Is Dale Steyn the worst ever best fast bowler in the world? - Page 11

Richard · 15-02-2009, 10:23 AM

And it's saying something that the worst of all McGrath's 200-odd innings spells (I was talking more match spells TBH) was an economy-rate of just 3.4 or so.

As I say, Steyn has essentially been on one long high for the last nearly 3 years. But no bowler can keep going with barely a bad game forever. Even at his worst, Steyn has usually got 3-4 wickets, even if he's gone for 150-160. But Steyn has had many games where he's conceded a very high economy-rate - 4-an-over, and more sometimes. It's only a matter of time before he has the odd really bad one. And as I say, when he has a bit of a bad patch - as all bowlers, inevitably, however good, do - then there could be some serious carnage.

I only hope it's next year rather than in the upcoming series against Australia because SA really need to win that series and Steyn at home could devastate Australia or anyone if he bowls as he has the last 3 years.

Manee · 15-02-2009, 10:40 AM

I am aware that this current form is not sustainable, but as it is, he has performed as well as anyone from past or present.

roseboy64 · 15-02-2009, 10:45 AM

He has the ability to take wickets though which is why those bad games are rare. Could be bowling mediocre but he's still got the knoack for wickets so he manages to pick up a few.

Richard · 15-02-2009, 11:10 AM

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.

subshakerz · 15-02-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

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.

Richard · 15-02-2009, 12:12 PM

Waqar's back injury undoubtedly didn't help but are you really telling me that you think if he'd not suffered it he'd have been able to keep bowling as he bowled between 1990/91 and 1994/95 until, say, 2000/01? I don't. I can't see anyone keeping-up such sensational brilliance for more than a few years. Frank Tyson between '54 and '57 was in the same boat. Also I don't think Waqar's pace was ever "dramatically" reduced as he was still bowling at close to 90mph against England in 2000/01 (despite very hot conditions) and 2001. At his very best, I can't imagine he was ever much more than 93-94mph at top speed (no-one ever talked of him being as fast as Shoaib Akhtar in his prime, whose average was 88-92 sort of range). I'm sure the injury took a bit of pace off him but I don't think it was much more than 3-4mph.

For Steyn and his 90mph outswinger read Waqar and his 90mph inswinger (though of course Waqar could also make the new ball swing out, while Steyn is nowhere near as skilled with reverse-swing as Waqar was). That fast inswinger which smashed so many stumps and boots was what made the Waqar of '90-'94 the most devastating hurricane the game has seen. Likewise, Steyn's fast outswinger is everything to him: if he can't bowl that outswinger he's anodyne and (inevitably) expensive; if he can (and so far this has been in the considerable majority) he's quite deadly, usually despite expensiveness rather than in addition to economy.

Neither Steyn nor Waqar were one-trick ponies, not at all, but they were\are both bowlers who lack the tall bowler's ability to tie a batsman down. So they are both best-served by attacking, attacking and attacking. Most short bowlers can't attack as well as those two could\can, because they aren't accurate enough with the really full length and aren't as good with the seam-position. However, neither of them are capable of bowling accurately enough to tie batsmen down over long spells and many consecutive games, because as a short bowler that requires almost unbelievable accuracy (Malcolm Marshall-esque). So therefore they should not try in my book.

Not being able to sustain the sort of form Steyn has shown the last 2-and-three-quarter years is not due to losing the script; it's just due to the fact that no-one can bowl so devastatingly for more than a few years at a time. It's just beyond capability. Steyn is bowling as well now as he is capable of in my book and no-one can bowl at the top of their game non-stop for 10-12 years.

funnygirl · 15-02-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roseboy64

He has the ability to take wickets though which is why those bad games are rare. Could be bowling mediocre but he's still got the knoack for wickets so he manages to pick up a few.

That i agree . Steyn's mediocre spells too fetch some wickets .He is lucky in that aspect Wheras Zaheer,Sharma or Flintoff will go wicketless with brilliant spells .

Son Of Coco · 15-02-2009, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

It is not often that a fast bowler is rated as the best so early in his career. I do think however he will go down as a great once he is finished.

Considering Brett Lee was rated as world's best fast bowler last year. He would have to go down as the worst.

Also if you look back through at the late 60s after Trueman retired, was there really a standout fast bowler. McKenzie was probably the best quick around that time and he was worse the Steyn.

EDIT: Looking back maybe Peter Pollock was No 1 around that time. But still he is on par with Steyn for mine.

Surely Harmison has to be the worst!?

Son Of Coco · 15-02-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammy2

Glen was not a better bowler than walsh and ambrose, the only time he went atop the best bowler rankings was after both walsh and ambrose stopped playing. Glen mcgrath only had one trick which was to bowl solely on half stump. In the days when batsmen were patient he could not survive. This is why today more people talk about ambrose than they talk about glen. The W.I pair had much more to offer than just accuracy. Walsh and Ambrose were able to reverse swing the new ball, they produced bounce, and bowled fast. They are true legends of fast bowling, bowlers who created chances instead of waiting for mistakes.

Howsie · 15-02-2009, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Surely Harmison has to be the worst!?

But when he was Number one, he was bowling great.

Son Of Coco · 15-02-2009, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howsie

But when he was Number one, he was bowling great.

For 5 minutes...

He was ranked number one largely on a single performance.

Burgey · 15-02-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funnygirl

Exactly and not a boring metronome .A very exciting fast bowler

LMAO - coz no one would want a bowler taking 500+ test wickets at 21ish, because he bowls "boring".

Bet it wasn't boring for the bloke 22 yards away trying to play him.

Son Of Coco · 15-02-2009, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burgey

LMAO - coz no one would want a bowler taking 500+ test wickets at 21ish, because he bowls "boring".

Bet it wasn't boring for the bloke 22 yards away trying to play him.

They should have just let the ball go Burgey...can't you understand how easy it was to play McGrath? He did nothing of note. 1/2 his wickets were under the tree on Christmas Day

TT Boy · 15-02-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Surely Harmison has to be the worst!?

Yeah good shout.

dontcloseyoureyes · 15-02-2009, 08:42 PM

But while Harmison was "number 1" McGrath was still playing. Going on rankings in this case is silly as they are very rarely correct.

15-02-2009, 10:45 AM	#153 (permalink)
roseboy64 Cricket Web Content Updater Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Jamaica Posts: 18,549	He has the ability to take wickets though which is why those bad games are rare. Could be bowling mediocre but he's still got the knoack for wickets so he manages to pick up a few. __________________ Sir Alexander Chapman Ferguson = Greatest Ever Manager "One from ten leaves zero." - Eric Williams, former T&T PM Member of Cricket Web Green Member of Northside Power R.I.P Fardin Qayyumi

15-02-2009, 08:42 PM	#165 (permalink)
dontcloseyoureyes BARNES OUT Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: WILDCARD, BITCHES Posts: 27,719	But while Harmison was "number 1" McGrath was still playing. Going on rankings in this case is silly as they are very rarely correct. __________________ The one, the only CW Black Code: 47.3 W Coppinger to Heads Smacked the ball straight into the groin of Iwuajoku who has fallen over, miraculously with the ball still caught in his scrotal area! Out! TO OUR FOREFATHERS

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pakistan's top 10 bowlers.....ever	Xuhaib	Cricket Chat	25	06-01-2012 08:38 AM
The worst person in the world	pasag	Off Topic	189	07-05-2009 06:31 PM
Is Michael Clarke the worst leaver in the game?	Mister Wright	Cricket Chat	85	02-02-2009 01:09 PM
Who are the most overrated/underrated cricket teams in the world currently?	MendisNuffSaid	Cricket Chat	68	28-01-2009 10:25 PM

15-02-2009, 10:40 AM	#152 (permalink)
Manee Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Heaven Posts: 8,202	I am aware that this current form is not sustainable, but as it is, he has performed as well as anyone from past or present.

15-02-2009, 11:10 AM	#154 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407	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.

15-02-2009, 12:12 PM	#156 (permalink)
Richard Cricket Web Staff Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 2005 Posts: 80,407	Waqar's back injury undoubtedly didn't help but are you really telling me that you think if he'd not suffered it he'd have been able to keep bowling as he bowled between 1990/91 and 1994/95 until, say, 2000/01? I don't. I can't see anyone keeping-up such sensational brilliance for more than a few years. Frank Tyson between '54 and '57 was in the same boat. Also I don't think Waqar's pace was ever "dramatically" reduced as he was still bowling at close to 90mph against England in 2000/01 (despite very hot conditions) and 2001. At his very best, I can't imagine he was ever much more than 93-94mph at top speed (no-one ever talked of him being as fast as Shoaib Akhtar in his prime, whose average was 88-92 sort of range). I'm sure the injury took a bit of pace off him but I don't think it was much more than 3-4mph. For Steyn and his 90mph outswinger read Waqar and his 90mph inswinger (though of course Waqar could also make the new ball swing out, while Steyn is nowhere near as skilled with reverse-swing as Waqar was). That fast inswinger which smashed so many stumps and boots was what made the Waqar of '90-'94 the most devastating hurricane the game has seen. Likewise, Steyn's fast outswinger is everything to him: if he can't bowl that outswinger he's anodyne and (inevitably) expensive; if he can (and so far this has been in the considerable majority) he's quite deadly, usually despite expensiveness rather than in addition to economy. Neither Steyn nor Waqar were one-trick ponies, not at all, but they were\are both bowlers who lack the tall bowler's ability to tie a batsman down. So they are both best-served by attacking, attacking and attacking. Most short bowlers can't attack as well as those two could\can, because they aren't accurate enough with the really full length and aren't as good with the seam-position. However, neither of them are capable of bowling accurately enough to tie batsmen down over long spells and many consecutive games, because as a short bowler that requires almost unbelievable accuracy (Malcolm Marshall-esque). So therefore they should not try in my book. Not being able to sustain the sort of form Steyn has shown the last 2-and-three-quarter years is not due to losing the script; it's just due to the fact that no-one can bowl so devastatingly for more than a few years at a time. It's just beyond capability. Steyn is bowling as well now as he is capable of in my book and no-one can bowl at the top of their game non-stop for 10-12 years.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)