What's new

Brett Lee vs Dale Steyn vs Shane Bond?

Murakh

Murakh

Tape Ball Regular
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Runs
302
If Dale Steyn has an uninterrupted career without injury then he will top the three when his career is over. Brett Lee and Shane Bonds careers have both been affected by injuries, especially Bond. Steyn is definitely an excellent bowler now and when you consider that he will be the backbone of the South African attack for a number of years to come should cement his place as the best of the three. If Steyn does suffer a couple of bad injuries than it would be Lee.

Shane Bond will probably go down as the most talented but never realised it because of an endless run of injuries that shortened his international career. He literally would be an all time great fast bowler if his body didn't keep breaking down on a regular basis.

Brett Lee would have to be the closest thing to the most complete bowling package I've seen play. I can't think of a type of pace bowling delivery he can't bowl and bowl extremely well. Just watching him play cricket with all that variety shows how limited every other fast bowler has been thats been going around the past 25 years I can remember watching. I think the thing that stopped him from really placing him a cut above the rest is that the last elbow injury prior to the 2009 Ashes series came right when he was producing his best bowling of his career.

although if i have to choose one then it would be Bond Shane Bond with a classy bowling action,he can move ball both ways at 156.4 kmph speed and always maintain good line and length but its real shame that we lost one of the greatest fast bowler in history of cricket dew to injury.i always feel that shane bond kind of a bowler is very rare in this days of cricket.

ok this is my openion wats urs?
 
Last edited:
Steyn is a great, Bond could have been a great.

Lee was an average Test bowler and a great ODI bowler.
 
Answer is obvious - Dale Steyn.


Lee's productivity + Bond's sheer ability = Dale Steyn
 
Shane bond could have been a legend had he freed himself from injuries.
 
Lee's basically a flashier version of Siddle
 
Shane Bond minus the injuries.

Lee was too generic, and never a test great.

Steyn a close second though.
 
Steyn by some distance.

Lee was a good test bowler and a great ODI bowler.

Bond:well lots and lots of talent.But never quite got tested in the SC conditions.And his bone china like body didnt help either.
 
Steyn is consistently best among three.

Though Bond could bowl some magical balls.
 
Bond had more ability than steyn , but ofcourse steyn has done it. SO steyn it is. Lee isn't even close.
 
If you had to choose one between the three to face the Aussie team, you'd go with Bond. :p
 
steyn all the way, his fitness is beyond imagination. Performed everywhere, t20s, ODIs and tests.

Shane bond was a superb talent, but fitness took a huge toll on him
 
Ill take bond over the other two. Steyn is technically the best, but bond has a pakistani style of fast bowling :) ie aggressive and hostile
 
Imo, in terms of pure ability, Bond > Steyn > Lee

In terms of fitness, Steyn > Lee >>>>> Bond.

Steyn is better of the three as a complete package. What's the use of ability if you go awol most of the time.
 
It is a DISGRACE for steyn to be compared with Brett Lee in Test cricket, there is no comparison at all. After so many achievements, he gets to be compared with nobody.

he needs to be compared with ATG, not with average bowlers(certainly averaging 30 in test cricket is parameter of being a strictly OK bowler)
 
If i could take one of the three at their peak and injury free then it would be Shane Bond. He had the most talent and the big game ability.

But its clearly Steyn who has had the best career.
 
Lee had an awesome start to his test career. He played with Mcgrath and Warne. There is no excuse for him to leave with an average of 30 plus in test cricket. However one thing that will stay with me was his remarkable fitness inspite of always bowling at 150 km/hr.

Bond gave what he could, too injury prone like Akhtar.
 
LEE is better, he is a match winner and also bowls really really fast which takes skill. LEE is also a legend loi bowler imo
 
Obviously Steyn by a country mile.
But i think your comparison is a bit of the radar. Steyn is not an out and out Fast bowler. Yeah sure he is capable of bowling 150+ at times, but not for sustained periods. Steyn is an Akram, Waqar esque bowler i.e. swing is his main weapon he mixes it up with pace, whereas Akram and Waqar mixed it up with up with toe crushing yokers. To a less extent Jimmy Anderson is a swing bowler as well even though he does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.
Just like McGrath, Pollock to some extent Philander and Asif i.e. Line and Length bowlers.
So your comparison should be Lee vs Bond vs Akthar. Its hard to choose between Akthar and Bond i am on the fence. Lee comes a distant 3rd i am sorry, to average 30 after bowling with the company of McGrath and Warne is just unforgiveable.
 
For me Steyn is the second best fast bowler ever after Marshall.

Like it or Not but this is the fact.
 
soso_killer said:
Obviously Steyn by a country mile.
But i think your comparison is a bit of the radar. Steyn is not an out and out Fast bowler. Yeah sure he is capable of bowling 150+ at times, but not for sustained periods. Steyn is an Akram, Waqar esque bowler i.e. swing is his main weapon he mixes it up with pace, whereas Akram and Waqar mixed it up with up with toe crushing yokers. To a less extent Jimmy Anderson is a swing bowler as well even though he does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.
Just like McGrath, Pollock to some extent Philander and Asif i.e. Line and Length bowlers.
So your comparison should be Lee vs Bond vs Akthar. Its hard to choose between Akthar and Bond i am on the fence. Lee comes a distant 3rd i am sorry, to average 30 after bowling with the company of McGrath and Warne is just unforgiveable.
Click to expand...

Waqar had much more pace than Steyn and both Wasim and Waqar had incredible skills in all departement of the games. To talk only about their yorkers like they are some vulgar Malinga is off the target..

As for Akhtar vs Bond vs Lee, is there a debate? Akhtar is pacier, averaging much less than Lee and as much as Bond, bowling on flat tracks and having more skills with the balls (ie yorkers and swing post 2005 which people often forget). Bond is the only one close to him in the last decade for a short span of time, Steyn's comparison skill wise being with McGrath and Asif, not those 3.
 
Last edited:
Tests : Steyn

ODI: Lee

Bond was a great bowler , but injuries got better of him.
 
However i still believe Lee was never handled properly by Waugh and Ponting. He should have been used in short sharp bursts, his main weapon was speed. Captains turning him into a work horse, always criticizing him for his high economy rate, making him bowl long spells is what messed him up. Lee in the 2003 WC was an absolute gun, easily the fastest bowler on avg in that tournament.

It is remarkable how he kept himself fit in an era of demanding schedules and continued to be a 145-150 km/hr bowler. No one else can sustain himself like that for a long period. He surely has to come out with a training manual for future fast bowlers.

I will be careful to rate bond, yes he was a handful in NZ, Aussie wickets but was just too injury prone, even more than Akhtar but i never saw bond deliver a performance to speak on in unfavorable conditions i.e. flat, dead, door mat pitches.

Akhtar yes his injury prone, controversial career will go against him but his quality cannot be in doubt, he delivered in all kinds of pitches atleast compared to the other two

Steyn scores on every level, a very smart operator, doesnt go beserk with his pace, just uses it when the situation demands it.
 
Styen will reach as one of the greatest bowler of all time, He is phenomenal and the best of his generation and nobody will comes close to him.



ATG at end of his career.
 
excellent thread this and very difficult to pick, however, I'd go with Steyn quite simply because Bond despite being a brilliant talent never realized his full potential because of injuries, Bond could have been an all time great but the bottom line is that he couldn't.

Lee was a brilliant performer as well, proved himself in both tests and ODI's consistently but for most of his career was the second best pacer in the side behind McGrath and of couse had the likes of Warne and McGrath to support him.

Steyn is a proven performer, he is the lead bowler of a World No.1 side, he has proven himself in all formats, so my vote will be for Steyn.
 
Steyn is on a different planet.

If he keeps going as he is, he'll be among the greatest ever. He's already ahead of these two.
 
Steyn is one of the greats in test cricket history. Bond is not one of the test all time greats because of injuries but right up there with Steyn in terms of sheer ability. Lee is clearly behind them both in tests despite having a longer career and taking more wickets than Bond

Bond is the best among the ODI format though, atleast for me.
 
In tests steyn>bond>lee
in odi
lee>bond>steyn.
Steyn is gun in test but averge in odi.in particular he is horrible in death unlike other greats like wasim,waqar,garner,mcgrath,ambrose who were best in the slog overs.
 
Even Marshall had pretty average ODI record, that make Wasim Akram better than Marshall

The answer is NO, I rate players based on test cricket, not on ODI
 
shah_1 said:
Even Marshall had pretty average ODI record, that make Wasim Akram better than Marshall

The answer is NO, I rate players based on test cricket, not on ODI
Click to expand...

Tests may be important but one days are hardly a joke. One day requires a different set of skills. Thats why it takes a truly amazing player to succeed in both.
 
Steyn is ALREADY an ATG, Bond deserved more in Tests but his SR doesn't lie and is one of the best ODI bowlers ever whereas Lee honestly is not in the same breath, didn't do much in Tests but was good in the shorter formats and one of the fastest bowlers ever.

That's the kind of criminal choice you don't want to make, because by putting this one ahead of the other it makes sound as if the latter was somehow far from the former, but I'd say Steyn > Bond >>>> Lee.
 
shah_1 said:
you are saying that Marshall was NOT amazing
Click to expand...

of course he was amazing. He is the greatest test bowler ever, that is an outstanding feat

what i meant to say was that ODI cricket requires a unique set of skills. There is a reason why some test cricketers do not succeed in ODI'S and vice versa.
 
It's harder to compare ODI performances across eras simply because the rules change every year.
 
endymion248 said:
Waqar had much more pace than Steyn and both Wasim and Waqar had incredible skills in all departement of the games. To talk only about their yorkers like they are some vulgar Malinga is off the target..

As for Akhtar vs Bond vs Lee, is there a debate? Akhtar is pacier, averaging much less than Lee and as much as Bond, bowling on flat tracks and having more skills with the balls (ie yorkers and swing post 2005 which people often forget). Bond is the only one close to him in the last decade for a short span of time, Steyn's comparison skill wise being with McGrath and Asif, not those 3.
Click to expand...

Dude i wish people like you would read a post at least twice before replying. 1st it would be stupid to compare Steyn to McGrath or Asif they are different type of bowlers. Again Asif/McGrath are line and length bowlers, i.e. relying on accuracy and seam movement. Steyn is a swing bowler quicker too (albeit being accurate too).
As for Akram and Waqar who compared them to Malinga? I was just admiring their variety, taking a special liking to their yorkers. They are very similar to Steyn, that is their main weapon was swing, to state to the contrary would be uninformed. What do you mean "they were superior to Steyn in all departments"?
MTCHS, WICKETS, AVG, S.R.
STEYN-61, 312, 23.28, 41.5.
Akram-104, 414, 23.62, 54.
Waqar-87, 373, 23.56, 43.4.
Please elaborate. Also take into account Steyn in the 2nd fastest to 300 in terms of balls bowled, Waqar got the 4 balls quicker. The next is Alan Donald who got the 1000 late. Steyn has the highest S.R of any bowler that has 200+ wickets. *SMH*
 
Steyn is way above the the other two. Brett lee is kind of in the middle, i would rate him above Bond because of Lee's performance for such a long period of time.

Bond is a better comparison to Shoaib Akhtar. Both injury prone, both did not play enough matches, both did not fulfill their talents, both were the best of the best when on song, both were just brilliant to watch, both had awesome bowling actions. Whenever they were on the field, they have always performed greatly but they were never on the field that much.
 
Also i wish this Steyn comparison to Lille would just stop. He is by far a better bowler. Lille bowled on uncovered pitches. Steyn is bowling in a batsmen era. Protective gear e.g. Helmets, heavy bats, covered pitches etc.
Steyn should aim to take Alan Donald's title as SA best bowler since readmission. Obviously Donald was superior to Lille as well.
MTCHS, WKTS, AVG, S.R, Balls Bowled
Donald-72, 330, 22.5, 47.0, 15 519.
Lille-70, 355, 23.92, 52.0, 18 467.
NB even though Lille played two matches less than Donald he still bowled more deliviries than him. 2 948 to be exact.
That means Lille averaged 43.96 overs per game, compared to Donald's 35.92.
In simple english Donald would have had to play between 85-86 matches to bowl the same number of bowls. Of which he would have taken 393 wickets. Thats 38 wickets more.
 
Fast/Medium bowlers average betwee 34-38 overs per game (even though Waqar averaged 31.08 which is the lowest in the 30's, and McGrath 39.31 highest in mid 30's).
Steyn 34.87,M. Ntini 34.37,Kapil Dev 35.29,Botham 35.64,M. Marshall 36.18,B. LEE 36.3,Akram 36.3,Imran Khan 36.8, S. Pollock 37.58, Ambrose 37.59, C. Walsh 37.9.
Richard Hadlee 42.47 (86 Mtchs,431 WKTS, 22.29 AVG, S.R 50.8) and Lille 43.96 are the only fast/medium bowlers who average above 40 overs per game.
This means bowlers are likely to take/have taken less wickets than Lille and Hadlee after the same amount of games as them.
Only spin bowlers average above 40 overs per game.
NB. These are players that have played atleast 60 Matches and have 300+ Wickets.
 
I still stick with Lee, he is in a league of his own with Akhtar, better than steyn due to pace which takes a lot of skill even if steyn takes more wickets.
 
soso_killer said:
Also i wish this Steyn comparison to Lille would just stop. He is by far a better bowler. Lille bowled on uncovered pitches. Steyn is bowling in a batsmen era. Protective gear e.g. Helmets, heavy bats, covered pitches etc.
Click to expand...

I take it you mean Denis Lillee? He was the business.

1. He bowled on covered pitches, a lot of which were roads. The uncovered tracks were phased out in the 1960s in an effort to raise batting rates and increase the spectacle of test cricket.

2. Batters wore helmets for the second two-thirds of his career.

3. Consider also that he lost two peak years of his career to the WSC Supertests, in which he excelled against the cream of the world's batting.

4. He couldn't be bothered to bowl at tail-enders. His record against the very top men such is fantastic. Look at how Richards averaged 44 vs Australia and 50 overall. The reason? Lillee.

So this is a situation where stats don't tell the whole story.

Here's what a man who faced him many times says:

http://youtu.be/BdL0JKeGarY
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
I take it you mean Denis Lillee? He was the business.

1. He bowled on covered pitches, a lot of which were roads. The uncovered tracks were phased out in the 1960s in an effort to raise batting rates and increase the spectacle of test cricket.

2. Batters wore helmets for the second two-thirds of his career.

3. Consider also that he lost two peak years of his career to the WSC Supertests, in which he excelled against the cream of the world's batting.

4. He couldn't be bothered to bowl at tail-enders. His record against the very top men such is fantastic. Look at how Richards averaged 44 vs Australia and 50 overall. The reason? Lillee.

So this is a situation where stats don't tell the whole story.

Here's what a man who faced him many times says:

http://youtu.be/BdL0JKeGarY
Click to expand...

i dont care what people who played against him had to say, people can get subjective when paying complements, rather than objective. Thats what numbers are therefore. We cant say numbers dont tell the whole story when it suits us, and then they mean everything the next e.g. Donald Bradman most of us never saw him play. But when you look at those numbers you cant tell me they mean everything, and then when we talk about Kallis for example and say silly staff like thats just "statistical anomaly". Where is the consistency?
Lillee was a good bowler by the way, but i would pick Donald and Steyn ahead of him in a blink.
 
Robert said:
I take it you mean Denis Lillee? He was the business.

1. He bowled on covered pitches, a lot of which were roads. The uncovered tracks were phased out in the 1960s in an effort to raise batting rates and increase the spectacle of test cricket.
.
Click to expand...

Haha, averaged 101.00 in Pakistan, talk about flat roads. He avoided playing next tour at 1982 in Pakistan , talk about flat tracks. He did not play a single match in India, talk about flat tracks.

steyn is bowling in the most batting dominant era, where he has shown that he can bowl anywhere. For me Steyn is better than Dennis Lillee
 
shah_1 said:
Haha, averaged 101.00 in Pakistan, talk about flat roads. He avoided playing next tour at 1982 in Pakistan , talk about flat tracks. He did not play a single match in India, talk about flat tracks.

steyn is bowling in the most batting dominant era, where he has shown that he can bowl anywhere. For me Steyn is better than Dennis Lillee
Click to expand...

exactly!! Thank you. Steyn has also taken 59 wickets @21 in the SUB. English and Australian players can be made to be better than what they are by the media, and by the so-called "pundits". My advice to people is just follow your cricket and not get caught up in the media hype. And dont idolise players/people. I feel there is this notion that if you are English/Australian/American you are entitled to greatness and should be revered. If you are not from those countries you should be subjected to many things as soon as you excel, drug tests etc. Pity they never did the same to Armstrong.
 
I loved to watch Bond ball....People talk about Could haves..and for me bond will be right up there in the list....

I think he was a better bowler than steyn when both their peaks are considered..however I would pick steyn because being fit and not sustaining injuries is part of sport...

Steyn..Lee ...and Bond !!!

talent wise...Bond..Steyn and lee
 
Yep Bond was very talented, his body never supported him throughout his career

A very Sad career
 
These hypothetical scenarios don't prove anything. If Waqar wouldn't have been injured, he would have ended up with an average of 18 and would have become the greates bowler of all time. If Amir wasn't banned, he would have become the next Wasim and Asif would have been the best pacer today if he was playing today.

Steyn has been way better than Bond and Lee.
 
Why are people going on about Bond? I have not seen him deliver any performances in conditions which have not suited him. What is his average in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc?
 
soso_killer said:
i dont care what people who played against him had to say, people can get subjective when paying complements, rather than objective. Thats what numbers are therefore. We cant say numbers dont tell the whole story when it suits us, and then they mean everything the next e.g. Donald Bradman most of us never saw him play. But when you look at those numbers you cant tell me they mean everything, and then when we talk about Kallis for example and say silly staff like thats just "statistical anomaly". Where is the consistency?
Lillee was a good bowler by the way, but i would pick Donald and Steyn ahead of him in a blink.
Click to expand...

The numbers are not a true reflection of Lillee because the two years of WSC cricket are not counted as official stats.
 
soso_killer said:
exactly!! Thank you. Steyn has also taken 59 wickets @21 in the SUB. English and Australian players can be made to be better than what they are by the media, and by the so-called "pundits". My advice to people is just follow your cricket and not get caught up in the media hype. And dont idolise players/people. I feel there is this notion that if you are English/Australian/American you are entitled to greatness and should be revered. If you are not from those countries you should be subjected to many things as soon as you excel, drug tests etc. Pity they never did the same to Armstrong.
Click to expand...

It is more subtle than usual, but what you are implying is clear. Poor form.
 
shah_1 said:
Haha, averaged 101.00 in Pakistan, talk about flat roads. He avoided playing next tour at 1982 in Pakistan , talk about flat tracks. He did not play a single match in India, talk about flat tracks.
Click to expand...

Look harder.

1. Consider that Imran didn't take wickets that series either and in fact hardly bowled, because the PCB made three spin-friendly tracks to nullify Lillee.

2. Lillee should not really have gone on that tour at all, because his back was in a brace, but he turned up anyway and bowled a lot of overs at reduced pace.

2. When did Australia tour India in the 1970s?
 
Robert said:
Look harder.

1. Consider that Imran didn't take wickets that series either and in fact hardly bowled, because the PCB made three spin-friendly tracks to nullify Lillee.

2. Lillee should not really have gone on that tour at all, because his back was in a brace, but he turned up anyway and bowled a lot of overs at reduced pace.

2. When did Australia tour India in the 1970s?
Click to expand...

But Imran has delivered on flat pitches more than Lillee. Lillee hasnt and he chickened out after his first tour of the subcontinent. Thats what History will record.
 
Savak said:
But Imran has delivered on flat pitches more than Lillee. Lillee hasnt and he chickened out after his first tour of the subcontinent. Thats what History will record.
Click to expand...

No, history will record (as it already has done) Lillee as an all time great of the game. Whether or not you think he chickened out or whatever, which is a long way from the character of the guy, he bowls in a back brace in Test matches and you call him chicken eh?
 
Why didn't Lillee come to India?

Genuinely curious.
 
Random Aussie said:
No, history will record (as it already has done) Lillee as an all time great of the game. Whether or not you think he chickened out or whatever, which is a long way from the character of the guy, he bowls in a back brace in Test matches and you call him chicken eh?
Click to expand...

No one is disputing his all round greatness, but he didnt perform, deliver, prove himself in the subcontinent hence that goes against him whether you like ir ot not.
 
Varun said:
Why didn't Lillee come to India?

Genuinely curious.
Click to expand...

We didnt tour India very often back then. 1979ish, he was still unavailable due to WSC.
1982 was the tour to Pakistan where Kim Hughes was captain, Greg Chappell, Len Pascoe and Dennis Lillee made themselves unavailable. This was part of a campaign to undermine Hughes, who was not liked or respected as captain.

The tour before 1979 India, was in 1970, prior to Lillee's debut! I have a book on this history of Australian Test cricket and it is clear that other nations toured us a lot more than we toured then. So Lillee never played a Test in India, and played only one series in Pakistan.
 
Savak said:
No one is disputing his all round greatness, but he didnt perform, deliver, prove himself in the subcontinent hence that goes against him whether you like ir ot not.
Click to expand...

Sure, he didnt. Only played the three Tests against Pakistan, had no opportunity to play in India. But it is a bit ordinary of you to call an ATG great a chicken based on your knowledge of the circumstances, which is exactly zero.
 
Savak said:
Lillee hasnt and he chickened out after his first tour of the subcontinent. Thats what History will record.
Click to expand...

No, that's what ill-informed people who don't understand history will choose to believe.

Lillee came to Pakistan carrying an injury but played through it anyway in a back brace - hardly the act of a chicken!

As RA points out, he was contracted to play for WSC during the one Australian tour of India in his time.
 
Last edited:
Good point raised by Savak.
Lillee can't be called an ATG if he didn't prove himself in the Sub Continent.
 
Steyn far and away the best bowler
if bond were not injured he would have been second
brett lee....meh. basis his test form.
 
Lillee is a great - he may not be better than Marshall and a few others, but still a great. I don't see that argument used against SC spinners who performed worse abroad than they did in conditions that suited them.
 
By the way why hasn't Alan Donald been inducted in the hall of fame? coz i am sure if he had a different nationality he would be already. He is definatly an all time great. No debate no argument and no exceptions
 
Lilllee is an ATG, but Steyn is better than Lillee.

no argument please
 
Savak said:
Why are people going on about Bond? I have not seen him deliver any performances in conditions which have not suited him. What is his average in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc?
Click to expand...

You obviously weren't watching closely enough.

He didnt play many games in the sub continant but his record is still good there. He absolutely destroyed Indian battling line up on a road of a pitch in Zimbabwe with 6 for 19 in an ODI is one such instance.

Swing both ways at pace were his weapons not the pitch.
 
soso_killer said:
By the way why hasn't Alan Donald been inducted in the hall of fame? coz i am sure if he had a different nationality he would be already. He is definatly an all time great. No debate no argument and no exceptions
Click to expand...

Donald was distinctly ordinary in Australia, so by your own criterion has not 'proved himself' and you cannot therefore consider him an ATG.

I do, but you can't.
 
Robert said:
*Donald was distinctly ordinary in Australia*, so *by your own criterion* has not 'proved himself' and you cannot therefore consider him an ATG.

I do, but you can't.
Click to expand...

Whats my criterion? I never said Lillee was not ATG i said i would pick Donald and Steyn in a blink ahead of him, and i still stand by that statement.
By the way Donald was not as bad in Australia as people would have you beleive. Here are the numbers:
MTCHS, WKTS, AVG, S.R, ECON, 5, 10.
7, 29, 28.44, 57.7, 2.95, 1, 0. Best of 6/59, BBM 9/133.
Here is Glenn McGrath in Australia vs SA
9, 28, 31.17, 80.3, 2.32, 0, 0. Best of 3/13, BBM 6/107.
I dont know about you but i know who was "ordinary" in Australia.
Bizzarly Donald never played against Australia in SA.
 
shah_1 said:
Steyn is even better than Donald
Click to expand...

I'm not to sure about that. Donal started his career @26 i know in other sports those are your peak years, but you cant make your debut and be already at your peak. I think if Donald made his debut 2 years early or by some chance was 24 in 92 i think he could have been greater. A top player needs atleast to years to know and understand his game. Donald basicaly had to hit the ground running. I think he was better than Steyn IMO, he had more control as well. For a fast bowler to have am economy of 2.8 is incredible.
MTCHS, WKTS, AVG, S.R, ECON
Donald- 72, 330, 22.25, 47.0, 2.83
Steyn- 62, 312, 23.28, 41.5, 3.35
 
Steyn has far greater strike rate, so economy rate makes hardly makes any difference in test cricket.


41.5>>>47.5
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Dale Steyn vs Waqar Younis: Who’s the better Test bowler?
2
Replies
84
Views
3K
Swashbuckler
Swashbuckler
W
Shane Bond vs Dale Steyn - Skillwise
Replies
28
Views
1K
Statpadder Inc
S
FearlessRoar
[EXCLUSIVE] ''As long as I am fit, I want to represent Pakistan": Mohammad Ali
2
Replies
80
Views
3K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
FearlessRoar
[VIDEOS] Josh Hull: From rugby enthusiast to cricket sensation
Replies
4
Views
134
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
The Bald Eagle
[PICTURES/VIDEOS] "Our bond is not new; it's a very old bond": Babar Azam on his relationship with Shaheen Shah Afridi and the squad
Replies
52
Views
2K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
Back
Top