An ode to Dale Steyn

First topic message reminder :

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

He had a difficult phase. After showing big promise early on (having been plucked from outside of the system) he found himself as a constant 12th Man behind the Hoggard/ Harmison/ Jones/ Flintoff attack that served England so well from the Caribbean tour in early '04 through to the '05 Ashes. He then got injured at the wrong moment, meaning he only played 1 Test between Jo'burg '05 (when he played a one-off Test when Jones was injured) and the first Test of the '06-'07 Ashes. During that time he seemed to lose his game a bit, striving to get back into Fletcher's good books by finding pace. Consequently he didn't get into the swing of things properly and was in and out of the side until early 2008, when the decision was made to make him the leader of the attack after Hoggard, Harmison, Mahmood and Plunkett were simultaneously ditched.

At that point he seemed to spontaneously click into gear, enjoying being the main bowler.

The averages don't flatter him really, even since then. But in modern cricket 28 is excellent (which goes to show how good Steyn is).

Maybe Saffers are loyal and stubborn....but it is better than deluded.

That is left to the eternal optimistis, unlucky and underserved losers, aka: England

There is no contest between Steyn and Anderson as their respective records clearly illustrate. Steyn will go down as a great fast bowler up with the best like Donald, Wasim etc while Anderson will remain in a grouping of very good fast bowlers like Vaas etc. There is a marked difference.

Just look at all the excuses above used for defending Anderson.....

Fists of Fury wrote: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.

Not really sure talent is all about swinging the ball though. Pace matters too.

Mike Selig wrote:

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.

Mike it is one series, with 3 batsmen, it doesn't make much of a difference to their stats.

If Anderson 5 or 6 series and Steyn zero, you could argue the point, but not on one series

msp83 wrote: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.

Agreed. Not really sure beating the edge of the bat more often makes him more talented than Steyn. For me, skill is about swinging it late at pace. Controlling the swing is a lot tougher when you bowl quicker. So to discount pace altogether and to judge skill purely on the basis of the amount of swing one gets doesn't make much sense to me. Cricket is not about making a batsman look silly. Its about getting them out. I'd say that the one who swings the ball just about enough to find the edge is more skillful than someone who swings it around corners to keep beating the outside edge of the bat for little reward.

ShankyCricket wrote:

msp83 wrote: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.

Agreed. Not really sure beating the edge of the bat more often makes him more talented than Steyn. For me, skill is about swinging it late at pace. Controlling the swing is a lot tougher when you bowl quicker. So to discount pace altogether and to judge skill purely on the basis of the amount of swing one gets doesn't make much sense to me. Cricket is not about making a batsman look silly. Its about getting them out. I'd say that the one who swings the ball just about enough to find the edge is more skillful than someone who swings it around corners to keep beating the outside edge of the bat for little reward.

There seems to be a misconception on this thread that skill is directly proportionate to the amount of swing you get. Skill, for me, is the skill to get wickets. Be it late swing, a good bouncer, an inswinging yorker. All these are skills. And its about how you execute these skills and plot a batsman's downfall. Jimmy does that well but not quite as good as Steyn.

Biltong wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

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.

Mike it is one series, with 3 batsmen, it doesn't make much of a difference to their stats.

If Anderson 5 or 6 series and Steyn zero, you could argue the point, but not on one series

I never said it made much of a difference to overall stats. I originally raised the point of the Australian sides's relative strengths to counter Gerry's completely stupid point that we should judge them based on their records when they first played Australia as if those two sides were in any way similar (even ignoring that Steyn played Australia when he was on his way to becoming the bowler he is today, whilst Anderson first played them when he was still very much on the way down).

You then tried to claim that those two batting line-ups were similar. I was merely saying that that's incorrect.

I'm not arguing any point except that Anderson played against a great Australian side in 2006 (amongst the best teams ever to play test cricket, although I would actually rank the 2001 version above it slightly), and Steyn an average one in 2008.

I don't see how defending Anderson's ability has suddenly become an attack on Steyn. Everyone (bar arguably Duty) accepts that Steyn is the superior bowler, so I'm not sure what people's point is.

ShankyCricket wrote:There seems to be a misconception on this thread that skill is directly proportionate to the amount of swing you get. Skill, for me, is the skill to get wickets. Be it late swing, a good bouncer, an inswinging yorker. All these are skills. And its about how you execute these skills and plot a batsman's downfall. Jimmy does that well but not quite as good as Steyn.

What is skill and what is an attribute? Is skill the same as ability (i.e. do we equate skill levels with how good someone is?)? Does a skill have to be good?

All very interesting questions (and infinitely more so than some of the current debate)...

An attribute is something you are born with and a skill is something you learn.
Maybe

There we go, everyone's summed it up better than I could last night. Steyn has had the better career than Anderson, goes without saying. But at the peak of their abilities, Anderson (for me) is the better bowler. He has absolutely everything in the locker and is world-class in the subcontinent and just about everywhere in the World. We'd be better to compare when their careers has finished, I don't quite think Anderson has hit his peak yet.

The situation when comparing one bowler with another is after the statistics have been ripped apart, all that is left is subjective reasoning.

Any opinion we have about any player is all to do with personal experience, personal favouritism and loyalty or patriotism to one's team.

Therefor it isn't likely that you will find a clear cut overwhelming opinion.

The records say one thing, and our personal opinions another.

To be quite honest, I am amazed that this thread turned into a Steyn v Anderson square-off because a) I did not think it was even close. and b) well, really just A.

Look I like Jimmy, ever since I met him and Simon Jones in the 2005 Johannesburg Test, I was about 10, nice lads. But really, comparing him and Steyn is a bit like comparing a Toyota 86 with a Ferrari Enzo.

Some of the defences put forward are laughable...

"Jimmy was picked when he was too young and that skewed his stats"
Well Dale was picked after only 7 first class matches and went for 2/117...

"Andersons swing means he is greater talent than Dale, Dale is merely more penetrative"
To be fair I am not quite sure what this actually means, as I thought raw pace is a gift that cant be taught, while one LEARNS how to properly swing the ball, even if you can organically produce the art.

"Anderson has to share his wickets because he has a world class spinner and good support while Steyn can run through teams"

Well if this was true, then it would definitely be a good point. But no one in that entire support took 50 sticks in 7 Tests. Plus that really cant explain the mile-long gap in strike-rates.

"Anderson can make any leading batsman look a fool"
I actually feel like responding to this by merely writing 'Oval 2012'.

Like I said Jimmy is a good, on his day great bowler. But Steyn? He is a great, on his day 'greatest-ever-discussion' bowler.

kingraf wrote:To be quite honest, I am amazed that this thread turned into a Steyn v Anderson square-off because a) I did not think it was even close. and b) well, really just A.

Look I like Jimmy, ever since I met him and Simon Jones in the 2005 Johannesburg Test, I was about 10, nice lads. But really, comparing him and Steyn is a bit like comparing a Toyota 86 with a Ferrari Enzo.

Some of the defences put forward are laughable...

"Jimmy was picked when he was too young and that skewed his stats"
Well Dale was picked after only 7 first class matches and went for 2/117...

"Andersons swing means he is greater talent than Dale, Dale is merely more penetrative"
To be fair I am not quite sure what this actually means, as I thought raw pace is a gift that cant be taught, while one LEARNS how to properly swing the ball, even if you can organically produce the art.

"Anderson has to share his wickets because he has a world class spinner and good support while Steyn can run through teams"

Well if this was true, then it would definitely be a good point. But no one in that entire support took 50 sticks in 7 Tests. Plus that really cant explain the mile-long gap in strike-rates.

"Anderson can make any leading batsman look a fool"
I actually feel like responding to this by merely writing 'Oval 2012'.

Like I said Jimmy is a good, on his day great bowler. But Steyn? He is a great, on his day 'greatest-ever-discussion' bowler.

Did you just say Steyn could possibly be considered as the greatest ever? That renders your entire argument moot.

also I would like to apologize for omitting the fact thay Waqar got to 300 before Dale... Last time I read something on Twitter and not look it up while posting i as a fact. Continue...

Duty281- I said on his day he could enter the argument. Allan Donald said he could be the greatest ever, I think he is a little more knowledgeable than you!

fact is Holding also rates him very highly... McGrath thinks he can get to 500 sticks, count how many quickies have got there & tell me what that tells you about how highly Glenn rates him.

kingraf wrote:Duty281- I said on his day he could enter the argument. Allan Donald said he could be the greatest ever, I think he is a little more knowledgeable than you!

fact is Holding also rates him very highly... McGrath thinks he can get to 500 sticks, count how many quickies have got there & tell me what that tells you about how highly Glenn rates him.

Possibles for the best ever fast bowler spot:

Mcgrath, Walsh, Dev, Hadlee, Pollock, Akram, Marshall, Donald, Trueman. Steyn will have to do a lot in one of cricket's weakest ever eras to be considered amongst those greats.

kingraf wrote:To be quite honest, I am amazed that this thread turned into a Steyn v Anderson square-off because a) I did not think it was even close. and b) well, really just A.

Look I like Jimmy, ever since I met him and Simon Jones in the 2005 Johannesburg Test, I was about 10, nice lads. But really, comparing him and Steyn is a bit like comparing a Toyota 86 with a Ferrari Enzo.

Some of the defences put forward are laughable...

"Jimmy was picked when he was too young and that skewed his stats"
Well Dale was picked after only 7 first class matches and went for 2/117...

"Andersons swing means he is greater talent than Dale, Dale is merely more penetrative"
To be fair I am not quite sure what this actually means, as I thought raw pace is a gift that cant be taught, while one LEARNS how to properly swing the ball, even if you can organically produce the art.

"Anderson has to share his wickets because he has a world class spinner and good support while Steyn can run through teams"

Well if this was true, then it would definitely be a good point. But no one in that entire support took 50 sticks in 7 Tests. Plus that really cant explain the mile-long gap in strike-rates.

"Anderson can make any leading batsman look a fool"
I actually feel like responding to this by merely writing 'Oval 2012'.

Like I said Jimmy is a good, on his day great bowler. But Steyn? He is a great, on his day 'greatest-ever-discussion' bowler.

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Duty281- I said on his day he could enter the argument. Allan Donald said he could be the greatest ever, I think he is a little more knowledgeable than you!

fact is Holding also rates him very highly... McGrath thinks he can get to 500 sticks, count how many quickies have got there & tell me what that tells you about how highly Glenn rates him.

Possibles for the best ever fast bowler spot:

Mcgrath, Walsh, Dev, Hadlee, Pollock, Akram, Marshall, Donald, Trueman. Steyn will have to do a lot in one of cricket's weakest ever eras to be considered amongst those greats.

Steyn is better than Pollock and Dev, fot my money. Possibly Donald too.

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Duty281- I said on his day he could enter the argument. Allan Donald said he could be the greatest ever, I think he is a little more knowledgeable than you!

fact is Holding also rates him very highly... McGrath thinks he can get to 500 sticks, count how many quickies have got there & tell me what that tells you about how highly Glenn rates him.

Possibles for the best ever fast bowler spot:

Mcgrath, Walsh, Dev, Hadlee, Pollock, Akram, Marshall, Donald, Trueman. Steyn will have to do a lot in one of cricket's weakest ever eras to be considered amongst those greats.

You seriously believe that?

He beat every one of those bowlers by at least a thousand balls to 300 wickets.

He bowled in the era of super batsmen and good batting pitches with the best modern equipment.

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Duty281- I said on his day he could enter the argument. Allan Donald said he could be the greatest ever, I think he is a little more knowledgeable than you!

fact is Holding also rates him very highly... McGrath thinks he can get to 500 sticks, count how many quickies have got there & tell me what that tells you about how highly Glenn rates him.

Possibles for the best ever fast bowler spot:

Mcgrath, Walsh, Dev, Hadlee, Pollock, Akram, Marshall, Donald, Trueman. Steyn will have to do a lot in one of cricket's weakest ever eras to be considered amongst those greats.

Weak era?

Could be true, seeing as mediocre England even topped the Test rankings, won the Ashes 3 times and won an icc world event...

Current cricket era is stacked in favour of batsmen, yet Steyn had destroyed anyone.

If he beats McGrath's 563, Hadlee's 9 10 wicket match hauls he'll easily be the best fast bowler of all time.

He is certainly the greatest of his era. I'm not sure he'll quite join Marshall, Lillee, McGrath and a few others in the very top group, but he's better than Dev, Walsh, Pollock, Donald and a lot of other greats.

The chances of him beating McGrath's wicket tally are slim at best - he probably reached the very height of his powers in 2010-11, is almost 30, and perhaps doesn't quite have the level of control McGrath had to go on into his mid-late 30s. But that wouldn't stop him from being considered a great.

Dev was very good at best and IMO Steyn is better than Walsh. Also, IMO, he has a bit behing Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath amongst others.

Kapil Dev??
431 wickets
131 matches
ave 29.64
Sr 63

that Kapil Dev? But you find Steyns nomination laughable... okay.
As for weakest era- it is pretty much excepted that this is the toughest era for bowling ever. e.g. In the recent Eng -RSA series, nearly the entire England top 6 were within five centuries of breaking the English record for the most centuries in Tests.

Michael Clarke just scored the most double tons in a year. I have spoken at length with some of the greatest minds in cricket I could tell you the oddest things about NasserHussain, The great Australian team and many more. I refuse to allow myself to enter an argument where Kapil Dev might be seen as the greatest bowler ever.

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Duty281- I said on his day he could enter the argument. Allan Donald said he could be the greatest ever, I think he is a little more knowledgeable than you!

fact is Holding also rates him very highly... McGrath thinks he can get to 500 sticks, count how many quickies have got there & tell me what that tells you about how highly Glenn rates him.

Possibles for the best ever fast bowler spot:

Mcgrath, Walsh, Dev, Hadlee, Pollock, Akram, Marshall, Donald, Trueman. Steyn will have to do a lot in one of cricket's weakest ever eras to be considered amongst those greats.

Weak era?

Could be true, seeing as mediocre England even topped the Test rankings, won the Ashes 3 times and won an icc world event...

Current cricket era is stacked in favour of batsmen, yet Steyn had destroyed anyone.

If he beats McGrath's 563, Hadlee's 9 10 wicket match hauls he'll easily be the best fast bowler of all time.

You know what, this lad's looking more like Demon Racer with every post.

Anyways, today's cricket era only has had 4 true World-Class batsman in the last 12 years - Lara, Ponting, Kallis and Tendulkar. The 80s/90s had more than that, plus you argue Lara and Tendulkar were at their respective peaks in the 90s. Today's batting era consists of T20 mindset and lack of application.

Batting averages are higher now than in the 80's, duty.

Duty281 wrote:There we go, everyone's summed it up better than I could last night. Steyn has had the better career than Anderson, goes without saying. But at the peak of their abilities, Anderson (for me) is the better bowler. He has absolutely everything in the locker and is world-class in the subcontinent and just about everywhere in the World. We'd be better to compare when their careers has finished, I don't quite think Anderson has hit his peak yet.

Anderson hasn't reached his peak? You ever considered doing stand up?

Anderson's had two good seasons in his entire career. Surround by plenty ordinary ones.

2010 he took 57 wickets @ 23
2011 he took 35 wickets @ 25

2010 he bullied a weak Bangladesh and a brittle Pakistan.
2011 he bullied a transitional Australian side and a passed it Indian side.

Hardly says a lot about Anderson. He's only a superstar when the opposition is weak or passed it.

As for being great in the subcontinent, he's taken 1 x 5 wicket haul in 14 Tests in Asia with an average of 32.

Steyn's got 4 x 5 wicket haul and 1 x 10 wicket match haul.

Steyn over Anderson again...

He's just like any English cricketer. A hype job.

Harmison was hailed as the king of fast bowling a few years ago, that lasted 2 years then he was back to his average ways.

Anderson will be another Harmison.

kingraf wrote:Kapil Dev??
431 wickets
131 matches
ave 29.64
Sr 63

that Kapil Dev? But you find Steyns nomination laughable... okay.
As for weakest era- it is pretty much excepted that this is the toughest era for bowling ever. e.g. In the recent Eng -RSA series, nearly the entire England top 6 were within five centuries of breaking the English record for the most centuries in Tests.

Michael Clarke just scored the most double tons in a year. I have spoken at length with some of the greatest minds in cricket I could tell you the oddest things about NasserHussain, The great Australian team and many more. I refuse to allow myself to enter an argument where Kapil Dev might be seen as the greatest bowler ever.

I take back Kapil Dev, I'm sorry. He's not fit to lace Andy Caddick's boots. In all seriousness, I should have put him last in that list. Is there really an argument for greatest fast bowler ever? It's Glenn Mcgrath for me, far and away the most technically perfect quick bowler there's ever been or likely to be.

Stella wrote:Batting averages are higher now than in the 80's, duty.

He hasn't got a clue Stella. Probably lives on cricinfo... Dreaming of stats...

Duty281 wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Duty281- I said on his day he could enter the argument. Allan Donald said he could be the greatest ever, I think he is a little more knowledgeable than you!

fact is Holding also rates him very highly... McGrath thinks he can get to 500 sticks, count how many quickies have got there & tell me what that tells you about how highly Glenn rates him.

Possibles for the best ever fast bowler spot:

Mcgrath, Walsh, Dev, Hadlee, Pollock, Akram, Marshall, Donald, Trueman. Steyn will have to do a lot in one of cricket's weakest ever eras to be considered amongst those greats.

Weak era?

Could be true, seeing as mediocre England even topped the Test rankings, won the Ashes 3 times and won an icc world event...

Current cricket era is stacked in favour of batsmen, yet Steyn had destroyed anyone.

If he beats McGrath's 563, Hadlee's 9 10 wicket match hauls he'll easily be the best fast bowler of all time.

You know what, this lad's looking more like Demon Racer with every post.

Anyways, today's cricket era only has had 4 true World-Class batsman in the last 12 years - Lara, Ponting, Kallis and Tendulkar. The 80s/90s had more than that, plus you argue Lara and Tendulkar were at their respective peaks in the 90s. Today's batting era consists of T20 mindset and lack of application.

If you're gonna try and insult me you're gonna have to try harder pal.

Whatever demon racer, I'll let you amuse yourself with it.

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:There we go, everyone's summed it up better than I could last night. Steyn has had the better career than Anderson, goes without saying. But at the peak of their abilities, Anderson (for me) is the better bowler. He has absolutely everything in the locker and is world-class in the subcontinent and just about everywhere in the World. We'd be better to compare when their careers has finished, I don't quite think Anderson has hit his peak yet.

Anderson hasn't reached his peak? You ever considered doing stand up?

Anderson's had two good seasons in his entire career. Surround by plenty ordinary ones.

2010 he took 57 wickets @ 23
2011 he took 35 wickets @ 25

2010 he bullied a weak Bangladesh and a brittle Pakistan.
2011 he bullied a transitional Australian side and a passed it Indian side.

Hardly says a lot about Anderson. He's only a superstar when the opposition is weak or passed it.

As for being great in the subcontinent, he's taken 1 x 5 wicket haul in 14 Tests in Asia with an average of 32.

Steyn's got 4 x 5 wicket haul and 1 x 10 wicket match haul.

Steyn over Anderson again...

He's just like any English cricketer. A hype job.

Harmison was hailed as the king of fast bowling a few years ago, that lasted 2 years then he was back to his average ways.

Anderson will be another Harmison.

Always the way with England isn't it? We only the beat the Germans in 66 thanks to a Russian linesman. We only won the Ashes in 2005 cause Mcgrath was injured. We only beat NZ in the rugby a month back cause they were ill. Lewis only beat Tyson cause Tyson was past it. Darts and Snooker aren't real sports. Bradley Wiggins is actually Belgian. Froch's gloves were loaded. Etc.

Duty281 wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:There we go, everyone's summed it up better than I could last night. Steyn has had the better career than Anderson, goes without saying. But at the peak of their abilities, Anderson (for me) is the better bowler. He has absolutely everything in the locker and is world-class in the subcontinent and just about everywhere in the World. We'd be better to compare when their careers has finished, I don't quite think Anderson has hit his peak yet.

Anderson hasn't reached his peak? You ever considered doing stand up?

Anderson's had two good seasons in his entire career. Surround by plenty ordinary ones.

2010 he took 57 wickets @ 23
2011 he took 35 wickets @ 25

2010 he bullied a weak Bangladesh and a brittle Pakistan.
2011 he bullied a transitional Australian side and a passed it Indian side.

Hardly says a lot about Anderson. He's only a superstar when the opposition is weak or passed it.

As for being great in the subcontinent, he's taken 1 x 5 wicket haul in 14 Tests in Asia with an average of 32.

Steyn's got 4 x 5 wicket haul and 1 x 10 wicket match haul.

Steyn over Anderson again...

He's just like any English cricketer. A hype job.

Harmison was hailed as the king of fast bowling a few years ago, that lasted 2 years then he was back to his average ways.

Anderson will be another Harmison.

Always the way with England isn't it? We only the beat the Germans in 66 thanks to a Russian linesman. We only won the Ashes in 2005 cause Mcgrath was injured. We only beat NZ in the rugby a month back cause they were ill. Lewis only beat Tyson cause Tyson was past it. Darts and Snooker aren't real sports. Bradley Wiggins is actually Belgian. Froch's gloves were loaded. Etc.

Whatever gets you to sleep pal.

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:There we go, everyone's summed it up better than I could last night. Steyn has had the better career than Anderson, goes without saying. But at the peak of their abilities, Anderson (for me) is the better bowler. He has absolutely everything in the locker and is world-class in the subcontinent and just about everywhere in the World. We'd be better to compare when their careers has finished, I don't quite think Anderson has hit his peak yet.

Anderson hasn't reached his peak? You ever considered doing stand up?

Anderson's had two good seasons in his entire career. Surround by plenty ordinary ones.

2010 he took 57 wickets @ 23
2011 he took 35 wickets @ 25

2010 he bullied a weak Bangladesh and a brittle Pakistan.
2011 he bullied a transitional Australian side and a passed it Indian side.

Hardly says a lot about Anderson. He's only a superstar when the opposition is weak or passed it.

As for being great in the subcontinent, he's taken 1 x 5 wicket haul in 14 Tests in Asia with an average of 32.

Steyn's got 4 x 5 wicket haul and 1 x 10 wicket match haul.

Steyn over Anderson again...

He's just like any English cricketer. A hype job.

Harmison was hailed as the king of fast bowling a few years ago, that lasted 2 years then he was back to his average ways.

Anderson will be another Harmison.

Always the way with England isn't it? We only the beat the Germans in 66 thanks to a Russian linesman. We only won the Ashes in 2005 cause Mcgrath was injured. We only beat NZ in the rugby a month back cause they were ill. Lewis only beat Tyson cause Tyson was past it. Darts and Snooker aren't real sports. Bradley Wiggins is actually Belgian. Froch's gloves were loaded. Etc.

Whatever gets you to sleep pal.

You seem to have a bigger problem with England than I do with South Africa. And the BIB is just backing up my point actually about Anderson not hitting his peak. Think before you type lad.

Shelsey93 wrote:He is certainly the greatest of his era. I'm not sure he'll quite join Marshall, Lillee, McGrath and a few others in the very top group, but he's better than Dev, Walsh, Pollock, Donald and a lot of other greats.

The chances of him beating McGrath's wicket tally are slim at best - he probably reached the very height of his powers in 2010-11, is almost 30, and perhaps doesn't quite have the level of control McGrath had to go on into his mid-late 30s. But that wouldn't stop him from being considered a great.

Lillee did fail in Asia. I think Steyn's better than him.

Duty281 wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Duty281- I said on his day he could enter the argument. Allan Donald said he could be the greatest ever, I think he is a little more knowledgeable than you!

fact is Holding also rates him very highly... McGrath thinks he can get to 500 sticks, count how many quickies have got there & tell me what that tells you about how highly Glenn rates him.

Possibles for the best ever fast bowler spot:

Mcgrath, Walsh, Dev, Hadlee, Pollock, Akram, Marshall, Donald, Trueman. Steyn will have to do a lot in one of cricket's weakest ever eras to be considered amongst those greats.

Weak era?

Could be true, seeing as mediocre England even topped the Test rankings, won the Ashes 3 times and won an icc world event...

Current cricket era is stacked in favour of batsmen, yet Steyn had destroyed anyone.

If he beats McGrath's 563, Hadlee's 9 10 wicket match hauls he'll easily be the best fast bowler of all time.

You know what, this lad's looking more like Demon Racer with every post.

Anyways, today's cricket era only has had 4 true World-Class batsman in the last 12 years - Lara, Ponting, Kallis and Tendulkar. The 80s/90s had more than that, plus you argue Lara and Tendulkar were at their respective peaks in the 90s. Today's batting era consists of T20 mindset and lack of application.

So Dravid isn't a world class batsman?

For Dale Steyn to overtake McGrath he would have to play another 5 years which makes him 34.

I doubt he will play until age 34.

He is likely to end a shade over or under 500 wickets.

Biltong wrote:For Dale Steyn to overtake McGrath he would have to play another 5 years which makes him 34.

I doubt he will play until age 34.

He is likely to end a shade over or under 500 wickets.

I think Steyn will be around for at least another 7 years BB.

He doesn't really play much ODI cricket.

He's plays T20I and the IPL, so he has plenty of rest time.

He's already shown even when his pace is down he still takes wickets in bucket loads.

Once he has the shoulder, elbow and knee issues well healed, he'll be clocking 150kph like clockwork again.

Gerry SA wrote:

Biltong wrote:For Dale Steyn to overtake McGrath he would have to play another 5 years which makes him 34.

I doubt he will play until age 34.

He is likely to end a shade over or under 500 wickets.

I think Steyn will be around for at least another 7 years BB.

He doesn't really play much ODI cricket.

He's plays T20I and the IPL, so he has plenty of rest time.

He's already shown even when his pace is down he still takes wickets in bucket loads.

Once he has the shoulder, elbow and knee issues well healed, he'll be clocking 150kph like clockwork again.

I am hoping he will, just to clock 600 wickets ro put this type of debate to bed.

But I sincerely doubt it.

If Steyn retired tomorrow, he'd certainly be in the top 20 fast bowlers (by which as with the convention I mean fast and medium pace BTW); he would be borderline top 10, although probably just miss out, partly because of a lack of longetivity. At this moment in time I would have McGrath, Lindwall, Marshall, Holding, Barnes, Truemann, Akram, Ambrose, Hadlee, Lillee, Donald, ahead of him, although I can see the argument for him being in front of the last one (similar records, but Donald's longetivity - not in terms of number of test matches but of seasons - wins out for me). I understand concerns over Lillee's subcontinental record, but in truth it is on such a small sample size I am willing to not attach that much importance to it. I can also see cases for guys like Garner, Roberts, Waqar, maybe even Alan Davidson and Imran Khan to be ahead of Steyn right now, and of course comparisons with the likes of Lohmann and Spofforth are difficult to the point of impossible. Even so, without counting I don't think I've exceeded my 20, and Steyn, with his record as it stands certainly he belongs in that company.

If Steyn can continue his career and finish with upwards of 400-450 wickets, then he will move comfortably into the top 10, ahead of Lillee, Donald and Lindwall (I am unwilling to discuss the merits of Akram vs Holding vs McGrath - they are all as good as they can be in their own right, and it is the same as trying to make sense of Tendulkar vs Viv Richards vs Hammond) and into the very top bracket.

Statements like "he'll easily be the best fast bowler of all time" are a bit silly though (regardless of how likely it is he'll beat McGrath's record) as you will always be able to argue the case for someone like Barnes (anyone checked out HIS average? SR of course not available) or Truemann (first to 300 wickets - nobody ever thought anyone would get there) or perhaps Akram (absolute genius - I use the word sparringly - with the ball).

However I repeat that I don't see how Steyn's case is furthered by people denigrating the talent and ability of Jimmy Anderson. Kingraf says he is amazed by the way this thread has turned into a Steyn vs Anderson bust-up, but given that his original post included the line "except for a few Englishmen who somehow convinced themselves that J. Anderson is a superior bowler" perhaps he ought not be. Gerry SA suggests that England has never produced any cricketer who wasn't a "hype job" which is ignorant to the point of stupidity.

Anderson is not yet (and I don't believe ever will be) a great cricketer. He is however an very good, IMO excellent bowler, and comfortably the second best seamer around at the moment. He has had success in all conditions and against all international opposition at some point. He also has (beyond stats) remarkable ability in the way he can swing the ball both ways, at good pace and with good control. If he retired tomorrow he would make my top 10 english seamers of all time, and a world 50 (maybe 40 at a stretch? I honestly have no idea) but no better. If he continues his career as he has been doing recently I expect him to finish alongside Botham and be borderline top 5 England seamers of all time (Truemann, Bedser, Barnes, Willis, Statham, Botham since you ask - ok that's 6 but you get the point - to reach 10 probably add the likes of Larwood, Tate, Snow), and near a world 30.

Clearly overall this leaves him some way short of Steyn. I don't think being "some way short" of someone who may well end up amongst the very best makes him average though. It would be a bit like trying to convince me that Mike Hussey is an average batsman. Good luck with that.

I'm amazed this one is still going. I thought Mike had said all that needed to be said about a page ago...

Basically, Steyn at the moment is well on his way to becoming an all-time great. In fact he's already there in the sense that if he retired tomorrow he'd be considered as such. Like Mike I'd have him fairly comfortably in my top 20 of all time pace bowlers, probably around about n°15 or so, as to have played in what is one of the very best eras for batting (arguably THE best) and average 23 is remarkable. Of course, if he has 5 awful years from now before retiring he'll slip down, but that most probably won't happen If he continues at his current rate he's top 10 undoubtedly, possibly pushing top 5. I think my current top 5 is McGrath, Akram, Marshall, Holding and Barnes; the only other guys I could possibly put ahead of Steyn in that case would be Trueman, Hadlee and Ambrose which makes him 9th at the very worst. That's how good he could (and I expect him to) become.

Now why some SA fans feel that as a result of this it's necessary to meanlessly and totally wrongly denigrate Anderson I'm not sure, though it's not helped by a couple of English fans having a somewhat blinkered view too... Anderson is a very good bowler in his own right, probably an England great already (hovering around the top 10 English seamers mark for me). If he has another four years or so like the last three he's had he'll blitz Botham's England record and IMO be certainly in the top 50 seamers of all time. "club standard bowler" is quite frankly insulting for such a player...

So there you have it. Steyn is undoubtedly the best pace bowler around and has been for the last few years, some way ahead of Anderson who himself is some way ahead of the rest.

Mike Selig wrote:If Steyn retired tomorrow, he'd certainly be in the top 20 fast bowlers (by which as with the convention I mean fast and medium pace BTW); he would be borderline top 10, although probably just miss out, partly because of a lack of longetivity. At this moment in time I would have McGrath, Lindwall, Marshall, Holding, Barnes, Truemann, Akram, Ambrose, Hadlee, Lillee, Donald, ahead of him.....

Barnes played only 27 test matches, 20 of these were at home, all on uncovered pitches that typically favoured bowlers, and bowling to batsmen not wearing helmets. You can't compare him with Steyn who has played 61 test matches on covered pitches and in varying conditions including flat pitches in the Subcontinent, and to batsmen wearing helmets. Barnes had a phenomenal bowling average, but I doubt that he stats would have looked as impressive if he were to bowl on covered pitches, in the Subcontinent and flat pitches elsewhere (like Antigua), to batsmen playing with juiced-up bats and wearing heavy protective gear, and most importantly, had he played >60 matches.

More importantly, if Steyn has not yet demonstrated an adequate level of longevity, I can't see how Barnes would have met that threshold. I suppose one could say Barnes' test career actually spanned for 13 years (war time, I suppose), but the fact is he played only 27 matches.

Since Philander made his debut I wonder if it will affect Steyn's wicket taking. It has affected his 5fers.

13 Tests 74 wickets at 17.40 econ 2.89 s/r 36.1 8 5fers 2 10fers - Philander
15 Tests 66 wickets at 25.36 econ 3.05 s/r 49.8 2 5fers 0 10fers - Steyn

Tier 1: Marshall, Ambrose, Holding, McGrath, Lillee, Trueman

Tier 2: Lindwall, A Davidson, K Miller, A Roberts, Wes Hall, Garner, Walsh, Bishop, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, A Donald, Steyn, S Pollack, R Hadlee

Tier 3: Gillespie, Thompson, McDermott, Brett Lee, McKenzie, Kapil Dev, Vaas, Willis, Snow, Bedser, Bailey, J Anderson

Tier 4: Botham, Flintoff, Hoggard, Gough, Harmison, Z Khan, S Akhtar

IMHO, Steyn is in Tier 2 at the moment with the possibility of getting into Tier 1 with more achievements.

Donald and Akram could very well be in Tier 1, not much different from Lillee and Trueman, but perhaps a notch below Marshall, Ambrose and Holding.

P.S: Not included Barnes, Larwood, P Pollock, M Proctor, etc, for not having played many test matches.

Think I might promote Hadlee & Akram to tier 1, leff. Both would be pushing for the number 8 spot in an all time world XI.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Gerry SA wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Duty281- I said on his day he could enter the argument. Allan Donald said he could be the greatest ever, I think he is a little more knowledgeable than you!

fact is Holding also rates him very highly... McGrath thinks he can get to 500 sticks, count how many quickies have got there & tell me what that tells you about how highly Glenn rates him.

Possibles for the best ever fast bowler spot:

Mcgrath, Walsh, Dev, Hadlee, Pollock, Akram, Marshall, Donald, Trueman. Steyn will have to do a lot in one of cricket's weakest ever eras to be considered amongst those greats.

Weak era?

Could be true, seeing as mediocre England even topped the Test rankings, won the Ashes 3 times and won an icc world event...

Current cricket era is stacked in favour of batsmen, yet Steyn had destroyed anyone.

If he beats McGrath's 563, Hadlee's 9 10 wicket match hauls he'll easily be the best fast bowler of all time.

You know what, this lad's looking more like Demon Racer with every post.

Anyways, today's cricket era only has had 4 true World-Class batsman in the last 12 years - Lara, Ponting, Kallis and Tendulkar. The 80s/90s had more than that, plus you argue Lara and Tendulkar were at their respective peaks in the 90s. Today's batting era consists of T20 mindset and lack of application.

So Dravid isn't a world class batsman?

That word is thrown around too much. Great but not World-class.

Dear me duty, if Dravid isn't world class then I don't know who is.

Great = world class, anyway, surely?!

I would say great is better than world class.

Bell for instance is a world class player but not a great one.

Yeah that's very true actually, Stella.

Great = wonderful; first-rate; very good
World-Class = Ranking among the foremost in the world; of an international standard of excellence; of the highest order

Anyway, Dravid averages only 38 against the Aussies, 48 against the Sri Lankans and 33 against the South Africans. Dare I say his average is padded by 16 Tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe?