Who is the best fast bowler in the world right now - Tests

[r3alist]

but you were.



Seriously, if you want to have a proper debate about cricket, have that debate constructively. I'm sure you may have something useful to contribute. If not, then you might want to try somewhere of a slightly different nature such as the comments section of YouTube

it upsets me that someone would say something as malicious as steyn and anderson being comparable, as a mod you should be coming down hard on stuff like this.

 

[zaremba]

I'm not a mod. But I trust the mods are indeed watching how this thread has been soured.

 

[r3alist]

why should it be soured?

i am presenting an argument based on facts no one has disagreed with? is that not allowed.

anyway, dont want to beat a dead horse, good chance jimmy will be exposed in UAE, see you then

 

[zaremba]

If you're wondering how or why it's been soured, have a read through your posts with the the thought "have I been unnecessarily offensive and/or trolling?" in mind. You may find an answer.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

an honesty failure??

sehwag was totally undercooked, but i dont think he would have done much anyway.

gambhir was injured.

tendulkar although in the form of his life lost it a bit here, he also got an injury lets not forget.

raina hopeless against the short ball.

so really england had to work for two wickets - laxman (who is past his best anyway) and dravid.

now add the easy home conditions and englands competency in exploiting it.

not really remotely as tough as you are making it out, no.1 status or not, like i said, show some integrity and honesty pls.

Honesty failure?? Seriously?

I already mentioned that Sehwag and Gambhir weren't available throughout the series. And let's not forget that this same side was piling on huge scores about 6 months back. No. 7 batsman Dhoni got a 90-odd against Steyn and Morkel on their home turf and in the Cape Town test, India piled on over 350 runs.The batsman who is "past his best" played a match-winning knock against the same attack in Durban.

Suddenly, this batting lineup has been exposed woefully and decimated. Maybe, these batsmen have technical shortcomings, but it speaks volumes about the bowling stocks worldwide if no one has been able to expose those weaknesses so consistently as England have in this series.

IMHO, it's pretty dire on your part that you're not giving rightful credit to the English attack. And ftr, I do maintain that Steyn is the world's premier fast bowler, but Anderson is a much, much better bowler than you give him credit for.


On a seperate note, I agree with what Zaremba, Jacknife and others have said. If I were you, I'd seriously check the belligerence of my tone (in what ought to be a healthy cricket discussion) to avoid negative attention from the moderators.

 

[centurymaker]

why should it be soured?

i am presenting an argument based on facts no one has disagreed with? is that not allowed.

anyway, dont want to beat a dead horse, good chance jimmy will be exposed in UAE, see you then

yea steyn wasn't exposed in UAE. oh wait.



(yea i know he was coming back from an injury etc but he failed)

 

[akilana]

yea steyn wasn't exposed in UAE. oh wait.



(yea i know he was coming back from an injury etc but he failed)

or maybe he should have said "in India."

 

[Furball]

or maybe he should have said "in India."

Worth noting that Jimmeh actually averages under 30 in India

 

[NasserFan207]

Ton of hyperbole flying round ATM. Anderson is a damn fine bowler who seems to be constantly improving, but he's not yet on par with Steyn.

 

[Jacknife]

Ton of hyperbole flying round ATM. Anderson is a damn fine bowler who seems to be constantly improving, but he's not yet on par with Steyn.

I don't think I've read any hyperbole as far as Anderson is concerned just a few people sticking up for him. I voted for him in this pole but that was because I knew Steyn would run away with it and wanted to show him some love.
The facts are that Anderson has closed the gap on Steyn, which speaks volumes for both bowlers, even with Jimmy's improvements he's still not quite the bowler Steyn is.
Steyn's been gun right out of the blocks, while Jimmy has taken years of getting his action pissed around with until he's found his place and role in the team and since Saker's come on board, he's made him into a far more all round bowler.
What get's on my nerves and probably a few others is when people go on about Anderson as if they haven't see him bowl in the past 2 years and the arguing goes from there.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

What get's on my nerves and probably a few others is when people go on about Anderson as if they haven't see him bowl in the past 2 years and it arguing goes from there.

I second this sentiment!

Anderson and Zaheer Khan are two vastly improved bowlers in world cricket. Looking at the consistency of their performances and having seen them operate over the last 2-3 years, I have the highest respect for both as fast medium swing bowlers.

 

[AlwaysProteas]

Honesty failure?? Seriously?

I already mentioned that Sehwag and Gambhir weren't available throughout the series. And let's not forget that this same side was piling on huge scores about 6 months back. No. 7 batsman Dhoni got a 90-odd against Steyn and Morkel on their home turf and in the Cape Town test, India piled on over 350 runs.The batsman who is "past his best" played a match-winning knock against the same attack in Durban.

Suddenly, this batting lineup has been exposed woefully and decimated. Maybe, these batsmen have technical shortcomings, but it speaks volumes about the bowling stocks worldwide if no one has been able to expose those weaknesses so consistently as England have in this series.

IMHO, it's pretty dire on your part that you're not giving rightful credit to the English attack. And ftr, I do maintain that Steyn is the world's premier fast bowler, but Anderson is a much, much better bowler than you give him credit for.


On a seperate note, I agree with what Zaremba, Jacknife and others have said. If I were you, I'd seriously check the belligerence of my tone (in what ought to be a healthy cricket discussion) to avoid negative attention from the moderators.

Gun post.

 

[NasserFan207]

I don't think I've read any hyperbole as far as Anderson is concerned just a few people sticking up for him. I voted for him in this pole but that was because I knew Steyn would run away with it and wanted to show him some love.
The facts are that Anderson has closed the gap on Steyn, which speaks volumes for both bowlers, even with Jimmy's improvements he's still not quite the bowler Steyn is.
Steyn's been gun right out of the blocks, while Jimmy has taken years of getting his action pissed around with until he's found his place and role in the team and since Saker's come on board, he's made him into a far more all round bowler.
What get's on my nerves and probably a few others is when people go on about Anderson as if they haven't see him bowl in the past 2 years and it arguing goes from there.

Should've clarified, the hyperbole comment is in relation to that R3alist mug. Its either that or he's being a troll.

 

[stephen]

I would just like to argue a point that really was ignored a couple of pages ago.

Strike rate vs economy rate.

Steyn averages 23 and one of the criticisms of him is that his economy rate is too high (which is balanced by the fact that his strike rate is very low).

In a test match, I would much rather have a bowler with a lower strike rate than a bowler with a higher one. The reason is that lower strike rates mean that all your bowlers have to do less bowling and the opposition batsmen are exposed to fresher bowlers with the harder ball. A lower strike rate also helps force victories instead of draws.

So yes, I would much rather a bowler who takes their wickets every 35 balls instead of one who took their wickets every 60 balls, given identical averages.

 

[Jacknife]

Should've clarified, the hyperbole comment is in relation to that R3alist mug. Its either that or he's being a troll.

Gotcha

 

[miscer]

Yea ok anderson = steyn right now.
But what does that say really? That says anderson, at his absolute peak, for just 2 years, has managed to stay close to steyn (still averaging 2 runs more).

Anderson is excellent and is probably the second best bowler along with zaheer in the world but steyn is a level above. And honestly IDT for a second that zaheer and anderson are bowlers good enough to keep averaging 23 and 22 respectively for the rest of their careers.

Saying they are is akin to saying they were ok before but now they're as skillful top tier ATGs (not just in form). And after adjusting for era would stand alongside donald and mcgrath. They're great but really that great?

And regardless of all this the current world ranking should be 1) Steyn, a close 2) Anderson,
I'd rate zaheer between them if he could actually stay fit

 

[Howe_zat]

I'd rate zaheer between them if he could actually stay fit

A curious idea, that. I find myself thinking the same thing, but the more I think about it the more it seems a fallacy. It's akin to saying you'd rate Johnson there, if he were more consistent.

Basically, you end up saying you'd rate Zaheer as a better bowler if he was a better bowler.

 

[Jacknife]

Like I said earlier, Steyn was gun just about right out of the blocks, whereas Anderson has taken time to become the bowler he is. At the end of the day even if Jimmy maintains the same standard as the last couple of years for the rest of his career, he will be some distance behind Steyn in stats, that's taken for granted that Steyn will stay carry on as he is.
The O/P asked who is the best right now in tests, apart from the fact Steyn hasn't bowled in 6 months in test cricket, I don't see why some people are getting all bent out of shape for a few people rating Anderson highly.

 

[BlazeDragon]

I would just like to argue a point that really was ignored a couple of pages ago.

Strike rate vs economy rate.

Steyn averages 23 and one of the criticisms of him is that his economy rate is too high (which is balanced by the fact that his strike rate is very low).

In a test match, I would much rather have a bowler with a lower strike rate than a bowler with a higher one. The reason is that lower strike rates mean that all your bowlers have to do less bowling and the opposition batsmen are exposed to fresher bowlers with the harder ball. A lower strike rate also helps force victories instead of draws.

So yes, I would much rather a bowler who takes their wickets every 35 balls instead of one who took their wickets every 60 balls, given identical averages.

I have to disagree. A lower strike rate is not so useful if your not even going to bowl him much. Someone with a higher strike rate and a lower economy rate is going to be more useful to the team if your always bowling him long spells compared to the higher strike rate player whom you are only giving short spells.

While there is nothing wrong with having a low strike rate there is also no excuse for having a high economy rate. You are costing/hurting the game for your team if you are giving away too much runs.

 

[Spark]

I would just like to argue a point that really was ignored a couple of pages ago.

Strike rate vs economy rate.

Steyn averages 23 and one of the criticisms of him is that his economy rate is too high (which is balanced by the fact that his strike rate is very low).

In a test match, I would much rather have a bowler with a lower strike rate than a bowler with a higher one. The reason is that lower strike rates mean that all your bowlers have to do less bowling and the opposition batsmen are exposed to fresher bowlers with the harder ball. A lower strike rate also helps force victories instead of draws.

So yes, I would much rather a bowler who takes their wickets every 35 balls instead of one who took their wickets every 60 balls, given identical averages.

Yeah agreed.

As for this thread - the horse has bolted now but everyone should take a bloody chill pill.