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

[KiWiNiNjA]

Dear Pasag,

I'm sorry to hear about the passing of your credible question that had the potential to provide some interesting, non-trollish discussion. It is with deepest sympathies that I send this card.

Yours Truly,

Clapo

Clap clap.

 

[pup11]

Raises more questions than it addresses for mine. How many people rate Waqar above the other bowlers in that list?*

Probably too early in Steyn's career to make a call on whether he's fit to stand comparison to the demi-gods listed; like Younis he could fall away (comparitively) in the latter half of his career. Which, I suppose, means we can only really answer pasag's Q in retrospect.

*I'll answer my own question: I do. At his peak he was the best I've seen. Others have better career stats, but Waqar at the zenith was an absolute joy to behold, even when he was bowling my team to defeat.

I think the debate here is not at all whether Steyn would be able to retain this form over the years, the debate is whether Steyn is at the top just because he doesn't have any competition, or had better fast-bowlers been around would Steyn still be the #1 fast bowler.

My point is fast-bowlers nowadays have to work extra hard to get their wickets due to the state of pitches and they also have to cope with the gruelling schedules, and their job is much tougher compared to their counterparts from yesteryear's.

Having said that Steyn's bowling figures so far in his career still aren't any worse compared to good fast-bowlers from yesteryear's, which kind of make Steyn's achievements even more impressive.

 

[Manee]

I think the debate here is not at all whether Steyn would be able to retain this form over the years, the debate is whether Steyn is at the top just because he doesn't have any competition, or had better fast-bowlers been around would Steyn still be the #1 fast bowler.

My point is fast-bowlers nowadays have to work extra hard to get their wickets due to the state of pitches and they also have to cope with the gruelling schedules, and their job is much tougher compared to their counterparts from yesteryear's.

Having said that Steyn's bowling figures so far in his career still aren't any worse compared to good fast-bowlers from yesteryear's, which kind of make Steyn's achievements even more impressive.

Precisely my point and despite all the talk of missing the point of the thread, I have not seen a credible reply to such a point.

 

[bagapath]

he is not "the worst best fast bowler in the world". that would probably be someone in 1945 - 47, 1968 - 1971. and for most of the 1930s there wasnt a single leather finger of genuine pace who could be respected, after larwood retired. steyn is definitely not very different from the several "best fast bowler at the moment" of various eras - like bedser, john snow and waqar. still, steyn being expensive, is not yet in the mcgrath/ hadlee league. that is why this question has even come up. otherwise, there is nothing wrong with his avg, sr and wkts/tests ratio

 

[Richard]

but dont we all subconsciously rate stingier bowlers higher? mcgill has a better strike rate than warne or kumble. but concedes more runs per over. in fact, his average must be very close to, and could even be better than, anil's. but he is always ranked below the two of them because of his un-economical bowling.

and, waqar younis has a superior strike rate compared to marshall, hadlee, donald, lillee, imran, wasim and ambrose. he is very rarely going to be considered on par with them; and definitely never ranked better. same with shoab akhthar. he has a superior strike rate and a similar average in comparison with andy roberts. and that too in a batsman friendly era. but who would call a better bowler? it again boils down to those extra decimals in the economy rate.

we will feel steyn's waywardness every time he gives boundary balls more frequently than, say, a shaun pollock. and we will rate him below shaun despite him having a better average and a far, far superior strike rate. and we will call him "erratic" "inaccurate"l. econ rate does play a role, obvious and otherwise, when we rate bowlers.

If it was possible to consistently take 15-67-5 and like like, then that bowler would indeed be the best bowler ever. If someone had a 70-Test career, with no significant deviation from the norm over the course of it, and finished with an average of 17.52 and an economy-rate of 3.63-an-over they'd be the best bowler ever, few questions asked.

However, as I say, such a thing just isn't really possible. Expensive bowlers, as a rule, tend to have more bad days than economical ones, and their bad days are by default much worse. A bad game for Glenn McGrath might be something like 35-98-1. For Steyn it could easily be 37-170-1. Expensive bowlers just cannot keep the consistency of economical ones. No-one has ever defied this rule yet.

BTW, the reason Stuart MacGill is rightly ranked way behind Anil Kumble is that a) MacGill didn't have that much of a career and b) he was a weak-team bully (his Test record against Test-class teams pales considerably compared to his I$C$C-official-bull**** record). Little to do with economy-rates. If MacGill was constantly taking 40-150-9 and the like, he'd be better than Kumble. But he didn't. Against good batting, he rarely threatened all that much.

 

[Richard]

steyn is definitely not very different from the several "best fast bowler at the moment" of various eras - like bedser, john snow and waqar.

The only time Bedser could really be claimed to be the best seamer around was around about 1950-1954 or so (and even then I'd still have him behind Lindwall). At that time, I'd have him above Steyn without a second thought. Bedser's trouble was that, despite ten-fors in his first two Tests, he had a long, long period after that where he wasn't much crack (averaged mid-40s IIRR). Clearly, he was nowhere near being the best around at that time.

As for Snow and Waqar, as I've said earlier, I'd have both of them ahead of the current Steyn at their respective times at the top of The World, again without a backward glance. Whether Steyn manages to keep-up his consistency in the way they didn't remains to be seen, and he could conceivably finish as a better bowler than both.

 

[Richard]

If Bond was fit, it would have been a solid competition but I DONT rate Asif that high!

I'm really not sure about that. Bond is 34(?) now, and was never an outstanding Test bowler in the precious few games he did play, even though there's no doubt he could've been had he played the games he didn't. I highly doubt he'd be better than Steyn right now. In fact, Bond's short Test career generally followed a similar pattern to Steyn's so far. In ODIs, though, Bond was the complete package in a way Steyn is exceptionally unlikely ever to be.

Asif, meanwhile, if he had a better attitude and didn't seem completely unconcerned about whether or not he had a good cricket career, I think would be notably better than Steyn. But he doesn't, so he isn't, and there's precious little point what-if-ing on the Asif score, because a hopeless case generally stays a hopeless case.

 

[Richard]

Most people, even if it wasn't as disputed as Steyn is now (as Pasag suggested), thought Brett Lee was the best fast bowler in the world in 2007. Right after the SL in Aus series people were pretty much saying he was the best, and even after the Ind in Aus series, he was still being touted that.

So really, whilst an interesting thread, 18 months ago would have probably been a better time to raise the question.

For me, Lee was the worst "#1 fast bowler in the world" ever.

That's an interesting one. There's no doubt Lee is the worst bowler ever to raise his game to top-of-World level (Lee aside from 2007/08 and his first few games was of course diabolical), but is that the question being asked? Or is it whether the Lee of 2007/08 is better than the Steyn of right now?

If so, I'd say I'd have Lee of sometime between Nov '07 and June '08 over Steyn of any point between April '06 and Feb '09 (he's really not changed at all in that time) without much hesitation.

What I always thought about Lee was that he was very unlikely to be able to keep that up. Bowlers who are poor for as long as he was have no business turning as good as he did for that brief time at all, never mind doing it long-term.

 

[nightprowler10]

Dear Pasag,

I'm sorry to hear about the passing of your credible question that had the potential to provide some interesting, non-trollish discussion. It is with deepest sympathies that I send this card.

Yours Truly,

Clapo

Hahaha.

 

[pskov]

If it was possible to consistently take 15-67-5 and like like, then that bowler would indeed be the best bowler ever. If someone had a 70-Test career, with no significant deviation from the norm over the course of it, and finished with an average of 17.52 and an economy-rate of 3.63-an-over they'd be the best bowler ever, few questions asked.

However, as I say, such a thing just isn't really possible. Expensive bowlers, as a rule, tend to have more bad days than economical ones, and their bad days are by default much worse. A bad game for Glenn McGrath might be something like 35-98-1. For Steyn it could easily be 37-170-1. Expensive bowlers just cannot keep the consistency of economical ones. No-one has ever defied this rule yet.

BTW, the reason Stuart MacGill is rightly ranked way behind Anil Kumble is that a) MacGill didn't have that much of a career and b) he was a weak-team bully (his Test record against Test-class teams pales considerably compared to his I$C$C-official-bull**** record). Little to do with economy-rates. If MacGill was constantly taking 40-150-9 and the like, he'd be better than Kumble. But he didn't. Against good batting, he rarely threatened all that much.

I think you're being a bit unfair to Steyn there, he hasn't come close to having figures that bad in his career to date. His worst innings analysis to date is 25.3-2-122-1 which was in his second test match against England in 2004 when he was completely raw.

If you're interested, McGrath's worst innings analysis was 30-5-107-0 at the Adelaide test in the 06/07 Ashes.

 

[Richard]

And it's saying something that the worst of all McGrath's 200-odd innings spells (I was talking more match spells TBH) was an economy-rate of just 3.4 or so.

As I say, Steyn has essentially been on one long high for the last nearly 3 years. But no bowler can keep going with barely a bad game forever. Even at his worst, Steyn has usually got 3-4 wickets, even if he's gone for 150-160. But Steyn has had many games where he's conceded a very high economy-rate - 4-an-over, and more sometimes. It's only a matter of time before he has the odd really bad one. And as I say, when he has a bit of a bad patch - as all bowlers, inevitably, however good, do - then there could be some serious carnage.

I only hope it's next year rather than in the upcoming series against Australia because SA really need to win that series and Steyn at home could devastate Australia or anyone if he bowls as he has the last 3 years.

 

[Manee]

I am aware that this current form is not sustainable, but as it is, he has performed as well as anyone from past or present.

 

[roseboy64]

He has the ability to take wickets though which is why those bad games are rare. Could be bowling mediocre but he's still got the knoack for wickets so he manages to pick up a few.

 

[Richard]

Ditto Waqar Younis. Yet he still managed to have two periods of his career (the first not that lengthy, the second much more so) where he wasn't particularly successful. As a result, Waqar ended-up in the second rather than first tier of seam-bowlers and as I've always said, I see Steyn doing the same.

And right now, Steyn doesn't even possess the skills Waqar did.

 

[subshakerz]

Ditto Waqar Younis. Yet he still managed to have two periods of his career (the first not that lengthy, the second much more so) where he wasn't particularly successful. As a result, Waqar ended-up in the second rather than first tier of seam-bowlers and as I've always said, I see Steyn doing the same.

And right now, Steyn doesn't even possess the skills Waqar did.

I think you are painting Steyn as some sort of one-trick pony which he is not. The comparison with Waqar also does not hold beyond the fact that they are both slightly expensive and have terrific strike rates.

In the case of Waqar Younis, he was the most devastating bowler in the world in the early 90s, but his sudden loss in potency wasn't because he was found out, or had a bad patch of form, but was due to the back injury which dramatically cut down his pace in 1994/5. Without this pace, he was a canny but occasionally inaccurate new ball bowler and clearly wasn't the monster he was with the old ball before.

With Steyn, he is a different bowler to Waqar. He has pace and a good yorker, but gets his wickets largely with his deadly outswinger. Rather than being limited, he seems to have matured during this sensational period. In Melbourne, he showed some nous by bowling to smart field settings and preying on the errors of batsmen, showing that he does have a learning curve. He may or may not be able to sustain his form, but I doubt it will be due to him suddenly losing the script.

 

[Richard]

Waqar's back injury undoubtedly didn't help but are you really telling me that you think if he'd not suffered it he'd have been able to keep bowling as he bowled between 1990/91 and 1994/95 until, say, 2000/01? I don't. I can't see anyone keeping-up such sensational brilliance for more than a few years. Frank Tyson between '54 and '57 was in the same boat. Also I don't think Waqar's pace was ever "dramatically" reduced as he was still bowling at close to 90mph against England in 2000/01 (despite very hot conditions) and 2001. At his very best, I can't imagine he was ever much more than 93-94mph at top speed (no-one ever talked of him being as fast as Shoaib Akhtar in his prime, whose average was 88-92 sort of range). I'm sure the injury took a bit of pace off him but I don't think it was much more than 3-4mph.

For Steyn and his 90mph outswinger read Waqar and his 90mph inswinger (though of course Waqar could also make the new ball swing out, while Steyn is nowhere near as skilled with reverse-swing as Waqar was). That fast inswinger which smashed so many stumps and boots was what made the Waqar of '90-'94 the most devastating hurricane the game has seen. Likewise, Steyn's fast outswinger is everything to him: if he can't bowl that outswinger he's anodyne and (inevitably) expensive; if he can (and so far this has been in the considerable majority) he's quite deadly, usually despite expensiveness rather than in addition to economy.

Neither Steyn nor Waqar were one-trick ponies, not at all, but they were\are both bowlers who lack the tall bowler's ability to tie a batsman down. So they are both best-served by attacking, attacking and attacking. Most short bowlers can't attack as well as those two could\can, because they aren't accurate enough with the really full length and aren't as good with the seam-position. However, neither of them are capable of bowling accurately enough to tie batsmen down over long spells and many consecutive games, because as a short bowler that requires almost unbelievable accuracy (Malcolm Marshall-esque). So therefore they should not try in my book.

Not being able to sustain the sort of form Steyn has shown the last 2-and-three-quarter years is not due to losing the script; it's just due to the fact that no-one can bowl so devastatingly for more than a few years at a time. It's just beyond capability. Steyn is bowling as well now as he is capable of in my book and no-one can bowl at the top of their game non-stop for 10-12 years.

 

[funnygirl]

He has the ability to take wickets though which is why those bad games are rare. Could be bowling mediocre but he's still got the knoack for wickets so he manages to pick up a few.

That i agree . Steyn's mediocre spells too fetch some wickets .He is lucky in that aspect Wheras Zaheer,Sharma or Flintoff will go wicketless with brilliant spells .

 

[Son Of Coco]

It is not often that a fast bowler is rated as the best so early in his career. I do think however he will go down as a great once he is finished.

Considering Brett Lee was rated as world's best fast bowler last year. He would have to go down as the worst.

Also if you look back through at the late 60s after Trueman retired, was there really a standout fast bowler. McKenzie was probably the best quick around that time and he was worse the Steyn.

EDIT: Looking back maybe Peter Pollock was No 1 around that time. But still he is on par with Steyn for mine.

Surely Harmison has to be the worst!?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Glen was not a better bowler than walsh and ambrose, the only time he went atop the best bowler rankings was after both walsh and ambrose stopped playing. Glen mcgrath only had one trick which was to bowl solely on half stump. In the days when batsmen were patient he could not survive. This is why today more people talk about ambrose than they talk about glen. The W.I pair had much more to offer than just accuracy. Walsh and Ambrose were able to reverse swing the new ball, they produced bounce, and bowled fast. They are true legends of fast bowling, bowlers who created chances instead of waiting for mistakes.

 

[Howsie]

Surely Harmison has to be the worst!?

But when he was Number one, he was bowling great.