An ode to Dale Steyn

20 December 2004- England are chasing a relatively low total vs RSA. Steyn to Michael Vaughan. What followed was an absolute pearler of a delivery. And just like that my love of Dale Steyn was ignited.

From the nadir of his first spell in County, to the heights of Nagpur 2010, I have watched him. He currently sits on 304 sticks, almost 1000 deliveries faster to the 300 mark than any other bowler. The plaudits have followed him, except for a few Englishmen who somehow convinced themselves that J. Anderson is a superior bowler. A few months ago, Allan Donald claimed he could be the greatest bowler in history. Considering his stats in an era with flat pitches, powerful bats and shorter boundaries, he has to be up there.

Picking my favourite Dale Steyn spell is a difficult task, but I narrowed it down to three.

1) New Years test, Newlands 2010. day 5. With SA desperately needing a wicket, Graeme Smith passed the new ball to Steyn, what followed almost defied belief. Steyn didn't take a wicket, but he gave an exhibition in fast bowling. Outside, inside, he swung it & Paul Collingwood literally wasn't good enough to edge it. The standing ovation at the end of the spell was evidence that we had just seen something special.

2) New years Newlands 2011. This time the advesary was Sachin Tendulkar. Again, Steyn took no wickets but considering that this was SRT's last test hundred, it sticks out as one of crickets all time duels between the two greatest current practitioners of their respective arts.

The single greatest perfomance by Dale Steyn though, was his effort at Nagpur. Consider the surroundings- an absolute road of a pitch (Amla score 259), an Indian side which was #1 in the world at home consisting of a whos who. Tendulkar. Dravid. Laxman. That was surely one of the all time efforts. Reverse swing, conventional swing, seam and searing pace, all the ingredients which make fast bowling the art it is.

He may not be the greatest ever, but as world #1 since 2009, he could probably make it into any team in cricket history. Consider this final fact. After 60 tests, Steyn had taken 50 sticks more than Michael Holding at a better s/r

kingraf wrote:except for a few Englishmen who somehow convinced themselves that J. Anderson is a superior bowler.

Without a doubt for me, Anderson's best is better than Steyn's best.

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:except for a few Englishmen who somehow convinced themselves that J. Anderson is a superior bowler.

Without a doubt for me, Anderson's best is better than Steyn's best.

Sure he is...

When Anderson faced the great Australian side he was destroyed.

Steyn, back in 2008, retired Australia's battering ram Matthew Hayden.

Steyn is an all time great. Anderson is average bowler trying to steal some of Steyn's fame.

Steyn = Ferrari
Anderson = Mini Metro

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:except for a few Englishmen who somehow convinced themselves that J. Anderson is a superior bowler.

Without a doubt for me, Anderson's best is better than Steyn's best.

Sure he is...

When Anderson faced the great Australian side he was destroyed.

Steyn, back in 2008, retired Australia's battering ram Matthew Hayden.

Steyn is an all time great. Anderson is average bowler trying to steal some of Steyn's fame.

Steyn = Ferrari
Anderson = Mini Metro

Think I hit a nerve. Well they do say the truth hurts. Anderson's pretty much retired Tendulkar, a greater player than Hayden. Steyn ATG.

The career stats speak volumes, Anderson good, Steyn pushing great.
IMO you'd have to be a very blinkered Englishman to pick Jimmy first. They would make a fantastic opening pair though.

Diggers wrote:The career stats speak volumes, Anderson good, Steyn pushing great.
IMO you'd have to be a very blinkered Englishman to pick Jimmy first. They would make a fantastic opening pair though.

Nah we don't need need the limited talent of James Anderson.

Steyn and Philander are plenty good enough.

Duty281 wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:except for a few Englishmen who somehow convinced themselves that J. Anderson is a superior bowler.

Without a doubt for me, Anderson's best is better than Steyn's best.

Sure he is...

When Anderson faced the great Australian side he was destroyed.

Steyn, back in 2008, retired Australia's battering ram Matthew Hayden.

Steyn is an all time great. Anderson is average bowler trying to steal some of Steyn's fame.

Steyn = Ferrari
Anderson = Mini Metro

Think I hit a nerve. Well they do say the truth hurts. Anderson's pretty much retired Tendulkar, a greater player than Hayden. Steyn ATG.

(Deleted - Gerry don't react, it negates any comment- biltong) A fair weather England fan.

Wasn't you one of the English fans claiming Anderson would out perform Steyn in the recent concluded series?

Steyn was fast and furious. Anderson was mediocre, club standard bowler.

Steyn is already an ATG, 300 wickets @ 23 in an era where many claim an average of 30 is considered great.

Anderson isn't fit to lace Steyn's boots.

Steyn is the best fast bowler of his generation.

Anderson is the best swing bowler of his generation.

In absolute terms Steyn edges it. Both in a World XI.

I agree with kingraf about Newlands 2011. That was quite some spell of cricket. The last time we saw Tendulkar at his best in whites, and Steyn at the very peak of his powers. Should go down in the annals along with Atherton v Donald, and Boycott v Holding for great one-on-one passages of play.

I thought Waqar beat Steyn to 300 wickets by about three balls?

At this moment in time there isn't much between Steyn and Anderson, I'd say they were one and two in the world in terms of pace bowlers with Steyn just in front.

Anderson is probably more effective with the new ball, whilst Steyn can continue to threaten on all surfaces all through the innings with his raw pace and reverse swing.

In their careers overall, Steyn is a long way ahead though.

Duty knowledgeable as always

JDizzle wrote:I thought Waqar beat Steyn to 300 wickets by about three balls?

At this moment in time there isn't much between Steyn and Anderson, I'd say they were one and two in the world in terms of pace bowlers with Steyn just in front.

Anderson is probably more effective with the new ball, whilst Steyn can continue to threaten on all surfaces all through the innings with his raw pace and reverse swing.

In their careers overall, Steyn is a long way ahead though.

What he said, only Anderson would just be front for me in terms of pace bowlers.

James Anderson is a very good bowler. When the conditions favor swing, he becomes almost unplayable. He has improved a lot in his 2nd version, and now is a threat in different conditions. He did well in Australia, he did well in India, and in English conditions, he's very much at home.
Vernon Philander has had a dream start to test cricket, Morne Morkel has the ability to find bounce on any pitch, Zaheer Khan on form is a master of reverse swing. But Anderson is better than all of them in my book.
But Dale Steyn? Well, he's from another league. The best fast bowler of his generation by a long. His strike after playing 60 tests is well and truly exceptional. He can crank his pace up to the 150 reagions and usually bowls at a terrific pace. He swing the ball late at high speed, does move both the old and new balls, can bowl a mean bouncer, can produce the goods on absolute flat tracks.
Steyn is the best of them all, Anderson at the moment, is best of the rest.

Both good players, Steyn probably edges it as Anderson can have a decent series or two and then a quiet couple. Also think Anderson is perhaps unwittingly a pressure bowler rather than an out and out wicket taker. The likes of Finn and Broad pick up a lot of his wickets.

Despite playing half of his games in favourable England, Anderson still averages 30 in test cricket. A very good bowler he is but not a potential great, like Steyn.

Steyn shades Anderson for me - he has that extra nasty streak with ball in hand that a great fast bowler needs.

Im not too sure how the pressure bowler theory works. Surely you can only measure it in terms of economy, keeping a player pegged down and looking to score against easier bowlers. But Andersons economy in tests is worse than Broads and only slightly better than Steyns so Im not sure if its a justifiable argument.

Steyn averages 23 with the balls, strikes at every 42 balls, has 16 more wickets than Anderson has got, from 16 fewer tests. He has taken 5 wickets in an innings 18 times and went on to take 10 in the match 4 times.
Anderson on the other hand averages 7 more runs for each of his wicketts, takes 16 more balls on average to strike, has only 12 fifers and taken 10 in a match only ones.

Steyn far far ahead of Jimmy, no doubt about it.

The only world class fast bowler at the moment who can be mentioned along Donald, Pollock, Akram, Younis, McGrath, Walsh, Ambrose etc

When it mattered against SA Jimmy was nowhere to be seen while Steyn had spells that changed the outcome of matches and ultimately the series.

I agree with the sensible consensus that says that whilst Anderson is an excellent bowler who can now perform in all conditions, Steyn's overall career stats make him an all-time great (were he to retire tomorrow) and as such at the moment ahead of the former.

However we have to remember that for the first part of his career Anderson wasn't ready for test cricket but was persisted with and tinkered with which didn't help. Since his comeback he has been consistently excellent in all conditions, and hasn't had any more poor series than Steyn himself (who has had a couple - including in England the last time South Africa were there). Steyn on the other hand was managed far better: originally picked when not ready (albeit his potential was there for all to see, as was Anderson's), then allowed to go and develop properly in first class cricket before returning a world class player.

The case for Steyn being better than Anderson (which he is) is not helped by some comments from Gerry in particular belittling Anderson. In particular:
- "When Anderson faced the great Australian side he was destroyed. Steyn, back in 2008, retired Australia's battering ram Matthew Hayden. "
Steyn never played against the great Australian side; by 2008 the decline was well on its way (and the 4th spinner being tried) and Hayden was a shadow of his former self. Moreover the main factor in the series win was Steyn's batting (with Duminy) rather than his bowling. And Smith's hundred chasing down 414 at Perth. But in any case, comparing the Australian side of 2008 with that of 2006 is silly.
- "Anderson was mediocre, club standard bowler. " He bowled quite brilliantly at the Oval (he was the stand-out bowler there from either side) without luck (dropped catches, and more balls past the edge than I've seen since Brisbane 2010 - where Anderson produced genuinely one of the great spells of bowling to Hussey and Haddin on the 2nd morning, similar in a way to Steyn to Tendulkar). I'd love a club bowler who could bowl like that.

Overall, I think msp's summary "Steyn is the best of all, Anderson the best of the rest" is probably spot-on. Steyn is a great bowler, and I love watching him bowl. But you don't need to denigrate Anderson (who is an excellent bowler, although not great yet) in order to praise Steyn.

Excellent post as always, Mike. Some much needed sense injected in to this thread at last.

For my own part, I believe Anderson to be the more talented - when he is on song there is nobody currently playing with more skill - but Steyn to be the more penetrative.

If I desperately needed a wicket I'd prefer to turn to Steyn. If I wanted to make even the very finest batsman look rather stupid it'd be over to Jimmy. Both fantastic, but Steyn obviously has the edge because of his record.

Just had a look at the stats.

If you compare their records against the big 4 (Aus, SA India & England) the results show the following:

Anderson 44 tests - 144 wickets @ 37.8
Steyn 32 tests - 154 wickets @ 26.38

As Mick (above) says, I think the important thing here is the difference a couple of tours can make. Steyn never bowled at the great Aussie team and you can argue that the SA batting line up has been that bit more of a daunting prospect than England’s over the last 6 or 7 years.

Precisely Sean, the misuse of Anderson early in his career will have skewed those somewhat.

Narrow it down to the last few years and it would likely be a lot closer.

He averages 27 in the last four years. Not great but stats don;t say everything.

I remember watching Steyn live in one of his first tests against England at the Wonderers.

Strauss had just pasted him for three fours in an over and to my disapointment Steyn walked to the boundry where he was fielding at the end of the over and proceeded to chat away with mates of his in the crowd and throwing them drinks as if he'd had a good game and all was fine. I recall thinking that this kid will never make it and had completely the wrong attitude. If Donald ever got hit for a boundry you'd see the steam coming off his head and you wouldn't dare look at him in the eye.

Called that one wrong!

Very true, Stella.

Anderson is without doubt the unluckiest bowler in the world - I'd love to know the amount of times he has beat the bat, amount of catches that have been dropped off his bowling etc in the last few years. It seems to have happened with outrageous regularity.

Think this thread is slightly in danger of being a bit rose tinted for Anderson.
Stats arent everything....well they kind of are quite a lot when it comes to bowling.
He's more of a pressure bowler and other bowlers pick up his wickets. Sorry, they aren't his wickets.
Now he's undoubtably the unluckiest bowler in the world ? Whatever happened to making your own luck. Sorry I dont believe he has anymore bad luck for a second than any other bowler with the same kind of career length.
Now Im a big Jimmy Anderson fan, excellent bowler and chuffed to have a guy who can average about 27 (in his later career) in the England team. But please, he is what he is which is very good but he is not a great player who somehow just got unlucky.
Mind you he is better looking that Steyn, that must count for something.

Fists, Anderson himself has been at the forefront of spilling catches regularly over the last year or so.
I don't exactly remember he being the victim of far too many drop catches as such. If any bowler from England struggled with too many drops in the last 5 years or so, it has to be Ryan Sidebottom!.
Cricket is more about finding the edge rather than beating the bat. People say it about the likes of Ishant Sharma and Andrew Flintoff that they beat the bat more often than finding the edge, and it was attributed to the length they usually bowl. In Anderson's case, its more about the swing. The key here is not about swinging it big, but swinging it enough to find the edge. Think Anderson has done a fairly decent job that ways, but I don't think there is much in trying to project Anderson as a more unlucky bowler than Steyn is.

If we set a starting date of January 2007 (to include only the very last Test played by McGrath) we see that there are quite a lot of fast bowlers averaging under 30. But most of those have either blown out quickly (Bollinger, Sidebottom), are always injured (Harris, Tremlett), have been in jail (Asif, Amir) or are still pretty new (Roach, Philander).

Somebody playing every Test over such a long period is bound to have rough patches (form, fitness, top batsmen, flat pitches). But Anderson has 245 wkts over the period - second only to Steyn who has 272. The next best in terms of wickets is in fact Mitchell Johnson, on 205.

So, no, I think bowling averages are a bit suspect actually as a guide to who's the best.

I wonder how many more tests Anderson played during that period than Steyn? That sort of info is really relevent and skews the truth, hense the use of averages.

Anderson - 62 tests
Steyn - 52 tests

10 less tests BUT WITH 27 MORE WICKETS!

Bowling average alone can't tell us a great deal. But when it is combined with strike rate, wickets, impact in terms of fifers and 10 wicket hauls, and length of the career, it certainly gives a better perspective.

Jimmy had had a world class spinner taking wickets with him, unlike Steyn who up until recently had Morkel and not much else.

I think averages and s/rate are the only true stats you can go on.

Diggers wrote:Think this thread is slightly in danger of being a bit rose tinted for Anderson.

I don't think so. I'm not really an England fan (I'm french, and due to complicated family history will support France, then any other associate/affiliate, then Australia then England) but I think he's an extraordinary cricketer - ability to swing the ball both ways, reverse swing, slower ball, and a brilliant athlete to boot. I'm not saying he's as good a bowler as Steyn, but he's an excellent bowler in his own right, and brilliant to watch when on song.

Diggers wrote:Whatever happened to making your own luck.

Refers to "practice hard, and you'll get lucky". It was rubbish when Gary Player used it ("the more I practice, the luckier I get") and it's rubbish now, but used by people (players, coaches, commentators) to suggest that luck doesn't play a part. There is such a thing as luck: when a golfer hits a brilliant approach whether the ball goes in or just ends a few feet from the hole is luck, not skill; when a batsman plays a loose drive and edges past or onto his stumps or is dropped that is luck not skill - what is skill is then making the most of your possible lucky break; when a bowler beats the bat by a centimetre or takes the edge - that is luck for the bowler, not skill (although it may depend on the skill of the batsman).

Anderson bowled one of the best spells of bowling I have ever seen that 3rd morning in Brisbane. He got no wickets, but that wasn't because of a lack of skill.

As a coach you teach your players to try to take luck out of the game as much as possible, by practising and by playing as well as possible. But you know, if your bowler bowls a perfect over to one of their guys, sets him up and then has him palpably LBW off the last ball of the over, but the umpire was thinking about his tea, or more interested in the bowler's follow through, then that's just... unlucky.

And even when we look at the stats from 2007 onwards, you could see there is a 6 run difference between Anderson's and sTeyn's average in the latter's favor. As far as strike rate and impactful performances go, Steyn's advantage only increases.

Mike Selig wrote:

Diggers wrote:Think this thread is slightly in danger of being a bit rose tinted for Anderson.

I don't think so. I'm not really an England fan (I'm french, and due to complicated family history will support France, then any other associate/affiliate, then Australia then England) but I think he's an extraordinary cricketer - ability to swing the ball both ways, reverse swing, slower ball, and a brilliant athlete to boot. I'm not saying he's as good a bowler as Steyn, but he's an excellent bowler in his own right, and brilliant to watch when on song.

Diggers wrote:Whatever happened to making your own luck.

Refers to "practice hard, and you'll get lucky". It was rubbish when Gary Player used it ("the more I practice, the luckier I get") and it's rubbish now, but used by people (players, coaches, commentators) to suggest that luck doesn't play a part. There is such a thing as luck: when a golfer hits a brilliant approach whether the ball goes in or just ends a few feet from the hole is luck, not skill; when a batsman plays a loose drive and edges past or onto his stumps or is dropped that is luck not skill - what is skill is then making the most of your possible lucky break; when a bowler beats the bat by a centimetre or takes the edge - that is luck for the bowler, not skill (although it may depend on the skill of the batsman).

Anderson bowled one of the best spells of bowling I have ever seen that 3rd morning in Brisbane. He got no wickets, but that wasn't because of a lack of skill.

As a coach you teach your players to try to take luck out of the game as much as possible, by practising and by playing as well as possible. But you know, if your bowler bowls a perfect over to one of their guys, sets him up and then has him palpably LBW off the last ball of the over, but the umpire was thinking about his tea, or more interested in the bowler's follow through, then that's just... unlucky.

Certainly dont agree on the luck part. What Player clearly meant was the more I practise the better I get and that is of course true, he was in fact mocking the concept of luck in sport. The times you are unlucky in sport are when you get injured or when you get maybe dropped for political reasons, over the course of a sustained career to say someone was consistently unlucky on the field of play when fit is a nonsense.
You may well have seen Anderson bowl great and get nothing, Ive also seen him bowl quite a few howlers that have been caught in the deep...in short it balances itself out over a career and I'm sure Steyn will tell you of times he's bowled well for little reward, its certainly not unique to Anderson.

Mike I don't think the point is too much about whether luck plays a part in sport, it most certainly does in my view, but I don't think there is a serious case for Anderson being the unluckiest bowler in the world.

I think you have to compare Steyn outside of SA (bowler friendly) against Anderson outside of England to get a fair reflection. Or better yet, don't include SA or England in the comparison because they can't bowl to their own batting line up.

It is easy to forget Steyn averaged 30.33 in his first 13 test matches.

His entry into international cricket was not smooth sailing from the start. He was extremely erratic in his performances.

He took only 51 wickets in his first 13 test matches, Since August 2007, he has taken 253 wickets at 22.34 and a strike rate of 41.2

So you could have the same argument for Steyn having two "eras" in his career.

2004 to Aug 2007, and then there after.

ALthough I rate Jimmy Anderson highly, I am sorry to say but he is not in the class of Dale Steyn.

When you consider the rather average start Steyn had to his career, and yet at 300 wickets he has just misses out beating Waqar Younis to the fastet (in ball terms) to 300 wickets, it tells you the calibre of his bowling.

Also the argument that Anderson played against the "tough" Australian team and Dale didn't is incorrect.

Anderson played his first test series against Australia in November 2006, it was only Justin Langer and Damien Martin who Steyn did not bowl against.

Anderson possesses more skill than Steyn, you can't deny that one Biltong. Pace is Steyn's killer, his ace up his sleeve.

Fists of Fury wrote:Anderson possesses more skill than Steyn, you can't deny that one Biltong. Pace is Steyn's killer, his ace up his sleeve.

Fists, Dale Steyn in the past year have shown he can bowl outswinger at 130 kph, can get bounce on most surfaces, his bouncer is accurate, then as you say he amps it up to 145kph and gets batsman undone, then also consider the fact that Steyn can bowl with new and old ball..

Anderson can swing the ball more, in the right conditions, not sure he has more skills. He can't amp it up, in the wrong conditions he is ineffective at times.

Sorry mate, can't agree.

Anderson's performances on the sub-continent in 2012 surely put those theories to bed? He was superb, and averaging 30 did not do him justice whatsoever.

Anderson has the ball on a string, making it move both ways at will. That to me is pure skill, and something that Steyn doesn't possess. However, as you've rightly said, Steyn makes up for it with a sharp bouncer and the additional pace.

Not sure why this has become so bogged down into an Anderson v Steyn thread - Steyn is clearly the best fast bowler in the world at the moment, Anderson with Philander* as the best fast-medium swing and seam bowlers.

* Will be interesting to see how Philander gets on in the Sub-Continent.

As for unlucky bowlers, Flintoff certainly was one, and going back a few more years I always thought Phil DeFreitas bowled some absolute snorters that always just failed to take the edge. By contrast, McGrath never got exagerated movement but did just enough to get lots of edges and wickets while no-one has ever taken as many wickets bowling filth as Botham

Anderson himself tried to bowl quick for a while and it didnt work, putting the ball in the right place when bowling at pace is just as much a skill as moving it when your are medium quick. Steyn doesn't just run up and bowl as fast as he can, he still has to hit the right line and length.

So because Anderson isn't fit to be mentioned in the same as Steyn, he's now 'an unlucky bowler'. What's this based on? He gets plenty of plays and misses? So what?

If Anderson gets plenty of balls whizzing push the edge, it shows he hasn't learnt how to bowl the correct length.

Jason Gillespie was considered to be the most unlucky bowler is Test cricket. He always bowled the perfect delivery without getting the edge. Whereas McGrath did just enough to take the edge.

Well that's not strictly correct. 6m is considered a good length for a bowler to target, but depending on who the bowler is bowling at 5.5m length is considered a very length.

Gillespie couldn't hit that 5.5m. Anderson also can't. That's their limitations.

And this talk of Anderson having more skill than Steyn? Don't make me laugh.

304 wickets at 23
287 wickets at 30

Shows who's got the skills.

Think this thread should be renamed "An Ode to Dale Steyn, and an unnecessary dig at James Anderson".

Steyn is better than Anderson no doubt. But Anderson is very, very good. Can we all accept this and move on?

Gerry SA wrote:Anderson isn't fit to be mentioned in the same as Steyn,

If Anderson gets plenty of balls whizzing push the edge, it shows he hasn't learnt how to bowl the correct length.

Gillespie couldn't hit that 5.5m. Anderson also can't. That's their limitations.

And this talk of Anderson having more skill than Steyn? Don't make me laugh.

304 wickets at 23
287 wickets at 30

Shows who's got the skills.

Don't talk nonsense. Nobody (or very few people) are saying Anderson is better than Steyn. Nobody is denying that Steyn is the world's leading quick bowler. But Anderson is the 2nd best (perhaps Morkel runs him close, and Philander would if he keeps going at the current rate), and he is for very good reasons.

I'd also argue that Anderson is the best in helpful conditions with the new ball - even better than Steyn under those circumstances. He has a tremendous knack of working opening batsmen out, and getting certain batsmen out repeatedly. That is not to say Jimmy's better overall. He's not.

Biltong wrote:
Also the argument that Anderson played against the "tough" Australian team and Dale didn't is incorrect.

Anderson played his first test series against Australia in November 2006, it was only Justin Langer and Damien Martin who Steyn did not bowl against.

And Gilchrist. And I would argue Hayden who wasn't in any way the great player he'd been previously. And of course Warne as a lower order batsman could do some damage.

The Australian side of 2006 had 4 great batsmen (Martyn past his best) - Hayden, Ponting, Hussey and Gilchrist - and two very good ones - Langer and Clarke. The one of 2008 had 2 greats - Ponting and Hussey, one very good - Clarke, and a couple of reasonable ones - Katich and Haddin. And Hussey was out of form. That's quite a difference.

Well, I certainly can't agree that only swinging the ball can be considered as a skill. Bowling fast, getting enough late swing, using other options in conditions in not so helpful conditions are all skills that take some doing.

Anderson has two big Ashes series coming up where he is undoubtedly England's main quick, the Aussie batting is decent but not great so hopefully he wil step up to the plate and carry on from a good series in India.
He should also make hay with the kiwis batting so maybe in 15 tests time he will have that average below 30 and edging closer to Bothams England test record.

I play with plenty of saffas. They are loyal and stubborn. I agree steyn is slightly better than Anderson due to the extra and consistent 10 mph. Steyn isn't the swing master that Anderson currently is though.

Anderson came through an horrific injury as well. That is often forgotten and the England management treid to bowl him through it.

msp83 wrote:James Anderson is a very good bowler. When the conditions favor swing, he becomes almost unplayable. He has improved a lot in his 2nd version, and now is a threat in different conditions. He did well in Australia, he did well in India, and in English conditions, he's very much at home.
Vernon Philander has had a dream start to test cricket, Morne Morkel has the ability to find bounce on any pitch, Zaheer Khan on form is a master of reverse swing. But Anderson is better than all of them in my book.
But Dale Steyn? Well, he's from another league. The best fast bowler of his generation by a long. His strike after playing 60 tests is well and truly exceptional. He can crank his pace up to the 150 reagions and usually bowls at a terrific pace. He swing the ball late at high speed, does move both the old and new balls, can bowl a mean bouncer, can produce the goods on absolute flat tracks.
Steyn is the best of them all, Anderson at the moment, is best of the rest.

Couldn't agree more.