Is Dale Steyn the worst ever best fast bowler in the world? - Page 3

dontcloseyoureyes · 14-02-2009, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasag

.....

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

Of course he didn't, he's a ****ing spastic.

Precambrian · 14-02-2009, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes

Of course he didn't, he's a ****ing spastic.

Wonderful value addition mate. What more to expect from you?

Why have you gone mute on my counterargument?

silentstriker · 14-02-2009, 04:11 AM

Quote:

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.

Hmm, who do you think challenged Brett Lee for that title?

chaminda_00 · 14-02-2009, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasag

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.

Having a closer look at things Peter Pollock was pretty raw around 1966 when Trueman retired and missed most of that year due to injuries. Wes Hall was still around at that time but was past his peak. Higgs had a brillant season but was as raw Steyn. McKenzie I always thought was average similar to Brett Lee.

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.

biased indian · 14-02-2009, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasag

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.

why are you again and again stating that Styen is not a good enough bowler ?????

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...

silentstriker · 14-02-2009, 04:14 AM

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)?

pup11 · 14-02-2009, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasag

Missed the point, congrats.

Sure had Garner, Marshall, Holding, Lille, etc had been playing now, they would have made Steyn look ordinary, but the fact is Steyn is ahead of other fast-bowlers of his time in wicket taking abilities by some distance, that too in early stages of his career.

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.

sammy2 · 14-02-2009, 04:15 AM

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.

pup11 · 14-02-2009, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes

Are you surprised?

Please put me on the ignore list, if my posts are hurting your head that badly...

Precambrian · 14-02-2009, 04:16 AM

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.

Precambrian · 14-02-2009, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pup11

Please put me on the ignore list, if my posts are hurting your head that badly...

He's a loose nut who has a massive inferiority complex which he tries to hide by bossing people around in the net.

pasag · 14-02-2009, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biased indian

why are you again and again stating that Styen is not a good enough bowler ?????

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...

Read the posts again please, specifically the part where I called him a superb player then go back and show me where I said again and again 'Styen is not a good enough bowler'. The perhaps you'll realise this thread is asking where the number one bolwer in the world relates to previous number ones. Whether he is better then some, worse than others etc.

Precambrian · 14-02-2009, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammy2

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.

Loved that post, really. It has an innocence written all over it. And ignorance.

Precambrian · 14-02-2009, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasag

Read the posts again please, specifically the part where I called him a superb player then go back and show me where I said again and again 'Styen is not a good enough bowler'. The perhaps you'll realise this thread is asking where the number one bolwer in the world relates to previous number ones. Whether he is better then some, worse than others etc.

The question is, why do you think Steyn would struggle to be among the best bowlers during any other period in cricket history??

_Ed_ · 14-02-2009, 04:21 AM

Disappointing thread. Was intrigued by the opening post.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pakistan's top 10 bowlers.....ever	Xuhaib	Cricket Chat	25	06-01-2012 08:38 AM
The worst person in the world	pasag	Off Topic	189	07-05-2009 06:31 PM
Is Michael Clarke the worst leaver in the game?	Mister Wright	Cricket Chat	85	02-02-2009 01:09 PM
Who are the most overrated/underrated cricket teams in the world currently?	MendisNuffSaid	Cricket Chat	68	28-01-2009 10:25 PM

14-02-2009, 04:14 AM	#36 (permalink)
silentstriker The Wheel is Forever Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 36,546	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)?

14-02-2009, 04:15 AM	#38 (permalink)
sammy2 Banned Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 409	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.

14-02-2009, 04:16 AM	#40 (permalink)
Precambrian Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Rahmaniverse Posts: 7,358	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.

14-02-2009, 04:21 AM	#45 (permalink)
_Ed_ Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Auckland, Aotearoa Posts: 19,111	Disappointing thread. Was intrigued by the opening post.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)