Dale Steyn

[Teja.]

Can't for the life of me see why he should have his record in Aus counted against him when he's been the key contributor to both series wins

Yeah, he was awesome, IMO. He has 30 wickets in 6 games @ 28, if he had 22 @ 23, people who didn't watch the games would be gushing over how great his record is. It's basically the height of lolsamplesize average absurdity when he was the most important player on either side. It's all to do with this absolutely weird obsession with bowling averages over actual functionality. I mean, Ambrose cops zero **** for having multiple series in the second half of the 90s where he'd average something like 18 while taking 3 wickets a game and being the tightest bowler around. I get why that's useful to have but I'd definitely rather have Steyn being prolific, setting up games while conceding more. (Ambrose had prolific series' as well, this is in no way an allegation that Ambrose always bowled like this so no strawmans please).

The reason why people's mind goes judgmental when they see someone average 28 over a series is because they compare it in quality to fast bowlers who actually average 28 over a career ignoring the fact that none of these ****s average 5-6 wickets a test to go along with it like the Steyn.

His latest series in England which I watched completely was one befitting a great. If he had Philander's series of 12 @ 23.66, it would have made him more statistically complete for CW but he took 15 @ 29 and was by far the best bowler on display on either side. Anyone who holds his record in Australia and England againt him need to understand the context of those series' and how valuable he was in them

 

[Red]

Yeh Teja, all true. Wickets taken are generally more valuable that runs conceded, especially when we're talking 4ish runs PW

 

[Cabinet96]

Tbf, Steyn didn't pretty much nothing in the first two tests in 2012/13 from what I remember. Yeah he bowled really well in Australia's first dig at Perth but I was definitely slightly disappointed with his series overall.

 

[Furball]

Can't for the life of me see why he should have his record in Aus counted against him when he's been the key contributor to both series wins

I just think it's an interesting aspect to his record and one which seems to escape scrutiny, in particular his (relatively) poor record vs and in England.

 

[morgieb]

Tbf, Steyn didn't pretty much nothing in the first two tests in 2012/13 from what I remember. Yeah he bowled really well in Australia's first dig at Perth but I was definitely slightly disappointed with his series overall.

Pretty much every other bowler in that series struggled in the first two Tests though. The pitches at Brisbane and Adelaide were FLAT.

 

[Slifer]

And as someone might've said, Marshall bowled to some absolutely **** Aust and Eng batting lineups. I would've averaged high 20s against some of them*

* no I wouldn't have

If that's the case then we might as well more closely scrutinize the records of his contemporaries: Hadlee, Imran, Wasim, Garner, Walsh. While I agree that England and Australia's lineups weren't world class, let's not pretend like they were Bang/Zim either. In fact I would say that both teams were about on par (batting wise) if not better than what the WI have had for the better part of the last 20 years. Time therefore to discredit ne bowler who has done well vs WI in the last 20 years...see how tedious that gets

 

[Red]

If that's the case then we might as well more closely scrutinize the records of his contemporaries: Hadlee, Imran, Wasim, Garner, Walsh. While I agree that England and Australia's lineups weren't world class, let's not pretend like they were Bang/Zim either. In fact I would say that both teams were about on par (batting wise) if not better than what the WI have had for the better part of the last 20 years. Time therefore to discredit ne bowler who has done well vs WI in the last 20 years...see how tedious that gets

I don't want to go extreme, because Marshall was a clearly outstanding bowler, one of the best ever etc etc. But he did play some pretty ordinary lineups (no fault of his own). On the whole, batting throughout the world in the 1980s (esp mid 1980s) wasn't particularly great. Great bowler, but imo, his figures are slightly flattering. My point is more that Marshall should be rated about par with all the other great bowlers, not above them.

 

[Slifer]

I don't want to go extreme, because Marshall was a clearly outstanding bowler, one of the best ever etc etc. But he did play some pretty ordinary lineups (no fault of his own). On the whole, batting throughout the world in the 1980s (esp mid 1980s) wasn't particularly great. Great bowler, but imo, his figures are slightly flattering. My point is more that Marshall should be rated about par with all the other great bowlers, not above them.

If this is the case then that would imply that all the bowlers from the 80s have figures that flatter (the Hadlees, Imrans, Wasims Lillees etc ). And how bad were Australia really?? They had Border, Jones, Twin Waughs (late 80s), Taylor etc. Not the most star studded lineup and obviously some players were at differing peak levels but again I'd take any Oz lineup of the 80s over what WI or NZ have offered up in the last 20 years or so.

And what of the other teams MM played vs NZ, Pak and Ind. home and away he was still outstandingly ruthless.

 

[Flem274*]

I think this has been mentioned before but the top ten or so fast bowlers are more or less interchangeable. IMO the top ten fast bowlers in no order looks like this:

Donald
Mcgrath
MM
Steyn
Ambrose
Lillee
Imran
Hadlee
Trueman
Wasim

Then there are the likes of : Waqar, Lindwall, Garner, Holding, Walsh, Fazal, Pollock, Roberts etc etc etc

My top ten changes all time but my top five in order as of now would be: MM/Mcgrath (I refuse to split these 2), Hadlee, Steyn (if he were to retire right now), Imran.

Yeah I agree, and I'd add in the likes of Garner and Walsh too. The poor guys get forgotten a bit because they got to do the unfashionable jobs but fmd they'd make any team in history,

 

[Slifer]

Yeah I agree, and I'd add in the likes of Garner and Walsh too. The poor guys get forgotten a bit because they got to do the unfashionable jobs but fmd they'd make any team in history,

Especially poor Garner. Excellent average, SR and very good WPM +econ. And we all can agree that regardless of era he would have thrived in any era. But because of the team he played in, he did a lot of the 'donkey' work ie bowling to the tail and into the wind etc. Added to that are his relative lack of 5 and ten fors (no 10 for to be exact).

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah all true.

I'd add in Larwood to the superstar bowler list too. He's much more than his relatively high average, and faced down and beat the best batsman ever.

 

[DriveClub]

Steyn just demolished England in last series in 2012 on those flat tracks and whinging poms whinge that he didnt do well against them lmao

 

[kyear2]

If this is the case then that would imply that all the bowlers from the 80s have figures that flatter (the Hadlees, Imrans, Wasims Lillees etc ). And how bad were Australia really?? They had Border, Jones, Twin Waughs (late 80s), Taylor etc. Not the most star studded lineup and obviously some players were at differing peak levels but again I'd take any Oz lineup of the 80s over what WI or NZ have offered up in the last 20 years or so.

And what of the other teams MM played vs NZ, Pak and Ind. home and away he was still outstandingly ruthless.

Border, Miandad, Gooch, Gavaskar, Crowe. Lots of solid test players as well. Maco faced some decent bats himself.

What Marshall did to India in '83 on some incredibly flat roads was awe inspiring. His record is spotless, he was ATG everywhere and vs everyone.

As an opening bowler he averaged 5 WPM, he overall number some what tarnished by his series during WSC when he was no where near ready. It was Marshall who in the '80's, during the retirements of Lloyd, Holding, Roberts, the multiple injuries of Holding and the loss of form by Richards and Greenidge, that held the W.I together and pushed them to be the Greatest Test Team Ever.

Look at his scalp list, it's filled with the best of his, and any era. He, to steal a cliche, possessed all of the tools and knew when and how to use them. He was genuine express, taking the mantle of the Worlds fastest by '83. He could swing the ball either way with no discernible change of action. He was aggressive, he could change speeds when required and could exploit any condition.

For me, Malcolm Denzil Marshall was one of the top 3 Test Players in the history of the game, and the order in which they fall isn't set in stone. That is how high I rate the great man.

So yes, for me Marshall is still No. 1 and as great as Steyn is, and he is ATG, he just isn't Maco.

Where does Steyn land

Marshall
McGrath
Steyn
Lillee
Ambrose

Not to shabby at all.

 

[Dan]

I don't want to go extreme, because Marshall was a clearly outstanding bowler, one of the best ever etc etc. But he did play some pretty ordinary lineups (no fault of his own). On the whole, batting throughout the world in the 1980s (esp mid 1980s) wasn't particularly great. Great bowler, but imo, his figures are slightly flattering. My point is more that Marshall should be rated about par with all the other great bowlers, not above them.

Yeah, because fast bowlers like Marshall et al. kept making them look useless

Cricketing circular logic -- if you're too good, you devalue your own achievement.

 

[ajdude]

Someone post the Steyn looking like Chris Isaak pic from the series vs Aus earlier this year ffs.

 

[Jono]

Haha yeah. I swear one day in the future some prick is going to say batting was difficult in the 2000s which is why McGrath, Murali and Warne got all those wickets.

 

[Burgey]

Yesssss

 

[Red]

Yeah, because fast bowlers like Marshall et al. kept making them look useless

Cricketing circular logic -- if you're too good, you devalue your own achievement.

Yeh, look. I think people are mishearing me, probably because I've been unclear!

I rate Marshall. Incredibly high. Obviously. Just not "above" a few others.

 

[Flem274*]

Is it something like 19 batsmen average 50 or more between 2000 - 2007? Will definitely be looked at as a batting era.

If anything it was an era of spin bowling (Warne, Murali, Kumble, Harby when he was actually good, Vettori when he was actually good, MacGill) and the fast medium (McGrath, Pollock, Hoggard etc). I can't think of too many out and out quicks who had long careers apart from Ntini, Gillespie and Lee and the first two weren't rapid rapid. Bond, Flintoff, Harmison, Jones etc were cut down through either injury or losing the plot.

Steyn heralded the start of a new era where almost everyone else slowly put together good new ball attacks. It's a pretty sucky time to bat atm. I can see the stocks of Sangakkara, Clarke, Amla, Chanderpaul, Biff Smith, Cook etc rising when nostalgia sets in.

 

[Red]

But I still don't think you can argue batting was good in the 80s by simply naming the 6 good players that were actually in the era.