Is Dale Steyn the worst ever best fast bowler in the world?

[social]

Is it just me or is Lee really overrated by the general public as a bowler? He was decent in the shorter forms but in test cricket I always saw him as the weakest link of that Australian attack. His stats are quite decent without being anywhere near great, but even they seem to flatter him, when big matches or strong teams were around my memory of Lee is that he generally went missing. Maybe I'm being harsh but always felt underwhelmed watching Lee bowl in tests.

A number of the Oz players from his era rate him extremely highly and believe that his stats suffered because he was told by his various captains to attack at all costs and given very little run saving protection

Whilst there might be some truth in that, it's hard to argue against the fact that he also bowled a lot of crap from time to time

 

[Second Spitter]

Bung was not the same bowler after coming back from the elbow injury 2001. His pace dropped significantly and didn't have enough variation to trouble batmen consistently.

The one of the greatest fast bowler mysteries is the fact Holding gets more recognition than Garner, even though statistically Garner has a slight edge.

The only thing Holding had over Garner was petulance, deliberately bowling at batsmen's bodies and injuries.

 

[smash84]

wasn't Holding significantly quicker in pace than Garner too?

 

[MrPrez]

Bung was not the same bowler after coming back from the elbow injury 2001. His pace dropped significantly and didn't have enough variation to trouble batmen consistently.

The one of the greatest fast bowler mysteries is the fact Holding gets more recognition than Garner, even though statistically Garner has a slight edge.

The only thing Holding had over Garner was petulance, deliberately bowling at batsmen's bodies and injuries.

A bit of a Pollock/Donald case I'd imagine.

 

[social]

wasn't Holding significantly quicker in pace than Garner too?

Garner generally bowled well within himself until later in his career when he opened the bowling for a while

AT times, he was considered to be quicker than Marshall

 

[Red]

Bung was not the same bowler after coming back from the elbow injury 2001. His pace dropped significantly and didn't have enough variation to trouble batmen consistently.

The one of the greatest fast bowler mysteries is the fact Holding gets more recognition than Garner, even though statistically Garner has a slight edge.

The only thing Holding had over Garner was petulance, deliberately bowling at batsmen's bodies and injuries.

Garner is the forgotten (perhaps slightly underrated) one. In my opinions, he is the ideal first change bowler in any XI, even an all time one...

Imagine seeing off the opening bowlers (Lillee, Marshall or whoever), then having to cope with Garner.

 

[3703]

Stats don't work across generations, they're probably the worst measure you can use. They are numbers that reflect - different players, different pitches, different bats, players at different stages of their careers, different bowling plans, different captaincy, test landscapes at different stages of evolution (batting style, run rate, innovation with deliveries). Whole different basic ways of going about the game of cricket.

Lillee's stats for instance look a superficially good point of comparison because they're in the same ballpark as other greats from different eras, but the reality is those numbers have had a world of different dynamics, behaviours and people combined to have created them.

This is where one becomes reliant on their eye and a sense of what each bowler was up against, and what he was able to do. What do we see?

Steyn is an amazing player. To my eye, a good few are ahead of him. I can't wait to see how his game develops into his 30s, with all the challenges that come with that.

 

[Burgey]

wasn't Holding significantly quicker in pace than Garner too?

I remember in the early 80s a Good Weekend magazine cover with the headline "Joel Garner: He doesn't look quick, but try facing him."

The article interviewed the man himself, along with a lot of Australian top order players who each said he was as quick as any of the other WI bowlers.

Of course, opinions may have been coloured by the fact he bowled good length balls which went past your rib cage. He was a great bowler. One of the very, very best.

 

[smash84]

I am not denying Garner's greatness, just that one of the reasons that Holding is rated so highly is that he could bowl consistently bowl lightning quick and not give away runs and keep the pressure on at one end. This would surely make it a lot easier for somebody at the other end to get wickets as well

 

[ankitj]

Ye I mentioned the Hadlee Lillee thing sometime before on this forum. It seems hard to rate Hadlee over Lillee, Hadlee has the better stats and a better rounded career (plus he can bat) However it's 2 main things which have Lillee over Hadlee and neither have anything to do with who was the better bowler

1) Hadlee played for a small country like NZ who play series that most consider irrelevant, while Lillee played in the Ashes and Australia were always a big team. Hence it's a lot easier for people to remember Lillee's performances and for Lillee to become a "big match player". It's much easier to become a big match player in a 5 test Ashes series than in a minor New Zealand series which hardly anyone is properly following. This concept applies to Warne and Murali also.

2) Lillee was the more aggressive personality and showman than Hadlee which made him more entertaining to watch, and as humans we are naturally more biased to rate the more entertaining player as being the better player even when it's not the case.

There is so so much wrong with the arguments in that po. I need more time than I have to fully respond.

 

[the big bambino]

Find out what G Wood said of Garner. Opening the bowling he was fast, damn fast.