Wes Hall was probably the No 1 quick around that era still. If that was the case then there is one era where there was a worse quick and in the early 70s after he and McKenzie retired, Pollock stop playing Test and the young quicks coming through didn't bowl as well as Steyn until the mid 70s. John Snow would have been the best quick in the early 70s.
From 1966 to about 1975 the best seamers in the would were worse then Steyn. The 30s were as poor as well imo. It is easy to say he is worst quick when comparing the best from the mids 70 on. But there are plenty of eras with worse best seamers.
Last edited by chaminda_00; 14-02-2009 at 05:16 AM.
The man, the mountain, the Mathews. The greatest all rounder since Keith Miller. (Y)
Jaffna Jets CC (Battrick & FTP)
RIP WCC and CW Cricket
Member of the MSC, JMAS and CVAAS
he is a very very good bowler for me rite now ..he could go either way but now is performing the best he can as far as i think i don't think he can improve a lot from here.... all he can do and should do is to maintain it for a longer time...
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Well, let's go back:
McGrath from 1993-1994 or so. Ambrose before that. Marshall & Co. before that. Imran and Lillee before that. That takes you back almost 40 years. So yea, there is definitely a dearth. Who was the best fast bowler right before Lillee & Co. came on the scene? Wes Hall? But I think he retried a few years before Lillee came along. Maybe in the interlude there (I'm sure I'm missing a few)?
Steyn doesn't posses too many intimidating deliveries, but he surely knows how to get people out, and with all the protective equipment available to the batsmen nowadays, they really don't worry much about getting hit by the ball, its losing their wicket cheaply that hurts them more.
So imo Steyn is hardly the most "ordinary" best fast-bowler, the evident lack of challenge is what really gives one that impression.
Taylor is the best in my view, styen gets his wickets but he is just too simple for me. His pace is clearly what gets him most of his wickets. There just is not anything special about him.
This whole business of him not having 300 wickets being a disqualification is laughable.
Here's the list of the greatest (statistically atleast) bowlers who ended up with between 100 to 200 wickets in their entire career.
Rest In Peace Craigos
Disappointing thread. Was intrigued by the opening post.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)