Page 21 of 45 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 671

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

  1. #301
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Something else to note - as I didn't watch the game in question I can't say it's more than a possibility that's occurred to me - is that maybe Steyn has produced the performance of a lifetime at the best possible time. From what everyone's said about that spell it sounds like the sort of thing that might well prove the best spell he ever bowls, and judging by South Africa's first-innings this match would presumably have been one of those pointless bat-athons but for Steyn's spell - seems like he might've turned a certain bore-draw into an easy victory.
    Yeah you could be right, but I'd be more convinced had he not bowled similarly superhuman spells in each of his previous two games (one of which, the spell to Colly, was on a similarly lifeless pitch). I think he really is just insanely good at the moment. It's just a matter of how long he can keep it up.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  2. #302
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Welcome it in Tests; less so in ODIs. In ODIs consistent accuracy is far more important than the ability to bowl wicket-taking deliveries.
    In an attack as a whole yes, however IMO in an ODI side there's always room for a strike bowler like Waqar who might occasionally leak runs but who is also capable of destroying a batting line up.

    In ODIs, you only get one chance at batting. If your opening bowler produces a spell of 7-0-37-4 then IMO that's far more useful than 7-3-10-1.

  3. #303
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    And personally I consider that there is a certain type of fingerspinner which can be very successful in ODIs (those who bowl fast and very flat with a bit of spin), then there's the odd special case (Saqlain and Harbhajan with their Doosras; Vettori with his incredible guile and quick wits) but mostly fingerspinners are not capable of containing top-quality batsmen in ODIs on wickets without significant grip (be that in the form of slowness and\or turn), however accurate they are.
    How much of that is to do with captains setting their spinners utterly crap fields though?

    Always baffles me when captains stick mid off and mid on back onto the fence, therefore offering an easy single down the ground.

  4. #304
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    In an attack as a whole yes, however IMO in an ODI side there's always room for a strike bowler like Waqar who might occasionally leak runs but who is also capable of destroying a batting line up.

    In ODIs, you only get one chance at batting. If your opening bowler produces a spell of 7-0-37-4 then IMO that's far more useful than 7-3-10-1.
    Of course it is. But such spells are, by nature, rare in ODIs. It's much easier to produce the sort of spell that will return something like 7-10-1 than the sort that will return something like 7-37-4.

    Thus by-and-large bowlers like Waqar don't tend to be all that good at ODIs. Because although I did indeed see Waqar bowl several spells of the nature of the latter mentioned above, I also saw him go the distance without looking like taking more than the odd important wicket plenty of times.

    Whereas someone like Alan Mullally would produce far more spells which would make an important contribution. I'd much, much rather have five Mullally-style bowlers than five Waqar-style ones. With the latter I'd have more really low scores but also plenty more really biiiiiiig ones. With the former only on rare occasions when batsmen tried extraordinary tactics and they paid-off would my oppo get any scores of great note.

    Given the choice of five Mullally-style-ers and three Mullallys and two Waqars, too, I'd have the former every time. For all the occasions the Mullallys would make the Waqar-inspired lows even lower, there'd be plenty of occasions when the Waqars would undo the good work of the Mullallys.

    Not to mention the fact that Waqar-style bowlers are very rare. Even for instance Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee tend(ed?) to either get pasted in their opening spells without threatening or take something like 6-19-4. Mostly in ODIs the tools you can use to take wickets also cause you to bowl economically.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006


  5. #305
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    How much of that is to do with captains setting their spinners utterly crap fields though?

    Always baffles me when captains stick mid off and mid on back onto the fence, therefore offering an easy single down the ground.
    I'd agree that they do it too often but if the bowler in question is a standard fingerspinner and the pitch is one with decent pace and bounce and no real turn then the batsman can easily use his feet and take the attack to said spinner if the field's up. Standard fingerspinners don't have the repetoire to contain to either deep-set or close-set fields.

    It infuriates me more when captains do said to good accurate seam bowlers (not that all that many of them get picked at the current time anyway). Such a criminal waste.

  6. #306
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Yeah you could be right, but I'd be more convinced had he not bowled similarly superhuman spells in each of his previous two games (one of which, the spell to Colly, was on a similarly lifeless pitch). I think he really is just insanely good at the moment. It's just a matter of how long he can keep it up.
    That last sentence is really what worries me, the last thing I want is him becoming blown out by an injury that would result in drastic changes in action etc and him losing his effectiveness.

    Oh good lord, I don't mind you taking away our No.1 rankings as long as I can live to see this guy taking 500 wickets @ 24.

  7. #307
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Of course it is. But such spells are, by nature, rare in ODIs. It's much easier to produce the sort of spell that will return something like 7-10-1 than the sort that will return something like 7-37-4.

    Thus by-and-large bowlers like Waqar don't tend to be all that good at ODIs. Because although I did indeed see Waqar bowl several spells of the nature of the latter mentioned above, I also saw him go the distance without looking like taking more than the odd important wicket plenty of times.

    Whereas someone like Alan Mullally would produce far more spells which would make an important contribution. I'd much, much rather have five Mullally-style bowlers than five Waqar-style ones. With the latter I'd have more really low scores but also plenty more really biiiiiiig ones. With the former only on rare occasions when batsmen tried extraordinary tactics and they paid-off would my oppo get any scores of great note.

    Given the choice of five Mullally-style-ers and three Mullallys and two Waqars, too, I'd have the former every time. For all the occasions the Mullallys would make the Waqar-inspired lows even lower, there'd be plenty of occasions when the Waqars would undo the good work of the Mullallys.

    Not to mention the fact that Waqar-style bowlers are very rare. Even for instance Shoaib Akhtar and Brett Lee tend(ed?) to either get pasted in their opening spells without threatening or take something like 6-19-4. Mostly in ODIs the tools you can use to take wickets also cause you to bowl economically.
    I'm not questioning your logic, just stating that IMO, if you've got a good economical attack, you can afford one loose cannon.

  8. #308
    International Vice-Captain Faisal1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Something else to note - as I didn't watch the game in question I can't say it's more than a possibility that's occurred to me - is that maybe Steyn has produced the performance of a lifetime at the best possible time. From what everyone's said about that spell it sounds like the sort of thing that might well prove the best spell he ever bowls, and judging by South Africa's first-innings this match would presumably have been one of those pointless bat-athons but for Steyn's spell - seems like he might've turned a certain bore-draw into an easy victory.
    I watched the game and i personally feel that, given the conditions of the pitch and the good form of Indian batsmen he probably did bowl the spell of his life ....to get the ball move of the pitch the way he did simply sets the bar very high for all the bowlers who cry about dead pitches in subcontinent...Steyn pretty much showed that their is always something in the pitch for the fast bowlers....Its almost like, the subcontinental bowlers give up before even the game starts after hearing its a "flat track".....Even the balls that Sehwag smacked to cover region were only flawed in their length, they were still moving and had a good line....

    Moreover, the most impressive scene was where he used the good old crease....coming wide of the crease and bring that ball right in (Tendulkar inside edged it too)....

    To sum it up, i think it was good old test bowling with keeping the basics right...and just shows to me that no matter how flat the deck...if you have the steam and the "fuel in the tank" then you can take apart the side.....

    You should watch the highlights.....
    BE AFRIDI!
    Be VERY AFRIDI!!

  9. #309
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    I'm not questioning your logic, just stating that IMO, if you've got a good economical attack, you can afford one loose cannon.
    In terms of you're probably going to manage to keep your oppo to a manageable total, yeah - because the chances are your attack is better than theirs.

    As I've said before, South Africa against Bangladesh could afford to pick someone to bat eleven, not bowl and just field for an entire match, because they'd almost certainly still win by miles. What you can afford and what absolutely maximises your calibre, however, are different things.

  10. #310
    State Regular GuyFromLancs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    946
    huh: Accurate bowling is contrived?
    No, ODIs are contrived as you well know. I enjoy them greatly sometimes, but in small doses.


    And obviously boredom is in the eye of the beholder, but personally there's nothing I find more fascinating in a limited-overs game of reasonable length (ie, ideally 60 - but in this day-and-age we have to settle for 50 - overs) than some really good accurate medium-fast\fast-medium bowling with the wicketkeeper up to the stumps and the field voluntarily mostly up (with the option to drop certain men back at strategic points) and batsmen trying to find ways to score. Far, far better than seeing wayward stuff smashed all over the place during the field-restrictions or average part-timers being milked for easy singles with the field back
    .

    All I am saying is the nature of ODI cricket allows for fairly untalented bowlers to look good. Collingwood, Yurav, Gayle etc. If you find limited overs cricket more fascinating than a world class bowler going to head to head with a world class batsman in a test match, actually trying to get him out, then.............well I don't know


    And personally I consider that there is a certain type of fingerspinner which can be very successful in ODIs (those who bowl fast and very flat with a bit of spin), then there's the odd special case (Saqlain and Harbhajan with their Doosras; Vettori with his incredible guile and quick wits) but mostly fingerspinners are not capable of containing top-quality batsmen in ODIs on wickets without significant grip (be that in the form of slowness and\or turn), however accurate they are.
    Saqlain is widely believed to have suffered ODI burnout, killing his flight and guile.
    World XI Since 1990 -

    1. Gooch 2. Dravid 3. Ponting 4. Tendulkar 5. Lara 6. Kallis 7. Gilchrist 8. Akram 9. Warne 10. Ambrose 11. McGrath

  11. #311
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromLancs View Post
    No, ODIs are contrived as you well know. I enjoy them greatly sometimes, but in small doses.
    I don't think ODIs are neccessarily contrived, any more than any cricket is, TBH. I also enjoy them in smaller doses than Tests, but a ODI is always preferable to, for instance, watching the grass grow or being subjected to racing from Ascot.
    All I am saying is the nature of ODI cricket allows for fairly untalented bowlers to look good. Collingwood, Yurav, Gayle etc.
    Gayle is a more talented bowler than I think some give him credit for. Collingwood and Yuvraj Singh have hardly had sustained success in ODIs really have they?
    If you find limited overs cricket more fascinating than a world class bowler going to head to head with a world class batsman in a test match, actually trying to get him out, then.............well I don't know
    Oh I certainly don't and never have found good ODI cricket to be more interesting than good Test cricket. No siree. Just pointing-out that both are eminently watchable.
    Saqlain is widely believed to have suffered ODI burnout, killing his flight and guile.
    And yet... that flight and guile was much of what made him so good at ODI bowling for a fair while.

    Reality of course is that what destroyed Saqlain was that knee injury. Nothing to do with ODIs - unless of course you suggest that he'd have suffered less had he played fewer ODIs.

  12. #312
    State Regular GuyFromLancs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    946
    ]I don't think ODIs are neccessarily contrived, any more than any cricket is, TBH. I also enjoy them in smaller doses than Tests, but a ODI is always preferable to, for instance, watching the grass grow or being subjected to racing from Ascot.
    Yeah but anything beats horse racing to be fair.

    Gayle is a more talented bowler than I think some give him credit for. Collingwood and Yuvraj Singh have hardly had sustained success in ODIs really have they?
    Collingwood has over 100 wickets, Tendulka has over 150, Jaysuirya who despite his accuracy was never an all-rounder in tests has over 300. It kind of devalues it all a bit.


    And yet... that flight and guile was much of what made him so good at ODI bowling for a fair while.

    Reality of course is that what destroyed Saqlain was that knee injury. Nothing to do with ODIs - unless of course you suggest that he'd have suffered less had he played fewer ODIs.
    I always though ODIs and the style he adopted fo them distracted him from being a world class test bowler. IMO

  13. #313
    State 12th Man 0RI0N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Groom Lake
    Posts
    703

    Icon10

    Quote Originally Posted by roseboy64 View Post
    The reason others are 'missing the point' is because your OP is poor. You claim him to be ordinary in comparison to other #1 fast bowlers. That can only be a subjective statement based on how he bowls because statistically he compares well with the great bowlers of the past since the time he's been brought back into Test cricket and looked the part. Then you wonder if he may only be the best because there's a lack of great fast bowlers. If his figures compare well with the great fast bowlers then this just becomes a rather silly argument. Ifs, ands or buts shouldn't matter. He can't be blamed for Bond and Asif having their problems. he's gone out there and done well. Thus, it clearly seems like an attack on Steyn for being simply not bowling in a time with other great fast bowlers and not as Evermind said "Oh back in the good ole days, when fast bowlers were 8 feet tall, and slept 3 hours a night, and bowled at 180kph".
    OP owned.
    The reason for this thread was probably so that OP could have a dig at Steyn.Kind of like a compliment followed by an insult.
    Steyn, at the time of the OP was number 1(and still is 1 year later),and OP couldn't stomach that fact hence the thread worst best fast bowler.
    OP you irate Steyn wrecked India in India and is STILL the best bowler around?
    You mad he has 195 wickets in 37 tests?

  14. #314
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,857
    Quote Originally Posted by 0RI0N View Post
    OP owned.
    The reason for this thread was probably so that OP could have a dig at Steyn.Kind of like a compliment followed by an insult.
    Steyn, at the time of the OP was number 1(and still is 1 year later),and OP couldn't stomach that fact hence the thread worst best fast bowler.
    OP you irate Steyn wrecked India in India and is STILL the best bowler around?
    You mad he has 195 wickets in 37 tests?
    Why can't I read any threads in CC any longer without losing huge numbers of brain cells?
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  15. #315
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by 0RI0N View Post
    OP owned.
    The reason for this thread was probably so that OP could have a dig at Steyn.Kind of like a compliment followed by an insult.
    Steyn, at the time of the OP was number 1(and still is 1 year later),and OP couldn't stomach that fact hence the thread worst best fast bowler.
    OP you irate Steyn wrecked India in India and is STILL the best bowler around?
    You mad he has 195 wickets in 37 tests?
    Jeez you get some amateur psychologists around here.

    FTR, Gelman has a far better idea of what he meant than anyone else, because, you know, he posted the post?

Page 21 of 45 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pakistan's top 10 bowlers.....ever
    By Xuhaib in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-01-2012, 08:38 AM
  2. The worst person in the world
    By pasag in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 07-05-2009, 06:31 PM
  3. Is Michael Clarke the worst leaver in the game?
    By Mister Wright in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 02-02-2009, 01:09 PM
  4. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 28-01-2009, 10:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •