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

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by Andre

Yep, you are right in that sense - I just kind of get the impression with him that people think he is top of a weak field, which isn't the case as such.

But yeah, he just doesn't have that presence or aura about him that most of the greats do.

The fact that it is a weak field in no way diminishes his greatness, currently he stands either 1 or 2 all time for SA and that is no mean feat.

[Top_Cat]

Reckon he's like McGrath in the late 90's, right at the point where people switch from rating him as the best of his era to wondering how he compares to other acknowledged greats. His last few series' haven't been as destructive as the couple of years beforehand so you'd imagine he'll have to adjust to keep taking wickets at a similar rate, oppo batters seem to be getting better at responding to that ridiculously dangerous outie of his. How he responds to that will probably be the pivot point for whether he'd regarded as an all-time-great or the best of his time.

Personally, I prefer him already over Donald.

[Manee]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Reckon he's like McGrath in the late 90's, right at the point where people switch from rating him as the best of his era to wondering how he compares to other acknowledged greats. His last few series' haven't been as destructive as the couple of years beforehand so you'd imagine he'll have to adjust to keep taking wickets at a similar rate, oppo batters seem to be getting better at responding to that ridiculously dangerous outie of his. How he responds to that will probably be the pivot point for whether he'd regarded as an all-time-great or the best of his time.

People will probably look back at this series as below par for Steyn but the fact is that he was top wicket taker in the series.

[flibbertyjibber]

Originally Posted by Manee

People will probably look back at this series as below par for Steyn but the fact is that he was top wicket taker in the series.

Na, I thought he had a good series, when they needed a wicket he invariably got it or looked the most likely to get it. Guy is top dawer, clearly the best at the moment, where that means he is overall I have no idea.

Is he even the best South African ahead of Donald and Pollock?

[Migara]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

The main reason they didn't prosper was because the laws didn't suit them - there was the lbw law for one and uncovered wickets for another - the likes of Lohmann and other slow and medium paced bowlers got all the benefits of those - the simple reality is that Larwood apart there weren't any really quick bowlers around in the late 20s/early 30s, which is part of the reason England got such a nasty shock when Constantine and Martindale, who were a good deal slower than Larwood, bowled Bodyline at them in 1933

Bingo. Because the rest was so poor Larwood would made to look better. Get him in among Marshall, Lillee, Hadlee, Ambrose, Imran or Kapil or among Waqar, Wasim, Donald, McGrath, Walsh and Bishop, he will not look special.

If Steyn is regarded best in the era because rest is poor (and as the worst best fast bowler), Larwood has more claims for it, being surrounded by even a piss poorer bunch than Steyn. Steyn at least have Morkel, Philander and Anderson around him.

[Ruckus]

Don't forget Johnson

[Xuhaib]

if there is one complain you can have against Steyn his presence is surely one of the last the bloke even had it when he wan an erratic upstart.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Migara

They didn't prosper, because they weren't good enough. Under same law there were guys like Lohman who wrecked havoc. Like the criticism of Steyn, Larwood was made to look good, because others were not good enough.

They didn't prosper because the pitches were more akin to roads than grass. In a reasonably short period, a good score changed from being 250 to 500. England didn't notch up 903/7 because of some paradigm shift that meant everybody in Australia magically forgot to bowl overnight.

Larwood was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries - far better than Voce, twice the bowler Allen was, clearly better than anyone the Australians could uncover and was a class above Martindale and Constantine, two men who troubled the fearsome English batting line-up to no end.

He was genuinely quick, took wickets aplenty in an era in which spin was relied upon heavily (Verity, O'Reilly and Grimmett being the preeminent spin bowlers of the day) and tamed Don ****ing Bradman. Which, I might add, was something nobody else did for a period of 20 years.

As good a captain as Jardine was, Bodyline would have been nothing without Larwood. He won England the 1932 Ashes, end of.

I challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.

He caused fear simply by someone uttering his name. He averaged 17 in First Class cricket on unhelpful pitches. He topped the averages 5 times, something nobody else has done. EVER. He bowled with more pace and more accuracy than anybody before him.

He was better than anybody who came before him, and is better than anyone who has come since. In my opinion, only Marshall's name should be uttered in the same breath.

More realistically though, he was an all-time great bowler. He may not, objectively speaking, be the best. But he damn sure wasn't a mediocre head of a poor era. He was far, far better than that.

Despite him being English, taming 'our Don' and playing a role in Bodyline, he's my biggest cricketing hero.

[Ruckus]

yeah saying Steyn has no presence is just being deceived by nostalgia imo. I don't exactly know what more Steyn could do to gain an aura, if he doesn't already have it. His on field attitude is about as aggressive as you can get, he doesn't mind have a stare down or a word with the batsmen, he likes to talk himself and the team up, and he isn't afraid to bounce the opposition out. I mean, what more do you need? Maybe a sex scandal would do the trick .

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

They didn't prosper because the pitches were more akin to roads than grass. In a reasonably short period, a good score changed from being 250 to 500. England didn't notch up 903/7 because of some paradigm shift that meant everybody in Australia magically forgot to bowl overnight.

Larwood was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries - far better than Voce, twice the bowler Allen was, clearly better than anyone the Australians could uncover and was a class above Martindale and Constantine, two men who troubled the fearsome English batting line-up to no end.

He was genuinely quick, took wickets aplenty in an era in which spin was relied upon heavily (Verity, O'Reilly and Grimmett being the preeminent spin bowlers of the day) and tamed Don ****ing Bradman. Which, I might add, was something nobody else did for a period of 20 years.

As good a captain as Jardine was, Bodyline would have been nothing without Larwood. He won England the 1932 Ashes, end of.

I challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.

He caused fear simply by someone uttering his name. He averaged 17 in First Class cricket on unhelpful pitches. He topped the averages 5 times, something nobody else has done. EVER. He bowled with more pace and more accuracy than anybody before him.

He was better than anybody who came before him, and is better than anyone who has come since. In my opinion, only Marshall's name should be uttered in the same breath.

More realistically though, he was an all-time great bowler. He may not, objectively speaking, be the best. But he damn sure wasn't a mediocre head of a poor era. He was far, far better than that.

Despite him being English, taming 'our Don' and playing a role in Bodyline, he's my biggest cricketing hero.

No wonder they made him a mod

[watson]

Lets's not get carried away here....

Bradman considered Lindwall a better bowler than Larwood. The Australian could generate pace and accuracy more consistently than the Englishman. Lindwall had a grip on more variarations than Larwood, demonstrating these with a prodigious late out-swinger early in his career, an in-swinger mid-career, the capacity to change pace, a fearful bouncer, and perhaps the best Yorker of them all. While statistics, if taken out of context, may be misleading, the numbers here seem to suggest Lindwall’s superiority. In 21 Tests, Larwood took 78 wickets at 28.35. Remove his Bodyline figures and his returns of 45 wickets at 37.26 for three quarters of his Test career give a more realistic reflection of his effectiveness. In 61 Tests Lindwall took 228 wickets at 23.03.
(Roland Perry - 'Bradman’s Best Ashes Teams', page161)

[benchmark00]

Yeah a bit OTT for mine.

[Migara]

Originally Posted by rvd619323

They didn't prosper because the pitches were more akin to roads than grass. In a reasonably short period, a good score changed from being 250 to 500. England didn't notch up 903/7 because of some paradigm shift that meant everybody in Australia magically forgot to bowl overnight.

Larwood was head-and-shoulders above his contemporaries - far better than Voce, twice the bowler Allen was, clearly better than anyone the Australians could uncover and was a class above Martindale and Constantine, two men who troubled the fearsome English batting line-up to no end.

He was genuinely quick, took wickets aplenty in an era in which spin was relied upon heavily (Verity, O'Reilly and Grimmett being the preeminent spin bowlers of the day) and tamed Don ****ing Bradman. Which, I might add, was something nobody else did for a period of 20 years.

As good a captain as Jardine was, Bodyline would have been nothing without Larwood. He won England the 1932 Ashes, end of.

I challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.

He caused fear simply by someone uttering his name. He averaged 17 in First Class cricket on unhelpful pitches. He topped the averages 5 times, something nobody else has done. EVER. He bowled with more pace and more accuracy than anybody before him.

He was better than anybody who came before him, and is better than anyone who has come since. In my opinion, only Marshall's name should be uttered in the same breath.

More realistically though, he was an all-time great bowler. He may not, objectively speaking, be the best. But he damn sure wasn't a mediocre head of a poor era. He was far, far better than that.

Despite him being English, taming 'our Don' and playing a role in Bodyline, he's my biggest cricketing hero.

Big yawn, and we have exactly having the same reasons to find out why Steyn is so great.

And the bolded part is a massive lol.

[Migara]

challenge you to find me any bowler who had a greater impact on the game, or who bowled of a comparable speed with such unerring accuracy and incredible success. I can name one - Ray Lindwall, who copied Larwood down to the minute detail.

Marshall, Ambrose, Imran Khan, Dennis Lillie, Fred Trueman, Allan Donald, Waqar Younus, Wasim Akram, Shoaib Akthar, Holding, Garner, Roberts and Hadlee are "few" that I could thionk. Bah!

And McGrath, Walsh, Kapil and Pollock had similar success being a yard shorter than Larwood.

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by watson

Lets's not get carried away here....

Difficult to attach too much credence to anything Roland Perry writes though