Ishant Sharma v. Dale Steyn

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

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

I'll rephrase. England bowled very poorly and the batting ranged from poor to mediocre for the most part. Doesn't sound as good.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. Sometimes you have to sacrifice dramatic effect in favour of accurately summing-up the situation. It's called "good journalism" (and yes, accepted posting and journalism aren't exactly the same thing, but they're along the same lines).

And to prove that the best of us have to, even I did recently.

 

[Goughy]

Ill add my 1st impressions on Southee here.

Has a beautiful left arm. High and strong, it really brings him through the action.

His feet are interesting. He could add pace by pointing the front foot straighter, but he could possibly lose his great wrist position and shape on the ball if he did change.

His front foot pointing to fine leg (combined with his upper body action) will make him prone to ankle issues and he will have bouts of innaccuracy through his career where people will doubt him as the pivot over the front leg is quite considerable and if this is a lttle off he will have form issues.

A good prospect. Bowls at a decent lick and swings it around.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well I'm backing Corey's ability to read speedgun-readouts TBH. And I didn't watch any of the ODIs live, so I just presumed he was sending 'em down at the same speed in said games as he was in the Tests.

They're pretty easy to read when they're on the TV screen

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

I think that may be because Donald was taken to on a few occasions when playing against Oz, particularly by Steve Waugh.

 

[Richard]

They're pretty easy to read when they're on the TV screen

Yeah I have spotted that. Just, y'know, I wasn't watching any of the games where it was displayed.

 

[Richard]

I think that may be because Donald was taken to on a few occasions when playing against Oz, particularly by Steve Waugh.

How many times was he really taken to though? Never mind how many times did Stephen Waugh face him at the start of the game, as Donald was an opening bowler and Waugh a number-five batsman?

Donald may have been ineffective a few times against Australia, but he still averaged 27 against them, which is less good than his record against anyone else, but hardly out-and-out poor. Glenn McGrath "only" averaged 25 or something against South Africa, which again was less good than his overall career, but it's not like anyone claims he got disheartened when he didn't start well.

 

[Son Of Coco]

How many times was he really taken to though? Never mind how many times did Stephen Waugh face him at the start of the game, as Donald was an opening bowler and Waugh a number-five batsman?

Donald may have been ineffective a few times against Australia, but he still averaged 27 against them, which is less good than his record against anyone else, but hardly out-and-out poor. Glenn McGrath "only" averaged 25 or something against South Africa, which again was less good than his overall career, but it's not like anyone claims he got disheartened when he didn't start well.

I can't remember the exact number, but I do remember Steve Waugh whacking him around on a couple of occasions at least. I obviously wasn't talking about Waugh facing him at the start of a game You can bowl a bad spell/one where you get belted around at any stage of the game though. It's not just confined to your opening spell, and you still have to bounce back from it effectively. Every bowler gets belted around a bit at some stage in his career by someone so I don't think it's a big deal. Unless you're someone like Andy Caddick who excelled at turning up in the 2nd innings and feigning disinterest in the 1st on a number of occasions.

 

[Richard]

I can't remember the exact number, but I do remember Steve Waugh whacking him around on a couple of occasions at least. I obviously wasn't talking about Waugh facing him at the start of a game

But the whole point which was being made was that Donald supposedly got disheartened if he didn't start well.

In any case, Stephen Waugh was rarely a strokeplayer, at least in the middle of his career, fairly unusual to see him going for the bowling.

You can bowl a bad spell/one where you get belted around at any stage of the game though. It's not just confined to your opening spell, and you still have to bounce back from it effectively. Every bowler gets belted around a bit at some stage in his career by someone so I don't think it's a big deal. Unless you're someone like Andy Caddick who excelled at turning up in the 2nd innings and feigning disinterest in the 1st on a number of occasions.

Caddick turning-up in the second-innings more often than the first- was more a matter of coincidence than anything else.

 

[Son Of Coco]

But the whole point which was being made was that Donald supposedly got disheartened if he didn't start well.

In any case, Stephen Waugh was rarely a strokeplayer, at least in the middle of his career, fairly unusual to see him going for the bowling.

Caddick turning-up in the second-innings more often than the first- was more a matter of coincidence than anything else.

You're right, it was foolish of me to add something that wasn't 100% in line with the initial comment. That's something that rarely happens around here. I'd like to add...Donald got disheartened if he didn't bowl well at any stage of the match. Then can I say that Steve Waugh took him apart on occasion? Or am I to assume that a bowler that loses heart after being taken to at the start of an innings doesn't do the same if it happens just after the start, prior to the middle, in the middle, just after the middle, towards the end, or at the end of an innings?

I saw Steve Waugh take to Donald...going on your comments I guess you didn't. What's the norm doesn't always explain what happens in a certain situation. One of Steve Waugh's strengths was that he usually punished the bad ball. If you bowled a few overs with anything remotely bad and he was in form then you were in trouble. Donald got himself in trouble.

Caddick turning up in the second innings more than the first was a matter of heart in my opinion. Less swanning around the boundary and more ticker would have been good. .

Coincidentally, his record in the second innings vs the first against Oz wasn't that different: 1.83 wickets an innings on average for the 1st vs 1.75 for the second. A couple of 5 wicket hauls in each innings. Took 0 wickets in the 1st innings 5 times vs once in the second.

 

[Richard]

You're right, it was foolish of me to add something that wasn't 100% in line with the initial comment. That's something that rarely happens around here. I'd like to add...Donald got disheartened if he didn't bowl well at any stage of the match. Then can I say that Steve Waugh took him apart on occasion? Or am I to assume that a bowler that loses heart after being taken to at the start of an innings doesn't do the same if it happens just after the start, prior to the middle, in the middle, just after the middle, towards the end, or at the end of an innings?

I saw Steve Waugh take to Donald...going on your comments I guess you didn't. What's the norm doesn't always explain what happens in a certain situation. One of Steve Waugh's strengths was that he usually punished the bad ball. If you bowled a few overs with anything remotely bad and he was in form then you were in trouble. Donald got himself in trouble.

Donald did not get disheartened every time he didn't bowl well. You do not take 300 Test wickets at 21 if you get disheartened that easily. He might have bowled poorly at Stephen Waugh once or twice - a sin, I daresay, shared by everyone who has ever picked-up a cricket-ball, including even Malcolm Marshall and Richard Hadlee. Donald was the only bowler ever to come close to getting on top of a batsman better even than Stephen Waugh - Sachin Tendulkar. This, for me, is enough to convince me to take with little seriousness the one or two occasions Waugh might have triumphed over him.

Caddick turning up in the second innings more than the first was a matter of heart in my opinion. Less swanning around the boundary and more ticker would have been good.

As I said, was a matter of coincidence and nothing else as far as I'm concerned. He bowled well plenty often enough in first-innings'.

Coincidentally, his record in the second innings vs the first against Oz wasn't that different: 1.83 wickets an innings on average for the 1st vs 1.75 for the second. A couple of 5 wicket hauls in each innings. Took 0 wickets in the 1st innings 5 times vs once in the second.

There's more than 1 team around y'know.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Donald did not get disheartened every time he didn't bowl well. You do not take 300 Test wickets at 21 if you get disheartened that easily. He might have bowled poorly at Stephen Waugh once or twice - a sin, I daresay, shared by everyone who has ever picked-up a cricket-ball, including even Malcolm Marshall and Richard Hadlee. Donald was the only bowler ever to come close to getting on top of a batsman better even than Stephen Waugh - Sachin Tendulkar. This, for me, is enough to convince me to take with little seriousness the one or two occasions Waugh might have triumphed over him.

As I said, was a matter of coincidence and nothing else as far as I'm concerned. He bowled well plenty often enough in first-innings'.

There's more than 1 team around y'know.

I'm not suggesting he did...he obviously bowled very well for most of his career otherwise he wouldn't have had the average he did. I think it was more a case of Waugh batting very well on those one or two days when he took to Donald (actually it was more like a small part of the day). I think nearly every bowler gets at least a little disheartened during a spell where they're being belted around. I also enjoyed watching Donald bowl (being Australian I enjoyed watching him get hit around occasionally too ) Individual instances still stand alone as being good/brilliant though from the batsman's point of view, especially if the bowler was proven to be very good over a whole career. Of course, you have to watch the match to know whether it was a case of brilliant batsman or a poor spell by the bowler.

Would you suggest I look at how Caddick bowled vs Bangladesh or Zimbabwe? If he takes 25 wickets @ 10 against either of these teams with 5 first innings 5 wicket hauls then he has a heart as big as a bus? I looked at how he bowled against a team I'm familiar with and who I watched him play more often than not. To be honest, he underperformed against them in both innings. They were the best in the world though, so he wouldn't be the only one. As you've pointed out with Donald though, if you were good enough you'd still perform well against them. In my opinion Caddick needed too many things to go right for him to perform well instead of just getting on with it. He could bowl brilliantly, but unfortunately not consistently.

 

[Richard]

I'm not suggesting he did...he obviously bowled very well for most of his career otherwise he wouldn't have had the average he did. I think it was more a case of Waugh batting very well on those one or two days when he took to Donald (actually it was more like a small part of the day). I think nearly every bowler gets at least a little disheartened during a spell where they're being belted around. I also enjoyed watching Donald bowl (being Australian I enjoyed watching him get hit around occasionally too ) Individual instances still stand alone as being good/brilliant though from the batsman's point of view, especially if the bowler was proven to be very good over a whole career. Of course, you have to watch the match to know whether it was a case of brilliant batsman or a poor spell by the bowler.

I'm sure Waugh did play unusually well against Donald on a few occasions, he was indeed an everso slightly good batsman and this was in no small part because he raised his game exactly when needed several times. But the bowler has the ball in his hand, so he controls the game, and if it's top-class bowler vs top-class batsman and both raise their game, top-class bowler will still come-out on top.

Sadly for Donald, he probably came-out second best on points against Stephen Waugh. Fortunately, this was reversed by the fact that he came-out on top against Tendulkar. For this, I don't hesitate to consider him the greatest bowler of his age and one of the greatest ever. Had he come-out on top against Waugh too, he'd possibly be almost unequivocally THE best.

Would you suggest I look at how Caddick bowled vs Bangladesh or Zimbabwe?

No, just West Indies, or New Zealand, or South Africa, or someone like that.

If he takes 25 wickets @ 10 against either of these teams with 5 first innings 5 wicket hauls then he has a heart as big as a bus? I looked at how he bowled against a team I'm familiar with and who I watched him play more often than not. To be honest, he underperformed against them in both innings. They were the best in the world though, so he wouldn't be the only one. As you've pointed out with Donald though, if you were good enough you'd still perform well against them. In my opinion Caddick needed too many things to go right for him to perform well instead of just getting on with it. He could bowl brilliantly, but unfortunately not consistently.

Yes, indeed, but it had nothing much to do with first- or second-innings. Caddick's career was a highly disappointing one, at least it was 1993-1998, and then again Jun2001-2002\03. He was brilliant 1999-May2001, but 2-and-a-half years, but you'd expect more than that - 4 times more, really. Caddick just didn't get enough things right often enough, but it wasn't through lack of heart and it certainly wasn't through being cabable in a second-innings but never a first-.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm sure Waugh did play unusually well against Donald on a few occasions, he was indeed an everso slightly good batsman and this was in no small part because he raised his game exactly when needed several times. But the bowler has the ball in his hand, so he controls the game, and if it's top-class bowler vs top-class batsman and both raise their game, top-class bowler will still come-out on top.

Sadly for Donald, he probably came-out second best on points against Stephen Waugh. Fortunately, this was reversed by the fact that he came-out on top against Tendulkar. For this, I don't hesitate to consider him the greatest bowler of his age and one of the greatest ever. Had he come-out on top against Waugh too, he'd possibly be almost unequivocally THE best.

No, just West Indies, or New Zealand, or South Africa, or someone like that.

Yes, indeed, but it had nothing much to do with first- or second-innings. Caddick's career was a highly disappointing one, at least it was 1993-1998, and then again Jun2001-2002\03. He was brilliant 1999-May2001, but 2-and-a-half years, but you'd expect more than that - 4 times more, really. Caddick just didn't get enough things right often enough, but it wasn't through lack of heart and it certainly wasn't through being cabable in a second-innings but never a first-.

Ok...against everyone:

1st inns Ave: 37.06
2nd inns Ave: 20.81

He was a very good second innings bowler. (There are obviously a lot of variables to consider, and I've considered none of them apart from his average in each innings and what I watched vs Australia. I don't know what happened in the rest of the games as I didn't watch many of them at all.)

 

[Top_Cat]

How many times was he really taken to though? Never mind how many times did Stephen Waugh face him at the start of the game, as Donald was an opening bowler and Waugh a number-five batsman?

Donald may have been ineffective a few times against Australia, but he still averaged 27 against them, which is less good than his record against anyone else, but hardly out-and-out poor.

You mean, he averaged 31, right? 34 at home and 28 in Australia, in fact. Cherry picking stats to suit your argument is unethical, Rich, and without looking it up, I'm guessing you don't count any post 2000 stats for Donald? Donald didn't get spanked on his last tour of Australia because he wasn't as quick; he got pummelled because he bowled absolute rubbish generally and thus, deserves to be counted in an overall opinion on him.

The perception about Donald having questions about his ticker hasn't come out of nowhere either. Aside from Sydney in 1993 and Melbourne in 1997, his big wicket matches have come in a couple of dead matches. He's strangely been missing when the series' were still live and large parts of matches on pitches which should have suited his bowling down to the ground. That's why people say that about him; on form coming into most of the series' against Australia and on the pitches the series' were played on, he absolutely should have dominated. He suffered quite a bit from what Brett Lee did early on in his career too; he had huge expectations based on his raw pace and form coming into the series'. So it seemed he worried more about intimidating the Aussies than getting them out and his results and bowling reflected that.

Ironically, the only times I remembering being really impressed with what he was letting go was when he pared back the pace slightly and bowled in concert with someone. His spell when Fanie De Villiers won them Sydney in 1993 was outstanding, the Aussies couldn't get him away. And he bowled one spell which unfortunately didn't net him any wickets but in Steve Waugh's 100th Test, both Waugh twins were close to their tons when he came on. For his entire spell, I barely remember any bowler making two such class batsmen look absolutely amateurish. His bowling was literally dangerous. That Mark was dismissed soon after his ton and Steve 15 runs short of his, I put down to how rattled they were by Donald's bowling.

To be honest, aside from those and early on in Melbourne 1993, I barely remember a time watching Donald bowl where he looked really threatening and certainly not in line with the reputation and form he came into the series' with. Every Aus vs SA series in the 90's was super high profile and highly anticipated so I can assure you I barely missed a minute of any of them. It was a problem with SA in general in the 90's; they'd belt other sides and come into the series' against the Aussies in form and with big reps and they'd leave them (aside from the first series') looking very forlorn indeed. Donald was no exception.

That said, SA were absolutely robbed by umpiring decisions in Adelaide 1993.

 

[jeevan]

Ill add my 1st impressions on Southee here.

Has a beautiful left arm. High and strong, it really brings him through the action.

His feet are interesting. He could add pace by pointing the front foot straighter, but he could possibly lose his great wrist position and shape on the ball if he did change.

His front foot pointing to fine leg (combined with his upper body action) will make him prone to ankle issues and he will have bouts of innaccuracy through his career where people will doubt him as the pivot over the front leg is quite considerable and if this is a lttle off he will have form issues.

A good prospect. Bowls at a decent lick and swings it around.

CW should collect your bowler analyses in a separate article section. Can see it becoming a unique cricketing resource corner.

If you've posted something similar on Steyn , would like to read it. (the search function gave a whole bunch of posts).

 

[Top_Cat]

CW should collect your bowler analyses in a separate article section. Can see it becoming a unique cricketing resource corner.

With all due respect to Goughy, what he says about bowling actions should be common sense. It baffles that some blokes, with all the coaching staff available in semi-elite ranks, still get to international cricket and break down.

 

[Jono]

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.

Can someone point to me how Pathan 'believed' his own hype? Not being able to back up the hype you receive doesn't mean you actually believed it yourself.

Pathan is probably the hardest working cricketer in the Indian squad. He is the definition of a team-man, and I've never seen anything to suggest he's a ****y cricketer, or was one in the past.

And no one pumped up Balaji except idiots.

 

[Goughy]

With all due respect to Goughy, what he says about bowling actions should be common sense. It baffles that some blokes, with all the coaching staff available in semi-elite ranks, still get to international cricket and break down.

Its true, it is quite simple.

The main problem is that there are a few areas that when not correct cause all sorts of symptoms. Its amazing how few coaches actually understand the root-causes and actually try and treat the symptoms.

 

[Manee]

Ill add my 1st impressions on Southee here.

Has a beautiful left arm. High and strong, it really brings him through the action.

It is interesting to see that he did not use the left arm nearly as well in the T20 against England.