Ishant Sharma vs Stuart Broad - Test bowler

[Sir Alex]

Who is the better of the two at this point in time?

Both broke in fairly young into the test teams around at the same time. Both have had their moments against Australia. Both have shown inconsistencies in their performances which have largely the reason behind their averages being around 35 after about a quarter century of tests.

Ishant Sharma - 23 tests, 66 wickets @ 34.93, SR - 64, Age 21
Stuart Broad - 28 tests, 83 wickets @ 36.15, SR - 67.3, Age 24

 

[Matt79]

Seemed to be moving in different directions as bowlers when last I saw each of them play...

 

[Jono]

I would think Broad is better at this stage, but I do think it is relevant to look at the pitches Ishant has bowled on.

They're the same pitches Sehwag has batted on for the record

 

[marc71178]

So flat whenever Sehwag scored runs and green whenever he didn't?

 

[Sir Alex]

Seemed to be moving in different directions as bowlers when last I saw each of them play...

In 2010,

Broad - 10 wickets @ 49.2 from 4 matches
Sharma - 12 wickets @ 37.25 from 4 matches



Both played 2 tests each vs SA and Ban. Broad played 2 in SA FTR while Ishant played in India.

 

[Xuhaib]

Ishant has tad more potential but Broad plays on more pace bowling friendly wickets expect then to average 28-32 by the time they retire at 300+ wickets eack.

 

[Sir Alex]

I would think Broad is better at this stage, but I do think it is relevant to look at the pitches Ishant has bowled on.

They're the same pitches Sehwag has batted on for the record

I think this is classic case of mixing up ODI/T20 performances with test performances. Ishant has been much better (tbh both have been fairly below average to dire) in recent times. People don't hesitate to slag Ishant just because he's been poo in the IPL and ODI batathons in the subcontinent, but forget what a tremendous job he has done in his relatively young age.

 

[Xuhaib]

its not the lack of wickets that is giving Ishant the bad reps these days its his general bowling which has been pretty poor even in test cricket.Even in his first series he took 6@62 but it was how he bowled not how many wickets he took that earned him such rave reviews.

 

[Furball]

Who is the better of the two at this point in time?

Both broke in fairly young into the test teams around at the same time. Both have had their moments against Australia. Both have shown inconsistencies in their performances which have largely the reason behind their averages being around 35 after about a quarter century of tests.

Ishant Sharma - 23 tests, 66 wickets @ 34.93, SR - 64, Age 21
Stuart Broad - 28 tests, 83 wickets @ 36.15, SR - 67.3, Age 24

Broad hasn't been inconsistent. He debuted too soon, showed some glimpses of promise but didn't really put in any consistent performances, until the West Indies away series. His series figures aren't flattering, but that tour was played on the worst pitches I've ever seen.

In 2009, Broad was excellent and his star is definitely rising.

 

[Jono]

I think this is classic case of mixing up ODI/T20 performances with test performances. Ishant has been much better (tbh both have been fairly below average to dire) in recent times. People don't hesitate to slag Ishant just because he's been poo in the IPL and ODI batathons in the subcontinent, but forget what a tremendous job he has done in his relatively young age.

Not really. They're both nothing special right now. Just young talents. I just think Broad looks a bit better. But I think he's played on more bowler friendly wickets which causes that.

 

[Teja.]

Don't see much potential in Ishant tbh. Sreesanth is definitely the better bowler to carry the bowling in the future IMO. For this one, Broad.

 

[Furball]

Not really. They're both nothing special right now. Just young talents. I just think Broad looks a bit better. But I think he's played on more bowler friendly wickets which causes that.

Yeah, those pitches in the West Indies were a batsman's nightmare...

 

[Xuhaib]

interms of young talent Roach and Aamer look more promising to me then these two.

If I have to give rating just based on potential.

Roach
Aaimir
Ishant
Broad
Southee
Finn
Parnell

 

[Sir Alex]

its not the lack of wickets that is giving Ishant the bad reps these days its his general bowling which has been pretty poor even in test cricket.Even in his first series he took 6@62 but it was how he bowled not how many wickets he took that earned him such rave reviews.

Yes, agreed he hasn't been great in test cricket these days but then he's only an upcoming bowler. Sometimes (like in Aus or the recent Kolkota test), he has turned in matchturning spells without success that ideally should've been associated with such efforts as well.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, those pitches in the West Indies were a batsman's nightmare...

Yes, good point.

No reason to be snide and sarcastic though.

 

[Sir Alex]

Broad hasn't been inconsistent. He debuted too soon, showed some glimpses of promise but didn't really put in any consistent performances, until the West Indies away series. His series figures aren't flattering, but that tour was played on the worst pitches I've ever seen.

In 2009, Broad was excellent and his star is definitely rising.

And he has turned in some indifferent performances in SA and Bangladesh. (see 2010 figures above), which is why I was saying he's still inconsistent.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Sharma. Promising though Broad is, nobody (read: nobody) has pwned Ponting as emphatically as Sharma did in Sydney, except for maybe Harbhajan in 2001 - and Sharma's effort is probably more telling since Ponting's among the best players of pace (at least compared to spin) in the modern era. If he ever reaches that potential again he'll be world-class even in the Richard sense, one feels.

Broad is well and good in spurts, but he's never been a go-to player for an entire series like Sharma was.

 

[pasag]

Sharma. Promising though Broad is, nobody (read: nobody) has pwned Ponting as emphatically as Sharma did in Sydney, except for maybe Harbhajan in 2001 - and Sharma's effort is probably more telling since Ponting's among the best players of pace (at least compared to spin) in the modern era. If he ever reaches that potential again he'll be world-class even in the Richard sense, one feels.

Broad is well and good in spurts, but he's never been a go-to player for an entire series like Sharma was.

Yeah but it was one series. The guy had one amazing spell and was overhyped for about a year afterwards.

Anyways, Ponting has been pwnd by other players before and since, Bond, Taylor never comfortable against Aamer either.

Still Sharma for me although Aamer miles ahead of both of these.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah but it was one series. The guy had one amazing spell and was overhyped for about a year afterwards.

15 wickets @ 27 in India's 2-0 win over Australia did add to the expectations imho

 

[tooextracool]

Sharma. Promising though Broad is, nobody (read: nobody) has pwned Ponting as emphatically as Sharma did in Sydney, except for maybe Harbhajan in 2001 - and Sharma's effort is probably more telling since Ponting's among the best players of pace (at least compared to spin) in the modern era. If he ever reaches that potential again he'll be world-class even in the Richard sense, one feels.

Broad is well and good in spurts, but he's never been a go-to player for an entire series like Sharma was.

I presume you were referring to Sharma's spell to Ponting at Perth rather than Sydney. Anyhow as good as that spell was, Sharma ended the series with an average hovering at nearly 60, so as good as his one spell was, theres no reason to put it on a pedestal especially given what hes been serving up lately. I don't really see what the hype about Sharma is. Perhaps he might get better in the future, but hes clearly been nothing short of abysmal thus far in his career, minus the odd good spell. When he manages to run through a side, and not just one batsman, in the manner in which Broad did at the Oval, then give me a call. Until then hes overrated in my book.

Not that I think that Broad is particularly brilliant. Just that at this stage in their respective careers there is no real comparison.