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

[Langeveldt]

Fair enough thread, I don't really agree with it though, I would rate Steyn ahead of Bond and Asif.. Definitely better than any of the bowlers we have had in the short space post Donald/Pollock/McGrath, but you are right I guess, he doesn't compare with them yet

[popepouri]

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.

Agreed. The ball that got Hussey in the first ODI was a fine example. He's capable of moving the ball both ways now, which is something he didn't have 6 months ago.

[Tim]

Fair enough thread, I don't really agree with it though, I would rate Steyn ahead of Bond and Asif.. Definitely better than any of the bowlers we have had in the short space post Donald/Pollock/McGrath, but you are right I guess, he doesn't compare with them yet

That's a pretty big call if you ask me.

[Son Of Coco]

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.

True...was McGrath injured at the time?

And on Steyn, he certainly learned quickly in Australia after the first test. I picked him to come up short after his early success but then I hadn't really seen him bowl a lot either. He seems to learn from his previous test and can bowl well to a plan. If he goes on to have years more success then good luck to him.

[vic_orthdox]

That's a pretty big call if you ask me.

I really don't think so, in Test cricket.

[Richard]

True...was McGrath injured at the time?

He had just come back from about 8 months-ish off at the time Harmison hit the #1 spot. He was still out at the time Harmison had his truly purple patch, which propelled him to #2.

And on Steyn, he certainly learned quickly in Australia after the first test. I picked him to come up short after his early success but then I hadn't really seen him bowl a lot either. He seems to learn from his previous test and can bowl well to a plan. If he goes on to have years more success then good luck to him.

The big difference between Steyn at The WACA (and, let's face it, The SCG as well) and The MCG was the ball swung for him at the latter ground.

It's very odd that the two grounds I'd have picked him to swing it at would've been the WACA and SCG and not the MCG, but it turned-out the other way around.

Once Steyn got that swing, though, he was always highly likely to pose considerable problems to the Australian batsmen.

[Richard]

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.

I see. Well most accounts of Waqar I've read tend to suggest he was no more than "normal" fast bowler speed - certainly not proper lightening fast. However, there were no speedguns in his heyday so we won't ever know absolutely for certain. One thing's for sure - the prodigious late inswing he got will always make him both look and feel faster, if perhaps not neccessarily by all that much.

But every indication is that Steyn seems to be learning how to be a better bowler, as he showed in Australia

I don't doubt that. However, regardless of this, there are limits to what he can achieve. He has no great height and bowls with a low-slung action to minimise what height he does have. Therefore his trajectory is always going to be low, and to attempt to change that would be enormously dangerous, as a wholesale overthrow of a bowling action is. And I don't even think he needs to - the low trajectory has its advantages from a wicket-taking POV.

and his outswinger doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It's rare for any major bowler to lose a natural stock delivery.

I certainly don't see Steyn losing his outswinger in that he suddenly just stops being able to bowl it, but the unfortunate nature of swing bowling is that there are times when, sometimes for not apparent reason, the ball just refuses to swing. It's incredibly annoying (IMO), but there's no way around it.

Steyn generally does about all he can to get the ball to swing - his seam-position is and always has been absolutely beautiful - but nonetheless there will still be times, perhaps not all that often, but times nonetheless, when it doesn't swing for him. Under such circumstances, he's always going to struggle.

[Richard]

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.

Personally I always had question-marks over whether Lee was going to maintain that form of 2007/08, and you can see it from my posts 8-9 months ago. While so many were hailing a new dawn, I was staying in the present. It doesn't especially surprise me that he now appears to have been unable to do so. HOWEVER, I still think he bowled better that 8-month period than Steyn has at any point in the last 3 years.

There's no question that Steyn > Lee over their careers, and there's also precious little question that it's likely to stay that way. And I was always fairly certain it was going to. However, that brief period of excellence of Lee's I still think was not that far short of as good as you'll get. Which is something Steyn just does not have the tools to achieve. He can never be the near-complete seam-bowler.

[Uppercut]

Personally I always had question-marks over whether Lee was going to maintain that form of 2007/08, and you can see it from my posts 8-9 months ago. While so many were hailing a new dawn, I was staying in the present. It doesn't especially surprise me that he now appears to have been unable to do so. HOWEVER, I still think he bowled better that 8-month period than Steyn has at any point in the last 3 years.

There's no question that Steyn > Lee over their careers, and there's also precious little question that it's likely to stay that way. And I was always fairly certain it was going to. However, that brief period of excellence of Lee's I still think was not that far short of as good as you'll get. Which is something Steyn just does not have the tools to achieve. He can never be the near-complete seam-bowler.

Rich, i think i've asked you this before, but surely a lot of the weaknesses you pinpoint in Steyn could be said of Malcolm Marshall? What's your view of him?

[Richard]

Yeah I've said the bit about Marshall loads - Marshall in my view is so special because he achieved what virtually no short bowler ever has. He was accurate enough to hit the pinpoint length, again and again, that really short bowlers require in order to bowl as economically as taller ones and, of course, cash-in on the advantages of being short while he was at it.

That's why I have him as the best seamer ever to walk the planet.

[thierry henry]

How come no-one brings up the "short fast bowler" limitations of Richard Hadlee or Dennis Lillee?

Very similar in height to Steyn for mine.

[Richard]

Lillee was, what, 6'3? 6'4? He was a borderline giant.

Hadlee, not sure how tall he was, but one thing's for certain, he bowled upright. Steyn almost flings himself at the floor before letting go.

[Matt79]

Lillee was, what, 6'3? 6'4? He was a borderline giant.

More like 5'11", 6', unless I'm mistaken...

[thierry henry]

Lillee was, what, 6'3? 6'4? He was a borderline giant.

I was thinking more 6'1". Same as Hadlee. Just imo.

[thierry henry]

Yes he's probably lost a little height at his age, but sub 6-foot today for mine.