Who should be England's third seamer?

[Cevno]

I know he is coming back from Injury,but as you yourself said there he is struggling for form as it gets affected by injuries and other factors.

Really don't know what you are getting at here? Because that is what i was implying in that post.

 

[Jacknife]

I know he is coming back from Injury,but as you yourself said there he is struggling for form as it gets affected by injuries and other factors.

Really don't know what you are getting at here? Because that is what i was implying in that post.

Let me get this straight because I've just gone back to read the last few pages. You've jumped on your high horse, primarily because Broad is being rated higher by some people, than Sharma.
Is that right because basically before his injuries, I don't see how you can have a objection to that, you may not go along with it personally but if other people do, then it should be fair enough.

 

[Cevno]

I was not taking objection to anyone rating Broad higher than Sharma ,but to those who were saying they were in completely different ballparks a while back and completely rubbishing Sharma and Sreesanth.
Because it is exactly the opposite of completely rubbishing Broad right now or what Bun was doing.

In any case i wasn't saying that anyone is not entitled to have a opinion ,but just pointing out the flaw that was in that opinion based on rating of a very short period.

 

[Jacknife]

I was not taking objection to anyone rating Broad higher than Sharma ,but to those who were saying they were in completely different orbits a while back and completely rubbishing Sharma and Sreesanth.
Because it is exactly the opposite of completely rubbishing Broad right now or what Bun was doing.

In any case i wasn't saying that anyone is not entitled to have a opinion ,but just pointing out the flaw that was in that opinion based on rating of a very short period.

I'll have to go back and read them but this thread is about England's 3rd seamer. In the other thread about Broad, I'll have to read back but I can't remember too many posts saying what you've just said, that they were on different orbits.
I read a lot of posts saying that Broad, has bowled better over the last couple of years, or they liked his overall package but not Broad was Malcolm Marshall to Sharma's, Devon Malcolm.

 

[Cevno]

Just a couple of examples -

Surely Broad's definitely a better bowler than Ishant and Sreesanth? Am I missing something here?

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 ****?

Aplogies Uppercut

There are many more even in that thread . And if you go back to some threads about 5/6 months to a year back you will find them in abundance.

 

[Furball]

Just a couple of examples -





Aplogies Uppercut

There are many more even in that thread . And if you go back to some threads about 5/6 months to a year back you will find them in abundance.

Now why do you think that was?

 

[Cevno]

If you read the last 3/4 pages and the other thread you will realise we have been over that exact point,so spare me having to start over again.

 

[Uppercut]

Ishant's bowled really well since I made those posts and Broad's bowled really badly. I wouldn't really agree with them anymore.

 

[Howe_zat]

How exactly is it Uppercut's fault that Sharma surpassed expectations?

You can argue he was being short-sighted if you must, but hardly flat-out wrong thanks to one good series, because Ishant was bowling horribly 90% of the time. And while Sharma has bowled very well against the Windies he's not covered himself in glory. There's been glimpses of Bad Ishant coming through too.

 

[Cevno]

How exactly is it Uppercut's fault that Sharma surpassed expectations?

You can argue he was being short-sighted if you must, but hardly flat-out wrong thanks to one good series, because Ishant was bowling horribly 90% of the time. And while Sharma has bowled very well against the Windies he's not covered himself in glory. There's been glimpses of Bad Ishant coming through too.

That's what i am saying tbh.

People rubbishing Ishant ,Sreesanth in comparison to Broad were being short sighted a while back.
While people rubbishing Broad compared to Ishant ,Sreesanth right now are being short sighted too.

They are still developing players and all in the same ball park.
If you think, they are not then i think you are being pretty wrong based on any period they have had in their careers so far(because all of them have had their ups and downs). Again that is my opinion FWIW.

 

[Jacknife]

Just a couple of examples -





Aplogies Uppercut

There are many more even in that thread . And if you go back to some threads about 5/6 months to a year back you will find them in abundance.

I get what your saying and I agree but posts like this, are and were, few and far between.
When you read the threads back, you can see how it all happens, especially when you have a person, who likes to completely rubbish a player and then that starts, the other side off, then you get this back and forth, trying to out do, each others points.
Tis the way of cricket forums.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's what i am saying tbh.

People rubbishing Ishant ,Sreesanth in comparison to Broad were being short sighted a while back.
While people rubbishing Broad compared to Ishant ,Sreesanth right now are being short sighted too.

They are still developing players and all in the same ball park.
If you think, they are not then i think you are being pretty wrong based on any period they have had in their careers so far(because all of them have had their ups and downs). Again that is my opinion FWIW.

Well maybe it's in fact you who is being short-sighted now by jumping up and down about one good bowling series from an extremely inconsistent player in a really low scoring series against a poor batting lineup. Or maybe it isn't.

 

[Cevno]

Well maybe it's in fact you who is being short-sighted now by jumping up and down about one good bowling series from an extremely inconsistent player in a really low scoring series against a poor batting lineup. Or maybe it isn't.

I was defending him to an extent even after the South Africa series ,where everyone and their grandmother's were calling for his head and rubbishing him(though even i had starting having slight doubts).
So considering that what i had to go through then trying to even defend him ,i am entitled to do a lot more than what i am doing right now after this series

I mantained 5/6 months to a year back too that there was not much difference between these 3 bowlers as some were making out,even if one was marginally better than the other.So can't accuse me of jumping up and down because of one series as i am still mantaining the same.

 

[pup11]

Coming back to the original topic I think Bresnan should be England's third seamer simply because he adds a bit more variety to the English attack which is something they are going to need against the strong Indian batting line-up.

Broad had a good county game against Somerset recently but it still doesn't changes the fact that he has been bowling rather poorly in the English shirt for a while now, not only that Bresnan is also a slightly better lower order batsman than Broad which again is something that should be considered.

 

[FBU]

With only 4 bowlers they need to be your best bowlers. Never mind about the batting.

At Lords

Finn 3 Tests 17 wickets at 22.76 econ 3.75 s/r 36.3
Broad 6 Tests 18 wickets at 41.11 econ 3.56 s/r 59.1
Bresnan 2 Tests 4 wickets at 46.50 econ 3.24 s/r 86.0

 

[Jarquis]

With only 4 bowlers they need to be your best bowlers. Never mind about the batting.

At Lords

Finn 3 Tests 17 wickets at 22.76 econ 3.75 s/r 36.3
Broad 6 Tests 18 wickets at 41.11 econ 3.56 s/r 59.1
Bresnan 2 Tests 4 wickets at 46.50 econ 3.24 s/r 86.0

Broad hasn't actually played a non-Test FC game at Lord's.
Meanwhile outside of Tests, Finn has 44 @ 32.77 and Bresnan has 7 @ 28.14.
Such small sample sizes that there's not a huge amount to be had from them.

 

[nsniks]

I would go with Bresnan

 

[pup11]

With only 4 bowlers they need to be your best bowlers. Never mind about the batting.

At Lords

Finn 3 Tests 17 wickets at 22.76 econ 3.75 s/r 36.3
Broad 6 Tests 18 wickets at 41.11 econ 3.56 s/r 59.1
Bresnan 2 Tests 4 wickets at 46.50 econ 3.24 s/r 86.0

Its got nothing to do with stats, Bresnan has improved a lot as bowler in recent times and he along with Tremlett and Anderson formed a very potent bowling combination during the Ashes.

If Flower's recent comments are anything to go by then Broad's place is no longer a certainty in the side and AFAIC he would have to close the gap between his best and worst if he wants to beat someone like Bresnan in the contest for the 3rd seamer' slot.

 

[Howe_zat]

Generally speaking I think it's important to make any player work for their place. The team is perceived to have healthy competition for fast bowling spots, so it should be that way with selection. I wonder if Broad being one of those "officially rated" by the set up - being given 20/20 captaincy, fast-tracked back into the side after injury, and so on - my have given him a touch of complacency about his game?

Of course, the other side to this is the virtues of trying to build a settled unit and reassuring a player's confidence while he's down. Thoughts?

 

[wpdavid]

Generally speaking I think it's important to make any player work for their place. The team is perceived to have healthy competition for fast bowling spots, so it should be that way with selection. I wonder if Broad being one of those "officially rated" by the set up - being given 20/20 captaincy, fast-tracked back into the side after injury, and so on - my have given him a touch of complacency about his game?

Of course, the other side to this is the virtues of trying to build a settled unit and reassuring a player's confidence while he's down. Thoughts?

Fine,line, isn't it. Having experienced the cast-of-thousands approach of the 1980's & 1990's, I'll always err on the side of consistency. However, we've seen Strauss and Bell return as better players after being dropped. Whether Broad's problems are due to a touch of complacency is debateable. I just think he's lost sight of what type of bowler he's supposed to be, and he's not managing either approach terribly well.