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

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by BackFootPunch

I'd disagree with that first bit quite strongly. Away from the field he's basically the opposite of what I'd consider to be a stereotypical Saffa. One of the nicest professional cricketers I've ever come across tbh. Arrogance is certainly not a word I'd associate with him at all.

Reckon the best way to look at him is as someone who has extreme 'white line fever' - when he steps onto the field he's just a changed man. It ramps up even more when he's got a ball in hand.

I dunno, in interviews he always comes across as a bit of an arrogant chap to me. Never used to when he was relatively young, but just in the past few years I've started to get that sort of vibe.

Originally Posted by Satyanash89

Nothing we already didnt know, but an article which is atleast relevant here.
Harsha Bhogle : Harsha Bhogle: Hail Dale Steyn | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

I love how he twice referenced Lee

[Cricketismylife]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

I dunno, in interviews he always comes across as a bit of an arrogant chap to me. Never used to when he was relatively young, but just in the past few years I've started to get that sort of vibe.

I love how he twice referenced Lee

Is it just me or is Lee really overrated by the general public as a bowler? He was decent in the shorter forms but in test cricket I always saw him as the weakest link of that Australian attack. His stats are quite decent without being anywhere near great, but even they seem to flatter him, when big matches or strong teams were around my memory of Lee is that he generally went missing. Maybe I'm being harsh but always felt underwhelmed watching Lee bowl in tests.

[Cricketismylife]

Originally Posted by 8ankitj

Must be because kyear is posting heaps these days. CW generally rates Hadlee above Lillee in various ranking exercices over here.

Ye I mentioned the Hadlee Lillee thing sometime before on this forum. It seems hard to rate Hadlee over Lillee, Hadlee has the better stats and a better rounded career (plus he can bat) However it's 2 main things which have Lillee over Hadlee and neither have anything to do with who was the better bowler

1) Hadlee played for a small country like NZ who play series that most consider irrelevant, while Lillee played in the Ashes and Australia were always a big team. Hence it's a lot easier for people to remember Lillee's performances and for Lillee to become a "big match player". It's much easier to become a big match player in a 5 test Ashes series than in a minor New Zealand series which hardly anyone is properly following. This concept applies to Warne and Murali also.

2) Lillee was the more aggressive personality and showman than Hadlee which made him more entertaining to watch, and as humans we are naturally more biased to rate the more entertaining player as being the better player even when it's not the case.

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by Cricketismylife

Is it just me or is Lee really overrated by the general public as a bowler? He was decent in the shorter forms but in test cricket I always saw him as the weakest link of that Australian attack. His stats are quite decent without being anywhere near great, but even they seem to flatter him, when big matches or strong teams were around my memory of Lee is that he generally went missing. Maybe I'm being harsh but always felt underwhelmed watching Lee bowl in tests.

As a test bowler he is overrated. Not on CW though.

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by Cricketismylife

Ye I mentioned the Hadlee Lillee thing sometime before on this forum. It seems hard to rate Hadlee over Lillee, Hadlee has the better stats and a better rounded career (plus he can bat) However it's 2 main things which have Lillee over Hadlee and neither have anything to do with who was the better bowler

1) Hadlee played for a small country like NZ who play series that most consider irrelevant, while Lillee played in the Ashes and Australia were always a big team. Hence it's a lot easier for people to remember Lillee's performances and for Lillee to become a "big match player". It's much easier to become a big match player in a 5 test Ashes series than in a minor New Zealand series which hardly anyone is properly following. This concept applies to Warne and Murali also.

2) Lillee was the more aggressive personality and showman than Hadlee which made him more entertaining to watch, and as humans we are naturally more biased to rate the more entertaining player as being the better player even when it's not the case.

There are other points in favor of lillee though. He is one of very few bowlers who did great both as part of the great attack and as a lone man in abysmal attack in different parts of his career. Also I think him getting his back canned, and coming back from injury is generally considered to be one of the great achievements for a fast bowler, let alone getting better after that. One more thing generally considered is Lillee is a kind of prototype for the modern fast bowlers that came after him which resulted in his enormous legacy. So most people look upon hadlee as the follower(might even better than the original, but not really clear cut), while Lille is the trail blazer.

[Contra]

Originally Posted by Cricketismylife

Is it just me or is Lee really overrated by the general public as a bowler? He was decent in the shorter forms but in test cricket I always saw him as the weakest link of that Australian attack. His stats are quite decent without being anywhere near great, but even they seem to flatter him, when big matches or strong teams were around my memory of Lee is that he generally went missing. Maybe I'm being harsh but always felt underwhelmed watching Lee bowl in tests.

Was pretty gun during India's tour of Aus in 08 IIRC, and that was when the Indian line up was in form, well.. relatively. But I think that was where he peaked, cuz he was **** in tests after that tour ended.

[centurymaker]

Originally Posted by Contra

Was pretty gun during India's tour of Aus in 08 IIRC, and that was when the Indian line up was in form, well.. relatively. But I think that was where he peaked, cuz he was **** in tests after that tour ended.

yeah. he was the pick of the bowlers.

[MartinB]

Originally Posted by Cricketismylife

Ye I mentioned the Hadlee Lillee thing sometime before on this forum. It seems hard to rate Hadlee over Lillee, Hadlee has the better stats and a better rounded career (plus he can bat) However it's 2 main things which have Lillee over Hadlee and neither have anything to do with who was the better bowler

1) Hadlee played for a small country like NZ who play series that most consider irrelevant, while Lillee played in the Ashes and Australia were always a big team. Hence it's a lot easier for people to remember Lillee's performances and for Lillee to become a "big match player". It's much easier to become a big match player in a 5 test Ashes series than in a minor New Zealand series which hardly anyone is properly following. This concept applies to Warne and Murali also.

2) Lillee was the more aggressive personality and showman than Hadlee which made him more entertaining to watch, and as humans we are naturally more biased to rate the more entertaining player as being the better player even when it's not the case.

I really disagree when people rate players purely on bowling / batting averages.

An interesting case is Holding / Marshal rating.
While Holding's bowling average is 13% higher than Marshal's,

• Top 6 Batting averages where 12.6% higher in the matches played by Holding
• Basically the same batting line was used for both players, so we are comparing like with like
• I recently saw Imran rated Holding marginally ahead of Marshall who was marginally
  ahead of Ambrose. Given the higher Batting averages when Holding played,
  Imran may be correct.

Batting with Holding: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting with Marshal: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting with Ambrose: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo



Batting with Lillee: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

If you look at the Australian batting averages in the period,

• The batting averages are high when Lillee plays.
• The batting Averages of the second string Batsmen really jump when Lillee plays,
  the Top batsmen (Chappell's, Border, Redpath) tend to stay much the same.

One Thing I have noticed for ATG bowlers (Apart from McGrath) is
* If batsmen struggle, the bowler will probably average around 21 (e.g. Marshal, Ambrose, AK Davidson)

• If batsmen struggle, the bowler will probably average around 21 (e.g. Marshal, Ambrose, AK Davidson)
• If the batsmen do well, the bowler will probably average be 23+ (Lillee, Holding, Steyn)
• If you are McGrath, you break the above rule

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not trying to rate the player'sw, but just making the point that[LIST][LIST=1]ATG bowlers
with higher bowling averages tend to play in teams where the batsmen score a lot of runs

1. Bowling is not about producing a better average, but taking 20 wickets for less
   than your opponents do on a Match by Match basis.

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by Cricketismylife

Is it just me or is Lee really overrated by the general public as a bowler? He was decent in the shorter forms but in test cricket I always saw him as the weakest link of that Australian attack. His stats are quite decent without being anywhere near great, but even they seem to flatter him, when big matches or strong teams were around my memory of Lee is that he generally went missing. Maybe I'm being harsh but always felt underwhelmed watching Lee bowl in tests.

I reckon the very casual viewer overrates him because of his extreme pace, but you'll find most guys around these sort of circles rate him fairly.

I reckon I probably underrate him if anything.

[popepouri]

Funny enough Morkel and Lee's careers arcs both with Tests and ODI seem to be identical. Both played with strong lineups with superior bowlers.

[Cricketismylife]

Originally Posted by popepouri

Funny enough Morkel and Lee's careers arcs both with Tests and ODI seem to be identical. Both played with strong lineups with superior bowlers.

Very true. But from watching Morkel looks like a better test bowler than Lee, it gets interesting when you throw Harmison into the mix. Morkel Harmison seems a good comparison, Morkel will probably never reach the highs Harmison did but will have a more reliable career (if that can ever be said about Morkel).

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by popepouri

Funny enough Morkel and Lee's careers arcs both with Tests and ODI seem to be identical. Both played with strong lineups with superior bowlers.

Difference being that Morkel is playing well below what he could be, whereas Lee was playing at the level of his ability.

[CricAddict]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

Difference being that Morkel is playing well below what he could be, whereas Lee was playing at the level of his ability.

How do you know that? WYSIWYG

[Spikey]

the 8th of September 1937 not looking good tbh

Reliance ICC Player Rankings

W.R. Hammond - a top 10 bowler in the world. suck it bradman

[Hurricane]

Originally Posted by MartinB

Batting with Holding: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting with Marshal: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting with Ambrose: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Your judging the bowlers based on the batting averages of their team mates - I could maybe see the benefit of your analysis if it included all batsman of the era. Just not sure about only using the team mates of the bowler in question.