Would Stuart Broad make India's strongest test XI?

[vcs]

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.

Did you not watch Sreesanth bowl that ball to Kallis? He looks very good when he gets it right, much better than I've ever seen Broad look. Happens once in a blue moon obviously, but that's beside the point.

 

[Uppercut]

Completely irrelevant.

It was only relevant because someone brought up their career averages.

 

[Jono]

Was pretty close to face palm in the 2nd test at times imo.

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

There's no point to looking a million bucks if you haven't the numbers in the last column to match. Broad might look more incisive than ever before, but that doesn't make him a better bowler than someone who looks rubbish but pulls out the same numbers over a sample size that, despite your claims, is much closer to significance than half a match.

What are your thoughts on Sobers vs Kallis?

 

[centurymaker]

Broad would be the safer bet, if you had to play one of these 3 bowlers.

 

[Uppercut]

Did you not watch Sreesanth bowl that ball to Kallis? He looks very good when he gets it right, much better than I've ever seen Broad look. Happens once in a blue moon obviously, but that's beside the point.

Then you didn't watch Broad at Durban the year before.

 

[centurymaker]

There's no point to looking a million bucks if you haven't the numbers in the last column to match. Broad might look more incisive than ever before, but that doesn't make him a better bowler than someone who looks rubbish but pulls out the same numbers over a sample size that, despite your claims, is much closer to significance than half a match.

What are your thoughts on Sobers vs Kallis?

It's not all about the numbers, he may actually be helping the other bowlers by bowling better (by keeping the pressure on).

 

[Uppercut]

There's no point to looking a million bucks if you haven't the numbers in the last column to match. Broad might look more incisive than ever before, but that doesn't make him a better bowler than someone who looks rubbish but pulls out the same numbers over a sample size that, despite your claims, is much closer to significance than half a match.

Well then you are indeed deciding that, over a sample size of about ten matches, stats matter 100% and perceived bowling matters 0%. Which is, as I say, the only real way you could make a case for either Ishant or Sree being better bowlers than Broad.

But that does make it seem strange that you rate Ishant lowest (despite having the best figures of the three) and Sree highest (despite having the worst figures of the three).

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's not all about the numbers, he may actually be helping the other bowlers by bowling better (by keeping the pressure on).

Depends on what sort of bowler you prefer. Broad has a better ER of late than Sharma and Sreesanth, so that could be the case. But then, Sharma and Sreesanth (in particular) have better strike rates over the same period, which suggests they've tended to favour wicket taking over keeping it tight.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Well then you are indeed deciding that, over a sample size of about ten matches, stats matter 100% and perceived bowling matters 0%. Which is, as I say, the only real way you could make a case for either Ishant or Sree being better bowlers than Broad.

But that does make it seem strange that you rate Ishant lowest (despite having the best figures of the three) and Sree highest (despite having the worst figures of the three).

Sreesanth has had the best strike rate of the three (64 against Ishant's 68 and Broad's 72).

 

[Spark]

When their averages are so poor I'd lean towards the keep-it-tight bowler tbh.

 

[centurymaker]

When their averages are so poor I'd lean towards the keep-it-tight bowler tbh.

Yea build up pressure, but sreesanth might be a good bet if the conditions are helpful.
Don't know what shape ishant is in to make a proper judgement on him. Has he got his speed back?

 

[Howe_zat]

Kind of echoes England's own Broad v Finn debate.

 

[Spark]

Yea build up pressure, but sreesanth might be a good bet if the conditions are helpful.
Don't know what shape ishant is in to make a proper judgement on him. Has he got his speed back?

But the thing is that happens so rarely that Broad's lack of being an extreme liability (that he's supposed to have) in between counts in his favour.

 

[jeevan]

A full strength India ought to play 5 bowlers or 4 bowlers + an all rounder. Broad makes an excellent case for India playing 3 pacers + 2 spinners always.

 

[NasserFan207]

Broad has an excellent bowler's mentality, good height and is capable of 'bowling to a plan'.

These are all good things to have, but just from watching him I get the impression that his actual bowling skill is rather low. Sreesanth and Sharma both have more potential imo.

That's not necessarily a knock on Broad however, I feel like it may be due to him starting late as a bowler, he seems to be gradually improving and will continue to do so as he gains experience, but the jury is still out.

The question is whether India has better long term options (I think England definitely has better long term options). Like I said, Sharma and Sreesanth both have more potential but I'm becoming less and less confident about either of them fullfilling it, and they seem to actually be regressing/stagnating.

 

[hang on]

yes. he would make the indian team given the form of indian pacers barring zaheer. i think, based on what i have seen, that sharma and sreesanth have more potential than him. but broad is a faster bowler and is more aggressive.

perhaps the series in england would help to decide this.

 

[Bun]

Yes.

Even if one rates Ishant as a better bowler (I don't), he's better than Sree, Larry, Curly or Moe or whoever takes the third seamer's spot.

don't agree. sree is better than broad and so is ishant. broad's batting however tilts him to be favored while playing on un swinging conditions. sree wud get the axe then.

 

[Teja.]

Uppercut, I'd argue that Sree has bowled some absolutely beautiful spells to not deserved effect in the past year too. Mohali, second Innings-lower order, NZ - 3rd test, second Innings to the top 3-4. Also pretty much all of his wickets in SA were top order batsman. It isn't a broad as daylight case as make it out to be. I'd have them about equal right now. Broad still wins on batting ability though.

Ishant is a **** **** and shouldn't be in this debate. His stats are massively boosted by knocking out the tail and injured McCullum and taking 8 wickets in the third test against NZ.

 

[GIMH]

Broad's bad run isn't five Tests, it's two, maybe three if he doesn't step up tomorrow (or today if they come back on).

If you wanna purely play cricket-by-numbers, then sure he had a poor Ashes. However, he bowled well. He didn't let us down over there and it was a worry when he went down with the sidestrain. Prior to that, he averaged something pretty low against Pakistan.

He does need to step up, and soon. There are very good alternatives available, Finn really bowled well from day three onwards at Lord's, Bresnan is quality. But this thread isn't about whether he should be in the England XI.

He'd walk into the India side. As would Anderson, Tremlett, Finn, Bresnan, Shazhad, Onions etc