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

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by WindieWeathers

Oh behave!! . He's fantastic no doubt, but lets not go overboard here. Maco never had any issues with lefties for a start, and faced tougher opposition imo.

No he didn't.

Originally Posted by popepouri

Is there still really an argument that Steyn struggles against lefties?

If Steyn can still average 22 after struggling with left-handers then he is the best bowler ever against right-handers by a fair margin.

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Worrying to agree with you twice in a few days. Marshall was a class above anyone else I have seen.

Steyn being under 30 may challenge the top wicket taking pace bowlers by the end of his career if he stays injury free though.

No way was he a class above Mcgrath or even Ambrose. Not even close.

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by Inferno

No he didn't.



If Steyn can still average 22 after struggling with left-handers then he is the best bowler ever against right-handers by a fair margin.



No way was he a class above Mcgrath or even Ambrose. Not even close.

When you ask the greats themselves (Richards, Hadlee, Wasim, Imran, Miandad, etc) two names crop up time and time again as to who they think is the greatest Test bowler. First is Marshall and second is Lillee. McGrath and Ambrose aren't mentioned.

[akilana]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

When you ask the greats themselves (Richards, Hadlee, Wasim, Imran, Miandad, etc) two names crop up time and time again as to who they think is the greatest Test bowler. First is Marshall and second is Lillee. McGrath and Ambrose aren't mentioned.

It's Lillee that most bowlers rate as the greatest.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

When you ask the greats themselves (Richards, Hadlee, Wasim, Imran, Miandad, etc) two names crop up time and time again as to who they think is the greatest Test bowler. First is Marshall and second is Lillee. McGrath and Ambrose aren't mentioned.

These who ex-players/cricket writers rate higher are some of the most annoying arguments ever. They are biased like everybody else in the sense that they always pick the players that looks good on the eyes. Hell I would rather watch Anderson bowl over Mcgrath. Doesn't mean anything.

[doesitmatter]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

When you ask the greats themselves (Richards, Hadlee, Wasim, Imran, Miandad, etc) two names crop up time and time again as to who they think is the greatest Test bowler. First is Marshall and second is Lillee. McGrath and Ambrose aren't mentioned.

All players you quoted are of the same era that is 80's may be not Wasim..If you ask the players of the 90's 3 names generally come up 1) Wasim 2) Ambrose 3) Warne..2K it could be Steyn

[kyear2]

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Worrying to agree with you twice in a few days. Marshall was a class above anyone else I have seen.

Steyn being under 30 may challenge the top wicket taking pace bowlers by the end of his career if he stays injury free though.

This.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by doesitmatter

All players you quoted are of the same era that is 80's may be not Wasim..If you ask the players of the 90's 3 names generally come up 1) Wasim 2) Ambrose 3) Warne..2K it could be Steyn

Not that I care but no way does Ambrose beat out Warne in these sort of lists. In fact I have never read about Ambrose being all that great to watch from many people. He is more like Mcgrath.

Tbh I think Warne would top the 90's list actually.

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by Inferno

These who ex-players/cricket writers rate higher are some of the most annoying arguments ever. They are biased like everybody else in the sense that they always pick the players that looks good on the eyes. Hell I would rather watch Anderson bowl over Mcgrath. Doesn't mean anything.

Rather take what Viv says over what you think.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

Rather take what Viv says over what you think.

Except I don't rate players based on how they look on TV I rate them based on their records.

If your incapable of thinking for yourself and prefer to bandwagon than that's your business.

[Cabinet96]

I've always been incredibly sceptical about who the ex players rate. Not only are they likely to rate those they played with higher than those who play now, but just because they perhaps struggled against bowler A more than bowler B, it doesn't mean that bowler A is necessarily better. They could have had technical flaws that were more exposed against certain bowlers.

Inferno probably has much more balanced views than Viv

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Except I don't rate players based on how they look on TV I rate them based on their records.

If your incapable of thinking for yourself and prefer to bandwagon than that's your business.

Marshall has a better record than Steyn.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

Marshall has a better record than Steyn.

Where in my posts did you hear me say otherwise?

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Where in my posts did you hear me say otherwise?

My mistake. Let me correct it for you then.

He was a class above McGrath. Batter record and much better to watch.

[NasserFan207]

Reckon everyone agrees with you there. I think Steyn has a chance to challenge for that top spot is all. A very small chance mind

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

My mistake. Let me correct it for you then.

He was a class above McGrath. Batter record and much better to watch.

Not surprised at your definition of "class" considering Viv does your thinking for you. Marshall is at best a few decimals apart from Mcgrath if you look at the batsmen they dismissed. Not to mention the different times they played in with different rules. Hell even if you don't take those thing into account there is a difference of .70 between them (.4 between him and Ambrose). A class apart indeed. Anyways I'm not gonna take the bait and turn this into Marshall vs Mcgrath.

I'm guessing I shouldn't be surprised either that you use the most simplistic possible way of looking at stats to determine records. So do you believe that Marshall was barely half the bowler George Lohmann was or does Viv have something to counter that? In fact would you also mind asking him how Marshall being better to watch from the TV screen got his team wickets at a better rate than his average suggests?