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

[funnygirl]

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.

Oh ho ...i was talking from a pure spectators point of view .We had Mcgrath as number one before Steyn who i didn't prefer to watch .Now Steyn as number 1 who i love to watch .



No comparisons made here.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by TT Boy

Yeah good shout.

Seconded

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Surely Harmison has to be the worst!?

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes

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

Yeah, agree with DCYE here. Outside of the more parochial corners of County Durham I doubt many cricket followers really believed Harmison was the best seam-up bowler in the world, whatever the rankings said, which is why I added this disclaimer:

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Have to say that from the time I've been watching it's hard to recall a player who was (by consensus rather than ranking) regarded as the best who was such a (relatively) minor talent.

If we go by the old PWC (dunno who does it now) rankings then it's almost certainly Harmy tho, yes.

[The Sean]

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

Quality.

[The Sean]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

The worst era for fast bowling was the void between Larwood in 1933 and the late 40's when Lindwall and Miller arrived - Off the top of my head I cant think of anyone in that era who was genuinely quick let alone of any real class

Shocked you've overlooked the tragic Ken Farnes.

[The Sean]

This is a really interesting thread (when you filter out the direness, which admittedly is a lot). Joining so late in the thread most of my thoughts have been articulated already by others but I think if we consider Brett Lee to have been the best fast bowler in the world a couple of years ago then he's inferior to Steyn.

Beyond that I reckon you'd have to go back to the late 1960s between the retirements of Trueman/Davo and the coming of DK Lillee. Wes Hall, Peter Pollock, Garth McKenzie and John Snow were very, very fine bowlers but I'd question whether they were clearly better than Steyn - there's not much in it in my opinion, which probably more than anything shows how highly I rate him.

Steyn of course need several more years of high achievement to be considered among the true greats but I think he's well on the way.

[The Sean]

In relation to a number of mentions of Wes Hall in this thread, and how the 1960s compared with other eras, when Tom Graveney (who faced all the greats of the 50s and 60s) wrote his "Top 10" cricket book in 1982 he considered Wes Hall the second greatest fast bowler since WWII, which is considerably higher than I think any of us would place him. His Top 10 was:

1. Ray Lindwall
2. Wes Hall
3. Dennis Lillee
4. Brian Statham
5. Fred Trueman
6. Michael Holding
7. Keith Miller
8. Frank Tyson
9. Andy Roberts
10. Alan Davidson

It would be interesting to see how that list would have changed 27 years on.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Surely Harmison has to be the worst!?

But Harmison wasn't the best bowler around at the time. No chance. He was just erroneously ranked so after 3 bad Tests and 1 good one.

If we said every bowler to top the ICC Form Rankings (which is all they are) qualified we'd have a never-ending list.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by The Sean

This is a really interesting thread (when you filter out the direness, which admittedly is a lot). Joining so late in the thread most of my thoughts have been articulated already by others but I think if we consider Brett Lee to have been the best fast bowler in the world a couple of years ago then he's inferior to Steyn.

Beyond that I reckon you'd have to go back to the late 1960s between the retirements of Trueman/Davo and the coming of DK Lillee. Wes Hall, Peter Pollock, Garth McKenzie and John Snow were very, very fine bowlers but I'd question whether they were clearly better than Steyn - there's not much in it in my opinion, which probably more than anything shows how highly I rate him.

I'd have Wesley Winfield at his best as better than Steyn, no doubts. But the time when he was at his best was essentially the same time as Trueman and Davidson. He went on for maybe a year longer. After 1965, he too was a force of no great note.

And as I say, I think Peter Pollock was probably > Steyn as well, but that's perhaps open to question.

Already mentioned the Snow case plenty TBH - I'm sure you, unlike some, know just how good Snow really was without judging purely on his banal Test career average.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

I know we've been over this before but I would put Waqar in his early days (89-91) as up there with Shoaib / Lee for pace. I can't prove it, of course, and I appreciate that his late inswing might have given the impression of greater pace than he in fact generated.

However he was the fastest bowler in the world at the time, faster imho than Patterson or Donald. Cricinfo's pen portrait says that "In his youth, he was one of the fastest ever" and I think that pretty much sums it up.

How he would have performed but for that injury is impossible to say. But he was very very quick before his injury, and post-injury bowled at around Darren Gough sort of speed ie on the borderline between RFM and RF.

[Uppercut]

A year ago, when Lee was taking Indian wickets to stake his claim for the number one spot, I thought for sure he was the best fast bowler in the world. Sure, Dale Steyn was tearing through New Zealand and had just had an unbelievable year, but I thought that was just a purple patch and only Lee would go on to maintain his form.

In hindsight, i think Steyn really was the best in the world at that time- he hadn't yet proven it, but in terms of ability, he was. His purple patch has gone on too long to maintain anything else. Funnily enough, that means that Lee never really was the world number one fast bowler, which pretty much hands the title to Dale Steyn on a platter.

It's a question that's probably been asked of other greats early in their careers though. If he continues to play so well throughout his career I'm sure we'll look back on this thread in the same way as we'd look back on a "is Wasim Akram the worst fast bowler ever?" thread now.

[Manee]

I think that the extreme pace will desert Steyn after a while, after which time he'll come toward the pack so to speak. How far he comes toward the pack will determine his legacy, imo.

[roseboy64]

Originally Posted by Manee

I think that the extreme pace will desert Steyn after a while, after which time he'll come toward the pack so to speak. How far he comes toward the pack will determine his legacy, imo.

He'd have picked up quite a lot of wicket s by then though.

[Manee]

Certainly would have likely reached the 250-300 mark, but I am willing to bet that his extreme pace will desert him quite early in his career, similar to Waqar Younis.

[subshakerz]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

That's not true actually. Waqar at his peak was as fast if not faster than Shoaib, and many of the players who played with both Waqar and Shoaib attest to this fact. He was express pace (90+ average) but after his injury he struggled to even break the 90s barrier. Anyone who saw Waqar bowl afterwards knows he couldn't beat the batsmen out of sheer pace like he used to. And the fact that his injury can account for this can be seen in his dramatic and almost immediate loss of form after his back injury in 94/95, which coincided with the end of his peak.

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

But every indication is that Steyn seems to be learning how to be a better bowler, as he showed in Australia, and his outswinger doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It's rare for any major bowler to lose a natural stock delivery.