Steyn vs. Lee in Aus. Predictions

[Richard]

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.

Nah, I don't think so at all. Quite the reverse, in fact. I look at the pitch and the player, then decide what I put his successes and failings down to.

 

[Richard]

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

No he's not, and he never will be and he never will do. Donald was excellence personnified for a decade, not 5-6 years. 1992-2001 = 9 years, ie, just short of a decade. Donald in this time bowled better than Steyn has for the last 2-and-a-half years. Steyn also does not have the capability to do more than what he has done so far, and the fact that everyone has downtime at some point means he'll have some sort of plateauing at some point, possibly soon.

Pollock was good for less time than Donald was, and was less good during that time, but even so, he was better than Steyn has been for the last 2-and-a-half years.

 

[ozone]

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

That might be going a bit far. Donald started his international career at 26 in 1992 and still had a good 6 years at his peak. If he had been playing at the highest level from 22, he would have had a far higher tally of wickets.

Shaun Pollock is a less direct comparison to Steyn because he bowled in a different style for much of his career. And for me, Pollock was a better bowler than Donald for much of his career, therefore to be able to compare Steyn to Pollock, he must first accomplish more than Donald did.

 

[ozone]

Pollock was good for less time than Donald was, and was less good during that time, but even so, he was better than Steyn has been for the last 2-and-a-half years.

Disagree, I think as good a bowler as Donald was, Pollock would always help his wicket tally by bowling brilliantly from the other end. Either way, agree that both bowled better for long periods than Steyn has in the past two years.

 

[Uppercut]

Steyn also does not have the capability to do more than what he has done so far

Bollocks. Steyn could attain significantly better control, not to mention consistency. He's averaging 21 despite being nowhere near the finished article that Donald was. That's why he has the potential to be every bit as good as Donald was. Whether he will be or not is an entirely different matter, but he certainly can be.

 

[Richard]

That might be going a bit far. Donald started his international career at 26 in 1992 and still had a good 6 years at his peak. If he had been playing at the highest level from 22, he would have had a far higher tally of wickets.

Shaun Pollock is a less direct comparison to Steyn because he bowled in a different style for much of his career. And for me, Pollock was a better bowler than Donald for much of his career, therefore to be able to compare Steyn to Pollock, he must first accomplish more than Donald did.

Disagree, I think as good a bowler as Donald was, Pollock would always help his wicket tally by bowling brilliantly from the other end. Either way, agree that both bowled better for long periods than Steyn has in the past two years.

How on Earth can Pollock be said to be a better bowler than Donald? Even if you do say that Pollock 1995/96-2000/01 was better than Donald all career (which I wouldn't agree with), that's not long enough in my book. A plateau of 6 years isn't that long. Donald managed one of 10, which is much more considerable. Pollock from 2001/02 to 2006 was really a very moderate bowler, other than on the odd occasion he got a pitch with a bit in it (which was very rare). Not poor, like so many, but pretty moderate.

Also, you can't ignore the fact that Pollock became less effective at exactly the time Worldwide pitches flattened-out. Sadly we don't know how Donald would've coped had his career coincided with such circumstances as he played just 3 Tests after September 2001 and it was very obvious watching those that he shouldn't have played them. His Test career should've ended in April 2001. However, having seen how Donald had bowled on flat pitches beforehand I'm more than confident he'd have coped juuuuuuuust fine had he got the chance. Interestingly, though, Pollock too had bowled well on flat pitches before 2001/02, which suggests that maybe there was some amount of decline in Pollock's game at just the wrong time. People always talked about a drop in pace - that, as I've said before, was simply wrong, there was no such thing in reality. But there might well have been something.

 

[Richard]

Bollocks. Steyn could attain significantly better control, not to mention consistency.

I don't think he can though. Steyn's control of line is actually very good and his lengths of late have been about everything you'd hope for. Steyn is too short and has too low a trajectory to ever be a bowler who can be expected to keep a good economy-rate (ie, 2.5-2.7-an-over). His best chance is to attack to the maximum extent and not worry about giving runs away, which, to date, he's done. However, as I say, the attacking weapon available to him - swing - is not always going to work, because swing is an art subject to all sorts of vaguaries. Hence, when he's bad, he's going to be very bad indeed and even in the last 2-and-a-half years we've seen an occasional example of that.

Just because there is an imperfection in the game of a player doesn't mean he can neccessarily improve it. There is no ceiling on the accuracy that can be theoretically attained by a bowler (Bapu Nadkarni probably pushed closer to it than anyone else has) and thus anyone could always in theory get better. But I don't see Steyn getting much better than he is currently, nor do I see his economy-rate going down all that much over his career.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think he can though. Steyn's control of line is actually very good and his lengths of late have been about everything you'd hope for. Steyn is too short and has too low a trajectory to ever be a bowler who can be expected to keep a good economy-rate (ie, 2.5-2.7-an-over). His best chance is to attack to the maximum extent and not worry about giving runs away, which, to date, he's done. However, as I say, the attacking weapon available to him - swing - is not always going to work, because swing is an art subject to all sorts of vaguaries. Hence, when he's bad, he's going to be very bad indeed and even in the last 2-and-a-half years we've seen an occasional example of that.

Just because there is an imperfection in the game of a player doesn't mean he can neccessarily improve it. There is no ceiling on the accuracy that can be theoretically attained by a bowler (Bapu Nadkarni probably pushed closer to it than anyone else has) and thus anyone could always in theory get better. But I don't see Steyn getting much better than he is currently, nor do I see his economy-rate going down all that much over his career.

I'd dispute that he couldn't improve his control, but what he could undoubtedly do is bowl his best more often. There's been plenty of poor spells over the past two years- just look at his atrocious opening spell at the MCG last week or his struggles with the Aussie tail at Perth for details, and in the longer term there's the sustained prank-bowling that was his performance at Lord's. And yet despite these periods, he still has one of the greatest ever strike rates and a ridiculously low average. There's most definitely room for improvement in his game.

The other thing he could learn to do, which would make him effective in almost all conditions, is learn to reverse swing the ball more effectively.

 

[ozone]

How on Earth can Pollock be said to be a better bowler than Donald? Even if you do say that Pollock 1995/96-2000/01 was better than Donald all career (which I wouldn't agree with), that's not long enough in my book. A plateau of 6 years isn't that long. Donald managed one of 10, which is much more considerable. Pollock from 2001/02 to 2006 was really a very moderate bowler, other than on the odd occasion he got a pitch with a bit in it (which was very rare). Not poor, like so many, but pretty moderate.

As was said in a previous post, Bollocks. 6 years playing test cricket at the highest level is more than enough to say that he has had a class career. Besides, I think it is a far longer period than this, it wasn't until after the 2003 England series where his performances really started to slip, which gives him more like 8 years at the highest level.

People always talked about a drop in pace - that, as I've said before, was simply wrong, there was no such thing in reality. But there might well have been something.

My personal feelings about his 'loss of pace' are similar to the views I hold about Hoggard; his ability to bowl a 'heavy ball' was decreased from around 2001 and so he lost more pace off the pitch and became a less effective bowler (incidently, still one of the top 5 bowlers in the world until late 2003 so a bit more than 'very moderate').

 

[Richard]

I'd dispute that he couldn't improve his control, but what he could undoubtedly do is bowl his best more often. There's been plenty of poor spells over the past two years- just look at his atrocious opening spell at the MCG last week or his struggles with the Aussie tail at Perth for details, and in the longer term there's the sustained prank-bowling that was his performance at Lord's. And yet despite these periods, he still has one of the greatest ever strike rates and a ridiculously low average. There's most definitely room for improvement in his game.

The other thing he could learn to do, which would make him effective in almost all conditions, is learn to reverse swing the ball more effectively.

As I say - that there's room for improvement doesn't mean a player can be expected to make improvements.

No bowler can possibly go games and games at a time without bowling the odd bad spell or even having the odd whole game of sending down crap. Even Donald did that. I think what Steyn has done for the last 2-and-a-half years is about the best that can reasonably be expected of a bowler of his natural (and un-improveable) assets. And I think anyone expecting a great deal more is going to be disappointed. Steyn can certainly do what he's done the past 2-and-a-half years again, maybe he can even keep it up a little while longer yet in this current spell. But at some point he's going to have a barren patch - everyone does, it's unavoidable. And as I say, by nature when bad he's very bad. A spell of bowling less well is going to cost him far more than it would a Donald, or Pollock, or McGrath, or Ambrose. Instead of getting a few games on the trot where you get, for instance, 1-53, 2-70, 1-48, 3-110 and 1-77, he's going to be getting figures along the lines of 2-140, 3-150.

No-one can possibly bowl well all the time. It's about how bad you're not at your worst, as well as how good you are at your best, that shapes your calibre as a bowler.

 

[susudear]

No

That might be going a bit far. Donald started his international career at 26 in 1992 and still had a good 6 years at his peak. If he had been playing at the highest level from 22, he would have had a far higher tally of wickets.

Shaun Pollock is a less direct comparison to Steyn because he bowled in a different style for much of his career. And for me, Pollock was a better bowler than Donald for much of his career, therefore to be able to compare Steyn to Pollock, he must first accomplish more than Donald did.

Donald's best years were between 1995-01.

He had a good debut year in 1992 though.

Steyn, if he can continue the same performance can become better than him, considering the pitches in this decade as compared to what Donald had to operate on.

 

[Richard]

As was said in a previous post, Bollocks. 6 years playing test cricket at the highest level is more than enough to say that he has had a class career.

Not really. If someone came in at the age of 25, averaged 20 for 6 years over 50-odd Tests, then retired aged 31, would he be considered one of the best ever? Not a chance would he. He'd fall into the "relatively brief brilliance" that also comprises the likes of Alan Davidson, Neil Adcock and Ian Bishop.

Besides, I think it is a far longer period than this, it wasn't until after the 2003 England series where his performances really started to slip, which gives him more like 8 years at the highest level.

My personal feelings about his 'loss of pace' are similar to the views I hold about Hoggard; his ability to bowl a 'heavy ball' was decreased from around 2001 and so he lost more pace off the pitch and became a less effective bowler (incidently, still one of the top 5 bowlers in the world until late 2003 so a bit more than 'very moderate').

I don't think, myself, that Pollock was any different at all in 2001/02 and 2002/03 to 2003/04 or 2004/05 or 2005/06. Almost all of the spicy decks he got between 2001/02 and 2006 (there were a few more in 2006/07 and he was brilliant again that year) came early on (I recall particularly the very first game of the spell at home to India and Trent Bridge in 2003). However, when he got on a flat deck in the first couple of years he was every bit as ineffective as he was later on.

 

[ozone]

Steyn, if he can continue the same performance can become better than him, considering the pitches in this decade as compared to what Donald had to operate on.

I agree that it is possible for him to do it, but I would say it is unlikely, and that it is a lot to say he is well on the way after 2 years. Even if you take the period you give for Donald at his best (i.e. 6 years), Steyn still needs to keep bowling at his peak for 4 more years. This would rely on him remaining injury free and not having a bad spell, which, I think, is unlikely

 

[ozone]

Not really. If someone came in at the age of 25, averaged 20 for 6 years over 50-odd Tests, then retired aged 31, would he be considered one of the best ever? Not a chance would he. He'd fall into the "relatively brief brilliance" that also comprises the likes of Alan Davidson, Neil Adcock and Ian Bishop.

But Pollock didn't retire. He carried on playing and, as you said yourself played at a decent level for another 5 years.

I don't think, myself, that Pollock was any different at all in 2001/02 and 2002/03 to 2003/04 or 2004/05 or 2005/06. Almost all of the spicy decks he got between 2001/02 and 2006 (there were a few more in 2006/07 and he was brilliant again that year) came early on (I recall particularly the very first game of the spell at home to India and Trent Bridge in 2003). However, when he got on a flat deck in the first couple of years he was every bit as ineffective as he was later on.

I feel Pollock throughout his career was a more consistant bowler in terms of the lines and lengths that he bowled. Because of this, I think that he sometimes contributed to Donald picking up wickets at the other end. When he would bowl on a 'spicy' track, he bowled the balls that would take wickets every bit as much as Donald did, but when faced with a flatter track, he lacked the pace of Donald and perhaps moved the ball less and so he went back to bowling consitant lines and lengths. Therefore by him pinning a batsmen down, he helped Donald pick up wickets at the other end.

 

[Richard]

But Pollock didn't retire. He carried on playing and, as you said yourself played at a decent level for another 5 years.

Yes, he was excellence for 6 years and relatively moderate for another 5 (then excellent again for 1 final year). Pollock's career as a bowler from the very top of the tree lasted just 6 years, which is less than that of some others. Hence, for me, Pollock does not quite make the cut of the very top of the tree.

I feel Pollock throughout his career was a more consistant bowler in terms of the lines and lengths that he bowled. Because of this, I think that he sometimes contributed to Donald picking up wickets at the other end. When he would bowl on a 'spicy' track, he bowled the balls that would take wickets every bit as much as Donald did, but when faced with a flatter track, he lacked the pace of Donald and perhaps moved the ball less and so he went back to bowling consitant lines and lengths. Therefore by him pinning a batsmen down, he helped Donald pick up wickets at the other end.

I've never been big on this "wickets at the other end" stuff TBH. Often used, in my experience, to give bowlers credit for stuff they don't deserve. There's no doubt that Pollock's ability to be unhittable on a flat deck was far better for Donald (and everyone else) than it would've been if there'd been someone giving away runs left right and centre, but Donald would still, IMO, have been good enough to get the wickets without Pollock, and I don't think Pollock deserves to have his lack of penetration forgiven because Donald got wickets.

 

[ozone]

I've never been big on this "wickets at the other end" stuff TBH. Often used, in my experience, to give bowlers credit for stuff they don't deserve. There's no doubt that Pollock's ability to be unhittable on a flat deck was far better for Donald (and everyone else) than it would've been if there'd been someone giving away runs left right and centre, but Donald would still, IMO, have been good enough to get the wickets without Pollock, and I don't think Pollock deserves to have his lack of penetration forgiven because Donald got wickets.

The example I would give to counter this is of Flintoff bowling at the other end for any other England bowler in the past 4 years. The pressure which Flintoff applies when he is bowling gives the other English bowlers more chance of taking wickets.

And I think Pollock does deserve to have his lack of penetration forgiven, because it wasn't solely Donald who benefitted, but any South African bowler who bowled with him.

 

[Richard]

The example I would give to counter this is of Flintoff bowling at the other end for any other England bowler in the past 4 years. The pressure which Flintoff applies when he is bowling gives the other English bowlers more chance of taking wickets.

It hasn't though. Plenty of bowlers in the last 5 years have bowled utter crap for England and despite Flintoff's excellence, none of them have gotten good figures. Unfortunately, too, Flintoff's excellence has gone unrewarded almost as often as he's gotten his due. This has compounded troubles.

And I think Pollock does deserve to have his lack of penetration forgiven, because it wasn't solely Donald who benefitted, but any South African bowler who bowled with him.

As I say - economical > expensive (under comparable circumstances - ie, when no wickets are being taken), regardless. And the team will always benefit to that extent. But in my experience, it's quite rare for bad (or non-good) bowling to get wickets purely because of what's going down at the other end. It does happen, but so does bad bowling getting wickets when the stuff at the other end is bad as well.

 

[ozone]

As I say - economical > expensive, regardless. And the team will always benefit to that extent. But in my experience, it's quite rare for bad (or non-good) bowling to get wickets purely because of what's going down at the other end. It does happen, but so does bad bowling getting wickets when the stuff at the other end is bad as well.

And this is why I think Pollock > Donald all things considered.

 

[Richard]

Perhaps I should have added "when wickets are not being taken". Pollock may have mostly been capable of bowling more economically than Donald, but Donald had wicket-taking capabilities Pollock did not. And not just the Pollock of 2001/02-2007/08 either - the Pollock of 1995/96-2001 as well.

In Test cricket (obviously not in ODIs) I'm quite happy to sacrifice going for 2.3-an-over and instead going for 2.8-an-over if it means you take wickets much more often.

 

[Savvy Saffer]

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.

Wait 2 years and see....