Why does Steyn perform better than Anderson? (Tests)

[manee]

Something which has plagued me recently is wondering why James Anderson and Dale Steyn, despite appearing quite similar in style and quality, have such differing success rates. Is Steyn simply more accurate? The economy rates beg to differ as Steyn goes for 3.62 runs per over compared to Anderson's 3.42. Steyn may have the extra yard of pace, delivering up to 150kph and generally at 140kph compared to Anderson's top speed of about 145kph and average of 135kph but then Anderson has displayed far greater control and mastery of swing.

And yet, the chasm of performance between them!

Discuss.

 

[King Pietersen]

Consistency has been the main problem for Anderson. In the past he's failed to perform in back to back matches over a period of time. He appears to be finding that consistency now, and I think we could start to see the real James Anderson appearing in front of us. There is no reason why James Anderson can't be as effective as Steyn, he swings the ball more, he's a far better exponent of Reverse Swing, and he operates at a decent pace. If Anderson can continue these current good signs, he'll be a class act for England for a good few years, he's still only 26.

 

[manee]

I understand this, but Anderson has a better economy rate than Steyn and so accuracy cannot be seen as the main issue, unless we chose to reduce it to a mere issue of length, but can that truly be the difference between the average Test bowler and someone with the third greatest strike rate of all time?

 

[evertonfan]

Because Steyn's a better bowler. That's why.

 

[King Pietersen]

It's not accuracy in line that's his problem, it's putting in a consistent string of good performances that he struggles with. He can sometimes bowl far too short, as you mentioned, but still remain economical. This then negates his primary weapon, which is the swing. It's like he sees a pitch with abit of pace, and decides that banging it in is the best option, when it clearly isn't. Against West Indies and South Africa he's certainly started bowling alot fuller, and is getting that consistency back. Just hope he continues to improve, he could be a seriously good strike bowler if he does.

 

[manee]

Because Steyn's a better bowler. That's why.

But what makes him a better bowler, specifically, is what I want to ask - I thought it be a welcome change from the pantheon of statsguru dominated threads in Cricket Discussion.

manee added 1 Minutes and 6 Seconds later...

It's not accuracy in line that's his problem, it's putting in a consistent string of good performances that he struggles with. He can sometimes bowl far too short, as you mentioned, but still remain economical. This then negates his primary weapon, which is the swing. It's like he sees a pitch with abit of pace, and decides that banging it in is the best option, when it clearly isn't. Against West Indies and South Africa he's certainly started bowling alot fuller, and is getting that consistency back. Just hope he continues to improve, he could be a seriously good strike bowler if he does.

So you believe something as simple as length can separate two bowlers who are statistically miles apart? I feel there is more to it than that...

 

[King Pietersen]

Length, and the fact that Anderson often fails to follow 1 fantastic performance with another. It's not been something that's affected him recently though, he's just not been helped by some very flat pitches. He's only failed to take a wicket on 1 occassion since Napier, and in that innings he only bowled 7 overs.

I really cannot explain the reasons for Anderson having a record much worse than that of Steyn. Anderson's got all the tools, pace, swing, good line, reverse swing, a decent bouncer and now he's starting to find consistency. Maybe it's something as simple as Steyn's extra pace and hostility?

 

[manee]

Length, and the fact that Anderson often fails to follow 1 fantastic performance with another. It's not been something that's affected him recently though, he's just not been helped by some very flat pitches. He's only failed to take a wicket on 1 occassion since Napier, and in that innings he only bowled 7 overs.

I really cannot explain the reasons for Anderson having a record much worse than that of Steyn. Anderson's got all the tools, pace, swing, good line, reverse swing, a decent bouncer and now he's starting to find consistency. Maybe it's something as simple as Steyn's extra pace and hostility?

Well, that's what I'm asking. It is just a matter of throwing some ideas out there throughout the thread and seeing what we put together.

 

[King Pietersen]

Well I've attempted to chuck a few reasons in. He's got less pace and aggression than Steyn, he is often guilty of bowling back of a length and he has often failed to back up 1 good performance with another in the next game. The fact that now he's finding that consistency he's had to bowl on some very flat pitches doesn't help his record, he bowled fantastically in West Indies for example, but still averaged 38 with the ball. It's very hard to explain.

 

[manee]

Well I've attempted to chuck a few reasons in. He's got less pace and aggression than Steyn, he is often guilty of bowling back of a length and he has often failed to back up 1 good performance with another in the next game. The fact that now he's finding that consistency he's had to bowl on some very flat pitches doesn't help his record, he bowled fantastically in West Indies for example, but still averaged 38 with the ball. It's very hard to explain.

Intriguing topic though. Steyn seems to overperform whereas Anderson seems to underperform. The issue of length is of importance, as the full ball which doesn't swing can still be a potent threat if it wobbles ever so slightly. I think Anderson and other English bowlers are far too quick to 'assess' conditions and bring the length back. I think it comes down to the natural approach too, Anderson tends to jerk the head down slightly moreso than Steyn and I think that makes it that extra bit harder for him to bowl fuller. Although Anderson cannot be faulted for this and it likely gives him extra pace, he tends to deliver the ball from a higher position as he doesn't collapse on the front leg as Steyn does and this can mean that the approach is more 'up and down' than 'flat and full', if I may coin two terms.

I think approach is critical too. Steyn keeps it far simpler than Anderson and perhaps this is due to not having the conventional inswinger at his disposal. I have seen Anderson throw away many a dazed batsman due to throwing in a wayward inswinger down the leg side.

I have also thought that line is critical too. Steyn bowls far staighter than Anderson and again, this may be something that comes naturally to Steyn through playing in far quicker paced conditions than Anderson. The outswing from the stumps approach is far more potent than the outswing from outside off stump approach and also more expensive.

Between us, we have come up with a pretty all encompassing analysis - but again, mostly all quite simple things and yet, it all feels a bit empty. Is this all there is between a world class sharp outswing bowler and an occasionally very good one?

 

[aus_maestro]

The Saffas are a more imposing test team than England. Surely that has some (even if slight) bearing on how the batsmen play against the two bowlers.

 

[King Pietersen]

I don't think that has any bearing on things. Sri Lanka have never been a particularly brilliant Test side, but Muralitharan's a very imposing bowler for any batsman to face. Pakistan were never a truely dominating force in Test cricket in the early 2000's, but Shoaib Akhtar performed incredibly well, and New Zealand have never been a great Test side, but Shane Bond was a fantastic wicket taker. I don't think the team you play for has any impact.

 

[manee]

Was speaking to my brother who came up with the notion of stock ball, might get him to type his thoughts out in full but the crux of the matter is that Anderson doesn't have a stock ball as he is swinging it in and out at varying lines whereas Steyn's stock ball is a superb wicket taker, angling into leg and swinging away.

 

[King Pietersen]

Anderson has developed a stock ball, to left handers anyway, but it's not even remotely threatening. It's an away swinger that starts on off-stump and moves away further, meaning the batsman can more often than not just leave the ball. He then uses this to attempt to set them up for the one coming back in, used it well against Graeme Smith, but if he can't get the big inswinger going, then he never looks particularly effective.

Your brother does have a good point though, Steyn's stock ball is a cracker. Just wish Jimmy could develop a genuinely threatening stock ball.

 

[aus_maestro]

Well it would be a pretty naive comparison if you're not going to take external factors into consideration that can directly affect a bowlers stats (and thus confidence/performance). You need to take fielding quality of the respective sides into consideration and so on imo.

By saying that has no bearing on the stats, are you saying someone like Gayle/Sehwag/McCullum would give the same level of respect to a Bangladesh/Zimbabwe attack compared to a more established attack? I'm not saying they would or would not, but its a possibility they don't since as you two stated, theres not much that seperate these two bowlers in what they can offer up.