Would Stuart Broad make India's strongest test XI?

[G.I.Joe]

Wtf, this isn't a comparison. The most common complaint about Broad is that he sometimes doesn't seem to pick up the wickets his bowling deserves and bowls a foot too short. The most common complaint about Ishant and Sreesanth is that they bowl horrible, ridiculous pies 90% of the time and have absurd no ball problems.

Did people just decide who was better 3 years ago and stick with their opinions in spite of Broad improving a ton and the other two turning to total ****?

Broad would make the Indian team on the basis of him being an as good a bowler as Sreesanth or Ishant (and thats debatable) and definitely a much better batsman. Indian supporters aren't satisfied with Ishant and Sreesanth, but Broad doesn't make a better case for himself based on just his bowling numbers.

 

[Uppercut]

Numbers are completely irrelevant here. Either you're using a lol sample size, or you're accounting for bowling that occured a couple of years ago when they were all entirely different bowlers.

 

[vcs]

Numbers are completely irrelevant here. Either you're using a lol sample size, or you're accounting for bowling that occured a couple of years ago when they were all entirely different bowlers.

Broad's dining out on the one good spell he bowls every series, just like the other two. Depends what you prefer.

 

[Spikey]

yes


but then i could make the indian team as a seamer

 

[G.I.Joe]

Numbers are completely irrelevant here. Either you're using a lol sample size, or you're accounting for bowling that occured a couple of years ago when they were all entirely different bowlers.

Are you suggesting that Broad's improved to a significant degree of late?

 

[Spark]

His numbers over the last year are/were quite good iirc.

 

[Uppercut]

Are you suggesting that Broad's improved to a significant degree of late?

I wouldn't say that, but he's far, far better than he was when he started his test career. Whereas for Ishant and Sreesanth, the opposite is true.

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Broad's dining out on the one good spell he bowls every series, just like the other two.

That is not a million miles away from the truth. But sometimes when Broad isn't incisive, he can religiously stick to that back-of-a-length bowling and indulge in a battle of attrition. That's what we saw in the Ashes down under.

I am not sure if Ishant and in particular, Sreesanth have that facet to their game. When they are atrocious, they always go for plenty. Sree strikes me as a bloke who doesn't even remotely understand the concept of having a stock delivery.

Let's be honest. None of these three men are exactly world beaters with the ball. It has to be a Zaheer, a Harbahajan, an Anderson or a Swann running through the side and the least we can expect from Broad is to maintain discipline and keep the batsmen honest.

 

[Spark]

In Brisbane he bowled 33 overs for about 80 runs iirc. Didn't get any/many wickets but he can blame fielders for that to some extent, as basically the only catches England dropped for the whole series were off his bowling if I'm correct.

 

[BoyBrumby]

His numbers over the last year are/were quite good iirc.

39.96 since 1st Jan 2010.

Marginally worse than Ishant (38.30), far better than Sree (45.95) for comparison.

Hasn't kicked on since The Oval in 2009, really.

 

[Spark]

Oh. It must have been over the previous summer (pre-Ashes) where his average was ~30.

He definitely bowled better than 2 wickets for however many runs he conceded in the Ashes, though. Better than Finn at Brisbane, as he kept it tight and did ask some questions, unlike Finn who until he cleaned up the lower order + tail bowled far too much dross which let Hussey/Haddin score runs aplenty.

 

[Howe_zat]

39.96 since 1st Jan 2010.

Marginally worse than Ishant (38.30), far better than Sree (45.95) for comparison.

Hasn't kicked on since The Oval in 2009, really.

I thought he'd cracked it about 6 months ago itbt. Took down SA in Durban and did some real damage in the 2010 summer. Over that period (Aug 2009 - Sep 2010) he got 45 wickets at 27 (and also averaged 26 with the bat). It seemed to be that he was half-decent on an off day an amazing that one time in a blue moon.

The fact that he seems to have woken up in 2008 this summer is what's worrying imo.

 

[Uppercut]

I brought those figures up in the Ashes subforum and everyone was surprised because they thought he'd been bowling much better than that.

I'm hardly a fan of bowlers who "seem" to be bowling well but aren't taking wickets, so I usually find myself downplaying Broad's abilities. But in this thread we're comparing him to bowlers that "seem" to be bowling like total clowns and are also not taking any wickets. Where's the comparison?

 

[vcs]

I thought he'd cracked it about 6 months ago itbt. Took down SA in Durban and did some real damage in the 2010 summer. Over that period (Aug 2009 - Sep 2010) he got 45 wickets at 27 (and also averaged 26 with the bat). It seemed to be that he was half-decent on an off day an amazing that one time in a blue moon.

The fact that he seems to have woken up in 2008 this summer is what's worrying imo.

So the thing that's going in his favour is that he's been **** for shorter than the other two (though he bowled to an inept Pakistani lineup in helpful conditions in that time when he was good). Fair enough if you consider the last 4-5 Tests just a bad spell and an interruption in his progress rather than a return to mean. It's too early to say though.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I wouldn't say that, but he's far, far better than he was when he started his test career. Whereas for Ishant and Sreesanth, the opposite is true.

For the sake of this comparison, its irrelevant how they compare to their former selves. What matters is simply how they compare to each other. You can't penalise a bowler for having a better start to his career than another if they're still performing equally well in recent times.

They have similar stats overall, so Broad has no claims to being an undeniably superior bowler there.

If you want to talk of improvement, they have similar stats over their last 10 matches, so Broad has no claims of being the undeniably superior bowler of the three in recent times too, although I'd put Ishant a wee bit behind Sreesanth and Broad there.

 

[Spark]

So the thing that's going in his favour is that he's been **** for shorter than the other two (though he bowled to an inept Pakistani lineup in helpful conditions in that time). Fair enough if you consider the last 4-5 Tests just a bad spell and an interruption in his progress rather than a return to mean. It's too early to say though.

He has been coming off an extended injury layoff tbf. He looks very rusty.

I mean the unusual thing is that he's not striking often and he's going round the park. He's a <2.5RPO bowler when he's bowling meh-OK. Sharma and Sree are not.

 

[Uppercut]

Ishant has the best figures of the three lately, incidentally. Despite that phase in South Africa where his pace dropped below 80mph and he bowled a no-ball every over.

Look, you have two things to work with- you can look at their stats, and you can watch them bowl. Everyone on CW uses a slightly different combination of the two, and bases their judgments around their own interpretations of what constitutes good evidence. That's where a lot of the disagreements pop up.

But in this case, it doesn't matter what your combination of the two is. Their stats are almost identical, so there's not much to go on there, and Broad indisputably looks like an infinitely better bowler. Where's the point of conflict? The only way you could make a case for either of the other two is by deciding that, despite a sample size of about half a match, the stats matter 100% and the perceived quality of their bowling matters 0%. It's just not close. If you think it is, I can only assume that you haven't watched them both bowl enough in the past 18 months.

 

[Jono]

If the last year is Broad seemingly bowling well without luck, I'd really hate to see him when he bowls poorly.

But even then he'd still make the Indian team.

 

[Jono]

I wouldn't say that, but he's far, far better than he was when he started his test career. Whereas for Ishant and Sreesanth, the opposite is true.

Completely irrelevant.

 

[Uppercut]

"Well" is a relative term. I really mean he hasn't been serving up facepalm-bowling like Sreesanth or Ishant.