Curtly Ambrose vs Dale Steyn

[Starfighter]

This depends on why you think everyone else had crap numbers. Because they just sucked or bowling conditions were tougher.

You can have standout bowlers with favourable conditions, or unfavourable, though favourable will narrow the gap. Hadlee is a good example, he was clearly better than the other NZ bowlers no matter the conditions. But if you had a team with three Hadlees in it it doesn't make any Hadlee inferior compared to the lone Hadlee, even if the trio don't stand out so much, same goes for bowlers in the opposition.

 

[Xix2565]

I think this point gets overdone considering that for over half his career he played at home on the best pace bowling pitches in the world.

Does this idea not apply for Ambrose at all? Hard to just pick up wickets for fun when pitches are dead.

 

[pardus]

Ambrose for me. Rarely, if ever, seen a batsman thrash him around in Test match cricket. Even the best opposition batsmen were almost in awe of him, particularly before his shoulder surgery in 1994. Relatively speaking, saw Steyn getting mauled a lot for my liking (albeit Steyn bowled in a much more batsmen friendly era). Ambrose's bowling was explosive before his shoulder surgery, frequently coming up with breathtaking spells or unplayable deliveries, often when his team needed them. I still remember the 1992 Test match with South Africa in Barbados. South Africa needed 201 to win in the 4th innings, and were well placed at 123 for 2 before completely collapsing for less than 150, Ambrose took 6 wickets in that innings.
Then that absolute brute of a delivery that got Allan Border in the fourth innings of the Adelaide Test in 1993 (which Windies won by 1 run).

On a different note, his autobio "Time to talk" was one of the most hilarious cricket books I have read (it was hilarious inadvertently).

 

[subshakerz]

My gut feel says Steyn because he stood out more in his era and was more penetrative for longer but there are a couple of things to note here:

Steyn has a vastly superior strike rate and hence WPM but he did play with 2 other blokes with comparable SRs (Philander and Rabada). Obviously Steyn is much better because he could go God mode anywhere on any pitch and that's a very, very rare claim but my point is friendly home pitches and a fast scoring era do widen the gulf here.

Similarly, Steyn's away average has to be non argument because he played on some of the roadiest tracks away. His average in England isn't pretty but I remember Anderson averaged about 46 and Broad 50+ in those games. Steyn had incredible performances just about everywhere which is more useful than picking up 3 wickets a match at a prettier average.

This is a bit of a circular argument. 'Steyn succeeded in a batting era'. When you point out that he averaged higher in those batting-friendly conditions than at home 'Well, what do you expect? For him to perform just as well on roads'?

Bottomline is that the 'stood out in a batting era' is a weak argument especially when Steyn played 60% of his cricket on green pitches in SA.

 

[subshakerz]

Does this idea not apply for Ambrose at all? Hard to just pick up wickets for fun when pitches are dead.

Ambrose doesnt get extra points for playing in the nineties though, as McGrath and Steyn do for the 2000s.

 

[trundler]

It really isn't though and I explained why.

 

[Xix2565]

I mean I don't think I've ever heard of a good bowler not have better figures when pitches favour bowling.

 

[subshakerz]

Ambrose's WPM of over 4 a test with nearly 100 tests played is perfectly fine for an ATG pacer. But as other posters have pointed out, it isnt the best measure.

Steyn's SR is unusually good but what posters don't acknowledge is that this is balanced out by his ER also being unusually high for an ATG. It shows it is a product of him being in a fast-scoring era rather than him being in a league of his own. Just as Ambrose's corridor bowling could be a liability, so was Steyn's expensiveness, which his defenders are not acknowledging.

This is why Marshall, which a fantastic SR and low ER, was so outstanding.

I feel posters are not recognizing what a beast Ambrose was from 88 to 94, it isnt a mean achievement to be seen as the best in the world when the 2Ws were at their peak, plus Bishop in his own team.

I would gladly take Ambrose's record over Steyn in England and Australia, knowing that he likely faced weaker lineups and had more favorable conditions, because the gulf is that big. He was a force of nature in entire series in his heyday in a way Steyn never was.

 

[srbhkshk]

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.

 

[honestbharani]

Did you forget Marshall?

I meant to say, among the ones I have seen. I saw very very little of Marshall in 1 ODI tri-series, that is all.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

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.

 

[srbhkshk]

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.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

WPM wouldn’t be important here if Ambrose actually had a lot of competition for wickets or if the difference in WPM wasn’t huge.

When Marshall, McGrath, and Steyn all have far higher WPMs than Ambrose despite having much more competition for wickets than Ambrose, then it shows Ambrose did lack the same level of wicket taking ability as those guys at some stage of his career.

That said, it’s probably simpler to just give Steyn points for his far better strike rate.

 

[srbhkshk]

On the "green" pitches of South Africa -

 

[subshakerz]

On the "green" pitches of South Africa -

View attachment 31651

Pitches in SA in Steyns time were the best for pace bowling in the world and still quite sporting. Philander wouldnt be as successful if it wasnt the case.

 

[trundler]

Pitches in SA in Steyns time were the best for pace bowling in the world and still quite sporting. Philander wouldnt be as successful if it wasnt the case.

They were better than elsewhere but it's not like every pitch was a green mamba. SA had a very strong batting line up and as such usually put up balanced pitches, not green mambas. Not total roads ≠ spicy. Philander was conditions reliant but he wasn't a total nobody. Pitches in England, Australia and India were the roadiest they've been in living memory. Steyn still managed epic match winning performances everywhere. Again, Anderson and Broad averaged 45+ in those matches, for example. You're really overlooking just how horrid a time it was. Do you think Samarawera was a 48 average batsman?

 

[srbhkshk]

Pitches in SA in Steyns time were the best for pace bowling in the world and still quite sporting. Philander wouldnt be as successful if it wasnt the case.

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.

 

[Coronis]

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

Of course it helped during that period that their batting was exceptionally strong. Smith (though he was relatively weak at home), Kallis, Amla, AB and Prince (averaged over 50 at home).

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Steyn underrated
Ambrose Most overrated

 

[Flem274*]

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.