Peak Bumrah vs Peak Steyn

[PlayerComparisons]

.

 

[DrWolverine]

Steyn played in a batting friendly era.
Bumrah played in a bowling friendly era.
Both of them are ahead of their peers.

 

[DrWolverine]

Steyn is an extremely destructive bowler who can take the pitch out of the question but he can have dry spells where he can leak runs easily.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

It’s a close one for sure

 

[subshakerz]

Statistically there isn't really a peak Steyn as he had a ten year prime taking 5 wickets a test. Maybe was at his best around 2010ish.

But I am taking Bumrah. Steyn at his best was still being tonked around.

 

[Johan]

don't know who outside the fab 4 can even survive Steyn in the current climate, if he was around today he'd probably be better than Bumrah.

 

[Srinath P]

Bumrah is more skilled but Steyn was freakish. As Jarrod Kimber said, Dale Steyn is the most efficient killing machine in cricket history.

 

[subshakerz]

don't know who outside the fab 4 can even survive Steyn in the current climate, if he was around today he'd probably be better than Bumrah.

Depends on which Steyn. The Steyn who would wreck India or the Steyn who was getting bossed by Phil Hughes and North.

 

[Johan]

Depends on which Steyn. The Steyn who would wreck India or the Steyn who was getting bossed by Phil Hughes and North.

TBF, in the current minefield era with reinforced kookaburas and the lower standard of batting generally, I'd say Steyn would not get taken to cleaners often if at all

 

[subshakerz]

TBF, in the current minefield era with reinforced kookaburas and the lower standard of batting generally, I'd say Steyn would not get taken to cleaners often if at all

He was getting taken to the cleaners on fairly green SA wickets against junior bats or Warner. Steyn was unpredictable. But he will do better in Aus definitely if he played today.

 

[Randomfan]

Steyn was fantastic for a very long time. Not sure if he had some outlier peak period.

 

[DrWolverine]

Steyn was fantastic for a very long time. Not sure if he had some outlier peak period.

Between 2006-2015, he was an outlier.

No fast bowler had an average below 25.

No fast bowler had a strike rate below 25.

Dale Steyn took 398 wickets or 90% of his career wickets during that period at an average of 21.9 and unbelievable strike rate of 41.0. In my opinion, he is probably the closest a cricketer came to being an outlier in the last 80 years of test cricket.

 

[Randomfan]

Between 2006-2015, he was an outlier.

...

Dale Steyn took 398 wickets or 90% of his career wickets during that period at an average of 21.9 and unbelievable strike rate of 41.0. In my opinion, he is probably the closest a cricketer came to being an outlier in the last 80 years of test cricket.

Oh, he was surely an outlier during that time compared to his peers and that's why I rate him among the top 5-6 pacers.

I was trying to think if Steyn had some outlier peak consisteing of 30-40 tests out of his fantastic long career. I am not sure if 90% of career wickets should be called a peak of Steyn when those wickets are close to 400 wickets.

 

[DrWolverine]

That’s one of the reasons I rank him very highly. Yes he has his some flaws but I rate him on par with McGrath. Glen had less off days but Steyn was more destructive

 

[DrWolverine]

But I am taking Bumrah. Steyn at his best was still being tonked around.

Among ATG bowlers I have seen Donald & Steyn could leak plenty of runs on their bad days.

 

[Randomfan]

That’s one of the reasons I rank him very highly. Yes he has his some flaws but I rate him on par with McGrath.

Yah, being an oulier among your peer group takes account of lots of variables specific to your own era. We can always get a bunch of great players clustered in one era versus very few in other, but I often see over rating a player even if they are 5th in one cluster versus some one coming on top in other cluster.

Test cricket has not changed that much and we have mostly had good 4-5 test teams in in the last 50 years. Quality starts dropping a lot after that despite people trying to rewite history. I can't comment all periods but saw from early 90s. All periods had maximum 4-5 good test teams. That's why I don't pay much attention to career stats when discussion about tier 1 candidates. You can't be tier 1 with bashing only bottom/minnows.

Standing out in your own era carries lots of weight and Steyn did that by a large margin.

 

[Athlai]

The 4-5 good teams thing is way too simplistic and just outright wrong imo. Some teams are good at home and tour poorly, some are good at batting and bad at bowling, some rise and fall within the space of a few years. The 2010s and 2020s definitely have more than 4 or 5 good teams.

 

[Randomfan]

The 4-5 good teams thing is way too simplistic and just outright wrong imo.

Nah, it's very good short cut to see how you stand up in quality.

You are correct in saying that some will be better in home and some will be better away. That requires drilling down more, but simply taking a quick look against top 4-5 teams tells the big picture. Some cases can be still missed, but it captures most cases well in separating true tier 1 players versus some one having tier 1 stats based on bashing weaker teams or due to playing outsized percentage of games against weaker teams.

Mistake is comparing only raw stats across different era while ignoring peer standing in thier own era. Easier way to see what you did compared to peer group. Peer group is playing in similar conditions. Here, similar conditions are lots of cricket in varienty of conditions away and not home. Home conditions are very different for players and 50% of home games can have outsized impact on stats. So looking at away with all kinds of conditions presents a much better level playing field for entire peer group. Making it one level up will be seeing performance against top teams when playing away. For example, right now performing in SL for visitors is not going to be the same compared to performing for visitors in Aus.

Yes, there will be situations where Aus playing in rank turners in BD will get ignored in this approach, but over all it works pretty well. If you can't stand out in tough tours or against top teams then you simply belong in lower tiers no matter how many great performance you have in BD dust bowls. Now if you do it in Indian dust bowls, it's different. Top teams will put pressure in many different ways and it's not just about conditions.

 

[subshakerz]

Standing out in your own era carries lots of weight and Steyn did that by a large margin.

It's mostly to do with circumstances around him. If Shoaib, Bond and Harris didn't have injuries and shorter careers he may not have stood out.

 

[Athlai]

Nah, it's very good short cut to see how you stand up in quality.

You are correct in saying that some will be better in home and some will be better away. That requires drilling down more, but simply taking a quick look agasint top 4-5 teams tells the big picture. Some cases can be still missed, but it captures most cases well in separating true tier 1 players versus some one having tier 1 stats based on bashing weaker teams or due to playing outsized percentage of games against wekaer teams.

It's pretty dire tbh.