Dale Steyn or Imran Khan - Who would you take as a bowler in the Test format?

[hafizexpress]

I haven't seen Imran but what Steyn has done is incredible.

Good comparison though this is probably the most even comparison thread I've seen on PP and I've seen a lot.

 

[Stallion__]

Imran played at a time when batsmen put a greater price on their wicket. Compare the overall bowling strike rate in the time period both bowlers played and you will notice that a batsman in Imran's time, on average used to take 7-8 balls more to give away his wicket.

Furthermore, unlike Steyn, Imran took few years to develop as a complete pace bowler. Moreover, he played as a batsman in latter stager of his career. You take best 50-60 tests of Imran's career in a decade-long period, he would be averaging around 18 with a strike rate of about 45, better numbers than even Hadlee and Marshall. He was a better bowler than most including Steyn during that decade. Outside that phase, Steyn was better.

 

[Saffer_XIII]

Steyn best numbers are against the weaker teams of his era in terms of batting Bangladesh Windies N Zealand he doesn't do aswell against England and Australia.
Against the best team of his era Windies Imran has the best average he was one for the big matches and for that reason he would be ahead of Steyn.

Steyn has won matches against against England and Australia home and away. Numbers without context

 

[Haroon786]

Imran.

 

[Mamoon]

In spite of the insistence of PPers that he is among the top 5 pacers ever, Steyn has not been able to become a household name like Wasim, McGrath, Ambrose, Warne, Muralitharan, Marshall, Holding, Lillee, Imran, Donald etc. etc. Even Brett Lee is more renowned, in spite of the fact that he is a much inferior bowler in Test cricket.

He has not been able to captivate the casual followers and they are generally unaware of his greatness. They obviously know that he is a good bowler, but they scoff at the idea of him getting bracketed with some of the names I stated.

I think the primary reason is the fact that he has had a forgettable Limited Overs career. The numbers are good but he has not produced any memorable spells in World Cups that can define his career.

 

[QalandarFan]

I have not seen Imran bowl, but having seen what Steyn can do there is no way I could go against him, probably the greatest Test Fast Bowler I have ever seen play.

 

[Saffer_XIII]

In spite of the insistence of PPers that he is among the top 5 pacers ever, Steyn has not been able to become a household name like Wasim, McGrath, Ambrose, Warne, Muralitharan, Marshall, Holding, Lillee, Imran, Donald etc. etc. Even Brett Lee is more renowned, in spite of the fact that he is a much inferior bowler in Test cricket.

He has not been able to captivate the casual followers and they are generally unaware of his greatness. They obviously know that he is a good bowler, but they scoff at the idea of him getting bracketed with some of the names I stated.

I think the primary reason is the fact that he has had a forgettable Limited Overs career. The numbers are good but he has not produced any memorable spells in World Cups that can define his career.

And of course Marshall is renowned for his ODI prowess.

 

[Mamoon]

And of course Marshall is renowned for his ODI prowess.

Which is why I said the primary reason. Of course, there are and could be other reasons as well why Steyn has not been a box office bowler.

Marshall got a lot of fame for being the spearhead of arguably the greatest team of all time.

 

[austerlitz]

Imran played in an era where pitches were more helpful,boundaries much longer,bats much thinner,there was no regulations on bouncers,no close monitoring of ball manipulation or front foot no balls in home conditions and batsmen didn't know how to play reverse swing.Steyn.Faster,played on flatter pitches.

Both great bowlers,but steyn just slightly ahead.

 

[Buffet]

This argument never comes up when Tendulkar is compared to Viv, or Kohli compared to Tendulkar or Viv. So I hold the vice versa true for bowlers as well.

In every single comparison thread, PPers make argument about bowling quality in 90s being very difficult and giving extra credit to SRT for that. So many threads are out there with comments like Kohli has not faced ATG blowers and all batsmen are making lots of runs in current era. Not sure why you didn't see those comments.

 

[waleed88]

In every single comparison thread, PPers make argument about bowling quality in 90s being very difficult and giving extra credit to SRT for that. So many threads are out there with comments like Kohli has not faced ATG blowers and all batsmen are making lots of runs in current era. Not sure why you didn't see those comments.

I have seen those comments, and the general consensus has been that the batsmen from this era are better than the batsmen from the previous era regardless of the surface players are batting in. Tendulkar and Kohli are both considered better than Viv because of the superior stats, so are alot of the other names.