Curtly Ambrose vs Dale Steyn

[TheJediBrah]

I'm going to take a very different stance to some posters in here. Cricket, sport really, is far more environmentally and era controlled than anyone admits. It is better for the narratives to focus on the people rather than the context they're playing in. Assuming relative parity in competitiveness between two sides, admitting even the very best of all time have less control over the result than the pitch isn't going to sell many seats or pay TV subscriptions.

The median bowler was less successful in the 2000s. No one debates what happened, but the why. One of two things happened - either 1) the entire world, outside of a few players, spontaneously forgot how to bowl despite all the advances and depth increases in world bowling for 30-40 years prior or 2) the environment dictated players who would have averaged 26-30 in 1995 now average 30-34.

It's #2. It's so obviously #2. It's inconvenient for some peoples childhoods including my own since Stephen Fleming (who averaged about 45 with the bat in the 00s) probably doesn't average 40 if he plays between 1985-1999, but it's #2.

The only argument that could be made against it is some of the greatest talents of all time like Shoiab and Bond were injured out of playing in the 2000s, and the dawn of biomechanics broke a fair few young players considered the future of their countries at the time like Richard Sherlock for NZ.

I would counter argue that the dry, flat and homogenised global conditions (the homogeneity being critical) meant batsmen had less to adapt to on tour and the conditions themselves dictated the era of the spinner, which the 2000s undoubtedly were. Long spells for game control became critical. Not just Murali and Warne, almost everyone had a contender for their best ever spin bowler during that era. South Africa and the Windies stand out as outliers.

With this context in mind, Steyn's achievements are more impressive since he bucked the trend. He was heavily assisted by spending most of his career on our way out of that era in the 2010s, but he did play on his fair share of CEO pitches. Ambrose still makes my top 5 all time though and I think he was the pinnacle of his era.

I think you're wrong tbh. There's no way the wheel of mediocre fast bowlers in the 2000s were as good as the bunch from the 90s. You might scoff at the concept of "the entire world spontaneously forgot how to bowl" but the quality clearly plummeted, as well as the more batting-friendly conditions. It happens.

 

[Xix2565]

I don't see how certain pace bowlers are suddenly immune to pitch quality while others aren't. If Steyn's figures are helped out by having quite a lot of good bowling conditions Ambrose surely has the same going for him?

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't see how certain pace bowlers are suddenly immune to pitch quality while others aren't. If Steyn's figures are helped out by having quite a lot of good bowling conditions Ambrose surely has the same going for him?

Who said that? I don't think Steyn's bowling conditions on balance were any better than Ambrose's. I'd say they were worse for bowling if anything.

 

[Flem274*]

I think you're wrong tbh. There's no way the wheel of mediocre fast bowlers in the 2000s were as good as the bunch from the 90s. You might scoff at the concept of "the entire world spontaneously forgot how to bowl" but the quality clearly plummeted, as well as the more batting-friendly conditions. It happens.

would your opinion change if i told you this is what makes mcgrath the goat?

but back to seriousness if you transport a median bowler like hoggard to 2019 or 1989, he averages like 27-28 rather than 30. not enough to be great, but definitely a good bowler made to look worse by his era.

 

[Xix2565]

Who said that? I don't think Steyn's bowling conditions on balance were any better than Ambrose's. I'd say they were worse for bowling if anything.

Not you specifically, but that's a general undercurrent in some of the points when rating Steyn below Ambrose. If pitch quality keeps being brought up surely there's a reason for it as a general point in the thread's debate is how I see it.

 

[subshakerz]

Quite frankly, that's mostly nonsense, they appeared to be better than the rest of the world because SA had steyn, there's nothing special about SA during that period when you look at how the away pacers did there. Pitches during that era were flat worldwide, just because they were a little less flat in SA doesn't mean much.

View attachment 31652

So saying that SA had the most pace-friendly wickets of the era is nonsense, then? It was the one place where teams might be expected to be rolled out for double digits, i don't recall any other place like that. Not saying every pitch was a mamba but overall there would be no other place a pacer would want to be at the time.

Giving just away bowlers averages obviously wont tell you the story when you ignore how strong the SA batting lineup was of that era compared to visiting teams. Give both averages and check. Did you even watch cricket in that era?

 

[Burgey]

would your opinion change if i told you this is what makes mcgrath the goat?

It actually is what makes McGrath the GOAT.

 

[TheJediBrah]

would your opinion change if i told you this is what makes mcgrath the goat?

but back to seriousness if you transport a median bowler like hoggard to 2019 or 1989, he averages like 27-28 rather than 30. not enough to be great, but definitely a good bowler made to look worse by his era.

Your theory means that Ntini, Zaheer Khan, Brett Lee, Hoggard, Chris Martin, Johnson, Andre Nel etc. are as good as Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh etc.

And the only reason they don't have stats as good is because of the conditions

brother just accept that there were better bowlers in the 90s

 

[subshakerz]

I'm going to take a very different stance to some posters in here. Cricket, sport really, is far more environmentally and era controlled than anyone admits. It is better for the narratives to focus on the people rather than the context they're playing in. Assuming relative parity in competitiveness between two sides, admitting even the very best of all time have less control over the result than the pitch isn't going to sell many seats or pay TV subscriptions.

The median bowler was less successful in the 2000s. No one debates what happened, but the why. One of two things happened - either 1) the entire world, outside of a few players, spontaneously forgot how to bowl despite all the advances and depth increases in world bowling for 30-40 years prior or 2) the environment dictated players who would have averaged 26-30 in 1995 now average 30-34.

It's #2. It's so obviously #2. It's inconvenient for some peoples childhoods including my own since Stephen Fleming (who averaged about 45 with the bat in the 00s) probably doesn't average 40 if he plays between 1985-1999, but it's #2.

The only argument that could be made against it is some of the greatest talents of all time like Shoiab and Bond were injured out of playing in the 2000s, and the dawn of biomechanics broke a fair few young players considered the future of their countries at the time like Richard Sherlock for NZ.

I would counter argue that the dry, flat and homogenised global conditions (the homogeneity being critical) meant batsmen had less to adapt to on tour and the conditions themselves dictated the era of the spinner, which the 2000s undoubtedly were. Long spells for game control became critical. Not just Murali and Warne, almost everyone had a contender for their best ever spin bowler during that era. South Africa and the Windies stand out as outliers.

With this context in mind, Steyn's achievements are more impressive since he bucked the trend. He was heavily assisted by spending most of his career on our way out of that era in the 2010s, but he did play on his fair share of CEO pitches. Ambrose still makes my top 5 all time though and I think he was the pinnacle of his era.

How about option 3, conditions became easier for batters not just due to roads and bigger bats but also less ATG-level bowlers around.

There is no law that says that ATG bowlers must be churned out indefinitely. Obviously there are cycles when less appear. You likely had such periods before in cricket.

Who were the worldclass bowlers of that era aside from McGrath and Steyn?

Shoaib - Injured
Bond - Injured
Mohd Asif - Idiot
Ryan Harris - Injured

So Steyn's competition didn't last. Posters here are confusing Steyn's solitary success as it being something unusual about him, whereas what is more unusual is why Aus, WI and Pak couldnt replace their predecessors. Perhaps it was due to the tilt of the game towards batters generally.

 

[subshakerz]

In other words, thank God that Ambrose and Akram didnt debut in 2007, otherwise they would have been so discouraged they would have never become ATGs, unlike the superhuman Steyn who managed to excel despite playing most of his cricket on the dead, lifeless pitches of South Africa.

 

[Xix2565]

Ah yes I love it when people go to strawmanning as if it's worthwhile.

 

[subshakerz]

would your opinion change if i told you this is what makes mcgrath the goat?

but back to seriousness if you transport a median bowler like hoggard to 2019 or 1989, he averages like 27-28 rather than 30. not enough to be great, but definitely a good bowler made to look worse by his era.

Can you give me an example of a bowler who would have been an ATG in other eras but not in the 2000s?

To be ATG level you have to be so good that you transcend the era.

Even now, despite all the poor batting techniques and good pitches, it only seems that Cummins, Bumrah and Rabada whom you could reasonably put ATG expectations on.

 

[Flem274*]

Your theory means that Ntini, Zaheer Khan, Brett Lee, Hoggard, Chris Martin, Johnson, Andre Nel etc. are as good as Donald, Pollock, Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh etc.

And the only reason they don't have stats as good is because of the conditions

brother just accept that there were better bowlers in the 90s

You're exaggerating to absurdism and you know it. I'll spell it out though unless someone reading this discussion has a room temperature IQ.

Just as Simon Doull was not as good as fellow 1990s bowler Wasim Akram, 2000s bowler Andre Nel also was not as good as Wasim Akram.

However career conditions dictate career average to a degree, a degree almost never admitted because sport is about how people conquer challenges not how people are controlled or limited by them. Put Ntini, Zaheer, Lee, Hoggard, Martin, Johnson and Nel in an era where conditions are more favourable to fast bowling and they will knock a couple of runs off their averages. Conversely, transport anyone in the 1990s or current era who averages high 20s into 2000-2010 and watch their averages go into the low 30s. To deny conditions exert a strong influence on cricket is to deny the fundamentals of the game.

It entertains me that people are so quick to sook about CEO pitches and modern bats yet when we start comparing 2000s cricket to historical cricket the narrative quickly becomes "oh the bowlers sucked in the 2000s so really the batsmen sucked too and they all sucked bring back the 1980s or 90s where teams totally didn't exploit home umpires, matting pitches and various terrible teams"

cricket is the only sport in the world where the people who watch it genuinely believe the people who play it are getting worse despite this flying in the face of the entirety of world sporting history, but that's an argument for another day.

 

[subshakerz]

Ah yes I love it when people go to strawmanning as if it's worthwhile.

It isn't, it what was literally bring argued below:

If the flood of recent great test quality pacers - compared to almost none during the dead pitch(00-15) time - compared to lots again in the 90s is any indication, it's just a LOT easier to be a great in favorable times than otherwise, I used to think it was some sort of a circular reasoning thing but the mushrooming of great pacers almost immediately after the pitches got better has changed my thinking and I believe it's more of a one directional effect now.

Steyn standing out and being a great in that era counts a lot for me - there were Zero other ATGs in his era, that to me is not a lack of competition - that's the pitches actually killing the hopes of anyone daring to be an ATG.

 

[Flem274*]

why Aus, WI and Pak couldnt replace their predecessors. Perhaps it was due to the tilt of the game towards batters generally.

Yes

 

[Xix2565]

It isn't, it what was literally bring argued below:

Doesn't change your strawman attempt though? It's taking the point to the extreme just to mock it, when you could've just stuck with your other post.

 

[srbhkshk]

In other words, thank God that Ambrose and Akram didnt debut in 2007, otherwise they would have been so discouraged they would have never become ATGs, unlike the superhuman Steyn who managed to excel despite playing most of his cricket on the dead, lifeless pitches of South Africa.

This is unironically true, Akram would average 35+ if he debuted in 2007.

 

[TheJediBrah]

You're exaggerating to absurdism and you know it. I'll spell it out though unless someone reading this discussion has a room temperature IQ.

That's a list of the best bowlers of the later 2000s (sans Steyn) v the best bowlers of the 90s. It's not an exaggeration.

The point of discussion was why Steyn stands out in his era, hence the relevant comparison is looking at the best from each era.

The rest of your analysis is just repetitive and I don't necessarily disagree with it but it's not particularly relevant either. It just reiterates that conditions were easier for bowlers in the 90s. It does nothing to disprove that there were also way more ATG/ATVG level bowlers in the 90s regardless of conditions. Both can be true, not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.

 

[Migara]

What does it actually mean though? Its not like Steyn was some superhuman. He played 60% of his cricket on green pitches at home and averaged 25 away, and ended up with ATG figures overall.

Like to see the same argument used for Lillee

 

[subshakerz]

Yes

Yeah but that still doesnt give Steyn some extra quality as a bowler that other ATGs didnt have. By your criteria, his edge was simply debuting at the right time when there were no other ATGs around. If Ryan Harris somehow managed to get to 300 wickets, would that suddenly make Steyn a lesser bowler? I also actually wonder if he faced more roads in his career compared to a subcontinent bowler in the 80s or 90s.