Originally Posted by Richard
Ditto Waqar Younis. Yet he still managed to have two periods of his career (the first not that lengthy, the second much more so) where he wasn't particularly successful. As a result, Waqar ended-up in the second rather than first tier of seam-bowlers and as I've always said, I see Steyn doing the same.
And right now, Steyn doesn't even possess the skills Waqar did.
I think you are painting Steyn as some sort of one-trick pony which he is not. The comparison with Waqar also does not hold beyond the fact that they are both slightly expensive and have terrific strike rates.
In the case of Waqar Younis, he was the most devastating bowler in the world in the early 90s, but his sudden loss in potency wasn't because he was found out, or had a bad patch of form, but was due to the back injury which dramatically cut down his pace in 1994/5. Without this pace, he was a canny but occasionally inaccurate new ball bowler and clearly wasn't the monster he was with the old ball before.
With Steyn, he is a different bowler to Waqar. He has pace and a good yorker, but gets his wickets largely with his deadly outswinger. Rather than being limited, he seems to have matured during this sensational period. In Melbourne, he showed some nous by bowling to smart field settings and preying on the errors of batsmen, showing that he does have a learning curve. He may or may not be able to sustain his form, but I doubt it will be due to him suddenly losing the script.