Ishant Sharma v. Dale Steyn

[adharcric]

Steyn is clearly the better bowler right now. Just like there was with Pathan, Balaji, and a host of others, there is way too much expectation from this kid right now. You also have to remember that Sharma is half a decade younger than Steyn.

Hopefully people will leave him be and let him develop for three or four years. Obviously, no chance that its going to happen, but one can hope. He has potential, and hopefully he can realize it.

Pretty much agree but the hype with Pathan and Balaji doesn't really compare to this situation. Those two were mainly hyped up in India whereas Ishant is getting praise all over because he's shown something special, and not just by Indian pace standards.

 

[Protean]

As has been said, don't think they are quite comparable yet. Dale has been around longer, although when he made his debut is a bit misleading, he played against England 2004/2005 and then didn't play again until April 2006. Since then he has taken 97 wickets at an average of 19.30 in only 17 games. He still has to face up to Australia of course, but I'm sure he'll be up to the challenge.

Ishant has only played 5 test matches and taken 12 wickets. Yeah he looked pretty damn good, but he still has a lot to prove, which I'm sure he will in time. Hope he only misses the first test because I look forward to seeing him bowling again.

 

[Goughy]

Simple long term answer is 'I dont know'

If I was forced to pick I would probably take Steyn just as he has shown more so far. But Ive always voiced reservations over Steyn consistently being able to take wickets against good batting line-ups on good wickets. Almost the bowling equiv of a 'flat track bully'.

This India series coming up may do a lot to reinforce or change my opinion.

 

[iamdavid]

Obviously in terms of results so far Steyn easily.

However if you saw them both bowl for the first time and knew nothing of their backgrounds I reckon many would go for Ishant. He just has better fundamentals imo. Mainly his height (as Richard mentioned), meaning the much greater margin for error and the fact it becomes alot harder for batsman to get after him or play forward with confidence.

Both have pretty good actions (channel 9 highlighted some very minor flaws in Ishants but by and large its pretty good) and both superb athletes (I know Ishant looks like a gangly kid but with the bat and in the field he showed suprising speed, balance and coordination).

I dont think the comparisons with Pathan/Balaji are totally fair, think Sharma has been significantly more impressive than either of those two in the initial stages of their international careers (which in Pathans case is saying something). Mainly the control he's shown throughout the Australia tour and the fact he's been able to actually run through the Australian top-order rather than just threatening to like Pathan did in 03/04.

I believe Ishant has it in him to be a better bowler than Steyn...fitness permitting...he is pretty young and frail and the temptation will be there to bowl him into the ground.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He still has to face up to Australia of course, but I'm sure he'll be up to the challenge.

Presently I think he would do well against Australia, as the team is in transition. But a settled Australian side would be far more difficult for him. He's the kind of bowler who can be disheartened if he doesn't start well.

 

[Richard]

Pretty much agree but the hype with Pathan and Balaji doesn't really compare to this situation. Those two were mainly hyped up in India whereas Ishant is getting praise all over because he's shown something special, and not just by Indian pace standards.

Hmm, I recall plenty of hype on Pathan in Australia (not 100% similarity as David points-out above, but unquestionably there) and Balaji in Pakistan TBH.

 

[Richard]

Presently I think he would do well against Australia, as the team is in transition. But a settled Australian side would be far more difficult for him.

Not sure, TBH, Australia currently qualify as unsettled (and have always hated the phrase "in transition" - rare is the team that stays the same for more than 2 or 3 games, if that). Reckon Haddin will slot nicely into the number-seven role and while Symonds is crap he's currently established in the side no questions asked.

 

[NZTailender]

Would be more interested in a Sharma vs Broad debate tbh.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not sure, TBH, Australia currently qualify as unsettled (and have always hated the phrase "in transition" - rare is the team that stays the same for more than 2 or 3 games, if that). Reckon Haddin will slot nicely into the number-seven role and while Symonds is crap he's currently established in the side no questions asked.

But Australia is no longer a settled powerhouse. They're not the machine they used to be. They're still winning way more than they're losing, but there are evident chinks in the armor which are being exploited more often than not. And the loss of Warne, Hogg and MacGill (so it seems) could haunt them far greater than it has thus far, given that they've played 2 series against good players of spin, where the spin quotient was not expected to be very effective anyway.

This is what I mean by unsettled. The selectors clearly aren't entirely sure about their first choice XI, unlike previous years.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Would be more interested in a Sharma vs Broad debate tbh.

Except Broad has played twice as many ODIs as Sharma and Sharma has played twice as many Tests as Broad. Give or take.

Granted, by that reasoning, Steyn and Sharma should only be compared on ODI performance.

 

[Richard]

But Australia is no longer a settled powerhouse. They're not the machine they used to be. They're still winning way more than they're losing, but there are evident chinks in the armor which are being exploited more often than not. And the loss of Warne, Hogg and MacGill (so it seems) could haunt them far greater than it has thus far, given that they've played 2 series against good players of spin, where the spin quotient was not expected to be very effective anyway.

This is what I mean by unsettled. The selectors clearly aren't entirely sure about their first choice XI, unlike previous years.

They were far from sure about the settled XI in 2002\03 and 2003 too (and then like now it was no more than a couple of places). Didn't stop them thrashing all-comers.

They are indeed no longer a dominant powerhouse (at least, we hope they're not, and the initial signs are good - but it's not like that hasn't happened before), but that's because they've lost several players of the highest calibre. It's not like they're scrabbling around trying to find Test-class cricketers, though. Even Johnson, who didn't exactly have a magnificent first Test summer, was hardly shocking compared to plenty of players in their debut season.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It's not like they're scrabbling around trying to find Test-class cricketers, though.

Yes they are. A spinner, which is a bigger issue than it has been shown to be so far. And a third seamer. I'm convinced that CA isn't convinced by Johnson (as they shouldn't be at this young age of his career). Neither are they, in my estimation, convinced about Symonds as Test class in the allrounder role.

 

[irfan]

I think comparing Steyn and Sharma is like comparing apples and oranges - they're both different types of bowlers. Steyn is a deadset gun, in the Waqar Younis mould - he will bowl 2 or 3 unplayable balls every 6 overs, of which one will take a wicket (on avg.) He's by far the more accomplished of the two balls but he relies more on his banana benders and yorkers which is far harder to replicate consistently than Sharma's raw ingredients (pace, bounce and seam). Mind you he's doing a fair job of it now.

The acid test for Steyn is when he comes up against a solid and settled batting lineup (i.e Australia or India). I still think he will get a truckload of wickets albeit not as quickly and he'll be far more expensive as he will go for runs by pitching the ball up. Still expecting him to take 10+ wickets against us this series.

I liken Ishant more to a Courtney Walsh, wide on the crease and has the ability to bowl the seam it in or holds its line and generally hits the right areas. This is a recipe for consistent wicket taking and even if he loses pace he's still got height on his side. His body needs to develop and it remains to be seen if he can rip up weak batting lineups (NZ, WI, BAN etc) as effectively as Steyn. If he can I think he will be the better bowler over time but so far Steyn >> Sharma.

It'll be interesting to see how both fare in the current series, fitness permitting. They'll both bowl on the same tracks so a more accurate comparison could be made.

 

[Richard]

Yes they are. A spinner, which is a bigger issue than it has been shown to be so far. And a third seamer. I'm convinced that CA isn't convinced by Johnson (as they shouldn't be at this young age of his career). Neither are they, in my estimation, convinced about Symonds as Test class in the allrounder role.

You don't need a spinner if you can find 4 high-quality seamers. I've never been convinced about Johnson myself, but it's not like he's patently sub-Test-class a la Brad Hogg or Brad Williams. And there's several others behind him in the queue.

In the event that Symonds gets dropped, which hopefully will happen after as many failures as possible to drag his batting-average down as far as possible, there's any number of clearly high-class batsmen to come in.

 

[Top_Cat]

Presently I think he would do well against Australia, as the team is in transition. But a settled Australian side would be far more difficult for him. He's the kind of bowler who can be disheartened if he doesn't start well.

Haha, he really is the next Alan Donald.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think comparing Steyn and Sharma is like comparing apples and oranges - they're both different types of bowlers. Steyn is a deadset gun, in the Waqar Younis mould - he will bowl 2 or 3 unplayable balls every 6 overs, of which one will take a wicket (on avg.) He's by far the more accomplished of the two balls but he relies more on his banana benders and yorkers which is far harder to replicate consistently than Sharma's raw ingredients (pace, bounce and seam). Mind you he's doing a fair job of it now.

The acid test for Steyn is when he comes up against a solid and settled batting lineup (i.e Australia or India). I still think he will get a truckload of wickets albeit not as quickly and he'll be far more expensive as he will go for runs by pitching the ball up. Still expecting him to take 10+ wickets against us this series.

I liken Ishant more to a Courtney Walsh, wide on the crease and has the ability to bowl the seam it in or holds its line and generally hits the right areas. This is a recipe for consistent wicket taking and even if he loses pace he's still got height on his side. His body needs to develop and it remains to be seen if he can rip up weak batting lineups (NZ, WI, BAN etc) as effectively as Steyn. If he can I think he will be the better bowler over time but so far Steyn >> Sharma.

It'll be interesting to see how both fare in the current series, fitness permitting. They'll both bowl on the same tracks so a more accurate comparison could be made.

In some ways, it's irrelevant who is better or who will be better. Either way you go, as a spectator, you know the standard of bowling will be very high. It's kinda the reason why the Warne vs Murali debate is so useless; no matter which way you go or whoever you think is better, you're getting your money's worth watching them.

 

[Richard]

Haha, he really is the next Alan Donald.

Interesting, exactly what Jack McNamara once said about Donald.

One thing I'd ask: which bowler enjoys not starting well?

 

[tooextracool]

My answer to this question is Praveen Kumar.

 

[funnygirl]

Choice 3 .Both are at the very early stage of their career .How they are going to do ,how much batsmen will find them out are waiting to be seen .Too early to make a comment .

 

[haroon510]

steyn.. to early to campare sharma to any bowler..