Dale Steyn

[watson]

But I still don't think you can argue batting was good in the 80s by simply naming the 6 good players that were actually in the era.

BATSMAN DISMISSED TWICE OR MORE BY MARSHALL

Gooch = 16
Lamb = 13
Border = 11
Boon = 10
Vengsarkar = 10
Kapil Dev = 9
Gavaskar = 8
Botham = 8
Willey = 7
Gaekwad = 7
Gatting = 7
Downton = 7
Rutherford = 7
Healy = 6
Pringle = 6
Lawson = 6
Amarnath = 6
Imran = 5
Hughes = 5
Broad = 5
Gower = 5
Coney = 5
Dyson = 4
Alderman = 4
Binny = 4
Shastri = 4
Crowe, M = 4
Howarth = 4
Smith, I = 4
Mohsin = 4
Ramiz Raja = 4
Wasim Akram = 4
Miandad = 3
Mudussar = 3
Ellison = 3
Salim Malik = 3
De Freitas = 3
Smith, R = 3
Marsh, G = 3
More = 3
Arun Lal = 3
Jones, D = 3
Emburey = 3
Hogg = 3
Smith, S = 3
Ritchie = 3
Foster = 2
Rixon = 2
Wessels = 2
Matthews, G = 2
McDermott = 2
Cook, N = 2
Allott = 2
Fowler = 2
Mansoor Akhtar = 2
Larkins = 2
Knott = 2
Zaheer Abbas = 2
Ijaz Faqih = 2
Patil, S = 2
Yadav, N = 2
Taylor, M = 2
Sidhu = 2
Waugh, M = 2
Ramprakash = 2
Manjrekar, S = 2
Sharma, C = 2
Waugh, S = 2
Capel = 2
Taylor, P = 2
Dilley = 2
Small = 2
Abdul Qadir = 2
Robinson, T = 2
Rizwan = 2
Salim Yousuf = 2
Asif Mujaba = 2
Wright, J = 2
Boock = 2
Hadlee = 2
Crowe. J = 2


BATSMAN DISMISSED TWICE OR MORE BY STEYN

Clarke, M = 9
Mohammed Hafeez = 8
Sehwag = 7
Harbhajan = 7
Hussey, M = 7
Trott = 7
Younis Khan = 6
McCullum = 6
Dhoni = 5
Katich = 5
Siddle = 4
Haddin = 4
Ponting = 4
Swann = 4
Deonarine = 4
Sharma = 4
Bracewell = 4
Guptill = 4
Tamim Iqbal = 4
Martin, C = 4
Styris = 4
Tharanga = 4
Misbah = 4
Jayawardene = 4
Laxman = 4
Dilshan = 3
Vaughan = 3
Giles = 3
Astle = 3
Oram = 3
Junaid = 3
Gayle = 3
Samuels = 3
Taylor, J = 3
O’Brien = 3
Singh, R = 3
Ashraful = 3
Pietersen = 3
Williamson = 3
Pujara = 3
Lyon, N = 3
Cook, A = 3
Warner = 3
Vijay = 3
Broad = 3
Tendulkar = 3
Bell = 3
Johnson = 3
Hayden = 3
Junaid = 3
Perera = 2
Thirimanne = 2
Silva, J = 2
Mutumbami = 2
Harris, R = 2
Rogers = 2
Hilfenhaus = 2
Prior = 2
Zaheer = 2
Mishra = 2
Badrinath = 2
Lee = 2
Saha = 2
Adnan = 2
Azhar Ali = 2
Gambhir = 2
Cowan = 2
Bopara = 2
Welegadara = 2
Sarfraz Ahmed = 2
Nasir Jamshed = 2
Ajmal =2
Patel, J = 2
Wagner = 2
Strauss = 2
Asad Shafiq = 2
Watson = 2
Marsh, S = 2
Perera = 2
Mathews, A = 2
Chandamal = 2
Sangakkara = 2
Shakib Al Hasan = 2
Anderson = 2
Shadadat = 2
Dravid = 2
Ganguly = 2
Bravo = 2
Mashrafe = 2
Shahiar = 2
Vincent = 2
Gillespie, M = 2
Cumming = 2
Ganga = 2
Chanderpaul = 2
Ramdin = 2
Powell = 2
Fleming, S = 2
Vettori = 2
Trescothick = 2
Papps = 2
How = 2
Kumble = 2
Umar Gul = 2
Sreenath = 2

 

[Dan]

Haha yeah. I swear one day in the future some prick is going to say batting was difficult in the 2000s which is why McGrath, Murali and Warne got all those wickets.

"It must have been hard to bat in the early-2000s, because this Tendulkar bloke you talk about as the second best ever only averaged 53, this Ponting guy who you say was massively dominant only averaged 51, and Lara sounds like a right hack with his 52 average. Clearly McGrath/Murali/Warne had it easy and you're talking up some pretty mediocre batsmen, if that's the best they could do."

But I still don't think you can argue batting was good in the 80s by simply naming the 6 good players that were actually in the era.

This is proving my point entirely -- was batting 'bad' in the 1980s because everyone spontaneously forgot how to use their bat for 10 years, or was batting 'bad' because there were so many ****ing ridiculously good bowlers?

I didn't want to use the B-word, but the same kind of thing occurred in the 1930s -- Bradman detractors point to guys like Larwood and Verity averaging high-20s with the ball as proof that they were rubbish, and hence Bradman never faced any good attacks. Their figures were that bad because Bradman made runs against them (especially when you only had 5 Test teams, and the 3 were basically rubbish and barely played).

Same in the '80s. We can point to the elite batsmen of the era only averaging mid-40s as proof that the batsmen were all rubbish, and hence Marshall was never truly challenged by a gun batting line-up. Their figures look that mediocre vis-a-vis other eras because Marshall/Imran/Hadlee kept getting them out cheaply.

Obviously, causality could run either way -- they may have just been really **** eras with the ball and bat respectively -- but given the performances of other, middle-of-the-road players, it doesn't seem likely.

 

[watson]

After compiling those two lists: - Is it my imagination or did Marshall dismiss quality top order batsman more frequently than Steyn?

 

[ankitj]

Where does Steyn land

Marshall
McGrath
Steyn
Lillee
Ambrose

Not to shabby at all.

So is Steyn making your ATG world XI already?

 

[akilana]

Is it my imagination or did Marshall dismiss quality top order batsman more frequently than Steyn?

would like to see Lillee's list

 

[OverratedSanity]

Pretty much every other bowler in that series struggled in the first two Tests though. The pitches at Brisbane and Adelaide were FLAT.

Morkel did ok, but yeah the pitches were batting paradises for the most part. That's another reason why comparing Steyn and marshall's records in Australia makes no sense. The Australian pitches in the 80s were about as different as can be from the ones in the 2000s.

Agree with Teja completely that the average obsession is annoying. In terms of actual contribution Steyn has been great in Australia. Melbourne 2008 was one of the great performances of the generation , aand his spell at Perth pretty much clinched the series and set things up for Amla and Smith . Rather than average of 28, we should be saying Steyn produced two decisive series winning spells in Australia. How many have done that, really?

 

[ankitj]

Is it my imagination or did Marshall dismiss quality top order batsman more frequently than Steyn?

When I last looked at this using some mathematical approximation, Steyn is picking similar or better quality of wickets as Marshall, McGrath and Ambrose.

 

[Ikki]

But I still don't think you can argue batting was good in the 80s by simply naming the 6 good players that were actually in the era.

Yeah, it wasn't. It was very good, but it wasn't great. The one line-up that was truly great was his own. A great bowler, but I think Steyn's record is even more ridiculous so far. It would be ridiculous in the 80s or 90s which featured very healthy pitches, let alone this era where batsmen, on average, are scoring 3+ runs more per inning.

Unless Steyn falls away really badly in the next few years, it's safe to say he is comfortably in that McGrath/Lillee/Hadlee/Marshall range.

 

[watson]

"It must have been hard to bat in the early-2000s, because this Tendulkar bloke you talk about as the second best ever only averaged 53, this Ponting guy who you say was massively dominant only averaged 51, and Lara sounds like a right hack with his 52 average. Clearly McGrath/Murali/Warne had it easy and you're talking up some pretty mediocre batsmen, if that's the best they could do."




This is proving my point entirely -- was batting 'bad' in the 1980s because everyone spontaneously forgot how to use their bat for 10 years, or was batting 'bad' because there were so many ****ing ridiculously good bowlers?

I didn't want to use the B-word, but the same kind of thing occurred in the 1930s -- Bradman detractors point to guys like Larwood and Verity averaging high-20s with the ball as proof that they were rubbish, and hence Bradman never faced any good attacks. Their figures were that bad because Bradman made runs against them (especially when you only had 5 Test teams, and the 3 were basically rubbish and barely played).

Same in the '80s. We can point to the elite batsmen of the era only averaging mid-40s as proof that the batsmen were all rubbish, and hence Marshall was never truly challenged by a gun batting line-up. Their figures look that mediocre vis-a-vis other eras because Marshall/Imran/Hadlee kept getting them out cheaply.

Obviously, causality could run either way -- they may have just been really **** eras with the ball and bat respectively -- but given the performances of other, middle-of-the-road players, it doesn't seem likely.

Although you could prove rather easily, if you had the time and inclination, that the 1930s were poor relative to the 1980s and 1990s with respect to the number of quality fast bowlers. Hence the endless debate about Bradman's merits relative to batsman like Richards and Tendulkar.

(But let's not go there as another discussion re Bradman would be too horrible for words)

 

[NasserFan207]

Stats are only a guideline, I'd rather compare bowlers with my eyes.

Personally I think Steyn is an ATG bowler, but not the greatest I've ever seen. I'd probably take Mcgrath over him. On the other hand, I think Steyn's shown more versatility in his career.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Will Steyn get anywhere near the McGrath total of wickets?

 

[Adders]

He has averaged around 44 wickets per year for the last 8 years. So he needs to play on for another 4 years approx to do it...........at 31, possible but could be a big ask.

No idea what SA's schedule is like going forward compared to what it's been like the last few years.

Edit:

Another way to look at it is he takes his wickets at 5.1 per test so another 35 test matches.

 

[kyear2]

So is Steyn making your ATG world XI already?

I generally choose a bowling all rounder, so not so sure. He is deserving though, for me he has already surpassed Lillee, Hadlee and Ambrose.

 

[91Jmay]

Isn't there a chicken/egg thing about batting or bowling being stronger in a particular era though? When there is great bowlers, batsmen look worse and visa versa.

 

[Ikki]

Which other all-time great bowler had a cameo in an Adam Sandler film?

 

[bagapath]

from the following pool of fast bowlers you can pick any three for your dream XI. not one combo can be significantly superior (or inferior) to another.

ambrose
barnes
hadlee
imran
lillee
marshall
mcgrath
steyn
trueman

and for your second XI the same rule applies with these pacers

akram
davidson
donald
garner
holding
lindwall
s.pollock
walsh
waqar

 

[Slifer]

from the following pool of fast bowlers you can pick any three for your dream XI. not one combo can be significantly superior (or inferior) to another.

ambrose
barnes
hadlee
imran
lillee
marshall
mcgrath
steyn
trueman

and for your second XI the same rule applies with these pacers

akram
davidson
donald
garner
holding
lindwall
s.pollock
walsh
waqar

AWTA made this point earlier as well.

 

[Coronis]

er, wouldn't you pick a different 3 from the first group for your second xi?

 

[bagapath]

er, wouldn't you pick a different 3 from the first group for your second xi?

hahahaha...

lets say three friends select their first XIs from the first pool and then move on to the second pool for their second XIs.

happy?

 

[OverratedSanity]

from the following pool of fast bowlers you can pick any three for your dream XI. not one combo can be significantly superior (or inferior) to another.

ambrose
barnes
hadlee
imran
lillee
marshall
mcgrath
steyn
trueman

and for your second XI the same rule applies with these pacers

akram
davidson
donald
garner
holding
lindwall
s.pollock
walsh
waqar

Really?

Akram/Donald/Holding is better than Pollock/Walsh/Davidson. Quite clearly imo.