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

[Dissector]

Steyn has been truly exceptional for around four years which is a bit too short for the ATG tag IMO. If he can sustain this level of performance for another three years I would say he crosses the line. But it's remarkable how far ahead he is of the rest of the pack. I can't think of a single other bowler who started after 2000 who will even be close. His closest rivals like Asif and Bond have practically ended their short careers. In relative terms, Steyn may be the most dominant bowler since Barnes.

 

[Mike5181]

Steyn has been truly exceptional for around four years which is a bit too short for the ATG tag IMO. If he can sustain this level of performance for another three years I would say he crosses the line. But it's remarkable how far ahead he is of the rest of the pack. I can't think of a single other bowler who started after 2000 who will even be close. His closest rivals like Asif and Bond have practically ended their short careers. In relative terms, Steyn may be the most dominant bowler since Barnes.

Brett Lee's ODI debut was Jan 9th 2000 and he took 324 wickets at an average of 23 and a SR of 29. That is pretty up there as well. Steyn in comparison has taken 61 wickets at an average of 31 and a SR of around 35. I think he needs to improve on his ODI record to be considered an ATG but i have no doubt that he will do that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Brett Lee's ODI debut was Jan 9th 2000 and he took 324 wickets at an average of 23 and a SR of 29. That is pretty up there as well. Steyn in comparison has taken 61 wickets at an average of 31 and a SR of around 35. I think he needs to improve on his ODI record to be considered an ATG but i have no doubt that he will do that.

It's an unspoken rule on CricketWeb that we're talking only about Tests unless it's specifically stated otherwise.

 

[GotSpin]

It's an unspoken rule on CricketWeb that we're talking only about Tests unless it's specifically stated otherwise.

Damn straight spews

 

[Spark]

It's an unspoken rule on CricketWeb that we're talking only about Tests unless it's specifically stated otherwise.

Which is ironic as I didn't know about it before someone posted it explicitly (this was whilst I was still lurking though)

 

[Blaze 18]

Brett Lee's ODI debut was Jan 9th 2000 and he took 324 wickets at an average of 23 and a SR of 29. That is pretty up there as well. Steyn in comparison has taken 61 wickets at an average of 31 and a SR of around 35. I think he needs to improve on his ODI record to be considered an ATG but i have no doubt that he will do that.

Disagree. ODI performances don't really matter much in the overall scheme of things in my opinion. Test performances are all that matter.

 

[Teja.]

He's one of the most destructive bowlers when his team wins.

Only Charlie Blythe has taken his wickets quicker in victories (qual: at least 50 wickets in wins). Steyn's more destructive than both Lohmann and Barnes when South Africa win.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

FTR, At a similar point of length in Waqar's career, Waqar had an SR of 28.8, 0.5 higher which I assume would get more than balanced out if the general decrease in SRs is taken into account, while taking wickets at a much higher wpm in wins and in a more competitive environment for wickets.

I don't know how that's relevant to the point, anyway.

Waqar is awesome, I guess.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Disagree. ODI performances don't really matter much in the overall scheme of things in my opinion. Test performances are all that matter.

For me, they don't count when evaluating a player on his own, but when comparing two similar players I'll take them into account. For instance Marshall and McGrath are close enough for me to proclaim McGrath as the greater bowler on the basis of his unarguably superior ODI record.

 

[Blaze 18]

For me, they don't count when evaluating a player on his own, but when comparing two similar players I'll take them into account. For instance Marshall and McGrath are close enough for me to proclaim McGrath as the greater bowler on the basis of his unarguably superior ODI record.

Interesting. If two players have similar test and ODI records, would you go for the one with the superior T20 record ?

 

[G.I.Joe]

no.

 

[Prince EWS]

For me, they don't count when evaluating a player on his own, but when comparing two similar players I'll take them into account. For instance Marshall and McGrath are close enough for me to proclaim McGrath as the greater bowler on the basis of his unarguably superior ODI record.

I just treat them completely separately. You have your Test greats and your ODI greats. I don't really view 'cricket' and 'limited overs cricket' as the same thing at the highest level.

A classic Richardism I know so I'll probably cop some stick for it, but meh.

 

[vcs]

I just treat them completely separately. You have your Test greats and your ODI greats. I don't really view 'cricket' and 'limited overs cricket' as the same thing as the highest level.

A classic Richardism I know so I'll probably cop some stick for it, but meh.

I can understand that, but it seems there is a lot more overlap between Test and ODI cricket (though the last 5-6 years of ODI cricket seems like a completely different sport). T20, is just a different sport altogether.

 

[Uppercut]

I just treat them completely separately. You have your Test greats and your ODI greats. I don't really view 'cricket' and 'limited overs cricket' as the same thing at the highest level.

A classic Richardism I know so I'll probably cop some stick for it, but meh.

Richard just denied that there was any correlation between ODI performance and test performance at all though, which is a bit ridiculous. If there were a couple of up-and-coming batsmen that had started their FC careers phenomenally but one was also crushing in List A games but the other wasn't, I'd definitely take that into account in trying to judge which of them would be better at tests. So I was (and still am) very confident that Jonathan Trott was going to be a quality test player, but as of right now am less convinced of Usman Khawaja.

Although Richard would never pick a player who hadn't played a big enough sample of FC games that you could feel comfortable ignoring their List A games anyway.

 

[Furball]

I just treat them completely separately. You have your Test greats and your ODI greats. I don't really view 'cricket' and 'limited overs cricket' as the same thing at the highest level.

A classic Richardism I know so I'll probably cop some stick for it, but meh.

I'd have no hesitation in placing Bowler A who averages 23 in both Tests and ODIs in front of Bowler B who averages 20 in Tests but 29 in ODIs (we'll assume that each one has had a good career and taken at least 250 wickets in both formats).

In my opinion, Bowler A is the more rounded bowler because he had the skill set to be successful in both forms of the game, whereas Bowler A might have been better in Tests, but his more limited skill set meant that he couldn't transfer his Test greatness to ODIs.

 

[tooextracool]

Assuming Steyn doesnt fall into a ditch tomorrow and never play again, I would say that he has done enough for me to already be considered an all time great for a few reasons

1) He's head and shoulders above anybody of his generation. I mean the next best bowler - spinner/pacer isn't even a patch on him. This has to be one of the few times in the entire history of cricket that this situation has happened.
2) He's performed in pretty much all conditions and everywhere in the world
3) Given that hes playing 3 formats at the same time including the IPL, he's in a league of his own in comparison to the rest of the all time great bowlers. I suspect we can cut him some slack regarding the longevity factor.

 

[subshakerz]

I'd have no hesitation in placing Bowler A who averages 23 in both Tests and ODIs in front of Bowler B who averages 20 in Tests but 29 in ODIs (we'll assume that each one has had a good career and taken at least 250 wickets in both formats).

In my opinion, Bowler A is the more rounded bowler because he had the skill set to be successful in both forms of the game, whereas Bowler A might have been better in Tests, but his more limited skill set meant that he couldn't transfer his Test greatness to ODIs.

So you are saying that even if Bowler B is a notably better bowler in test matches, you would rate Bowler A higher? If I am certain that a bowler is superior in tests, then ODIs aren't that important. Especially nowadays, I feel that ODIs are becoming increasingly like 20/20s so I dont know how reflective they are of your skills.

 

[Blaze 18]

If I am certain that a bowler is superior in tests, then ODIs aren't that important. Especially nowadays, I feel that ODIs are becoming increasingly like 20/20s so I dont know how reflective they are of your skills.

This.

 

[ankitj]

For all cricketers who have debuted after 1985, I do take into account ODI performance as a secondary measure when assessing players, because they play 100s of ODI matches and of course spend a lot of their time and energy in preparing for and putting up good performances in that format. For players who debuted before 1985, I excuse them for a not-so-great ODI record because they started out playing cricket at a time when ODIs were perhaps taken only as seriously (or just a little more) as T20s are taken today. Hence, I take nothing away from Marshall, Gavaskar, Imran etc for not having a great ODI record.

 

[morgieb]

Don't see why the fact that someone was great in one form but poor in another means they aren't as good as someone who's good in both. Does anyone look down on Bevan or Tugga because they were meh at a certain form of the game?

 

[weldone]

I look at ODI records (only for players who played a handful of them) only when it's too close a call taking only tests into account. Ponting vs Kallis, Viv Richards vs Gavaskar, or Akram vs Donald are the cases in hand.

Otherwise, test cricket is the place to judge. I don't look at ODI records while judging who is the better batsman between Laxman and Bevan, or better bowler between Stuart Clark and Ajit Agarkar.