The game today favors the batsmen in general, partly due to the advent of T20 cricket such as fielding restrictions and strict calling of wides, with fastbowlers generally they can use one bouncer per over, in the 80's this was not so, certainly limits the intimadatory tactic, one of the main weapons of the fast bowler.
Probably Steyn and to an extent Johnson can be compared with the great fast bowlers (and a fit Harris), I AM NOT DISPUTING THIS!!!!!
Yes an average of 30 is no where near the Garners, Akrams or Lillees, however at present both bowlers are ranked in the top 10 and have been consistent match winners for the English in recent times. Broad and Anderson can walk into the final test 11 for India, West Indies, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe comfortably, maybe even New Zealand (of recent they have been able to put a strong pace battery) that leaves only Australia, South Africa and Pakistan.
Fast bowlers arent just as good as they were in the past 30 yrs or so. This is why I am saying it is foolish to think that Broad and Anderson arent 'world class' in the context of today's test cricket.
I will refrain from engaging on Sachin further he is retired and not playing in this test. If you want I can answer your SRT questions on another suitable thread, no offence. Will mention this though you keep on quoting bowlers averages, Sachin is 20th on all time test batting averages whilst present day Sangakarra is ranked sixth, so going by your logic Sachin is somewaht overated and not even India's best batsman since Kambli has a higher batting average.
Since you cannot let the SRT argument go lets address that first. You say I am harping on the point of Anderson's average and yet ignoring Tendulkar doesn't have the greatest batting avg ever. So this just show how the entire discussion has been futile because you have neither gotten the point on Anderson and nor have u got the point on Tendulkar. I have not said that Anderson is world class only if he has the BEST bowling avg. For anyone to be considered a world class bowler the threshold is an avg nearer to 20 than 30. Anderson thus doesn't cut it.
For a Batsman the commonly accepted threshold is an avg of atleast 50, and SRT at 53.78 easily crosses this threshold. So SRT is a world class batsman. Anyone who crosses an average of 50 is a world class batsman (over a large sample ofcourse). Also with Anderson not only does he have a terrible average, he is also only midway on the number of wickets taken. Had Anderson taken 800 wickets you could have argued that so what if he averages 30, he is still the highest wicket taker of all time. You cannot even make that argument with Anderson. So not only does he have an mediocre average he also as not taken anywhere near the most number of wickets, not even half of the guy who has most wickets !! So on both stats, Anderson lags well behind. See there are two indicators of quality for a bowler, avg, and actual number of wickets taken, Anderson lags behind on both counts. Steyn has more wickets in fewer tests.
The reason why we look at average is it shows the class. Anderson is still playing and is likely to take wickets, hence right now, his wickets tally is lower than what he will finish with. So Avg for him is a better indicator of how he is stacking up against the rest, especially those that have played before him and retired. So presently, the number of wickets taken are less, hence avg.is what indicates his quality. The best before him were taking every wicket @ 22 runs, Anderson is taking every wicket @ 30 runs, and thus he doesnt cut it sorry. Who are the best - those who have taken the most wickets of course, but till Anderson is playing, the avg is what helps find common footing for a comparison and in this comparison Anderson falls flat.
An average means something only when read in conjunction with total wickets. A newcomer in the first test, can take 10 wickets and finish with an average of 10 or 15, and you will then say oh all this while you kept harping on averages, so this new comer by that logic is the best bowler ever. Avg has to be read in conjunction with wickets taken and Anderson fails there. He is way off pace in terms of total wickets taken, but at the same time has a mediocre average. Steyn too well off right now in terms of total wickets, but he has the same average as the best of them, over a very large sample of performances and so one can class him as being in the league as best ever.
Anderson is neither in their league in terms of total wickets nor the average.
SRT on the other hand not only crosses the commonly accepted threshold for a world class batsman (50), but he does have the most number of runs to go with that average, which put him on the top of the pile in a league of his own. This SRT on both counts of Avg and Total Runs is world class. That you compare Kambli and SRT, when the former played a fraction of SRT's matches and scored an even lesser fraction of his runs, is actually forcing me to wonder how old are you. No offence. That you cannot understand that an avg of 50 over 100 innings is better than an avg of 60 over 10 innings, is quite interesting. 50 in 100 innings shows much more consistency over a much longer period, which is harder to attain than 60 over 10 innings.
You cannot over-rate, (in any way shape or form), Murali or Warne getting all those wickets, and you cannot eqaully over-rate SRT getting the most runs (in all forms) and most centuries. I mean you can have your opinion still by all means, its your opinion, but it wont be the most sound opinion. Still as I have always said, you want to think SRT was crap go ahead who is stopping you. The problem is you are not happy with just that, and constantly try and bring up the SRT issue, to try and convince others you are right !! I said the first time if you think Tendulkar was crap or over-rated, despite the fact that Tendulkar has scored more test runs than anyone, more ODI runs than anyone, more test 100s than anyone, more ODI 100s than anyone, more ODI 100s in winning cause than anyone, more runs in World Cups than anyone, in his career has won more man of the match awards than anyone, in his career has won more man of the series awards than anyone, and Kohli is better than him, just go ahead !! Good Luck with that.
Now coming to the Anderson issue, and once again like everything else you are missing to point completely. Being one of the best playing today and being world class are two different things. World Class over the years comprises of some min threshholds that a player has to cross. Which I have explained above is an avg of around 50 for Batsmen over a large sample, and an avg of around 22, 23 for bowlers over a large sample size. Sure the final goal is to finish with most wickets or most runs, and till one gets there, the avg if the sample is large enough provides a level playing field for comparison. Now don't tell me I have straighjacketed this into a science, sure there are some more things that may come into the picture from the time to time, but mainly these are the indicators.
So Anderson is one of the better fast bowlers bowling today, but with an avg of 30, he doesn't cross into the 'World Class' Threshold. That is the point I am making and which you are totally refusing to understand. While for today Anderson is among the best, an avg of 30 indicates, that he is far from the World Class threshold. Also remember both neither Steyn nor Anderson are going to break Murali's most wickets haul, neither is even halfway there, so the more relevant ground for comparison is average. Right Steyn's is as among the best of them, while Anderson's isn't. So when they both finish, even if Anderson take 10, 20 wickets more than Steyn (Steyn is ahead right now, but even if Anderson does), Steyn's average will put him above Anderson. Ofcourse if Anderson breaks into say the top 10 highest wicket takers, then he will have crossed a certain threshold and then his avg becomes secondary and one will then say Anderson was among the best ever or 'World Class'. Till he does, though he is just among the best today, which doesn't mean 'World Class'. I think even you would have understood by now.
I will give you another example, there is a dearth of leg spinners playing today. There is Sunil Narine and Imran Tahir of SA. So technically Tahir is one of the best leg spinners playing today but is he 'WOrld Class' - NO. Same with Anderson, he must cross into one of the world class thresholds, till then he is just one of the best today. Do you get the difference now?
Also lastly don;t give me the nonsense about rules being against fast bowlers. Rules of T20 have nothing to do with test cricket and it is test cricket numbers we are discussing here. Far from being restricted, Bowlers have the most liberty in test cricket. Oh and tough rules regarding wides, in test cricket what on earth are you talking about. You ave to get the ball to go to second slip before an Umpire will even consider giving something a wide. Test is where the bowlers have the most freedom to bowl and least restrictions.
Wasim, Waqar, Pollock, Donald, Walsh, Ambrose all played their cricket in the 90s in the same rules that Anderson and Broad are playing in and not only did they all pick up wickets they picked them up at stunningly low averages. So stop hiding behind arguments that are literally laughable. Tougher rules for fast bowlers and injuring and what not.
