Asif vs Steyn

[Xuhaib]

Only if this guy steered himself clear of stupid controversies, Asif could easily be the next mcGrath.

Nope.

Asif does not get the same extra bounce as Mcgrath get which is understandable is Glen was 6'6" while Asif is 6'2".Asif is more Post 2000 Polly.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Asif's almost unplayable on a favourable wicket.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hmm, I saw Asif in the flesh last week doing some net bowling. He's pretty damn tall...

 

[Uppercut]

]

Asaif has been lucy that he has not played on many sub cont roads and when he has played he has been steady rater then threatening.

The most interesting stat I find.


Averages Overall #1-#6 #7-#11
Steyn 23.05 29.36 14.70
Asif 23.20 24.27 20.25

Hmm I've never been a massive fan of that particular analysis. I think people tend to understate the value of a bowler who's good at knocking over the tail when this stuff is wheeled out.

 

[Uppercut]

Also, Steyn averages 20 since 2007. If we're talking about how good these bowlers are currently it doesn't make a lot of sense to include his figures from when he first debuted and was a much, much lesser bowler. Itbt I don't like the use of stats here at all. The sample sizes are tiny.

 

[Furball]

Hmm I've never been a massive fan of that particular analysis. I think people tend to understate the value of a bowler who's good at knocking over the tail when this stuff is wheeled out.

Heh. See the recent Australia v Pakistan Test in Sydney...

 

[Richard]

I hate this term 'attacking', McGrath has a strike rate better than many of these so called 'attacking' bowlers. Steyn's strike rate so far in his career is absolutely ridiculous though...less than 40 and it just got lower.....

And that includes now two trips to India. Awesome man, worthy of my avatar.

When I talk of "attacking bowlers" I basically mean a bowler who doesn't really care tremendously about how many runs he concedes, a bowler who is concerned almost exclusively with taking wickets. McGrath most certainly doesn't fit this archetype - McGrath was a bowler who perfected the art of combining defence and attack.

 

[Richard]

Garner was all-out attack too. When he played for SA, would sometimes go for runs but woudl take enough wickets to keep his average down. Bowled different lines/lengths though so lumping him in an 'all-out attack' category is problematic.

Interesting - I'm not a Garner expert but aren't you intimating that he tended to bowl differently for SA than how he typically did for WI?

 

[silentstriker]

With the exception of McGrath, I do prefer the bowlers who bowl full, with pace, and a lot of swing. I think the problem is you can go for a lot of runs with that style, but if you're in top form, it's scintillating to watch.

I think, all things being equal, Steyn is probably better at his peak, but I rate Asif extremely highly. I think he might be better for longer assuming all the Pakistan BS gets sorted out.

 

[Richard]

Really? I am not trying to question you, you probably have seen more of him than me..but from what I saw of him in the 90s, I remember the words "control, accuracy, discipline' being associated with him, hence I added Walsh. Ambrose was a more deadly bowler, bit of a raging bull, someone opposition batsmen would fear, not the fear of getting out, but just the fear of facing him, getting hit etc. Asif, Pollock, McGrath, are not that kind of abowler, firstly they are pretty lean to begin with

McGrath and Pollock, like Ambrose, certainly struck some painful blows to batsmen at the time when they were bowling quickly early in their careers. For Ambrose this probably lasted 5-6 years; for Pollock just a couple and McGrath probably no more than about 4. Towards the end of their careers none were particularly quick, but remained damn good (Pollock much less so than the other two).

Ambrose was always a bowler of meanness - he just hated conceding runs. For much of his career Walsh worried less about conceding runs, and in fact less about taking wickets - he was all about intimidation and doing his bit for the attack. If he bowled 13 wicketless overs for 41 but the batsmen were pummelled and this meant that Marshall\Ambrose\Bishop were more effective than they'd have been othewise, that was a job-done case for Walsh. Of course Walsh was far from just a complimentary scalpal and when he wanted to he could bowl devastating attacking spells - and he bowled them more and more as his career went on and the rest of the attack weakened.

 

[Richard]

Strike rate and "attacking" are two different things..atleast in my books..
When I say "attacking", I mean a bowler who will bombard the opposition with pace, bouncers, yorkers etc. That does not necessarily mean he will have a higher strike rate. I dont mean to put down McGrath by any means..just stating his approach is different, not inferior

When I say "attacking" I basically mean a bowler who's going to pitch the ball up most of the time, and thus is going to concede plenty of runs but always maximise their chances of getting wickets. Someone who bowls consistently short is generally a defensive or complimentary bowler in my book; someone who bowls the in-between length can either be a defensive or rounded (ie, combination of attacking and defensive) bowler depending on their skills and\or the pitch.

There are of course bowlers - and generally these are the types who make the very best - whose control is so outstanding that they can bowl a relatively full length without being terribly profligate yet still offer a huge threat. The likes of Donald, Marshall, Hadlee (R), Lillee, Lindwall, Larwood, etc. fit that mould. Gillespie had this ability as well but his weak body condemned him to a much lesser career than the aforementioned. These bowlers tend to be those who were not giants (like McGrath, Ambrose, Garner, etc.) but had decent height on their side. The all-out-attack bowlers - Steyn, Waqar, Gough - tend to be very low-slung.

 

[Richard]

I can't recall many Asif's special like I can recall Steyn's special..

That's in part because Asif has basically been one long consistent very-good rather than veering from mostly superlative to occasionally awful as Steyn has. It's also because Asif has, mostly due to his own misdemenours, hardly played any Test matches yet.

 

[L Trumper]

Ambrose was always a bowler of meanness - he just hated conceding runs. For much of his career Walsh worried less about conceding runs, and in fact less about taking wickets - he was all about intimidation and doing his bit for the attack. If he bowled 13 wicketless overs for 41 but the batsmen were pummelled and this meant that Marshall\Ambrose\Bishop were more effective.

I think people who started watching cricket after WI dramatic fall circa 97, will remember walsh as a defensive attacking bowler rather than intimidating presence he previously was. Same is true for ambrose but because of his stature he was able to instill fear in the spectators even when bowling typical mcgrath stuff. So it is understandable that if someone think ambrose as menacing attacking bowler and walsh as a line and length guy.

 

[Richard]

Also, Steyn averages 20 since 2007. If we're talking about how good these bowlers are currently it doesn't make a lot of sense to include his figures from when he first debuted and was a much, much lesser bowler. Itbt I don't like the use of stats here at all. The sample sizes are tiny.

Personally it's pretty simple for the two of them thus far - Asif you just knock off his debut and Steyn you just knock off the three against England in 2004/05. Both were clearly nowhere near good enough at the time and should absolutely never have been picked.

Steyn has gradually gotten a little bit better since returning in mid-2006; Asif has basically been on one long, constantly interrupted, high.

 

[Richard]

With the exception of McGrath, I do prefer the bowlers who bowl full, with pace, and a lot of swing. I think the problem is you can go for a lot of runs with that style, but if you're in top form, it's scintillating to watch.

I think, all things being equal, Steyn is probably better at his peak, but I rate Asif extremely highly. I think he might be better for longer assuming all the Pakistan BS gets sorted out.

Yeah agree pretty much word-for-word with both of these points.

I mostly much prefer to watch a bowler bowling an attacking full length with lots of swing, because you always know something's going to happen, probably runs and wickets simultaneously (not, obviously, in the same delivery, but same over and same spell). But on a seaming deck a bowler who bowls a little back-of-length, barely looks like conceding a run and just waits for the inevitable nicks to come, thus ending with the sort of crazy figures McGrath and Ambrose did a few times in their careers, is just an awesome sight.

 

[Richard]

I think people who started watching cricket after WI dramatic fall circa 97, will remember walsh as a defensive attacking bowler rather than intimidating presence he previously was. Same is true for ambrose but because of his stature he was able to instill fear in the spectators even when bowling typical mcgrath stuff. So it is understandable that if someone think ambrose as menacing attacking bowler and walsh as a line and length guy.

Oh yeah, absolutely. Walsh's style changed considerably, and 1997/98 was the pivotal moment. Ambrose at the end of his career was the same sort of bowler (~80mph, impossibly accurate, back-of-length) that McGrath was at the end of his career. Likewise, they were the same early in their careers.

It's just that McGrath probably slowed down at a slightly younger age than Ambrose did.

 

[Top_Cat]

Interesting - I'm not a Garner expert but aren't you intimating that he tended to bowl differently for SA than how he typically did for WI?

Was all-out attack for WI too from what I remember/have read/seen on highlights. Hookesy highlighted it in his autobio, saying Garner was the attacking weapon with Rod Hogg doing a job at the other end (he took a ton of wickets that year too). He was just also very, very accurate.

Maybe someone who saw more of him live can confirm?

 

[Richard]

That's interesting, because as I've probably said before the way I understood it Garner was the Ambrose-style bore-merchant who bowled all day with less that was loose than a piece of barbed-wire, and Marshall and Holding were the real attacking bowlers who were able to concern themselves less with going for a few and just look for wickets.

 

[morgieb]

Steyn. He never used drugs.

 

[Streetwise]

Steyn. He never used drugs.

Thats a valid point. we know Asif used performance enhancing drugs to gain an unfair advantage.