Dale Steyn -Greatest of All Time

[subshakerz]

Mcgrath averaged 31 in Pakistan. Also 29 in SL

With Pakistan its a bit complicated since you would have to include his record against them in UAE.

With SL, that series was washed out and he hardly bowled in any of the second innings.

 

[Slifer]

All of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran and McGrath averaged sub 30 overall against all opponents. (Ambrose averaged 38 against India despite never playing in India, seems like a bogey team). All of them averaged sub 25 in and against England.

So from that angle, Steyn's England record stands out a bit.

Which is so odd tbf.

 

[Coronis]

on a serious note,

Mcgrath averaged less in 00s than in the 90s because he debuted in the 90s. If he debuted in the 00s then his average would have been higher than his actual verage in the 90s.

Thats amazing that you call that a serious note.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Thats amazing that you call that a serious note.

What i'm trying to say is that he averaged more in 90s compared to 00s was because he was an inexperienced bowler in the 90s.

 

[Bolo.]

So you don't agree with me that Steyn's reputation has risen since he retired?


Steyn's 5 tests were over a couple of series in his prime. Hadlee and Marshall underperformed in single series, but with mitigating circumstances since Hadlee was very early career and Marshall was injured. McGrath slightly underperformed in SL but the series was washed out mostly.

We can agree to disagree. I think if a pacer claims to be in the top five ever then having a good to great record in Australia, England and at least one SC country is a must. A 30 plus average in a key country is a blemish.

Look at the thread you are in. How can you buy into this? It is clearly false.

I reject the idea that perceptions should not change anyway. You need a bit of time to get over the ***iness (or realise the value) of a player, as well as contextualise the era.

Steyn played 1.5 series in England. If this is a valid sample, then Hadlee/Marshalls 1 and Mcgraths 1.3/2 are as well. It's a really similar number of tests

There might be reasons for the underperformance of these guys. But you are stating that nobody underperformed in a country than Steyn did in England. The three best quicks ever did by a greater degree. Lesser bowlers did by a greater margin.

The 19th century wants your perception that performances don't count unless they include England and Aus back

 

[Bolo.]

Marshall averaged 32 in one 3 test series vs NZ that's it. That apart, he averages sub 25 home and away vs all. Sub 23 vs all in general. Steyn not only averages 32 in England but 32 overall vs England over 12 tests. That's a forgivable blemish overall but compared to the elites of elites, it's a set back.

It's not a comment on overall records. Marshall was (very arguably) peerless. I'm addressing the comment from Subs that no Steyn was notably bad in England by ATG standards. I'm bringing Marshall into it specifically because of how good he was (along with the other 2 quicks I rank ahead of Steyn).

But Marshall was clearly worse in NZ than Steyn was in England. To match Steyn's England stats, Marshall would have had to have taken 14 wickets in 2 matches at a great SR. Marshall bowled on much friendlier pitches in NZ than Steyn's England, and there was a massive gap in batting strength.

There is no comparison on the point he is trying to make, even with the GOAT. It's even worse when you compare to number 2/3, and much worse when you compare to typical weaker bowlers.

I don't make this point to prove Steyn is better than Marshall, I'm just responding to Subs constantly spamming this weird theory.

 

[trundler]

See, guys. He's not anti India, he's just wrong a lot.

 

[ankitj]

Which is so odd tbf.

But also completely inconsequential. Playing India in India might be a unique challenge. Playing India in West Indies isn't. This arbitrary slice of his career has no importance in rating Ambrose for mine.

 

[ZK$]

It’s funny because if Steyn averaged 29 in England instead of 31, subshakerz wouldn’t consider it an underperformance anymore.

 

[trundler]

From memory Anderson and Broad averaged ~45 and ~50 in those tests respectively. Atrocious roads.

 

[subshakerz]

Steyn played 1.5 series in England. If this is a valid sample, then Hadlee/Marshalls 1 and Mcgraths 1.3/2 are as well. It's a really similar number of tests

There might be reasons for the underperformance of these guys. But you are stating that nobody underperformed in a country than Steyn did in England. The three best quicks ever did by a greater degree. Lesser bowlers did by a greater margin.

Nope, that wasn't my point. It was always more specific to Steyn underperforming in England. Otherwise he also averages 30 plus in SL and UAE but I didn't bring those up.

Lol I gave explanations for the others performances which you just outright ignore to restate your point.

And please don't pretend that if a poster comes and bring up Steyn's record in 5.5 tests in India that you would make the same case that it doesn't count because of less tests.

 

[subshakerz]

But also completely inconsequential. Playing India in India might be a unique challenge. Playing India in West Indies isn't. This arbitrary slice of his career has no importance in rating Ambrose for mine.

Agreed. But how do you see Steyn's 12 tests against England?

 

[CricAddict]

See, guys. He's not anti India, he's just wrong a lot.

That's true to an extent. He just takes a position that can trigger a set of people and rabbles on stats/perceptions etc. to trigger them further.

 

[subshakerz]

It's not a comment on overall records. Marshall was (very arguably) peerless. I'm addressing the comment from Subs that no Steyn was notably bad in England by ATG standards. I'm bringing Marshall into it specifically because of how good he was (along with the other 2 quicks I rank ahead of Steyn).

But Marshall was clearly worse in NZ than Steyn was in England. To match Steyn's England stats, Marshall would have had to have taken 14 wickets in 2 matches at a great SR. Marshall bowled on much friendlier pitches in NZ than Steyn's England, and there was a massive gap in batting strength.

There is no comparison on the point he is trying to make, even with the GOAT. It's even worse when you compare to number 2/3, and much worse when you compare to typical weaker bowlers.

I don't make this point to prove Steyn is better than Marshall, I'm just responding to Subs constantly spamming this weird theory.

You want to pretend that Marshall's three tests with a bad back vs NZ is the same as Steyn's five tests against England in his prime then fine. To me it's rather obvious the latter is a bit more serious of a blemish for a top tier pacer than than the former.

And Steyn's overall record against England in 12 tests is another mark against him.

Again, not to restate the obvious because so many here miss it, these are not huge problems but slight differences between the best of the best.

 

[subshakerz]

That's true to an extent. He just takes a position that can trigger a set of people and rabbles on stats/perceptions etc. to trigger them further.

You were the one so sure about me being anti-India. Glad you've seen the light.

 

[subshakerz]

It’s funny because if Steyn averaged 29 in England instead of 31, subshakerz wouldn’t consider it an underperformance anymore.

It would be less of an underperformance. But yeah averaging less than 30 in and against major teams is important to me. You don't like my criteria, fine, but we are arguing top of the tree so we can split hairs.

 

[Bolo.]

You want to pretend that Marshall's three tests with a bad back vs NZ is the same as Steyn's five tests against England in his prime then fine. To me it's rather obvious the latter is a bit more serious of a blemish for a top tier pacer than than the former.

And Steyn's overall record against England in 12 tests is another mark against him.

Again, not to restate the obvious because so many here miss it, these are not huge problems but slight differences between the best of the best.

2 extra tests. 14 extra wickets. Crazy difference in batting quality. Crazy difference in pitches (I think, I didnt see Marshall in NZ, but scorecards suggest they were bowling pitches, and everything I have ever read says greentops for the decade, while I saw Steyn on roads.).

It doesn't matter why Marshall was underperforming within the context of your statement... your statement is still dodgy

It doesn't matter that Marshall was a better overall bowler within the context of your statement.... your statement is still dodgy

 

[ZK$]

Steyn’s record in England where he bowled match winning spells on roads and helped his team win a series disqualifies him from the top 5, but Ambrose’s body of work in Asia, record against India, and wicket taking ability during the last third of his career don’t disqualify him from the top 5 lol.

 

[subshakerz]

2 extra tests. 14 extra wickets. Crazy difference in batting quality. Crazy difference in pitches (I think, I didnt see Marshall in NZ, but scorecards suggest they were bowling pitches, and everything I have ever read says greentops for the decade, while I saw Steyn on roads.).

It doesn't matter why Marshall was underperforming within the context of your statement... your statement is still dodgy

It doesn't matter that Marshall was a better overall bowler within the context of your statement.... your statement is still dodgy

Except it does matter because I am not saying all underperformances are equal so stop strawmanning.

Even if you want to argue Marshall failed, which would be unfair since he was injured, a failure against NZ in one series series matters less than a failure against England for Steyn.

 

[subshakerz]

Steyn’s record in England where he bowled match winning spells on roads and helped his team win a series disqualifies him from the top 5, but Ambrose’s body of work in Asia and record against India and wicket taking ability during the last third of his career don’t disqualify him from the top 5 lol.

Don't pretend England isnt an important country to establish a good to great record in for any top tier fast bowler. I give Steyn credit for a couple of top spells but overall record is important too. And over 12 tests home and away he also ended up with a moderate record against a strong batting lineup.

Ambrose did merely good in SC with few tours but Steyn is obviously better than him there. And Ambrose's reduced wicket taking was actually more than one third of his career and is a legitimate critique. Honestly, I think it's very close between Ambrose and Steyn for a top 5 spot but Steyn against England for me is hard to get past. And his expensiveness.

I think Marshall, McGrath, Hadlee and Imran are noticeably better for me.