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

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by pasag

Hard to say Lee was the undisputed best fast bowler in the world though, it was pretty subjective and there wasn't a clear leader like there is now.

Then, why this poll altogether? The bloke is just 25, and has a god damn impressive record across all countries save perhaps England (owing to not being fully fit). He was the centrepin and the only bowler to average less than 30 in the entire epoch making Aussie SA series, and his record in the subcontinent rivals even Hadlee's! So I understand not why exactly you could even say he is the worst best bowler, it simply does not make sense.

[biased indian]

Originally Posted by pasag

Hardly inflammatory. The fanboys may take offense (but I don't even think there are any, tbh).

have to agree with precam ...was surprised to see your name as the thread starter ...thought it was one of those usual suspects

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

Then, why this poll altogether? The bloke is just 25, and has a god damn impressive record across all countries save perhaps England (owing to not being fully fit). He was the centrepin and the only bowler to average less than 30 in the entire epoch making Aussie SA series, and his record in the subcontinent rivals even Hadlee's! So I understand not why exactly you could even say he is the worst best bowler, it simply does not make sense.

I'd be rather pressed to name Glenn McGrath as the worst best fast bowler then considering he hardly was fast. His medium pace could be deadly accuate but hardly possessed any glamour that one associate with a premium fast bowler. However it didn;t matter in the end, and he ended up being one of the greatest ever fast bowlers in history.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

Then, why this poll altogether? The bloke is just 25, and has a god damn impressive record across all countries save perhaps England (owing to not being fully fit). He was the centrepin and the only bowler to average less than 30 in the entire epoch making Aussie SA series, and his record in the subcontinent rivals even Hadlee's! So I understand not why exactly you could even say he is the worst best bowler, it simply does not make sense.

It's a simple question as to where the the current mantle holder of best faster bowler in the world relates historically and also perhaps a comment on the lack of great fast bowlers going around today . It's not too difficult.

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Originally Posted by pasag

Missed the point, congrats.

Are you surprised?

[pasag]

Originally Posted by biased indian

have to agree with precam ...was surprised to see your name as the thread starter ...thought it was one of those usual suspects

I think it shows how touchy some people are really, when an honest discussion point is seen as 'inflammatory'. People being way too precious.

[biased indian]

Originally Posted by pasag

I think it shows how touchy some people are really, when an honest discussion point is seen as 'inflammatory'. People being way too precious.

and the answer your straight forward question is simple its S.J.Harmison

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by pasag

It's a simple question as to where the the current mantle holder of best faster bowler in the world relates historically and also perhaps a comment on the lack of great fast bowlers going around today . It's not too difficult.

Is that Steyn's fault that he has to contend with the Mitchell Johnsons and the Zaheer Khans of his period?

Or is it that the conditions have become so hugely skewed in favor of batsmen in tests that a bowling average of 30 in tests is as good as 25 some years back?

I think the broad scenario must be discussed before categorising Steyn as poor.

I mean, he would come on the top 5 fast bowlers of any decade with over 100 wickets since 1950 imho. So I don;t think he is the worst best (lol) fast bowler.

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

I think the broad scenario must be discussed before categorising Steyn as poor.

Who said Steyn was poor? Some people are totally missing the point of this thread.

Originally Posted by biased indian

and the answer your straight forward question is simple its S.J.Harmison

Harmison was never the best paceman in the world. His peak was during McGrath's reign. Rankings are meaningless in this debate.

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by pasag

I think it shows how touchy some people are really, when an honest discussion point is seen as 'inflammatory'. People being way too precious.

Sorry mate, but you have not yet provided a reasoning for naming Steyn as "Worst" best fast bowler, other than some dodgy logic like his peers being all **** and the like. What exactly is Steyn lacking that you consider him to be not worthy to be at the top of the bunch of all time? Apart from obvious experience??

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

What exactly is Steyn lacking that you consider him to be not worthy to be at the top of the bunch of all time? Apart from obvious experience??

Another 200 test wickets and a proven longevity in the game.

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes

Who said Steyn was poor? Some people are totally missing the point of this thread.



Harmison was never the best paceman in the world. His peak was during McGrath's reign. Rankings are meaningless in this debate.

If rankings are meaningless, what is the meaningful argument then? Perceptions? Because the other indicator, statistics, show Steyn to be as good as any fast bowler in any decade.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

Is that Steyn's fault that he has to contend with the Mitchell Johnsons and the Zaheer Khans of his period?

Or is it that the conditions have become so hugely skewed in favor of batsmen in tests that a bowling average of 30 in tests is as good as 25 some years back?

I think the broad scenario must be discussed before categorising Steyn as poor.

I mean, he would come on the top 5 fast bowlers of any decade with over 100 wickets since 1950 imho. So I don;t think he is the worst best (lol) fast bowler.

Yeah, these are the exact points I had in mind being raised in the thread discussion, that's why the OP is a series of questions, not a statement of fact. I'd also like to know from some of the older members whether they thought there were worse number #1s in years gone by and how the current #1 relates to them.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

Sorry mate, but you have not yet provided a reasoning for naming Steyn as "Worst" best fast bowler, other than some dodgy logic like his peers being all **** and the like. What exactly is Steyn lacking that you consider him to be not worthy to be at the top of the bunch of all time? Apart from obvious experience??

.....

I have not stated Steyn is the worst best fast bowler ever, merley asked the question. Notice all the question marks in the OP???

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes

Another 200 test wickets and a proven longevity in the game.

Cop out at the worst. Steyn hasn't played that many tests, but his performances so far are ridiculously good to label him as the best going around. People used to rate Donald to be a premier fast bowler when he too had these sort of figures.

And don't you rate Keith Miller as a quality bowler? He ended with 170 wickets.

Or SF Barnes???

Or Lohmann??

Or Colin Blythe??

Or Jim Laker????

Or O Reilly??

Or ADcock?

Or Davidson?

Or Fazal Mahmood?

Or Bishop?