Lol at that cricinfo list. Steyn, Younis, Marshall, Donald.... Starc
Possibly. But the list does say bowlers with 250+ wickets. If we remove that filter a whole bunch of pre-WW1 bowlers occupy the top 10 (Shane Bond clocks in at #3!)steyn was a jet - no doubt about it.
i think the strike rates are so good these days because of the fast paced test matches and so much time lost in test matches these days , 20/20 has impacted it as well and next to no drawn matches these days (unless weather intervenes).
as good as lillee and lasted longer
it's a good talking point.
-i think lillee played against better quality consistently throughout his career, but you can only bowl against who they put out on the park.
-they both played 14-15 years of test cricket and lillee's career included 17 unofficial tests which would be easily higher than the sa v bang and sa v zim tests etc.
in saying that:
steyn 93 tests 439 wickets @ 23
lillee 87 tests 445 wickets @ 24 (unofficial tests included)
it's a close call that's for sure.
I think Lillee's WSC record in isolation would definitely qualify as having bowled consistently against better opposition which IIRC is only marginally worse stat-wise than his overall career record. I think quality of opposition is generally much less of a factor for bowlers than batsmen though.I think there’s definitely arguments you can make for Lillee but did he really bowl against better quality?
He managed to only play 3 tests against the Indian side that had Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Amarnath, Viswanath, Dev
England had Boycott and Gower but the only other regular who averaged 42+ during Lillee’s career was Dennis Amiss.
Pakistan and the West Indies obviously posed a bigger quandary as far as batsmen went. Though he averaged 30 against Pakistan and 27 against the West Indies.
I don’t know that you could make a blanket statement that Lillee played consistently against better opposition. Probably played against more even top 6s but less out and out stars