Asif vs Steyn

[Richard]

We actually know nothing of the sort, we merely know that Asif was once (or was it twice?) caught with drugs that the Self Appointed Supreme Deity Of World Sport that is WADA deem to be illegally performance-enhancing. We don't know if they ever enhanced his performance.

It's unlikely they'd make that much impact anyway because it's pretty damn difficult to be all that much better than Asif's been so far in his career.

 

[HMas]

Steyn. He never used drugs.

Steyn was found positive for using drugs in IPL.

 

[Streetwise]

We actually know nothing of the sort, we merely know that Asif was once (or was it twice?) caught with drugs that the Self Appointed Supreme Deity Of World Sport that is WADA deem to be illegally performance-enhancing. We don't know if they ever enhanced his performance.

It's unlikely they'd make that much impact anyway because it's pretty damn difficult to be all that much better than Asif's been so far in his career.

You may not be convinced but I will never suscribe to the theory that he was hoping to gain a disadvantage.

 

[Streetwise]

Steyn was found positive for using drugs in IPL.

Were they performance enhancing?.

 

[akilana]

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.

Sorry Steyn has 193 wickets and he consistently bowled better than Asif.. and when Steyn has a bad match people write BS about it because they expect him to deliver in every single match. Steyn having 5-fer more frequently explains this. He doesn't get 10 wicket for a match and goes wicketless for next two. You can find Steyn's name in the leading wicket-taker for all completed series he's played in in the last two years.. I don't find any awful stuffs like I can find for Asif..

 

[HMas]

Were they performance enhancing?.

yes

 

[Richard]

You may not be convinced but I will never suscribe to the theory that he was hoping to gain a disadvantage.

Such a theory has not yet been perported by anyone, so that's no surprise.

 

[Richard]

Sorry Steyn has 193 wickets and he consistently bowled better than Asif..

No, he's consistently bowled much more overs than Asif, which is why he has so many more wickets. While Asif has wasted much of his career so far, Steyn has been playing and bowling well.

Asif nonetheless has still done damn well on the relatively rare occasions he's got on the park.

 

[Streetwise]

Such a theory has not yet been perported by anyone, so that's no surprise.

What reason do you think he would have been taking PED's then if not to gain an advantage.

 

[silentstriker]

Steyn was found positive for using drugs in IPL.

I don't really care who took what, but just for clarity, it was a painkiller (high levels of morphine) which was prescribed by his doctor and he had properly informed the doping authorities exactly what he was taking (in writing), and thus it was completely legal.

It was neither performance enhancing (Asif, Akhtar) nor a mask for a performance enhancing (Warne) drug.

 

[HMas]

I don't really care who took what, but just for clarity, it was a painkiller (high levels of morphine) which was prescribed by his doctor and he had properly informed the doping authorities exactly what he was taking (in writing), and thus it was completely legal.

It was neither performance enhancing (Asif, Akhtar) nor a mask for a performance enhancing (Warne) drug.

Steyn pain killer excuse was BS.If you accpet his excuse then Asif exucse of eye drops was also acceptable.

 

[silentstriker]

Steyn pain killer excuse was BS.If you accpet his excuse then Asif exucse of eye drops was also acceptable.

No, you misunderstand. The substance that was found in Asif's system increased performance. The substance found in Steyn's system alleviated headaches.

The product Asif took was illegal by WADA standards. The product that Steyn took is legal according to WADA.

Asif did not inform his doctors or the ICC anti-drug groups what he was taking, and it would not have been approved if he had told them about it. Steyn had a written record informing them exactly what he was taking and why he was taking, and it was approved. The only reason Steyn's tests came back positive is because the substance he took went by a different label in India compared to SA, so the testing laboratory did not recognize the substance and realize that it was causing the increased levels of morphine.

There is a very clear difference between Steyn and Asif/Akhtar/Warne. And it's funny I'm making the distinction, because I don't really care at all about performance enhancing drugs in general.

 

[Black_Warrior]

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.

Actually I havent seen a lot of Walsh. I have seen him from 97-2000 when he retired. But if what you are saying is true, that he didnt care about taking wickets and stuff..my question is..he still managed to take 519 wickets??

 

[JBH001]

Asif for mine. Although there isnt much in it.

 

[longtom]

I don't think this is a apple versa apple comparison. The amount of test matches played is just to different between the two.

I reckon your quality shows over a considerable amount of time, otherwise you might be classified as a flash in a pan. I am not saying Asif is that and I have seen him in other forms of cricket doing very well when the conditions were conducive for his type of bowling.

However, I have also seen him being somewhat ordinary when they don't.

Putting the issues of tests played aside, I believe the ability of Steyn to perform well in conditions not suiting his style of bowling gives him the edge.

If one takes the reduced samples of Asif into account, there is no contest for mine.

 

[NasserFan207]

Steyn is far more dangerous. Asif when he first burst on the scene would make a stronger case, but he's missing that zip these days. Still a good bowler with an excellent cricket brain, but not as dangerous as Steyn.

I rate quite a few young fast bowlers in world cricket above Asif.

 

[L Trumper]

Actually I havent seen a lot of Walsh. I have seen him from 97-2000 when he retired. But if what you are saying is true, that he didnt care about taking wickets and stuff..my question is..he still managed to take 519 wickets??

His durability and ability to bowl longest of spells helped him a lot. He endured 17 years of cricket as a quick bowler. About 270 wickets came in latter part of his career (since 96). Adding the fact that he had couple of very good years at the start of his career where he averaged round about 20 you can see how he get all those wickets. He played 35 more tests than ambrose mostly at the start and end of his career in which he is genuine wicket taking prospect but still have only 100 more wics than his partner.
But he did care about taking wickets but for the first part of his career he is more of an intimidating one.

 

[Manee]

Also you mention pace - well pace changes over a career, and all the very best bowlers have shown that pace is only a minor ingredient in success by continuing to achieve as much (sometimes even more) success after their pace has slowed. How fast you bowl is irrelevant to how good you are if you're truly top-notch.

True. Steyn has shown himself to take wickets at 145kph and 135kph and I have seen him take a five wicket haul operating at just 130kph against Pakistan. With him, I feel that the areas and swing are more important to him than the speed. The speed can help when he bowls a bouncer or skittles the tail with some reverse swing, but against quality batsmen, it seems all about getting that out swinger in the right area.

Steyn is an all-out attack bowler and while he bowls fewer bad deliveries at the present time than in say 2006 he still bowls plenty enough of them and with his low-slung action will always have a small margin-for-error. Yes he does indeed have the ability to think and to use a wide range of attacking tools but he is and in my book would do best to always remain a bowler who just attacks and doesn't worry about conceding runs.

But is that a problem when you have such an astonishing strike rate? It is the analogy of a bowler who is about 10mph quicker than the level he is playing (youth cricket or low level club cricket) - he'll go for runs bowling half volleys, trying to bowl batsmen, but he'll end up with a superb strike rate and strong average and when it is all said and done, you cannot complain whilst he is doing that. On the other hand, I can complain, because he's doing it to my team.

Asif is good, but Steyn is better.

Asif is very good, Steyn is better, would be a more accurate summary, imo. I believe both to be a league above all other fast bowlers currently operating on the international circuit, with the possible exception of Morne Morkel and Zaheer Khan, where I'd render the margin slightly smaller.

Just noticed, Steyn has a wpm of 5.2 to Asif's 4.88. Asif bowls 4 overs extra per match. That certainly makes it a tad more interesting.

It does, very much so.

Steyn is far more dangerous. Asif when he first burst on the scene would make a stronger case, but he's missing that zip these days. Still a good bowler with an excellent cricket brain, but not as dangerous as Steyn.

I rate quite a few young fast bowlers in world cricket above Asif.

I'd rate just the one above Asif. I remain unconvinced that he has lost any 'zip' until he stops taking wickets at a good rate.

 

[Richard]

What reason do you think he would have been taking PED's then if not to gain an advantage.

It's perfectly possible he didn't even know he was taking them. The fact is no-one will ever know, except Asif himself, whether the things were taken deliberately or not.

If the substance is not taken deliberately there can be no motive or reason.

 

[Richard]

Actually I havent seen a lot of Walsh. I have seen him from 97-2000 when he retired. But if what you are saying is true, that he didnt care about taking wickets and stuff..my question is..he still managed to take 519 wickets??

Oh I certainly never said Walsh didn't care about taking wickets. I simply said he cared about it - and bowling economically - less than those who he complimented in the bowling-attack for the majority of his career (ie, 1986/87-1997) - Marshall, Gray (very briefly in that case), Winston Benjamin, Bishop, Ambrose. He was always quite capable of taking wickets off his own back, but as I said, his role in the attack was often delegated as the scalpal, who would pummel the batsmen and attempt to "rough-up" them for Bishop, Ambrose etc. And it was a role Walsh was happy to play - he was more concerned with the team than his own figures. He didn't care if he only got very good figures while Bishop got brilliant ones - as long as it turned-out well for the team. And so it did.