Would Stuart Broad make India's strongest test XI?

[Jacknife]

What is the average of Broad in Bangladesh ?

Why couldn't England beat WI last time when they toured there ?

Agree comparing a side which hasn't won a series against India in last 15 years is a big joke to a side which has won twice is big joke.

What has any of what you posted, have to do with the post you've quoted?

 

[hang on]

And as far as flat tracks are concerned (*fifty-one all out* *cough*), Ishant has bowled on more than his fair share of flat pitches, incredible as it may sound!

that was a one off collapse and so didn't want to bring it up. but bang on about the second part! some massive collective amnesia here about that, strangely.

 

[square]

OK let's remove weak sides. Check the average of Swann against top 3 sides. He is a pathetic bowler if you remove weak sides

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


But hey Pakistan and Bangladesh have strong batting because Swann took wickets against them.But WI is bad because, Ishant took against them.

Btw i checked that even Anderson doesn't have good figures against top 3 sides.

Oh ho. Looks like Ashes can't hide years of mediocrity of ANDERSON and SWANN.

 

[GIMH]

Anyone who disputes the flatness of the pitches served up once we went one down in the Windies is just being obtuse. Broad was magnificent in that series.

And Sharma has been in this one.

 

[hang on]

Anyone who disputes the flatness of the pitches served up once we went one down in the Windies is just being obtuse. Broad was magnificent in that series.

And Sharma has been in this one.

Magnificent might be overegging it, but he was good. Not disputing the flatness of pitches. Watched it all. But the flat pitch excuse goes both ways.

And I have been impressed with the way Sharma has bowled too, albeit against a weaker team. Again, magnificent would be a bit OTT!

 

[Blaze 18]

No-one's denying the pitches were flat, just that Ishant Sharma's played a lot on these flat tracks as well. His very first (and only match) against Pakistan was on a dead pitch (very unlike the ones Broad had in the home series against Pakistan last year) in Bangalore. India and Pakistan scored about six hundred each in their respective first innings IIRC and Ishant Sharma got a fiver in that game.

 

[GIMH]

My point about people ignoring the flatness was aimed at whoever brought 51 all out up.

I think Broad was magnificent. Before then he hadn't done a lot to show that he should even be playing Tests. More experienced bowlers than him struggled with the conditions, but Broad managed to keep control and take his wickets at 30. When you're talking about a series where 500 was below par that's no mean feat.

Seem to remember Anderson being okay as well but I do recall he was disgracefully dropped for one game during the series.

People say NZ08 was when the attack changed but really Windies 09 was the changing of the guard. Broad made his name, Swann got Panesar's place and never looked back, and Anderson was dropped for the final time as they realised it was a bad idea. Core of the attack settled there.

 

[hang on]

fair enough. still think that bresnan should play in his stead. and onions, if he gets back to full fitness.

 

[Manee]

I'd like to hear from Sideshow Mel.

 

[Cruxdude]

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

Ok then.

A man of the series performance in a home test series against Australia (IIRC the first MOTS performance by an Indian fast bowler in India since Kapil) and other performances that VCS has mentioned earlier.

On current form Broad will not make the Indian team for the England series regardless of him being hypothetically better than India's top seamers in the last 20 years.

 

[Uppercut]

My point about people ignoring the flatness was aimed at whoever brought 51 all out up.

I think Broad was magnificent. Before then he hadn't done a lot to show that he should even be playing Tests. More experienced bowlers than him struggled with the conditions, but Broad managed to keep control and take his wickets at 30. When you're talking about a series where 500 was below par that's no mean feat.

Seem to remember Anderson being okay as well but I do recall he was disgracefully dropped for one game during the series.

People say NZ08 was when the attack changed but really Windies 09 was the changing of the guard. Broad made his name, Swann got Panesar's place and never looked back, and Anderson was dropped for the final time as they realised it was a bad idea. Core of the attack settled there.

Broad didn't really make his name in the West Indies because not many people watched much of the cricket. Quite understandably too. Hence there was a period where everyone was insisting he was useless and very few of us were defending him.

I wouldn't say he was magnificent, but he justified his place for the first time. The pitches were unbelievably slow, the West Indies (and their groundsmen) were content to play for a draw after taking the first test, the weather was quite a bit too hot for cricket and for some reason Ramnaresh Sarwan temporarily turned into Don Bradman for the entirety of the series. For the Antigua test England had no supporters at the ground because it was shifted a few days forward after a pitch-related balls-up, but after going 1-0 down in a series they were very much expected to win, the fans and media were more likely to get on their backs and question their places in the side than offer any encouragement.

Broad certainly didn't tear the place up, but he did manage to keep the quality and pace of his bowling notably high for spell after spell when any reasonable person would have gone bat**** crazy out of frustration. This compared particularly well with Harmison and Sidebottom, who totally embarrassed themselves, and it was incredible how many people were still advocating bringing them back in place of Broad over the course of the following summer.

I think he should probably be dropped for the first test because he's not bowling well and England have plenty of alternatives at the moment. But I do think it's worth remembering how well he performed in what was a seriously, seriously nasty tour to be a bowler on. I tend to focus heavily on more recent events when it comes to assessing players, but since it came up, anyone who questions how flat the pitches were or tries use the fact that England never took twenty wickets in the series as an argument against Broad's capabilities as a bowler really obviously just wasn't watching.

 

[GIMH]

Hero

 

[Furball]

Broad didn't really make his name in the West Indies because not many people watched much of the cricket. Quite understandably too. Hence there was a period where everyone was insisting he was useless and very few of us were defending him.

I wouldn't say he was magnificent, but he justified his place for the first time. The pitches were unbelievably slow, the West Indies (and their groundsmen) were content to play for a draw after taking the first test, the weather was quite a bit too hot for cricket and for some reason Ramnaresh Sarwan temporarily turned into Don Bradman for the entirety of the series. For the Antigua test England had no supporters at the ground because it was shifted a few days forward after a pitch-related balls-up, but after going 1-0 down in a series they were very much expected to win, the fans and media were more likely to get on their backs and question their places in the side than offer any encouragement.

Broad certainly didn't tear the place up, but he did manage to keep the quality and pace of his bowling notably high for spell after spell when any reasonable person would have gone bat**** crazy out of frustration. This compared particularly well with Harmison and Sidebottom, who totally embarrassed themselves, and it was incredible how many people were still advocating bringing them back in place of Broad over the course of the following summer.

I think he should probably be dropped for the first test because he's not bowling well and England have plenty of alternatives at the moment. But I do think it's worth remembering how well he performed in what was a seriously, seriously nasty tour to be a bowler on. I tend to focus heavily on more recent events when it comes to assessing players, but since it came up, anyone who questions how flat the pitches were or tries use the fact that England never took twenty wickets in the series as an argument against Broad's capabilities as a bowler really obviously just wasn't watching.

 

[Manee]

Fascinating to see such a discussion. As much as I criticisizd Broad, I always thought Broad would have likely surpassed Sharma, by now - due to the superior support system of England, for quick bowlers. Broad is likely far better conditioned than Sharma and his action is much better but I guess not everything in cricket can be taught and drilled.

 

[Cricket_God]

Fascinating to see such a discussion. As much as I criticisizd Broad, I always thought Broad would have likely surpassed Sharma, by now - due to the superior support system of England, for quick bowlers. Broad is likely far better conditioned than Sharma and his action is much better but I guess not everything in cricket can be taught and drilled.

broad action better than sharma are u asleep?

broads main problem is his action,he does not get enough movement while sharma atleast has a good stock ball.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Fascinating to see such a discussion. As much as I criticisizd Broad, I always thought Broad would have likely surpassed Sharma, by now - due to the superior support system of England, for quick bowlers. Broad is likely far better conditioned than Sharma and his action is much better but I guess not everything in cricket can be taught and drilled.

Just no

 

[Spark]

Yeah Broad's action isn't stellar

 

[hang on]

i find sharma's action quite unimpressive too. he loses a lot of momentum at the end.

 

[Manee]

broad action better than sharma are u asleep?

broads main problem is his action,he does not get enough movement while sharma atleast has a good stock ball.

Just no

Yeah Broad's action isn't stellar

Of course, how silly of me. It is not as black and white as that. My mistake.

 

[Spark]

I reckon Broad's action is the main thing holding him back, tbh. I'm no expert on bowling actions by any means but I suspect that if he did what people suggested and really started to use his left arm through the crease, he would become a much better - potentially excellent - bowler. Maybe it could help him correct his natural length too, which is still too short. He has most of the other tools.