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

[kingkallis]

Originally Posted by pasag

When was the last time we had such an 'ordinary' (comparatively of course) best fast bowler? It's pretty clear he is the best and no one would dispute he's a superb player but is he only the best because of the lack of great bowlers going around currently? Compared to others in recent times he does come up a bit short and one wonders as well if Bond and Asif were still playing would he even have the title?

No, its not becuse of the lack of the quality bowlers BUT, the way he takes the wicket. If he was BEST because of the unavailability of other good quicks then he wouldnt have taken 5-6 wickets a game for over 2 years now.

If Bond was fit, it would have been a solid competition but I DONT rate Asif that high!

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by vic_orthdox

Really not sure that, when you are striking that quickly, you care all that much about an economy rate above three.

but dont we all subconsciously rate stingier bowlers higher? mcgill has a better strike rate than warne or kumble. but concedes more runs per over. in fact, his average must be very close to, and could even be better than, anil's. but he is always ranked below the two of them because of his un-economical bowling.

and, waqar younis has a superior strike rate compared to marshall, hadlee, donald, lillee, imran, wasim and ambrose. he is very rarely going to be considered on par with them; and definitely never ranked better. same with shoab akhthar. he has a superior strike rate and a similar average in comparison with andy roberts. and that too in a batsman friendly era. but who would call a better bowler? it again boils down to those extra decimals in the economy rate.

we will feel steyn's waywardness every time he gives boundary balls more frequently than, say, a shaun pollock. and we will rate him below shaun despite him having a better average and a far, far superior strike rate. and we will call him "erratic" "inaccurate"l. econ rate does play a role, obvious and otherwise, when we rate bowlers.

[Johnners]

Dear Pasag,

I'm sorry to hear about the passing of your credible question that had the potential to provide some interesting, non-trollish discussion. It is with deepest sympathies that I send this card.

Yours Truly,

Clapo

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Evermind

No responses to this? Very surprising. I thought it's pretty much all the proof one needs that Steyn is definitely in the uppermost echelon of fast bowlers. Only Waqar has a better record.

Raises more questions than it addresses for mine. How many people rate Waqar above the other bowlers in that list?*

Probably too early in Steyn's career to make a call on whether he's fit to stand comparison to the demi-gods listed; like Younis he could fall away (comparitively) in the latter half of his career. Which, I suppose, means we can only really answer pasag's Q in retrospect.

*I'll answer my own question: I do. At his peak he was the best I've seen. Others have better career stats, but Waqar at the zenith was an absolute joy to behold, even when he was bowling my team to defeat.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by Jono

Most people, even if it wasn't as disputed as Steyn is now (as Pasag suggested), thought Brett Lee was the best fast bowler in the world in 2007. Right after the SL in Aus series people were pretty much saying he was the best, and even after the Ind in Aus series, he was still being touted that.

So really, whilst an interesting thread, 18 months ago would have probably been a better time to raise the question.

For me, Lee was the worst "#1 fast bowler in the world" ever.

I think first it should be made clear on what basis are we rating a bloke as the #1 fast bowler in the world, is it on the basis of the number of wickets he has taken, or on the basis of what the rankings at that time.

I think Lee stepped-up brilliantly after retirements of McGrath and Warne, bowled beyond his ability and virtually bowled himself into the ground, but still despite that, i think its pretty arguable whether he was the best fast bowler even in 2007.

[KiWiNiNjA]

Originally Posted by Clapo

Dear Pasag,

I'm sorry to hear about the passing of your credible question that had the potential to provide some interesting, non-trollish discussion. It is with deepest sympathies that I send this card.

Yours Truly,

Clapo

Clap clap.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Raises more questions than it addresses for mine. How many people rate Waqar above the other bowlers in that list?*

Probably too early in Steyn's career to make a call on whether he's fit to stand comparison to the demi-gods listed; like Younis he could fall away (comparitively) in the latter half of his career. Which, I suppose, means we can only really answer pasag's Q in retrospect.

*I'll answer my own question: I do. At his peak he was the best I've seen. Others have better career stats, but Waqar at the zenith was an absolute joy to behold, even when he was bowling my team to defeat.

I think the debate here is not at all whether Steyn would be able to retain this form over the years, the debate is whether Steyn is at the top just because he doesn't have any competition, or had better fast-bowlers been around would Steyn still be the #1 fast bowler.

My point is fast-bowlers nowadays have to work extra hard to get their wickets due to the state of pitches and they also have to cope with the gruelling schedules, and their job is much tougher compared to their counterparts from yesteryear's.

Having said that Steyn's bowling figures so far in his career still aren't any worse compared to good fast-bowlers from yesteryear's, which kind of make Steyn's achievements even more impressive.

[Manee]

Originally Posted by pup11

I think the debate here is not at all whether Steyn would be able to retain this form over the years, the debate is whether Steyn is at the top just because he doesn't have any competition, or had better fast-bowlers been around would Steyn still be the #1 fast bowler.

My point is fast-bowlers nowadays have to work extra hard to get their wickets due to the state of pitches and they also have to cope with the gruelling schedules, and their job is much tougher compared to their counterparts from yesteryear's.

Having said that Steyn's bowling figures so far in his career still aren't any worse compared to good fast-bowlers from yesteryear's, which kind of make Steyn's achievements even more impressive.

Precisely my point and despite all the talk of missing the point of the thread, I have not seen a credible reply to such a point.

[bagapath]

he is not "the worst best fast bowler in the world". that would probably be someone in 1945 - 47, 1968 - 1971. and for most of the 1930s there wasnt a single leather finger of genuine pace who could be respected, after larwood retired. steyn is definitely not very different from the several "best fast bowler at the moment" of various eras - like bedser, john snow and waqar. still, steyn being expensive, is not yet in the mcgrath/ hadlee league. that is why this question has even come up. otherwise, there is nothing wrong with his avg, sr and wkts/tests ratio

[Richard]

Originally Posted by bagapath

but dont we all subconsciously rate stingier bowlers higher? mcgill has a better strike rate than warne or kumble. but concedes more runs per over. in fact, his average must be very close to, and could even be better than, anil's. but he is always ranked below the two of them because of his un-economical bowling.

and, waqar younis has a superior strike rate compared to marshall, hadlee, donald, lillee, imran, wasim and ambrose. he is very rarely going to be considered on par with them; and definitely never ranked better. same with shoab akhthar. he has a superior strike rate and a similar average in comparison with andy roberts. and that too in a batsman friendly era. but who would call a better bowler? it again boils down to those extra decimals in the economy rate.

we will feel steyn's waywardness every time he gives boundary balls more frequently than, say, a shaun pollock. and we will rate him below shaun despite him having a better average and a far, far superior strike rate. and we will call him "erratic" "inaccurate"l. econ rate does play a role, obvious and otherwise, when we rate bowlers.

If it was possible to consistently take 15-67-5 and like like, then that bowler would indeed be the best bowler ever. If someone had a 70-Test career, with no significant deviation from the norm over the course of it, and finished with an average of 17.52 and an economy-rate of 3.63-an-over they'd be the best bowler ever, few questions asked.

However, as I say, such a thing just isn't really possible. Expensive bowlers, as a rule, tend to have more bad days than economical ones, and their bad days are by default much worse. A bad game for Glenn McGrath might be something like 35-98-1. For Steyn it could easily be 37-170-1. Expensive bowlers just cannot keep the consistency of economical ones. No-one has ever defied this rule yet.

BTW, the reason Stuart MacGill is rightly ranked way behind Anil Kumble is that a) MacGill didn't have that much of a career and b) he was a weak-team bully (his Test record against Test-class teams pales considerably compared to his I$C$C-official-bull**** record). Little to do with economy-rates. If MacGill was constantly taking 40-150-9 and the like, he'd be better than Kumble. But he didn't. Against good batting, he rarely threatened all that much.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by bagapath

steyn is definitely not very different from the several "best fast bowler at the moment" of various eras - like bedser, john snow and waqar.

The only time Bedser could really be claimed to be the best seamer around was around about 1950-1954 or so (and even then I'd still have him behind Lindwall). At that time, I'd have him above Steyn without a second thought. Bedser's trouble was that, despite ten-fors in his first two Tests, he had a long, long period after that where he wasn't much crack (averaged mid-40s IIRR). Clearly, he was nowhere near being the best around at that time.

As for Snow and Waqar, as I've said earlier, I'd have both of them ahead of the current Steyn at their respective times at the top of The World, again without a backward glance. Whether Steyn manages to keep-up his consistency in the way they didn't remains to be seen, and he could conceivably finish as a better bowler than both.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by kingkallis

If Bond was fit, it would have been a solid competition but I DONT rate Asif that high!

I'm really not sure about that. Bond is 34(?) now, and was never an outstanding Test bowler in the precious few games he did play, even though there's no doubt he could've been had he played the games he didn't. I highly doubt he'd be better than Steyn right now. In fact, Bond's short Test career generally followed a similar pattern to Steyn's so far. In ODIs, though, Bond was the complete package in a way Steyn is exceptionally unlikely ever to be.

Asif, meanwhile, if he had a better attitude and didn't seem completely unconcerned about whether or not he had a good cricket career, I think would be notably better than Steyn. But he doesn't, so he isn't, and there's precious little point what-if-ing on the Asif score, because a hopeless case generally stays a hopeless case.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Jono

Most people, even if it wasn't as disputed as Steyn is now (as Pasag suggested), thought Brett Lee was the best fast bowler in the world in 2007. Right after the SL in Aus series people were pretty much saying he was the best, and even after the Ind in Aus series, he was still being touted that.

So really, whilst an interesting thread, 18 months ago would have probably been a better time to raise the question.

For me, Lee was the worst "#1 fast bowler in the world" ever.

That's an interesting one. There's no doubt Lee is the worst bowler ever to raise his game to top-of-World level (Lee aside from 2007/08 and his first few games was of course diabolical), but is that the question being asked? Or is it whether the Lee of 2007/08 is better than the Steyn of right now?

If so, I'd say I'd have Lee of sometime between Nov '07 and June '08 over Steyn of any point between April '06 and Feb '09 (he's really not changed at all in that time) without much hesitation.

What I always thought about Lee was that he was very unlikely to be able to keep that up. Bowlers who are poor for as long as he was have no business turning as good as he did for that brief time at all, never mind doing it long-term.

[nightprowler10]

Originally Posted by Clapo

Dear Pasag,

I'm sorry to hear about the passing of your credible question that had the potential to provide some interesting, non-trollish discussion. It is with deepest sympathies that I send this card.

Yours Truly,

Clapo

Hahaha.

[pskov]

Originally Posted by Richard

If it was possible to consistently take 15-67-5 and like like, then that bowler would indeed be the best bowler ever. If someone had a 70-Test career, with no significant deviation from the norm over the course of it, and finished with an average of 17.52 and an economy-rate of 3.63-an-over they'd be the best bowler ever, few questions asked.

However, as I say, such a thing just isn't really possible. Expensive bowlers, as a rule, tend to have more bad days than economical ones, and their bad days are by default much worse. A bad game for Glenn McGrath might be something like 35-98-1. For Steyn it could easily be 37-170-1. Expensive bowlers just cannot keep the consistency of economical ones. No-one has ever defied this rule yet.

BTW, the reason Stuart MacGill is rightly ranked way behind Anil Kumble is that a) MacGill didn't have that much of a career and b) he was a weak-team bully (his Test record against Test-class teams pales considerably compared to his I$C$C-official-bull**** record). Little to do with economy-rates. If MacGill was constantly taking 40-150-9 and the like, he'd be better than Kumble. But he didn't. Against good batting, he rarely threatened all that much.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Steyn there, he hasn't come close to having figures that bad in his career to date. His worst innings analysis to date is 25.3-2-122-1 which was in his second test match against England in 2004 when he was completely raw.

If you're interested, McGrath's worst innings analysis was 30-5-107-0 at the Adelaide test in the 06/07 Ashes.