Would Stuart Broad make India's strongest test XI?

[GotSpin]

What happend in 07/08?

I'm still waiting for some warnings and infraction points to clear up but I'll be all guns blazing soon

 

[Burgey]

What happend in 07/08?

I'm still waiting for some warnings and infraction points to clear up but I'll be all guns blazing soon

India lost another Test series in Australia. They didn't much care for it.

 

[GotSpin]

India lost another Test series in Australia. They didn't much care for it.

Someone had to say it

In other news, Bhaji makes a mockery out of the 400+ wicket taking list

 

[Burgey]

Someone had to say it

In other news, Bhaji makes a mockery out of the 400+ wicket taking list

Think that's a bit like Lee and the 300 plus list tbh.

 

[Borges]

I've finally figured out how to make sense out of this thread. Take each poster in isolation, and we get cause for amusement: some worthies claiming that Broad is or close to being an all time great, while others claim that he is no better than Unadkat.

The trick is to realise than Bun and Burgey are two sides of the very same coin; that together they produce something meaningful. Average out the delightful Burgey-Conjencture and the entertaining Bun-Proposition and we get something meaningful - the profound Bun-Burgey-Hypotheses: Broad is my no means great, but he isn't terrible either.

 

[Spark]

A match truly made in hell

 

[Burgey]

Stuart Broad: Not Terrible.

It's the old damning with faint praise thing, innit?

 

[Eloquentia]

Just going to deconstruct your ridiculous argument.

no not clearly he is better than habry.

also he is well behind ishant sharma now. both have played comparable games, taken comparable wickets, and ishant is leading him by more than 4 points.

Why is he well behind Ishant now? If wickets and average was the ultimate definition of a cricketer's success, then ratings of past players would be very different. While I agree, Ishant and Broad do share some similarities in the way they bowl, I think their respective roles are quite different, and thus while averages and wickets can help in determining the difference between them - it is not the be all and end all.

What you also need to remember, is that an average is a statistical record of a players wickets to runs conceeded, over the entirety of a career. It does not consider the progression of a player, nor does it consider changes in form.

Consider this:

Sharma
2009: 4 tests, 10 wickets @46.9 - 3.68 economy
2010: 11 tests, 33 wickets @37.6 - 3.83 economy
2011: 4 tests, 24 wickets @18.1 - 3.05 economy

Broad
2009: 14 tests, 47 wickets @ 28.4 - 3.16 economy
2010: 10 tests, 26 wickets @ 37.7 - 2.94 economy
2011: 3 tests, 8 wickets @ 48.8 - 3.27 economy

Taking out the first two years of their international careers makes the averages far more relevant - 2007/08 are almost irrelevant to how good a player is now. Note how the averages are far closer excluding those years, showing the average gap is far different from the four points you mentioned earlier.

Also note how Broad's economy is generally far better - India, if Sreesanth is played with Khan, are not in need of another strike bowler - a containing bowler would be better.

It is also worth acknowledging that Broad has only played three tests this year - that is not a great enough sample size to definitively judge somebody's class and form if it is poor. However, I will concede that 3/4 matches is easier to decide whether someone is in good form - as it shows. You can just tell, like you can tell that Sharma is in form now.

However, they say, form is temporary, class is permanent - hence why reading into a relatively recent time frame is a far better way to determine someone's class. That's if you think stats are the be all and end all, which you seem to. I however, do now.

Yet again though, if I take your argument about stats, and apply it to Broad v Harbhajan in batting, look at it. Broad's average is far above Harbhajan. He is also not a mindless slogger - hence why Mitchell Johnson will never be an allrounder. Broad actually exhibits signs of having a technique, and having potential with his batting.

sreesanth too by talent alone is better than broad, just that his avg is hurt real bad because of some absolute roads (check his record in matches whcih produced a result vs which didnt)....

I'd like you to tell me what talent is. Who defines talent? What is it? What gives Sreesanth more than Broad?

While I agree - if I recall Sreesanth had a spell in South Africa in which he was just unplayable. He's a class act at times, but again, he's a liability most of the time. At least with Broad, on his bad days, you know what you'll get, and he at least can hold down an end. I guess the question is, at what point does prodigious talent become void if not utilised - and in Sreesanth's case, it's an important question.

Regarding the point about roads - truly great bowlers take wickets on any pitch. Remember what cricket is, it's a game where a ball is hurled down a piece of grass, for a batsman to hit. Looking at that, it seems as if pitches are garnered to give the bowler a bit - an absolute road is where the real class cricketers show that they are exactly that. If Sreesanth can't bowl on a road, then, what use is he - especially when most pitches nowadays are roads. Broad's average I'm sure has also been hurt by some roads.

Addressing the point about Sreesanth's matches producing a result - has it occured to you that the reason they don't produce a result is that India's bowlers are incapable of bowling on a 'road' - or just lack the class to take the wickets. Sreesanth is a reason why these matches often end in draws - because often, he doesn't take wickets.

praveen kumar swings it much better and is not unidimensional like broad is. burgey may be capable of bowling faster than him, but so too can tait.

Personally, I feel Kumar is a better one day bowler - I'd like to see him out of the test setup ASAP. Trying to argue that Kumar is a better test player than broad is like trying to argue that Tait is a better test player than Broad - you almost answered it yourself.

Broad is hardly one-dimensional. He's hot and cold, I'll agree, but he has a plan B. Kumar I'd go close to saying is actually more one dimensional. When we're talking about Broad, speed isn't really important, as Broad doesn't really use speed to get his wickets.

broad will be competing with likes of mithun, unadkat, etc had he been indian

Those guys are both sub 130 kilometre plodders who do barely nothing to the ball. Being compared to them is embarrassing.

------------

Note: I actually rate Sharma and Sreesanth despite my repeated bashing of them.

 

[vcs]

I think we're at cross purposes.

I'm not saying Broad is a modern great. I'm saying if he was Indian he'd be a modern great seamer by their generally pop gun standards.

As for the spinning issue, I disagree with you as to those bowlers being loads better than some Australian spinners of the past two decades, especially away from India. Though I would certainly concede they are a lot better than anyone we've had since the merry-go-round started post-Warne.

If the stick the average Indian seamer gets on here is any indication (Bangladesh-standard without Zaheer), no, no he certainly wouldn't. FTR, Ishant and Sreesanth aren't considered modern-day great seamers even by Indian fans. I'm happy to admit we haven't had any "great" seamers since Kapil Dev. That doesn't make a Broad-standard seamer great if he played for India, though.

 

[GIMH]

Ah, I see. When I say 'India fans' have said something because multiple India fans have said something, I'm generalising and stereotyping.

But when one poster states that the India attack sans Zaheer is Bangladesh standard, it's brought up in every thread.

Double standards and I ain't surprised

 

[Cevno]

Eloquentia ,while i disagree with what Bun was saying in rubishing Broad or saying he was far behind the other bowlers ,you are doing the Indian bowlers a big disservice in that post and engaging in equal selective statistical selection.
And don't think the Class and form argument applied in this instance as they are all relatively equal and still developing bowlers.

 

[Eloquentia]

Eloquentia ,while i disagree with what Bun was saying in rubishing Broad or saying he was far behind the other bowlers ,you are doing the Indian bowlers a big disservice in that post and engaging in equal selective statistical selection.

I'll pose some questions. How am I doing them a dis-service? The aim of my post was to highlight that Broad isn't as bad as Bun claims - in doing so, I compared them to some Indians. I fully admit that I think Sharma and Sreesanth are decent bowlers - but I'd like to see more of Sharma's current form...A la Broad in 2009, before passing him off as being 'class' and not 'temporary form'

Regarding the statistical selection - I'm not being selective about it, I'm just refuting the claim that an average is an accurate standard of a player now (because, realistically, when selecting a team - the future is what you're selecting it for - 5 years ago shouldn't come in to the equation)...and presenting my alternative - a three year rolling average, and using my proposed module to back up my claims.

While yes, the module is 'my own,' therefore isn't perfect, I believe it is a better way of determining class (if you wish to use stats) than a 'career average'

Personally though, the best tool to determine class is the human eye, not stats.

And don't think the Class and form argument applied in this instance as they are all relatively equal and still developing bowlers.

Let's just reference

So are you telling me that it is fair to judge them selectively when Broad is on form while the Indian bowlers are not , but not fair to judge selectively when Broad is **** and Indian bowlers in form?
I say we need to be balanced both ways.

You seem to be contradicting yourself? Or have I misunderstood.

While I agree, they both are developing - their 'class' has begun to show at this stage.

 

[vcs]

Ah, I see. When I say 'India fans' have said something because multiple India fans have said something, I'm generalising and stereotyping.

But when one poster states that the India attack sans Zaheer is Bangladesh standard, it's brought up in every thread.

Double standards and I ain't surprised

Jeez, why are you taking this personally? It's my opinion that Indian seamers get unfair stick on here (regardless of fan-base). How is that stereotyping any fan-base? That Bangladesh comment was just an example. If you make a **** comment, you'll get reminded of it.. that's how internet forums work.

 

[GIMH]

A - It wasn't me who said it, so I'm not taking it personally
B - Your post implied it was a typical comment

 

[vcs]

The rolleyes seemed to indicate you were having a go at me.

Well, I do think my point was valid (and the example was relevant in that case) to prove that he'd be far from regarded as "great" just in case he had been Indian. This applies to Indian fans, as well as others, in my view.

 

[Spark]

Quality posting by the new boy on the block. Think a few more established people could take notes, tbh.

 

[Burgey]

Quality posting by the new boy on the block. Think a few more established people could take notes, tbh.

Yes, yes I quite agree. They should.

 

[Cevno]

I'll pose some questions. How am I doing them a dis-service? The aim of my post was to highlight that Broad isn't as bad as Bun claims - in doing so, I compared them to some Indians. I fully admit that I think Sharma and Sreesanth are decent bowlers - but I'd like to see more of Sharma's current form...A la Broad in 2009, before passing him off as being 'class' and not 'temporary form'

Sharma's form in the last year despite 2 bad series has now matched Broad's form in 2009.
To quote myself -

Sreesanth averaged 24.37 in 2006 taking 35 wickets ,while exactly a year from today till now Ishant is averaging 27.26 with 45 wickets.
While your argument is centered around Broad averaging 28.36 in 2009.

And to quote VCS now -

Irrespective of his fantastic average in the current series, many Indian fans believe Ishant was actually bowling better against Australia-England in late 2008 (decent batting lineups on less responsive tracks), averaging mid-20s in that period. So I don't think it's fair to say that Ishant has never matched Broad's peak, statistically or otherwise.

So that is a bit innacurate statement in itself.

Regarding the statistical selection - I'm not being selective about it, I'm just refuting the claim that an average is an accurate standard of a player now (because, realistically, when selecting a team - the future is what you're selecting it for - 5 years ago shouldn't come in to the equation)...and presenting my alternative - a three year rolling average, and using my proposed module to back up my claims.

You are saying that 2009 should count but not 2008 for some reason and that is being selective.
Also Ishant only played 4 tests due to Injury in that period ,so that really proves nothing.


Then you say the following things -

Also note how Broad's economy is generally far better - India, if Sreesanth is played with Khan, are not in need of another strike bowler - a containing bowler would be better.

Well first of all the difference in economy is not that huge and secondly Ishant and Zaheer are almost guaranteed starters for India after the tour Sharma is having in the Windies right now.

While I agree - if I recall Sreesanth had a spell in South Africa in which he was just unplayable. He's a class act at times, but again, he's a liability most of the time. At least with Broad, on his bad days, you know what you'll get, and he at least can hold down an end. I guess the question is, at what point does prodigious talent become void if not utilised - and in Sreesanth's case, it's an important question.

Regarding the point about roads - truly great bowlers take wickets on any pitch. Remember what cricket is, it's a game where a ball is hurled down a piece of grass, for a batsman to hit. Looking at that, it seems as if pitches are garnered to give the bowler a bit - an absolute road is where the real class cricketers show that they are exactly that. If Sreesanth can't bowl on a road, then, what use is he - especially when most pitches nowadays are roads. Broad's average I'm sure has also been hurt by some roads.

Addressing the point about Sreesanth's matches producing a result - has it occured to you that the reason they don't produce a result is that India's bowlers are incapable of bowling on a 'road' - or just lack the class to take the wickets. Sreesanth is a reason why these matches often end in draws - because often, he doesn't take wickets.


Personally, I feel Kumar is a better one day bowler - I'd like to see him out of the test setup ASAP. Trying to argue that Kumar is a better test player than broad is like trying to argue that Tait is a better test player than Broad - you almost answered it yourself.

Broad is hardly one-dimensional. He's hot and cold, I'll agree, but he has a plan B. Kumar I'd go close to saying is actually more one dimensional. When we're talking about Broad, speed isn't really important, as Broad doesn't really use speed to get his wickets.

Those guys are both sub 130 kilometre plodders who do barely nothing to the ball. Being compared to them is embarrassing.

All of this is bashing Indian bowlers to make Broad look better or something.
When there is no need to do it.

I particularly disagree with your points on Praveen Kumar who can be very useful with the red ball in certain conditions and also on certain points about Sreesanth who also remember here you are comparing to Broad who himself has not come anywhere near to achieving his potential at the moment ,not some great consistent bowler.

While i agree with the crux of your argument that Ishant or Sreesanth or Praveen are all in the same ballpark as Broad ,i don't agree with the arguments you are using there to show it.

 

[Furball]

So skittling a hopeless West Indian line up is the same as bowling match winning spells against Australia and South Africa?

Ok then.

 

[Cevno]

Let's just reference

You seem to be contradicting yourself? Or have I misunderstood.

While I agree, they both are developing - their 'class' has begun to show at this stage.

The context in which you were using that comment was as if to state that even in patches Broad had shown way more class than Sharma or Sreesanth which is untrue.

This was what i was disagreeing with and though the form part applies there is no difference in class as such which has been evident so far.
I'll mantain Ishant has the best potential of the 3 according to me though ,and have been doing so for a long while now even in the toughest of times.