Curtly Ambrose vs Dale Steyn

[TheJediBrah]

If Steyn was playing alongside McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Waqar, Wasim, Donald and Pollock he would not have stood out. He would have still been an ATG bowler but somewhere in that pack rather than standing alone by himself.

 

[subshakerz]

Like to see the same argument used for Lillee

The argument is that Steyn succeeded despite playing on roads, and I am merely pointing out that his success was primarily at home in more bowling-friendly conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

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

35+ over his career?

 

[srbhkshk]

35+ over his career?

Yes.

 

[trundler]

Yes.

Is this because he'd have been 41

 

[TheJediBrah]

Probably because of neutral umpires and more scrutiny on ball-tampering

 

[trundler]

Probably because of neutral umpires and more scrutiny on ball-tampering

DRS would've fetched him about a 100 more wickets though.

 

[Migara]

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.

Amen . . .

 

[TheJediBrah]

DRS would've fetched him about a 100 more wickets though.

to go with the 200 it would have taken away

Take away another 75 for Kamran Akmal being keeper

 

[Flem274*]

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.

No it's not. You included Brett Lee and Chris Martin in it, two bowlers who weren't even the best in their own sides. Come on bro, if you don't want to admit conditions control the game to a strong extent like a basement nerd, at least use the best bowlers who played a decent chunk of their careers 2000-2010 and not deliberately selected mid-range bowlers.

 

[srbhkshk]

Is this because he'd have been 41

Apparently the fast bowler club bar Steyn decided to be absolute dogshit in the 00s, and Akram is one of the bowlers bar Steyn, so ...

 

[honestbharani]

I dunno how to feel about Flem putting in this much effort into his posts and being this lucid and clear in the messaging as well. I agree fully with almost everything he has posted here too.

I just think it is so close between Amrbrose and Steyn that ultimately, for me, the tie breaker is the eye test and I felt Ambrose almost never gets dominated by a batsman and that is a bit of a clincher there for me to nudge him a cm above Steyn in my rankings.

 

[OverratedSanity]

For me, the fact that every batting lineup except Australia's was generally better in Steyn's era than in Ambrose's is another huge point in Steyn's favour.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No it's not. You included Brett Lee and Chris Martin in it, two bowlers who weren't even the best in their own sides. Come on bro, if you don't want to admit conditions control the game to a strong extent like a basement nerd, at least use the best bowlers who played a decent chunk of their careers 2000-2010 and not deliberately selected mid-range bowlers.

Are you even reading what I'm saying? No one's disagreeing that "conditions control the game to a strong extent". I've literally said that bowling conditions were better in the 90s than in the 00s multiple times. Not even sure what you disagree with because you're debating is so emotional and not even relevant to the points I'm making?

If you honestly believe that the best 5 or 6 bowlers in Steyn's era were just as good as the best 5 or 6 in Ambrose's era and the only difference was conditions, that's fine. You think Steyn would average, what 17, if he played in the 90s? It's completely wrong, but at least it would be relevant to the things you keep responding so emotionally to.

 

[TheJediBrah]

@Flem274* the list wasn't supposed to be the main point, but I genuinely tried to pick the best fast bowlers of the mid-late 00s that played a reasonable number of Tests

 

[CricAddict]

Are you even reading what I'm saying? No one's saying that "conditions control the game to a strong extent". I've literally said that bowling conditions were better in the 90s than in the 00s multiple times. Not even sure what you disagree with because you're debating is so emotional and not even relevant to the points I'm making?

If you honestly believe that the best 5 or 6 bowlers in Steyn's era were just as good as the best 5 or 6 in Ambrose's era and the only difference was conditions, that's fine. You think Steyn would average, what 17, if he played in the 90s? It's completely wrong, but at least it would be relevant to the things you keep responding so emotionally to.

Flem is not asking atvgs or Trundlers to be termed atgs. He just says that a couple of points need to be knocked off from the averages based on conditions which I too agree with.

 

[subshakerz]

I dunno how to feel about Flem putting in this much effort into his posts and being this lucid and clear in the messaging as well. I agree fully with almost everything he has posted here too.

I just think it is so close between Amrbrose and Steyn that ultimately, for me, the tie breaker is the eye test and I felt Ambrose almost never gets dominated by a batsman and that is a bit of a clincher there for me to nudge him a cm above Steyn in my rankings.

That is my main point of Ambrose above Steyn as well. Steyn got dominated too often for my liking. Ambrose was just relentless. Even when he declined, he wasnt taken apart.

I agree it is pretty close though and there are points in Steyn's favor, like his subcontinent record and matchwinning skills, though I am not taken in by the 'stood out in a tough era' argument.

I am pretty sure if Steyn in top form played in the early nineties, Ambrose would still be rated higher. Ambrose was being rated as the best bowler in the world at a time when Waqar was a demon and Wasim was also at his peak. He was that good.

Outside of Marshall in India in 83, I don't recall a visiting fast bowler repeatedly destroying a top class batting lineup as Ambrose did in Australia in 93.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Flem is not asking atvgs or Trundlers to be termed atgs. He just says that a couple of points need to be knocked off from the averages based on conditions which I too agree with.

Which I more or less agreed with myself repeatedly so what's the issue?

 

[Flem274*]

Are you even reading what I'm saying? No one's disagreeing that "conditions control the game to a strong extent". I've literally said that bowling conditions were better in the 90s than in the 00s multiple times. Not even sure what you disagree with because you're debating is so emotional and not even relevant to the points I'm making?

If you honestly believe that the best 5 or 6 bowlers in Steyn's era were just as good as the best 5 or 6 in Ambrose's era and the only difference was conditions, that's fine. You think Steyn would average, what 17, if he played in the 90s? It's completely wrong, but at least it would be relevant to the things you keep responding so emotionally to.

Here is the relevant paragraph from my OP

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.

You're trying to drag me into saying something I never did. Cricaddict summarised what I'm saying quite well.

You can cry I'm being emotional or whatever dude but whatever you're replying to in this post of yours of quoted is all you.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Here is the relevant paragraph from my OP

You're trying to drag me into saying something I never did. Cricaddict summarised what I'm saying quite well.

You can cry I'm being emotional or whatever dude but whatever you're replying to in this post of yours of quoted is all you.

You pretty explicitly said that you thought bowling didn't get worse in the 00s and it was entirely due to conditions, or at least that's how I inferred this:

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.

That's the only thing I'm disagreeing with. It's pretty clearly both #1 and #2. The best 5 to 6 bowlers in the 90s were way better than the best 5 to 6 in Steyn's time, regardless of conditions.