]

Fourth best post-Apartheid SA bowler behind Pollock, Donald and Ntini, IMO.

Expect him to improve that placing if he carries on at this rate for another 3-4 years.

Ntini? I don't know, I think I'd place Steyn above Ntini, even now.

 

[Prince EWS]

This is a really good thread. I had a great discussion with a mate of mine today about this very subject.

I reckon he is already a great of his era. He's maybe already an all-time great, or may be just one year away.

You don't need much more than 7 years of awesomeness as a fast bowler to qualify IMO.

Yeah, agree with this. He's definitely a great of his time; borderline ATG.

I'll be extremely surprised if he never got there, but if he retired right now it'd be a tough call.

 

[vcs]

Yeah but you have to take modern day wickets into account.

Steyn never had the benefits of what Ambrose and Wasim got for most if not their whole test career.

So whilst they have longevity claims, Steyn has "bowled on ridiculously flat beds" claims.

Does it seem that way because there aren't as many great bowlers going around in world cricket? Always prefer to attribute the higher scoring these days to fewer world-class bowlers rather than flat wickets. There may be more flat wickets around these days, but it gets overstated IMO.

 

[Teja.]

You don't need much more than 7 years of awesomeness as a fast bowler to qualify IMO.

Tbf, Steyn just played three games in 2004 and 2005 combined and started his career in a meaningful sense in 2006. He hit a world-class standard in 2007, So that's 4 years. Give him three more, IMHO. That'd get him about 350 wickets, I reckon, at which point he'll become a definite ATG.

 

[Himannv]

I think CW has a bit too much emphasis on stats in general. If I ask myself why I rate McGrath highly, I would say its his unwavering accuracy over a long period of time. Similarly would rate Akram highly because he made the ball talk and could produce a different kind of ball for every delivery in an over. For now I dont think Steyn is as good as Akram, McGrath, Marshall, Hadlee and the likes as yet. Perhaps in time we will see him in a different light but for now he's a step below the top bowlers of all time for me. Top bowler for sure, but lets see how he stands in a few years. Its not so much about the number of games he plays but rather how he plays them.

 

[Faisal1985]

I would wait another 12 months and see how he countinues. i.e. Injuries/pace drop (if any)/ general performance...etc.

 

[Himannv]

Fourth best post-Apartheid SA bowler behind Pollock, Donald and Ntini, IMO.

Expect him to improve that placing if he carries on at this rate for another 3-4 years.

Donald and Pollock are above him but not Ntini IMO.

 

[weldone]

Depends on what definition of an all-time great one has in mind. According to me, he's already clearly one of the best 4 Saffie pace bowlers ever along with Adcock, Donald and Procter; and has overtaken the Pollock father-son (on bowling alone, of course)