• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Imran Khan vs Dale Steyn

Who was the greater fast bowler?

  • Imran Khan

    Votes: 12 21.4%

  • Dale Steyn

    Votes: 44 78.6%
  • Total voters
    56
Gob

Gob

International Coach
OverratedSanity said:
Steyn being taken apart was a relatively rare occurrence that its basically a non-factor. subshakerz talks about it like it happened every couple of games or something. Highly overstated.
Click to expand...
He was taken apart a lot more than others though

Having said that, Steyn being an out swing bowler, would obviously bowl a lot fuller than McGrath/Ambrose etc so on a good pitch he could go for few
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
I know it's early, but would have expected the votes to be closer.

While Subz has a point with regards to you prefer bowlers who leak runs the way Steyn could and did, we have to wonder how much of it was due to the pitches and era he played.

Also, which is better, a bowler like Ambrose, who when things weren't going well would go ultra defensive and while not taking wickets, wouldn't give away runs either, or Steyn, who would always give it a go and give up runs in the process.

So in a team with McGrath and Marshall and will
be bowling in conjunction with Warne and Sobers, which is more desirable, Steyn or Imran?

Do we want the high risk, high reward and happy possibly giving up some more runs, but more likely.to pick up wickets more quickly?
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
I know it's early, but would have expected the votes to be closer.

While Subz has a point with regards to you prefer bowlers who leak runs the way Steyn could and did, we have to wonder how much of it was due to the pitches and era he played.

Also, which is better, a bowler like Ambrose, who when things weren't going well would go ultra defensive and while not taking wickets, wouldn't give away runs either, or Steyn, who would always give it a go and give up runs in the process.

So in a team with McGrath and Marshall and will
be bowling in conjunction with Warne and Sobers, which is more desirable, Steyn or Imran?

Do we want the high risk, high reward and happy possibly giving up some more runs, but more likely.to pick up wickets more quickly?
Click to expand...
To me the answer is quite obvious. Its not as if Imran wasnt capable of the types of great spells that Steyn had. Its just that when the going gets tough he is still capable of keeping control while not releasing pressure. Steyn would end up being a Brett Lee-type pressure release if they were facing a Martian XI. For every matchwinning spell you would have to put up with odd poor ones also.

And I would rate Imran over Steyn when it comes to reverse swing skills.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
The problem with the flat pitch defense of Steyn is that it is kind of a circular argument. Steyn is rated so highly because he did well in a flat pitch era, but when you point out his weaknesses or flaws in his records it is explained away as being due to flat pitches.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
I'll take Steyn over Imran for bowling. Imran could be destructive, but so could Steyn. Both also had different modes of operation. Imran had a killer inswinger, and Steyn had the ultimate outswinger. As Migara pointed out, every bowler has been taken apart one or another time, I don't think Imran was necessarily better at stopping the runs compared to Steyn, but probably more like Imran played in an era of lower run rates. Batsmen just didn't attack as much as they did in Steyn's time. Not that there is a huge gap between them, the gap is marginal, as it always is at this level, but Steyn marginally better IMO.
 
akilana

akilana

International 12th Man
subshakerz said:
Destructiveness in terms of running through a side on his lonesome.
Click to expand...
How do you explain his 26 fifers and 27 four-fers?
subshakerz said:
To me the answer is quite obvious. Its not as if Imran wasnt capable of the types of great spells that Steyn had. Its just that when the going gets tough he is still capable of keeping control while not releasing pressure. Steyn would end up being a Brett Lee-type pressure release if they were facing a Martian XI. For every matchwinning spell you would have to put up with odd poor ones also.

And I would rate Imran over Steyn when it comes to reverse swing skills.
Click to expand...
Then it will reflect on his average. Why isn’t Imran’s average so much better if he was just as good as Steyn at ripping through sides but also very good at damage control if things weren’t going well for him?

Steyn was taking 5 wickets per test till 80-85 tests and after that he was injury prone and almost always missed big parts of the tests he played. I can’t understand how do you average 5 wickets per test if you aren’t consistent? It’s not he had a massive series and went missing in the other one and repeat it. Almost every series SA played had Steyn doing something crazy and SA end up winning at least a test off his bowling.

It is to his credit that he kept attacking even when things weren’t going well for him unlike many others that resort to defensive bowling.
 
C

Calm_profit

State Vice-Captain
If Imran retired in 1987 then I would have rated him.After 1988-1989 till his retirement he was more like 4th or 5th bowler in his side.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
smash84 said:
I'll take Steyn over Imran for bowling. Imran could be destructive, but so could Steyn. Both also had different modes of operation. Imran had a killer inswinger, and Steyn had the ultimate outswinger. As Migara pointed out, every bowler has been taken apart one or another time, I don't think Imran was necessarily better at stopping the runs compared to Steyn, but probably more like Imran played in an era of lower run rates. Batsmen just didn't attack as much as they did in Steyn's time. Not that there is a huge gap between them, the gap is marginal, as it always is at this level, but Steyn marginally better IMO.
Click to expand...
Imran was known like Wasim to have a fair degree of control, unlike Waqar whose MO was similar to Steyn in pitching up and splaying about. If you think it is ok to assume that Imran would have been expensive then you would have to assume the same for Lillee and Marshall.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
akilana said:
How do you explain his 26 fifers and 27 four-fers?

Then it will reflect on his average. Why isn’t Imran’s average so much better if he was just as good as Steyn at ripping through sides but also very good at damage control if things weren’t going well for him?

Steyn was taking 5 wickets per test till 80-85 tests and after that he was injury prone and almost always missed big parts of the tests he played. I can’t understand how do you average 5 wickets per test if you aren’t consistent? It’s not he had a massive series and went missing in the other one and repeat it. Almost every series SA played had Steyn doing something crazy and SA end up winning at least a test off his bowling.

It is to his credit that he kept attacking even when things weren’t going well for him unlike many others that resort to defensive bowling.
Click to expand...
I was talking about monster hauls as sign of destructiveness, like 6fers, 7fers and 8fers, in which Imran did very well.

Steyn wouldnt go missing for entire series, but between tests he would. This was his tendency in his career, which is why pundits were leery to consider him an ATG until his numbers made that case unshakeable.
 
smash84

smash84

The Tiger King
subshakerz said:
Imran was known like Wasim to have a fair degree of control, unlike Waqar whose MO was similar to Steyn in pitching up and splaying about. If you think it is ok to assume that Imran would have been expensive then you would have to assume the same for Lillee and Marshall.
Click to expand...
Not really, all of them were different types of bowlers i.e. Lillee, Marshall, and Imran. Imran generally had control but not as much as Wasim and also "suffered" somewhat in that his natural swing was into the right handed batsman. He had to learn the outswinger from Lillee, and then too he had to cut the ball a lot of times to move the ball away from the right hander. If you're swinging the ball into the batsman it takes out a lot of the caught behind options and you tend to bowl fuller to maximize the bowleds and lbws. Marshall and especially Lillee could bowl back of a length and get away far more often than Imran could.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Still havent seen a convincing argument for putting Steyn ahead of Imran. Perhaps its a recency bias :)

The one put forth is strikerate, but if that is the case you would have to put him ahead of everyone barring perhaps Marshall too.

As for flat pitches, let us not ignore the fact that Steyn played the majority of his career on some of the most pace-friendly wickets at home, so its not like he had some big disadvantage, compared to Imran who was in Pakistan (yes, the pitches helped his reverse, but they werent bowling paradises).

Steyn's record across countries is not better than Imran's either.
 
S

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
smash84 said:
Not really, all of them were different types of bowlers i.e. Lillee, Marshall, and Imran. Imran generally had control but not as much as Wasim and also "suffered" somewhat in that his natural swing was into the right handed batsman. He had to learn the outswinger from Lillee, and then too he had to cut the ball a lot of times to move the ball away from the right hander. If you're swinging the ball into the batsman it takes out a lot of the caught behind options and you tend to bowl fuller to maximize the bowleds and lbws. Marshall and especially Lillee could bowl back of a length and get away far more often than Imran could.
Click to expand...
Yet Imran managed an even better ER rate than Wasim, Waqar, Lillee and Marshall. So he must have had some control to not warrant being in the Steyn ballpark.
 
K

Kirkut

International Regular
subshakerz said:
Still havent seen a convincing argument for putting Steyn ahead of Imran. Perhaps its a recency bias :)

The one put forth is strikerate, but if that is the case you would have to put him ahead of everyone barring perhaps Marshall too.

As for flat pitches, let us not ignore the fact that Steyn played the majority of his career on some of the most pace-friendly wickets at home, so its not like he had some big disadvantage, compared to Imran who was in Pakistan (yes, the pitches helped his reverse, but they werent bowling paradises).

Steyn's record across countries is not better than Imran's either.
Click to expand...
While Imran was better with the old ball, Steyn was clearly better new ball bowler.

Rameez Raja did say that Pakistani fast bowlers never enjoyed bowling with the new ball because it was so hard to control the swing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top