-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Is it too early to declare Dale Steyn as an all-time great?
- Thread starter stephen
- Start date
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No, because he doesn't average over 30
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Surely people don't think Brett Lee - as good as he could be at times - was as good as Anderson is?
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
The thing about Lee vs Anderson is that it's always arguable from a strike rate/average perspective that fast, bouncey bowlers are just as good as bowlers who actually exploit movement. I mean look at Steven Finn, pretty conclusively rated as having been awful for the better part of a year, but he still averaged under 30 and was usually taking wickets. Even Morne Morkel has an impressive record but we're not prepared to rate him above Anderson.
I just find bowlers who use movement as their weapon so much more fun to watch than bowlers who use pace or bounce.
For example, I'd take Chaminda Vaas over Jason Gillespie any day of the week. I accept that this is the wrong decision - that a tall bowler who extracts bounce from the wicket will be inherently very difficult to face, even if they're not actually doing anything with the ball. Extra bounce means edges carry and back foot play has to be assured.
However, it's just so much nicer to watch an away-swinging delivery take the edge, or an inswinger trapping someone LBW, or a well-disguised off cutter, or even subtle seam movement in the Asif/Philander variety.
I guess that's what makes bowlers like Steyn so impressive. They can do both.
I just find bowlers who use movement as their weapon so much more fun to watch than bowlers who use pace or bounce.
For example, I'd take Chaminda Vaas over Jason Gillespie any day of the week. I accept that this is the wrong decision - that a tall bowler who extracts bounce from the wicket will be inherently very difficult to face, even if they're not actually doing anything with the ball. Extra bounce means edges carry and back foot play has to be assured.
However, it's just so much nicer to watch an away-swinging delivery take the edge, or an inswinger trapping someone LBW, or a well-disguised off cutter, or even subtle seam movement in the Asif/Philander variety.
I guess that's what makes bowlers like Steyn so impressive. They can do both.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
I don't think it is ridiculous to suggest that both were in the same ballpark. I mean Anderson for a long long time in his career was decidedly ordinary. Brett Lee had his flashes of brilliance as well. Besides, at Lee's peak he was somewhere in the background because McWarne were at the Aussie forefront.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Really poor form making a joke out of that disorder.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
well he's AGAIN over the 30 mark..No, because he doesn't average over 30