Modern day cricket is more of a batsman’s game than ever before. Shortened boundaries, massive bats and regularly benign pitches have seen batting averages greatly boosted.
In the 139-year history of Test cricket, only 43 batsmen have played over 20 innings and averaged more than 50. Twenty of those – or 46.5 per cent – are either still playing, or finished their careers after 2000.
Conversely, there have been 48 bowlers to have bowled over 2000 deliveries and averaged under 23. Only six – or 12.5 per cent – are still playing or ended their careers after 2000.
It is an indication of just how much the game has swung to those who wield the willow rather than fling leather.
The bowlers’ lot has become increasingly more difficult, yet one man who has played the entirety of his cricket over the past 12 years continues to defy the odds.
South African quick Dale Steyn has amassed a career that has him genuinely staking a claim as the best fast bowler of all time.
He played his 84th Test earlier this week, at Centurion against New Zealand. Once again he was instrumental in a Proteas win, with hauls of 3-66 and 5-33. That lifted him above Jimmy Anderson in the world rankings to the number one leather-flinger in the world.
He now has 416 wickets at 22.2. More impressive is his strike rate, which is a stunning 41.3.
Only three men in history who qualify under the 2000-ball rule can boast a better strike rate.
Englishmen George Lohmann (34.1 in 18 Tests) and J J Ferris (37.7 in nine), who played for both Australia and England, both played before 1900, when batsmen did well if they averaged 35.
The other was injury-riddled New Zealander Shane Bond, who captured 87 wickets from 18 Tests at 22.2 with a strike rate of 38.7, before retiring in 2009.
For Steyn to strike so regularly over such a period in the batsman-friendly past dozen years is a remarkable feat.
There are numerous fast bowlers who come into the argument when discussing the potential best of all time.
The late Malcolm Marshall (376 wickets at 20.9 and strike rate of 46.7) is rightfully often thrown up. So too are Dennis Lillee (355 at 23.9 and 52.0), Glenn McGrath (563 at 21.6 and 51.9), Wasim Akram (414 at 23.6 and 54.6), Fred Trueman (307 at 21.6 and 49.4), and Sir Richard Hadlee (431 at 22.3 and 50.8).
Comparing sportspeople across eras is a difficult task and, if anything, a good way to spark a friendly debate.
The added complication in comparing Steyn to his predecessors is just how much the game has changed with respect to the greater imposts that the modern-day bowler faces.
Safe to say however, if he is not the greatest of all time, he is certainly a very solid finalist.
On his side is the fact he is not done with yet.
Gone are the days where he swung the ball late at 150km/h or more. However, in his most recent series he was still hitting 143km/h at times.
At 33, injury has slowed him a little, although in the 24 Tests he has played since the start of 2013 he has captured 117 wickets at 18.3 with a strike rate of 39.5.
His ten wickets at 10.2 in the two-Test series against the Black Caps shows he certainly has something left in the tank.
Cricket fans will be able to witness his deeds first-hand again this summer, on what will likely be his last Test tour of Australia.
We can count ourselves lucky to be able to see once again a master craftsman at work.
Ches
Guest
Only a pubic hair in it, and yes I rate Steyne as high as any of the other bowlers mentioned. They are that close from different eras and different lineup scenarios it solely comes down to personal preference. They are all that good.
Johnno
Guest
Starc might end up the best in the last 30-40 years, he is already right up with the greats of ODI's, he's doing well rapidly in Tests.
Axle and the Guru
Guest
What makes a fast bowler great?? To me, it's the way he can work out a batsman,set a trap,work to a plan and BINGO, the best at that lMO where Lillee, McGrath, Botham and Hadlee, if I had to pick, I would not be able to seperate Lillee and Hadlee.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
Agreed Bobbo. I think we were unlucky as fans that injury devastated the careers of Shane Bond, Ian Bishop & Bruce Reid.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
Johnno, the column is about the best fast bowlers in Test cricket.
Irie4
Guest
Malcolm Marshall....!?
Bobbo7
Guest
They are all so good. But no doubt Steyn continues to defy the batsmen's era. Great to see him back from injury and firing again. Hadlee was another star for me as a kid. Carried the team at times with the ever dutiful Chatfield holding down the other end. Loved Bond too. Such a shame he was always injured.
Internal Fixation
Guest
Cleaning up the tail is a vital part of cricket. England's inability to do that cost them a lot of confidence against Australia in the last Ashes in Oz. Likewise for Australia in Sri Lanka recently. I agree that Steyn is not the best but I don't think that argument is valid. He certainly is in the top 5.
Jumbo
Guest
Steyn is not the best. He can only swing it one way, and his average is flattered by the way he cleans up tail-enders.
William
Guest
Only Johannesburg and Centurion are at altitude, Cape Town and Durban are at sea level, also his record in Asia is also decent
danno
Guest
I think the high altitude in S Africa certainly helps their quicks. Donald, Pollock, Steyn got the ball through the air faster, plus the curators over the years in S Africa have left a lot of grass on the wickets. Steyn is a great but I rate Marshall, Roberts, Akram and Lillee better.
Prosen
Guest
Gavaskar rates andy roberts the best bowler he's faced just ahead of lillee, closely followed by holding and marshall.for mcgrath, once during the mumbai test in 2004 dilip vengsarkar said he had never seen a bowler like him,despite playing all the greats of his time.infact he was bowling that good at that time with the SG ball.
Johnno
Guest
Better ODI bowlers than Steyn, many let's get real here.
michael steel
Guest
I'll bring up a few random things here. I think the great cricketers from the 70's and 80's which have been mentioned had far more personality than those of today. His figures are great in an era in which cricket has become reasonably bland and that doesn't detract from his figures. Maybe if South Africa had more tours of Australia I'd be right into him. On the other side, those who remember Hadlee coming out here and destroying some very good Australian sides were saying how can one man do so much damage. I do think the current crop of test batsmen would fail miserably against the bowling lineups of the 70's and 80's. I'll put it this way, if this Australian team had to face Roberts Holding Garner Croft and Marshall all tests would be over in less than 3 days. Greg Matthews on radio last year the batting averages of 50's today equates to a 40 in his era. Saying that, this gives weight to your assessment of Steyn. In the 70's and 80's rain killed many a test match and although it may not have affected players averages it did affect milestones such as centuries and 5 or 10 wicket hauls. As I say, random points.
Matth
Guest
Sid Barnes
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
spot on; batsman are much more agressive now, they go at a higher run rate and even if they get out early they have possibly reached a good score still
Howzat
Guest
His averages outside South Africa such as - 28.03 In Australia - 31.65 In England might lend credence to the notion that he was assisted in SA, although he does have a good average in India.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
True Jacko, and Marshall never got to bowl against the mghty West Indian batting line-up.
JohnB
Guest
That is what I thought was probably the case, and your headline is more consistent with the piece you wrote than the one that got published.
Simoc
Guest
Its best if you've watched these guys bowl. For me Akram was best because he seemed to be able to move the ball both ways a lot of the time using varying lengths of run up which seemed to be guided by when he got sick of walking back. Then Steyn and Hadlee both had and have most batsman worked out as well as their great bowling efficiency. They were/are nearly always right on the money. Whereas Lillee was near unstoppable when on and ordinary when not firing early on. Later he became a lot more efficient and better as well. McGrath doesn't rate with these guys apart from the statistics. He let the batsmen get themselves out, because his line and length was mostly impeccable. Boring to watch though. The West Indies have had many outstanding quicks who complemented each other. I know Clive Lloyd rates Roberts as the best of them (though he said smartest) followed by Marshall.