I am pretty sure you didn't see him play in the UAE.more likely to improve given how good he's with reverse-swing.
awta.I respect what you have to say, so I don't dispute it, but not much suggests to me he was the greatest ever.
im pretty sure you are wrong about me not watching that.I am pretty sure you didn't see him play in the UAE.
Just for your reference
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Does anyone think he's not the best?I wonder if Steyn's lack of bounce when he bowls is why a lot of us seem to have such a hard time acknowledging he is the best fast bowler in the world
Yep, you are right in that sense - I just kind of get the impression with him that people think he is top of a weak field, which isn't the case as such.Does anyone think he's not the best?
Moreso that people think he doesn't stack up to previous greats.
The hell? Steyn has an awesome presence.Yep, you are right in that sense - I just kind of get the impression with him that people think he is top of a weak field, which isn't the case as such.
But yeah, he just doesn't have that presence or aura about him that most of the greats do.
Wishful thinking TBH. Most probably on par with Steyn with speed, and bowling to a set of batsmen with better equipment will seal the deal.Reckon Larwood would shade most bowlers playing ATM if he played in this era.
Larwood topped the first class averages in England five times, in an era when fast bowlers generally didn't prosper - in four of those years he had an lbw law that meant he couldn't get a decision from any delivery that pitched outside off stump - there was a lot more to Larwood than speedWishful thinking TBH. Most probably on par with Steyn with speed, and bowling to a set of batsmen with better equipment will seal the deal.
They didn't prosper, because they weren't good enough. Under same law there were guys like Lohman who wrecked havoc. Like the criticism of Steyn, Larwood was made to look good, because others were not good enough.Larwood topped the first class averages in England five times, in an era when fast bowlers generally didn't prosper - in four of those years he had an lbw law that meant he couldn't get a decision from any delivery that pitched outside off stump - there was a lot more to Larwood than speed
The main reason they didn't prosper was because the laws didn't suit them - there was the lbw law for one and uncovered wickets for another - the likes of Lohmann and other slow and medium paced bowlers got all the benefits of those - the simple reality is that Larwood apart there weren't any really quick bowlers around in the late 20s/early 30s, which is part of the reason England got such a nasty shock when Constantine and Martindale, who were a good deal slower than Larwood, bowled Bodyline at them in 1933They didn't prosper, because they weren't good enough. Under same law there were guys like Lohman who wrecked havoc. Like the criticism of Steyn, Larwood was made to look good, because others were not good enough.
I am more convinced than ever that you didn't watch that seriesim pretty sure you are wrong about me not watching that.
ya just 2 tests after coming from an injury which proves nothing. he has done better in worse conditions against better batsmen.. even morkel took a 5-for in UAE and i dont beleive it has anything to do with his ability that he didnt take many there.
straw man.and i dont beleive it has anything to do with his ability that he didnt take many there.
The fact that it is a weak field in no way diminishes his greatness, currently he stands either 1 or 2 all time for SA and that is no mean feat.Yep, you are right in that sense - I just kind of get the impression with him that people think he is top of a weak field, which isn't the case as such.
But yeah, he just doesn't have that presence or aura about him that most of the greats do.
People will probably look back at this series as below par for Steyn but the fact is that he was top wicket taker in the series.Reckon he's like McGrath in the late 90's, right at the point where people switch from rating him as the best of his era to wondering how he compares to other acknowledged greats. His last few series' haven't been as destructive as the couple of years beforehand so you'd imagine he'll have to adjust to keep taking wickets at a similar rate, oppo batters seem to be getting better at responding to that ridiculously dangerous outie of his. How he responds to that will probably be the pivot point for whether he'd regarded as an all-time-great or the best of his time.
Na, I thought he had a good series, when they needed a wicket he invariably got it or looked the most likely to get it. Guy is top dawer, clearly the best at the moment, where that means he is overall I have no idea.People will probably look back at this series as below par for Steyn but the fact is that he was top wicket taker in the series.
Bingo. Because the rest was so poor Larwood would made to look better. Get him in among Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee, Ambrose, Imran or Kapil or among Waqar, Wasim, Donald, McGrath, Walsh and Bishop, he will not look special.The main reason they didn't prosper was because the laws didn't suit them - there was the lbw law for one and uncovered wickets for another - the likes of Lohmann and other slow and medium paced bowlers got all the benefits of those - the simple reality is that Larwood apart there weren't any really quick bowlers around in the late 20s/early 30s, which is part of the reason England got such a nasty shock when Constantine and Martindale, who were a good deal slower than Larwood, bowled Bodyline at them in 1933