While we have already taken apart many of the key myths surrounding the Anderson/Steyn debate, several important stones have been left unturned:

Opponents. Anderson has played a greater portion of his test matches against the leading sides in the world (taken to be England, South Africa and Australia, the last three number one Test teams). 

Over 40 per cent of Anderson’s tests have been against these nations, while the same figure for Steyn reads 33.3 per cent. The importance of this statistic is brought home by the fact that both bowlers have recorded their worst two bowling averages against these nations. Moreover, Steyn has played more tests against the two “minnow” test sides — Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (five to Anderson’s four). These differences in opposition faced helps explain the statistical gap between the two men.

Teammates. Perhaps the most telling point against Steyn is his nationality. It has allowed him to benefit from playing in one of the best batting line-ups in recent history. 

There is no doubt that having Kallis (test average of 55), De Villiers (51) and Amla (51) playing with, and not against him, has boosted his bowling average significantly. 

Anderson, on the other hand, while playing with “great” batsmen like Pietersen (average 47), has not been spared from any member of the “over 50” club (Root and Ballance are excluded due to their small sample size). Moreover, such batsmen have consistently provided Steyn with runs to defend, allowing him to benefit from both “scoreboard pressure,” and long periods of rest. In contrast, Anderson has had the misfortune of being born English, the country that invented the batting collapse. 

Since 2012, this phenomenon has been especially evident, and has contributed greatly to tired bowling performances, such as on the tour of Australia in 2013/4. 

Volume of Cricket played. Again, this boils down to the misfortune of Anderson’s nationality. Every year from 2010 to 2013, England played more test matches than South Africa, often considerably so (such as in 2013, when England played 14, and South Africa a mere nine). The upside for Steyn is that his workload never gets too much — he even has the energy to jet off to the IPL every year. 

He is able to stay fresh for each test and perform at 100 per cent. There is no chance that Steyn would have to do 10 tests back-to-back in just over 25 weeks, as Anderson had to do in 2013-4. Anderson is clearly disadvantaged by England’s excessive schedule. 

Admittedly, these points will not satisfy the critics — Steyn’s impressive record in the sub-continent (a whole 10 runs per wicket less than Anderson’s, a staggering differential), for one, is an oft-cited point yet to be tackled. Yet here, statistics do not tell the whole story. Indeed, Anderson’s recent record in Asia is outstanding. Not only did he bowl brilliantly in the disastrous tour of the UAE in 2012, but, according to MS Dhoni (not exactly a noted fan of Andersons), provided the difference for England on their record-breaking tour of India in late 2012 — despite “only” taking his wickets at over 30. 

While on balance, this still does not account for such statistical disparity, it surely does something to remove the common perception of a bowler who is “outclassed” in Asia.

Again, it should be reiterated that there is no agenda behind this article. Steyn’s genius cannot be denied — as anyone who witnessed his epic battles with Tendulkar in 2010/11 can attest. 

Yet, as the above shows, there is a strong need to alter the common perception of the Steyn-Anderson debate. In short, a quick glance vastly overplays Steyn’s superiority. Steyn is probably the better bowler, but the difference is minute.E