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

[Ruckus]

Don't forget Johnson

 

[Xuhaib]

if there is one complain you can have against Steyn his presence is surely one of the last the bloke even had it when he wan an erratic upstart.

 

[Dan]

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.

They didn't prosper because the pitches were more akin to roads than grass. In a reasonably short period, a good score changed from being 250 to 500. England didn't notch up 903/7 because of some paradigm shift that meant everybody in Australia magically forgot to bowl overnight.

Larwood was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries - far better than Voce, twice the bowler Allen was, clearly better than anyone the Australians could uncover and was a class above Martindale and Constantine, two men who troubled the fearsome English batting line-up to no end.

He was genuinely quick, took wickets aplenty in an era in which spin was relied upon heavily (Verity, O'Reilly and Grimmett being the preeminent spin bowlers of the day) and tamed Don ****ing Bradman. Which, I might add, was something nobody else did for a period of 20 years.

As good a captain as Jardine was, Bodyline would have been nothing without Larwood. He won England the 1932 Ashes, end of.

I challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.

He caused fear simply by someone uttering his name. He averaged 17 in First Class cricket on unhelpful pitches. He topped the averages 5 times, something nobody else has done. EVER. He bowled with more pace and more accuracy than anybody before him.

He was better than anybody who came before him, and is better than anyone who has come since. In my opinion, only Marshall's name should be uttered in the same breath.

More realistically though, he was an all-time great bowler. He may not, objectively speaking, be the best. But he damn sure wasn't a mediocre head of a poor era. He was far, far better than that.

Despite him being English, taming 'our Don' and playing a role in Bodyline, he's my biggest cricketing hero.

 

[Ruckus]

yeah saying Steyn has no presence is just being deceived by nostalgia imo. I don't exactly know what more Steyn could do to gain an aura, if he doesn't already have it. His on field attitude is about as aggressive as you can get, he doesn't mind have a stare down or a word with the batsmen, he likes to talk himself and the team up, and he isn't afraid to bounce the opposition out. I mean, what more do you need? Maybe a *** scandal would do the trick .

 

[fredfertang]

They didn't prosper because the pitches were more akin to roads than grass. In a reasonably short period, a good score changed from being 250 to 500. England didn't notch up 903/7 because of some paradigm shift that meant everybody in Australia magically forgot to bowl overnight.

Larwood was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries - far better than Voce, twice the bowler Allen was, clearly better than anyone the Australians could uncover and was a class above Martindale and Constantine, two men who troubled the fearsome English batting line-up to no end.

He was genuinely quick, took wickets aplenty in an era in which spin was relied upon heavily (Verity, O'Reilly and Grimmett being the preeminent spin bowlers of the day) and tamed Don ****ing Bradman. Which, I might add, was something nobody else did for a period of 20 years.

As good a captain as Jardine was, Bodyline would have been nothing without Larwood. He won England the 1932 Ashes, end of.

I challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.

He caused fear simply by someone uttering his name. He averaged 17 in First Class cricket on unhelpful pitches. He topped the averages 5 times, something nobody else has done. EVER. He bowled with more pace and more accuracy than anybody before him.

He was better than anybody who came before him, and is better than anyone who has come since. In my opinion, only Marshall's name should be uttered in the same breath.

More realistically though, he was an all-time great bowler. He may not, objectively speaking, be the best. But he damn sure wasn't a mediocre head of a poor era. He was far, far better than that.

Despite him being English, taming 'our Don' and playing a role in Bodyline, he's my biggest cricketing hero.

No wonder they made him a mod

 

[watson]

Lets's not get carried away here....

Bradman considered Lindwall a better bowler than Larwood. The Australian could generate pace and accuracy more consistently than the Englishman. Lindwall had a grip on more variarations than Larwood, demonstrating these with a prodigious late out-swinger early in his career, an in-swinger mid-career, the capacity to change pace, a fearful bouncer, and perhaps the best Yorker of them all. While statistics, if taken out of context, may be misleading, the numbers here seem to suggest Lindwall’s superiority. In 21 Tests, Larwood took 78 wickets at 28.35. Remove his Bodyline figures and his returns of 45 wickets at 37.26 for three quarters of his Test career give a more realistic reflection of his effectiveness. In 61 Tests Lindwall took 228 wickets at 23.03.
(Roland Perry - 'Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams', page161)

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah a bit OTT for mine.

 

[Migara]

They didn't prosper because the pitches were more akin to roads than grass. In a reasonably short period, a good score changed from being 250 to 500. England didn't notch up 903/7 because of some paradigm shift that meant everybody in Australia magically forgot to bowl overnight.

Larwood was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries - far better than Voce, twice the bowler Allen was, clearly better than anyone the Australians could uncover and was a class above Martindale and Constantine, two men who troubled the fearsome English batting line-up to no end.

He was genuinely quick, took wickets aplenty in an era in which spin was relied upon heavily (Verity, O'Reilly and Grimmett being the preeminent spin bowlers of the day) and tamed Don ****ing Bradman. Which, I might add, was something nobody else did for a period of 20 years.

As good a captain as Jardine was, Bodyline would have been nothing without Larwood. He won England the 1932 Ashes, end of.

I challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.

He caused fear simply by someone uttering his name. He averaged 17 in First Class cricket on unhelpful pitches. He topped the averages 5 times, something nobody else has done. EVER. He bowled with more pace and more accuracy than anybody before him.

He was better than anybody who came before him, and is better than anyone who has come since. In my opinion, only Marshall's name should be uttered in the same breath.

More realistically though, he was an all-time great bowler. He may not, objectively speaking, be the best. But he damn sure wasn't a mediocre head of a poor era. He was far, far better than that.

Despite him being English, taming 'our Don' and playing a role in Bodyline, he's my biggest cricketing hero.

Big yawn, and we have exactly having the same reasons to find out why Steyn is so great.

And the bolded part is a massive lol.

 

[Migara]

challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.

Marshall, Ambrose, Imran Khan, Dennis Lillie, Fred Trueman, Allan Donald, Waqar Younus, Wasim Akram, Shoaib Akthar, Holding, Garner, Roberts and Hadlee are "few" that I could thionk. Bah!

And McGrath, Walsh, Kapil and Pollock had similar success being a yard shorter than Larwood.

 

[fredfertang]

Lets's not get carried away here....

Difficult to attach too much credence to anything Roland Perry writes though

 

[fredfertang]

And the bolded part is a massive lol.

Curious sense of humour you have there

 

[benchmark00]

Curious sense of humour you have there

I think we can all agree that Murali > Warne.

 

[Migara]

Curious sense of humour you have there

That probaly indicates pain some where up the arse.

I think we can all agree that Murali > Warne.

Wrong bait.

 

[fredfertang]

That probaly indicates pain some where up the arse.

Try changing your laxative of choice

 

[Spark]

Alright, alright, that'll do.

 

[Dan]

That probaly indicates pain some where up the arse.

Or perhaps that others have different opinions to you, that are equally valid and by no means 'wrong'.

Healthy debate is wonderful, however brushing off the opinions of others because you disagree is not, IMO.

EDIT: Apologies Spark, didn't see your post when I added this one.

 

[benchmark00]

Or perhaps that others have different opinions to you, that are equally valid and by no means 'wrong'.

Healthy debate is wonderful, however brushing off the opinions of others because you disagree is not, IMO.

EDIT: Apologies Spark, didn't see your post when I added this one.

You're a mod now, not allowed to have your own opinions ****.

 

[fredfertang]

Alright, alright, that'll do.

Tsssk - just as Migara and I had almost reeled benchy in!

 

[watson]

Difficult to attach too much credence to anything Roland Perry writes though

I thought that Perry was being rather circumspect - 'While statistics, if taken out of context, may be misleading, the numbers here seem to suggest.....'

But anyway, Larwood is an ATG for sure. But like all bowlers, he had his good days and he had his bad days. And so, 'in the wash-up', his Average and Strike Rate are nothing too remarkable, and certainly little different to his near contemporary Ken Farnes.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/12812.html

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/16207.html

 

[fredfertang]

I thought that Perry was being rather circumspect - 'While statistics, if taken out of context, may be misleading, the numbers here seem to suggest.....'

But anyway, Larwood is an ATG for sure. But like all bowlers, he had his good days and he had his bad days. And so, 'in the wash-up', his Average and Strike Rate are nothing too remarkable, and certainly little different to his near contemporary Ken Farnes.

Larwood is a tricky case though because he played so little at the top level that everything skews his figures - in 1930 he was never fit, and his figures were appalling as a result - in 28/29 he took 18 wickets at around 40, fairly ordinary on the face of it, but that was on shirtfronts of the worst kind - so much did the conditions conspire against him that some would argue that performance was even better than in 32/33