Dale Steyn and great bowlers of the past

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Some of the bowlers of past are seriously overrated......specially on the avg side........ They could bowl 6 bouncers in a over and keep the runs down.........plus the scoring rate was so low.Also the Batsmen had no protection.I seriously think many of them would have struggled today because they cant bowl very short and get away.Nor they can bowl short all day.Also with the protection batsmen will have their no.

[saneindian]

Some of the bowlers of past are seriously overrated......specially on the avg side........ They could bowl 6 bouncers in a over and keep the runs down.........plus the scoring rate was so low.Also the Batsmen had no protection.I seriously think many of them would have struggled today because they cant bowl very short and get away.Nor they can bowl short all day.Also with the protection batsmen will have their no.

Can you name a few of them please?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Can you name a few of them please?

Later:secret: people will eat me here..... But many of them didnt enjoy playing in the subcomtinent...so some of them didnt even tour here.

[daryl1985]

Later:secret: people will eat me here..... But many of them didnt enjoy playing in the subcomtinent...so some of them didnt even tour here.

Dennis Lillee?

[Malcolm Merlyn]

Dennis Lillee?

there is another WI fastbowler just played 6 tests in the SC.

[rkt.india]

Some of the bowlers of past are seriously overrated......specially on the avg side........ They could bowl 6 bouncers in a over and keep the runs down.........plus the scoring rate was so low.Also the Batsmen had no protection.I seriously think many of them would have struggled today because they cant bowl very short and get away.Nor they can bowl short all day.Also with the protection batsmen will have their no.

Agree about some bowlers did not tour subcontinent likes of Dennis Lillie. He has taken most of his wicket in bowling friendly conditions. Cricket in those times was generally poor quality, IMO. He was a great bowler and was better than others, but you cannot say this with any assurance that he would have been successful now as well. IMO, protection gears, bowling machines, and 2 bouncer rule along with better batting pitches have left a huge impact. Batsmen are more brave on playing genuine fast bowlers because they have no fear of hitting on the head. They can come on front foot easily with limited bouncers rule and bowling machines have helped them play genuine fast bowling because facing quick deliveries from a bowling machine is tougher thing rather than facing a bowler. An 85 mph delivery from bowling machine will feel a 90+ mph because batsman do not know when the ball is delivered. Other than that, even most tailenders nowadays can bat with no fear. You can imagine it if even Harbhajan can score 2 consecutive 100s in test cricket. Cricket overall has changed a lot since then. High scoring rate too has played a huge role in high bowling averages.

[vamos_rafa]

Didn't you watch SA test series. Sachin looked clueless against Steyn many times and the difference you are talking about between Anderson and Styen is insdippers which Anderson can bowl but Styen struggle to bowl that. But I would say Styen is a no nonsense bowler. He knows what his strength is and does not experiment much like Sreesanth do. He sticks to his strength which is bowling outswingers and he regularly takes wickets with that. If he does anything different then that is to increase his pace by yard than what Sree and Anderson bowls and bowl bouncers to send the batsman on the backfoot and set him up for pitched up outswingers which is his stock delivery.

Yes I watched the whole series. Sachin did look clueless against him, not only him any batsman would look so against such high quality out-swing bowling but still, I would say that Sachin was able to "manage" against him. But, Anderson is one bowler against whom I have seen Sachin struggle a lot. That has mainly got to do with the way he slips in that in-dipper after a flurry of out swingers. That really keeps him honest against him.

[rkt.india]

Yes I watched the whole series. Sachin did look clueless against him' date=' not only him any batsman would look so against such high quality out-swing bowling but still,[b'] I would say that Sachin was able to "manage" against him. But, Anderson is one bowler against whom I have seen Sachin struggle a lot. That has mainly got to do with the way he slips in that in-dipper after a flurry of out swingers. That really keeps him honest against him.

that is because he could not get the ball to come in sharply like Anderson can do time and time again. Most of SRT's dismissal on Anderson are on incoming deliveries.

[vamos_rafa]

that is because he could not get the ball to come in sharply like Anderson can do time and time again. Most of SRT's dismissal on Anderson are on incoming deliveries.

Very right indeed!!! That's what my point was. Infact there have ben many other, not so great bowlers, like Geoff Allot, Dany Morrison or even Abdur Razzaq who have done so. But, they were sorted out by Sachin after a period of time. Anderson is still an unsolved mystery though. But no doubting Steyn's abilities as a bowler.

[vamos_rafa]

Later:secret: people will eat me here..... But many of them didnt enjoy playing in the subcomtinent...so some of them didnt even tour here.

Curtly ambrose had also opted out of the Indian tour in 1994.

[Vijay.Sharma]

My grading of fast/fast medium/medium fast bowlers in Test cricket is the following - The virtuosos - Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram, Richard Hadlee Just below virtuosos - Dennis Lillee, Fred Trueman, Imran Khan, Glenn McGrath, Dale Steyn, Allan Donald, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose The last of the ATGs - Kapil Dev, Ian Botham, Courtney Walsh, Harold Larwood, Wesley Hall, Shaun Pollock, Brett Lee, Shoaib Akthar, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Jeff Thomson, Frank Tyson, Javagal Srinath, Zaheer Khan, Mkhaya Ntini, Bob Willis If people really think that this is the age of mediocre batsmen looking great then it means Dale Steyn is pretty much close to being a virtuoso by the time he ends (if he maintains his current SR and Avg). Dale Steyn is already an ATG and he is very much on the road to becoming the greatest fast bowler to have com from the African continent. He is on par with Donald already.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

wasim and waqar aren't all time great test bowlers. take out the weak opposition and watch their bowling average plummet. especially waqar, he probably averages close to 30 without those cheap wickets he took against weaker teams. i havent played around with statsguru in a while, so feel free to correct me. in ODIs, its a different story.

[Trichromatic]

wasim and waqar aren't all time great test bowlers. take out the weak opposition and watch their bowling average plummet. especially waqar, he probably averages close to 30 without those cheap wickets he took against weaker teams. i havent played around with statsguru in a while, so feel free to correct me. in ODIs, its a different story.

Which weak teams are you talking about? Waqar against Australia, NZ, India, WI, England, SA Matches : 60 Wickets : 237 Avg : 25 India and NZ were weakest in his era. Remove them also. Matches : 43 Wickets : 159 Avg : 27

[Manny_Pacquiao]

NZ were crap. india had a good batting lineup, he averaged 40+ against india, although this was only in 3 or 4 tests i think. so you are looking at a bowling average of 28.x against the good batting lineups. pretty huge difference compared to his career avg. he is basically the yousef yoohana of bowling.

[vamos_rafa]

NZ were crap. india had a good batting lineup, he averaged 40+ against india, although this was only in 3 or 4 tests i think. so you are looking at a bowling average of 28.x against the good batting lineups. pretty huge difference compared to his career avg. he is basically the yousef yoohana of bowling.

Not sure of Waqar, but Wasim Akram had the lowest average for the years between 1988-1995.

[daryl1985]

My grading of fast/fast medium/medium fast bowlers in Test cricket is the following - The virtuosos - Malcolm Marshall, Wasim Akram, Richard Hadlee Just below virtuosos - Dennis Lillee, Fred Trueman, Imran Khan, Glenn McGrath, Dale Steyn. ]Allan Donald, Waqar Younis, Curtly Ambrose The last of the ATGs - Kapil Dev, Ian Botham, Courtney Walsh, Harold Larwood, Wesley Hall, Shaun Pollock, Brett Lee, Shoaib Akthar, Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Jeff Thomson, Frank Tyson, Javagal Srinath, Zaheer Khan, Mkhaya Ntini, Bob Willis If people really think that this is the age of mediocre batsmen looking great then it means Dale Steyn is pretty much close to being a virtuoso by the time he ends (if he maintains his current SR and Avg). Dale Steyn is already an ATG and he is very much on the road to becoming the greatest fast bowler to have com from the African continent. He is on par with Donald already.

I would definitely have Glenn McGrath in the top bracket, and maybe Akram in the bracket below. Akram was better to watch and could do greater things with the ball but McGrath's accuracy and control were immaculate. His record was also pretty close to being flawless. I believe he was the biggest reason for Australia's dominance. As far as i am aware, Australia never lost a home series when he played, i don't think they lost too many home tests when he played.

[carnish]

seeing today the number of times bishoo is getting sachin out maybe he is gonna be an ATG... stupid shot frm sachin:headshake:

[Vijay.Sharma]

NZ were crap. india had a good batting lineup, he averaged 40+ against india, although this was only in 3 or 4 tests i think. so you are looking at a bowling average of 28.x against the good batting lineups. pretty huge difference compared to his career avg. he is basically the yousef yoohana of bowling.

Dude, don't go into qualifying these achievements in that fashion. If you do, then you will have to consider all batsmen and bowlers before late 1960s as just minnow bashers. And extend it to many others since then too. Bradman played one decent team and that team was possibly half as good as what SL is today. Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs all played just one decent team which was just as good as the Aussies of today. Similarly Trueman played one decent team and two half decent teams in his whole life. Gary Sobers played against two decent teams. Wesley Hall played against two decent teams. Where do you stop qualifying this? I've been following cricket since 1984-85. In the early 90s the worst team was SL and by 1995-96 it was India. India could not beat NZ outside the sub-continent even in ODIs. Pakistan regularly routed NZ in the 90s and that NZ team was possibly as good as the current SL team. They had decent batsmen. Wasim is a fuc

[Vijay.Sharma]

I would definitely have Glenn McGrath in the top bracket' date=' and maybe Akram in the bracket below. Akram was better to watch and could do greater things with the ball but McGrath's accuracy and control were immaculate. His record was also pretty close to being flawless. I believe he was the biggest reason for Australia's dominance. As far as i am aware, Australia never lost a home series when he played, i don't think they lost too many home tests when he played.[/quote']Possibly. But a virtuoso goes beyond numbers and enters into subjectivity and qualitative analysis. McGrath and Ambrose were possibly better at getting batsmen out but Wasim had the X factor. He could do things with the ball that no other bowler in Test cricket could or has done since. He is a virtuoso. It's like this...Kirk Hammett maybe able to write better songs and leads that are commercially viable and make great songs for Metallica. But in the art of guitar playing despite his greatness he is not the same as Satriani or Steve Vai or Yngwie Mamstein.

[rkt.india]

Dude, don't go into qualifying these achievements in that fashion. If you do, then you will have to consider all batsmen and bowlers before late 1960s as just minnow bashers. And extend it to many others since then too. Bradman played one decent team and that team was possibly half as good as what SL is today. Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs all played just one decent team which was just as good as the Aussies of today. Similarly Trueman played one decent team and two half decent teams in his whole life. Gary Sobers played against two decent teams. Wesley Hall played against two decent teams. Where do you stop qualifying this? I've been following cricket since 1984-85. In the early 90s the worst team was SL and by 1995-96 it was India. India could not beat NZ outside the sub-continent even in ODIs. Pakistan regularly routed NZ in the 90s and that NZ team was possibly as good as the current SL team. They had decent batsmen. Wasim is a fuc Good post Vijay.:two_thumbs_up: