Would Stuart Broad make India's strongest test XI?

[Vroomfondel]

in before 'would charl willoughby make india's strongest test 11?'

(yes, yes he would)

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Broad would.

As a batsman going on today.

 

[GIMH]

Can anyone get me a 2011 FC stat comparison. Stuart Broad and India's bowlers, V Somerset

 

[Arjun]

No chance, really. An average of 36 and a strike rate touching 70 is just too weak for a team that needs some bowling strength. At best, Stuart Broad can replace Raina or that sixth batsman, but has no chance as a bowler. Maybe Bresnan or Finn can make the side, but not Broad. That would still boil down to the bowler in question lasting fifty Test matches, which is tough in this Indian setup.

 

[GIMH]

Ishant Sharma's really made us Stuart Broad fans look silly so far in this match eh

 

[Cevno]

All conditions eh?

 

[Spark]

Haha steady on. Thus far Broad has bowled probably the most threatening spell of the match thus far, yes (and Sharma the least threatening spell(s))

 

[GIMH]

I am being facetious. You can't make such a judgement based on one really good spell, something certain people have been grossly unaware of in recent times when rating certain players.

But given that Sharma had conditions any seamer should thrive in on Thursday, and failed, then I'd just put it down to the fact that he's a **** bowler against any half-decent teams.

 

[Spark]

I don't think anyone can really deny that Sharma was horrible tbh. Seemed to have the short wide ball as stock.

 

[hang on]

well he is distinctly weedy and tubular. but, then, a lot of the indians aren't exactly charles atlases. and he does have that maximuscle advantage. so, yeah. just ahead of mukund and patel and ishant.

 

[Spark]

FWIW when Broad finally does pitch the ball up, he looks very dangerous. Movement, pace and his line was very attacking. Fascinating why he was completely unable to do it for so long.

 

[Cevno]

Sharma was horrible, but one,innings,match or series won't differentiate them at this stage. Still similar all condition bowlers, both whom would do probably better than the other in their respective home conditions.

 

[Spikey]

And now let's cross to GIMH

And look how happy he is

 

[GIMH]

I'm not carrying that many lbs

But that is close to my reaction when the little wanker got out.

And another drop !!

 

[marc71178]

To those talking about playing and missing being bad luck for the bowler, I point to Broad's last over, that is what bad luck is for the bowler.

 

[Spark]

Fair play to him. This is an amazing spell.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

EASILY.

Then again we have said so all along.

 

[Daemon]

Why couldn't it have been Anderson that bowled well. Broad is such a dickhead.

 

[centurymaker]

knew he'd come good.

bowled full and swung it late - lethal combination!

 

[Cevno]

Ishant Sharma's really made us Stuart Broad fans look silly so far in this match eh

I am being facetious. You can't make such a judgement based on one really good spell, something certain people have been grossly unaware of in recent times when rating certain players.

But given that Sharma had conditions any seamer should thrive in on Thursday, and failed, then I'd just put it down to the fact that he's a **** bowler against any half-decent teams.

Hmmm....................................................