Steyn vs. Lee in Aus. Predictions

[Richard]

Barely swung, itbt. Gotta give some credit to Steyn for making it do so.

Well of course the swinging ball is (almost) always to the credit of the bowler, but sometimes for no apparent reason the ball refuses to swing. This has happened pretty much every Test at The MCG that I've seen recently. And The 'Gabba as well, and Adelaide Oval, and Bellerive. Only Australian Test grounds in recent times where I've seen much swing have been The SCG and WACA.

I'd say it (The MCG) swung plenty this time though, myself. Remember a good few balls where Steyn bent it considerably.

As I say - the bowler almost always deserves credit for any swing that does happen, but he certainly doesn't neccessarily deserve fault if it doesn't (though there are times when he does, obviously). Too many people traduce bowling as "well it was the swing that got the wickets, not the calibre of the bowling". Umm, no.

Nonetheless, as a swing bowler you can't expect to have your weapon each and every time you run in to bowl. Not only the state of the ball (be it new or old, Duke or Kookaburra or something else) but some factors for which no-one can offer adaquete explanation.

 

[Uppercut]

Well of course the swinging ball is (almost) always to the credit of the bowler, but sometimes for no apparent reason the ball refuses to swing. This has happened pretty much every Test at The MCG that I've seen recently. And The 'Gabba as well, and Adelaide Oval, and Bellerive. Only Australian Test grounds in recent times where I've seen much swing have been The SCG and WACA.

I think it has a bit to do with the bowlers Australia field though. Who was the last genuine swing bowler to play for them? Lee and Clark will occasionally move a few, but you can't use them to judge how much swing's around. Southee moved it plenty at the Gabba, i remember Hoggard getting a fair bit at Adelaide, RP Singh and Irfan Pathan moved it all over the show in Perth and Steyn's just bagged ten at the MCG. Not to mention the fact that swingers like Bollinger, Hilfenhaus and Bracken have all had a lot of FC success in Australia.

Anyway, from what i saw of the MCG second innings the ball wasn't doing a massive amount for anyone. Steyn has to take some credit for making the most of what there was- the ball that got Symonds, for example, moved only fractionally but just enough to take the edge.

 

[Richard]

I think it has a bit to do with the bowlers Australia field though. Who was the last genuine swing bowler to play for them? Lee and Clark will occasionally move a few, but you can't use them to judge how much swing's around. Southee moved it plenty at the Gabba, i remember Hoggard getting a fair bit at Adelaide, RP Singh and Irfan Pathan moved it all over the show in Perth and Steyn's just bagged ten at the MCG. Not to mention the fact that swingers like Bollinger, Hilfenhaus and Bracken have all had a lot of FC success in Australia.

Hilfenhaus has been hot-and-cold; Bracken and Bollinger (whose success has been recent and not long-term) are NSWns - they play regularly at The SCG.

I confess I don't remember Hoggard moving it much at all at Adelaide in 2006/07, and that's why his performance was one of such excellence, as he adapted.

However, I've seen any number of overseas bowlers tour and fail to get the ball to do all that much anywhere outside The SCG - Hoggard among them, in both 2002/03 and 2006/07. I also remember several seasons where Lee got it to do precisely nothing anywhere other than his home SCG ground. 2002/03 stands-out most from this category. Gillespie too went from being a big swing bowler to not that much of one, round about, oh... yep, 2001/02. Took him quite a while to get the hang of how to bowl using other means too - he struggled for a good few games.

All just added-up to the impression that Australia recently had not been swing-friendly. Yet the likes of Marshall went there in the 1980s and excelled. McDermott had half a decade of being a swing bowler par-excellence, home and away.

Anyway, from what i saw of the MCG second innings the ball wasn't doing a massive amount for anyone. Steyn has to take some credit for making the most of what there was- the ball that got Symonds, for example, moved only fractionally but just enough to take the edge.

He also beat the outside-edge several times with ones that moved a mile.

 

[Uppercut]

He also beat the outside-edge several times with ones that moved a mile.

Hmm, yes i must admit was forgetting about the first innings. Plenty of movement for him then.

 

[susudear]

With the bat

Whatta prediction!

Didn't he average > 40 with the bat?

 

[Briony]

I think people are a bit harsh on Morkel. He's obvioulsy a bit raw and a work in progress but I thought in Melbourne he bowled some incisive spells which put pressure on the batsmen. At times he was unrewarded but plenty were impressed with the carry he generated. The WA players who played against the SA attack found him hard to counter.

 

[Uppercut]

Morkel's in the unusual position of both being abnormally tall and having an action which means he uses every inch of his height. As I've said before, i can't think of anyone i've ever seen with a higher release point than him. And he gets the ball up at 85+ mph. Facing him must be more akin to facing a dive-bomber dropping cricket balls than a bowler. Massive potential there.

 

[zaremba]

Morkel's in the unusual position of both being abnormally tall and having an action which means he uses every inch of his height. As I've said before, i can't think of anyone i've ever seen with a higher release point than him. And he gets the ball up at 85+ mph. Facing him must be more akin to facing a dive-bomber dropping cricket balls than a bowler. Massive potential there.

Yep he looks a really good prospect for the reasons you've given. His style is also a nice counterpoint to that of Steyn.

 

[Savvy Saffer]

Steyn & Morkel potentially = Marshall & Garner in 2 years time. I reckon Morkel just needs a tad more aggression and attitude.

 

[Richard]

Though Steyn is good and Morkel has potential, if either of them ever equal or even really approach the deeds Marshall and Garner achieved, I'll eat my computer.

 

[Uppercut]

Dicko has quite serious "none of these new-fangled bowlers will ever compare to the quicks of my day" syndrome. Particularly surprising considering they're so well before his time.

 

[Richard]

Marshall and Garner are hardly "of my day", Garner effectively retired less than a year after I was born and Marshall retired before my 6th birthday.

But I've very far from a "none of these quicks will match the quicks of my day" attitude. I said several times in 2006 that I thought Mohammad Asif could be as good as almost anyone, before his attitude troubles became obvious. However, other than that, there haven't been any seamers who've appeared on the scene in recent times who I think can be anything other than good (and lots who I don't think can even be that). It's no disgrace. There've been times before where a good while has gone by without so much as one bowler who could rank with the very best being a current player.

 

[susudear]

Though Steyn is good and Morkel has potential, if either of them ever equal or even really approach the deeds Marshall and Garner achieved, I'll eat my computer.

As if...

Steyn is already the best SA bowler since Pollock and a couple of years like the current year will firmly place him on the pedestal where Donald, Pollock, Garner are perched now.

Corss-fingered in case of Morkel. He has all the attributes physically, but seems to be a "gentle" giant.

 

[Richard]

Steyn is already the best SA bowler since Pollock and a couple of years like the current year will firmly place him on the pedestal where Donald, Pollock, Garner are perched now.

Not a chance. Donald and Garner were both excellence personnified for a decade; Pollock was for 5 or 6 years. Steyn so far has done less well than either for less than 3 years.

As I've said before, there's also good reason to believe Steyn has already done about as well as he can do. He can only get worse. No bowler can continue to perform forever - Waqar Younis managed to be superlative (even better than Steyn has been from April 2006 onwards) for 4 years, and Steyn still has a while to go before he even manages a spell of Waqar's length, never mind Donald or Pollock's.

Steyn has no chance of being as good as Donald, negligable chance of being as good as Pollock and precious little chance of being as good as he's been for the last 2-and-a-half years for all that much longer. All bowlers, however good, must have some downtime and Steyn's could easily be just around the bend.

 

[Uppercut]

Not a chance. Donald and Garner were both excellence personnified for a decade; Pollock was for 5 or 6 years. Steyn so far has done less well than either for less than 3 years.

I'm interested- how come when you're comparing today's batsmen to yesterday's you massively factor in the flatness of today's pitches, but when you compare bowlers it's never mentioned?

 

[Richard]

Of course it is. But the best seam-bowlers take the pitch out of the equation, and can bowl well on any surface.

If Steyn is supposed to be one of the very best ever, he has to be able to bowl highly effectively under all circumstances. However, he cannot. Whenever the ball does not swing - and however good a swing bowler one is, you cannot get the ball to swing all over every over - he offers no threat.

 

[Uppercut]

Of course it is. But the best seam-bowlers take the pitch out of the equation, and can bowl well on any surface.

If Steyn is supposed to be one of the very best ever, he has to be able to bowl highly effectively under all circumstances. However, he cannot. Whenever the ball does not swing - and however good a swing bowler one is, you cannot get the ball to swing all over every over - he offers no threat.

Pfft. Surely if you can oversee fifteen average points regarding batting in order to insist that Atherton is better than Hayden, you can oversee one average point and admit that, really, Steyn's record over the past two years (averaging 21, Bangladesh not included) is as good as any spell of bowling we've seen from a South African since readmission.

 

[Richard]

Right, a couple of things:
1, batsmen and seamers are entirely different animals, performing vastly different jobs. And I've said it many times, with Hayden an average is entirely irrelevant. He could have averaged 70 or 80 since 2001/02 and he'd still in my book not be as good as any good batsman from the 1990s or 1980s if it all came on flat decks against weak bowling. How many he scores on flat decks is irrelevant; what matters is how many he doesn't score on the spicier ones.
2, Steyn has actually had a decent few seaming decks in the last couple of years. Not, I don't think, vastly different to the sort of patterns in conditions Donald and Pollock experienced in the late-1990s.

I don't have much truck with the notion that Steyn has been superlative the last 2-and-a-half years. I just don't think he can keep it up, any more than Waqar Younis could keep-up averaging 18 for the 4 years he did it between 1990/91 and 1994/95.

 

[Uppercut]

Sometimes i think when you've made up your mind about someone you put his failings/success down to the pitch and his success/failings down to the player. Steyn's a bit of a reverse Ashley Giles in that sense.

 

[susudear]

Lol

Not a chance. Donald and Garner were both excellence personnified for a decade; Pollock was for 5 or 6 years. Steyn so far has done less well than either for less than 3 years.

Donald had a very good run for about 5-6 years, so did Pollock.

Steyn has already had 3 years, and another 2-3 years of solid performances will get him to that level.

Try as much you can to deny, but he is on the way to toppling Donald and Pollock