Ishant Sharma v. Dale Steyn

[Manee]

Sharma has only shown himself as a potential future world number 1 in one country, one which is conducive to his style of bowling. He looks distintly good, not great, in subcontinental conditions, just bowling 135kph. However, this may be due to the fact that Indian speed guns may be a tad slow considering that Indian speed guns were reading less than Australian ones in Australia on the same delivery.

 

[Woodster]

I agree that a comparison between the two is rather difficult due to their contrasting styles. As mentioned earlier, Ishant Sharma is more similar in style to Stuart Broad than Dale Steyn, but I understand the comparison with both Steyn and Sharma being talked up a great deal at the moment.

One factor of course, is the home series that these two players will compete in. Steyn will have the generally seamer friendly tracks of South Africa, while Sharma will need to hone all his skills to have consistent success in India. Will this make Sharma a better bowler and Steyn a little complacent if wickets are easier to come by? It is of course all speculation.

Sharma enjoyed the bounce of the Australian tracks and his height is a welcome bonus. Steyn has developed much more accuracy and his outswingers delivered at good pace will be a handful for any side. Styen has so far achieved more in Test cricket, and like a few of our posters have said, how many times have we been excited about a potential Indian seamer good enough to mix it with the best.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Interesting, exactly what Jack McNamara once said about Donald.

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

No one, but that's not the point. The point is that some bowlers are capable of bouncing back from a bad start - the Glenn McGraths. Others start poorly and can't recover - Daren Powells, for example. I suspect that Steyn is South Africa's Powell.

 

[Sanz]

The only people who would vote for Sharma at this point are Indians. Sharma had one decent Test series. Wasn't even a great series. Decent. Steyn has been absolutely thumping teams for a good year or so now.

Or may be you voted for Ishant Sharma( knowing it very well that it is not public poll), because you actually think he is a better bowler and also accomplish your favorite past-time on this forum i.e. bad mouth Indian fans. Shooting two targets from one bullet ?

 

[bond21]

Steyn.

I havent seen someone destroy a batting lineup like he did against NZ in a long time.

And its not because theyre weak, they beat England in the first test so theyre at least competant.

His stock ball is unbelievable when he gets it right, he angles it into the pads then swings it away to off stump

 

[R_D]

Steyn.

I havent seen someone destroy a batting lineup like he did against NZ in a long time.

And its not because theyre weak, they beat England in the first test so theyre at least competant.

His stock ball is unbelievable when he gets it right, he angles it into the pads then swings it away to off stump

Na NZ have pretty weak batting lineup.
Agree with veryone's sentiments.. too hard to compare as one guy's played many matches while other is just starting his career. Eitherway if both remain fit than should be exciting times ahead, watching these 2 bowl.

 

[Richard]

No one, but that's not the point. The point is that some bowlers are capable of bouncing back from a bad start.

The point is, I think many people overstate that in Donald's case, especially Australians.

 

[cricman]

I don't know if anybody posted this, but Steyn is very Ordinary in ODI's. He's a demi God in Test Cricket ... Hopefully we'll see Ishant in the 2nd Test to see how he fares ... tho I was impressed when he took 5fer In pakistan. As of right now Steyn in Tests and Ishnat in ODI's

 

[honestbharani]

Too early to say, for me....


I juz hope both men go on to fulfill their obvious potential and are as injury free as they can be. And I do hope they don't start believing their own hype, which has happened a lot of times with other players, most recently Pathan and Balaji.

 

[pietersenrocks]

Well,Steyn is gunna make every batsmen pee in their pants in future....but,Sharma will as **** as the Indian quickies which come and gone in the past.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The point is, I think many people overstate that in Donald's case, especially Australians.

Fair enough, given my ignorance on the matter. I hardly saw (anything but highlights of) Donald in his prime, sad to say.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well,Steyn is gunna make every batsmen pee in their pants in future....but,Sharma will as **** as the Indian quickies which come and gone in the past.

I'm not one to trumpet Indian fast bowling phenoms, but I don't remember an Indian pacer who looked quite as potent as he has. Still a long way to go and a lot to do, but he seems better prepared than practically every bowler India has debuted in the last 5 years or so. Certainly good enough to avoid such negative sweeping statements.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Steyn.

I havent seen someone destroy a batting lineup like he did against NZ in a long time.

And its not because theyre weak, they beat England in the first test so theyre at least competant.

England bowled and batted very poorly in that match. New Zealand's batting is only slightly better than West Indies, at best.

I don't know if anybody posted this, but Steyn is very Ordinary in ODI's. He's a demi God in Test Cricket ... Hopefully we'll see Ishant in the 2nd Test to see how he fares ... tho I was impressed when he took 5fer In pakistan. As of right now Steyn in Tests and Ishnat in ODI's

Steyn is the type of bowler who will likely always be poor in ODI cricket. He's not the economical type. When he's economical in Test cricket, it's because the batsmen are under pressure, because there are more fielders around the bat and he has more freedom to be aggressive. Stating the obvious though. I think his ODI record is a non-issue.

 

[TT Boy]

England bowled and batted very poorly in that match. New Zealand's batting is only slightly better than West Indies, at best.

Steyn is the type of bowler who will likely always be poor in ODI cricket. He's not the economical type. When he's economical in Test cricket, it's because the batsmen are under pressure, because there are more fielders around the bat and he has more freedom to be aggressive. Stating the obvious though. I think his ODI record is a non-issue.

Its his death bowling which is the problem and the reason why his average is so high, with the new ball there is no real concerns with him.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Its his death bowling which is the problem and the reason why his average is so high, with the new ball there is no real concerns with him.

Because he can be aggressive with an aggressive field with the new ball. Same point I just stated. He's never going to be able to (consistently) bowl all 10 of his overs in the first half of the innings, so he's unlikely to be an outstanding ODI bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

Whats the point in this debate? Its obvious Tim Southee will be better than both

Way too early to judge at this stage, they both look promising though

TBH a good deal of their success will be on who can partner these guys. Two is always better than one lone ranger.

On a sidenote, the NZ team in SA that Steyn destroyed is almost completely different to the current one, not to mention far weaker, so perhaps Steyns achievements weren't quite what they looked. Still a bloody awesome bowler though.

 

[NZTailender]

The difference between the NZ team then and now isn't that much different, Flem.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The point of the thread, contrary to its title and the initial topic, has become to discuss the merits and drawbacks of each player, rather than a strict comparison between the two.

 

[Richard]

On a sidenote, the NZ team in SA that Steyn destroyed is almost completely different to the current one, not to mention far weaker, so perhaps Steyns achievements weren't quite what they looked. Still a bloody awesome bowler though.

The difference between the NZ team then and now isn't that much different, Flem.

It's interesting, mind...
Cumming... did OK \ How... done a bit better than OK so far.
Papps \ Bell - both hopeless so far.
Fleming - played OK in both series, SA bowled (and caught) better at him than England.
Sinclair... hopeless so far \ Styris... hopeless in SA.
Taylor... ITSTL, TBH. Was certainly hopeless in SA, and though I'm almost certain he's played better against England, it could just be the undeniably-worse catching and bowling.
Oram - hopeless in both series.
McCullum - played the same in both series IMO, SA's bowling and catching just too good for him, unlike England's.
Vettori - certainly played better against England than SA, though wasn't bad in either series.

 

[Richard]

England bowled and batted very poorly in that match.

DWTA. They bowled poorly, certain spells from Sidebottom aside, but I've seen many, many worse batting performances than that.