Who is the best fast bowler in the world right now - Tests

[LegendaryProtea]

Did you watch that series at all? Seriously?

I did. About half his wickets were tailenders. That's not even counting Gambhir and Mukund as tailenders, which they effectively were for the duration of that tour. If we do then about 75% of his wickets were clueless tailenders.

 

[Spark]

So you didn't actually watch him bowl, and hence know that he often bowled without any luck whatsoever as his fielders couldn't catch at all, constantly put extreme pressure on the batsmen with a mixture of an aggressive full line+length and the odd magic ball, and deserved every single one of his wickets and then some.

OK.

Love how a batsman who was averaging 50 at the time is counted clueless and hence a worthless wicket. Can't possibly be because they bowled really well at him.

FMD can't believe I'm actually trying to justify why averaging 13 against a lineup including Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman probably should be taken into account. I assume that means that given that Phil Hughes is useless against the moving ball, Shane Watson has had a terrible year with the bat, Ponting couldn't get off nought half the time, Hussey was useless once again in SA and Usman Khawaja averages in the 20s in Tests, Philander's performance against Aus doesn't count either, right?

And since the ball swung a bit in New Zealand and they aren't that good a batting lineup anyway, Philander was bowling to useless hacks on a greentop, hence we can discount that too. Because Broad and Anderson managed to swing the ball for about 5 overs and, well, historically Pakistan haven't been that good (never mind how profilgate Azhar, Younis and Misbah, who occupy the three key positions in the lineup, have been) against pace and so we're not taking that into account either.

In short, all bowlers are hacks and the only reason they only take wickets is because pitches are greentops and batsmen are ****.

Or not.

 

[Cabinet96]

I don't give a flying **** whether teams were intimidated by him or not when you look at the results he has got in the last 18 months or more away from home.

I do love how the goalposts move for players. Nothing till they do it in the Ashes, then it's nothing till they prove themselves in the sub-continent. Now it's got to be done in India.

Then again he's like a vampire, terrible when there's no cloud cover.

Cricketing logic: "I'm not going to take into account the fact that said bowler averaged 13 against one of the greatest batting lineups of all time... because he averaged 13 and hence made them look ****.". What you've basically done is said that "Assume Broad isn't that good. Because he's not that good, any good performances of his were down to him not being that good. Therefore, he's not that good".

The idea that Broad is nowhere near the South African pace attack is laughable. Like, actually so laughable it doesn't even bear serious contemplation. Come on, seriously. Have you watched some of the rubbish served up by your third or fourth paceman in the last six months to a year on occasion, whoever that may be? Philander is probably the in-form paceman in the world at the moment, but be serious here.

Where's this idea that Azhar Ali/Younis Khan/Misbah-ul-Haq are **** batsmen come from, btw? And precisely what help was there in those pitches for quick bowlers?

AWTA

A lot of Broad's wickets on that tour were against the Indian tail who had very little batting ability. I remember him consistently getting out the openers too who were just a mess, Mukund in his first few games, Gambhir who was injured then came back and Sehwag who got a king pair in his return Test, which shows you the lack of application. Broad only dismissed Dravid once and that was when he had to open because of Gambhir's injury. Are we going to start saying that the Australian pace attack is as good as England's because they destroyed the greatest batting line-up ever only a few months ago? Is Peter Siddle as good as Stuart Broad now on the back of one series?

He caused real trouble to Dravid, VVS, Raina and Dhoni, not to mention the fact that Tendulkar had no clue against him.

He had Dravid and VVS both dropped off him at Lords, and that's just one example of his bad luck. His figures in that series were worse than they should have been due to drops and poor LBW decisions.

 

[Dan]

So you didn't actually watch him bowl, and hence know that he often bowled without any luck whatsoever as his fielders couldn't catch at all, constantly put extreme pressure on the batsmen with a mixture of an aggressive full line+length and the odd magic ball, and deserved every single one of his wickets and then some.

OK.

Love how a batsman who was averaging 50 at the time is counted clueless and hence a worthless wicket. Can't possibly be because they bowled really well at him.

FMD can't believe I'm actually trying to justify why averaging 13 against a lineup including Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman probably should be taken into account. I assume that means that given that Phil Hughes is useless against the moving ball, Shane Watson has had a terrible year with the bat, Ponting couldn't get off nought half the time, Hussey was useless once again in SA and Usman Khawaja averages in the 20s in Tests, Philander's performance against Aus doesn't count either, right?

And since the ball swung a bit in New Zealand and they aren't that good a batting lineup anyway, Philander was bowling to useless hacks on a greentop, hence we can discount that too. Because Broad and Anderson managed to swing the ball for about 5 overs and, well, historically Pakistan haven't been that good (never mind how profilgate Azhar, Younis and Misbah, who occupy the three key positions in the lineup, have been) against pace and so we're not taking that into account either.

In short, all bowlers are hacks and the only reason they only take wickets is because pitches are greentops and batsmen are ****.

Or not.

Would like to drag this up, originally from Uppercut and taken from Cabinet's sig:

It's just classic cricketing circular logic.

"That attack needs to take wickets against a better batting lineup."
"Isn't that batting lineup packed with cricketing legends?"
"But they're actually crap, we know this because that attack took wickets against them."

It happened to England this time last year too. When you perform well enough, you damage the reputation of your opponents, and thus devalue your own achievement.

Change 'that attack' to Broad and you've got what we have here.

EDIT: As much as I hate the guy, I must admit he's developed into one hell of a bowler.

 

[LegendaryProtea]

FMD can't believe I'm actually trying to justify why averaging 13 against a lineup including Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman probably should be taken into account. I assume that means that given that Phil Hughes is useless against the moving ball, Shane Watson has had a terrible year with the bat, Ponting couldn't get off nought half the time, Hussey was useless once again in SA and Usman Khawaja averages in the 20s in Tests, Philander's performance against Aus doesn't count either, right?

I do take it into account. All his dismissals of the Big 3 were excellent and earned, I'm just stating that the majority were against the others who were just dismal and batting like tailenders. "Having a terrible year", "couldn't get off nought" and "useless once again" are not exactly proper reasons to discount dismissals or count the batsmen as tailenders, are they? Inexperienced opener in only his second series at the age of 21 touring away from home (Mukund) and a bloke who was injured half the time (Gambhir), however, are suitable enough reasons.

 

[Spark]

I actually counted - over the first two Tests he took 16 wickets, despite having four or five chances dropped off him, many of them sitters or fairly straightforward at Test level and two absolutely plumb LBWs not given (one of which was pitching middle, hitting middle of middle). Against, he had one lucky LBW go his way with an inside edge not spotted.

Add to that the fact that in the 1st innings in both those Tests, he looked by far the most threatening bowler (Anderson and Tremlett were pretty average for much of the first innings at Lord's, and likewise Anderson and Bresnan first dig at Trent Bridge) and there is absolutely no reason not to rate his performance in that series as of the highest quality, let alone discounting it completely which is just plain ridiculous. As hinted at, the way he messed up Tendulkar's footwork at Lord's in particular was a sight to behold.

 

[Spark]

Would like to drag this up, originally from Uppercut and taken from Cabinet's sig:

Haha yeah that was what I was thinking of too.

 

[uvelocity]

looks like a ladyboy but

 

[Spark]

looks like a ladyboy but

Can't have everything.

 

[uvelocity]

miss universe transgender contestant

Stuart Broad

 

[LegendaryProtea]

Even if we say that his bowling against India and Pakistan was as unbelievably good as you all seem to say, how does that make him one of the two best new ball bowlers in the world? Surely to be the best you have to maintain that level for some time (e.g. Steyn for 4 or 5 years, Jimmy for 2 or 3 years). You can't just perform very well in two series and then start jumping about saying he's the best, particularly when his place was under threat prior to the India series.

 

[Spark]

I wasn't claiming he was. I was just saying that to discount his performance against India was borderline absurd.

EDIT: inb4pewssnark because he's reading the thread

 

[LegendaryProtea]

Re-reading my original comments, I do seem to suggest that I have completely discounted his performances against India. What I meant to say, in the context of the original discussion, is that I don't think his performances in those two series are enough to qualify him as a better bowler than Philander/Steyn.

 

[Jarquis]

2 series of quality isn't enough!!!





Well that rules out Philander's entire career then

 

[GIMH]

So you didn't actually watch him bowl, and hence know that he often bowled without any luck whatsoever as his fielders couldn't catch at all, constantly put extreme pressure on the batsmen with a mixture of an aggressive full line+length and the odd magic ball, and deserved every single one of his wickets and then some.

OK.

Love how a batsman who was averaging 50 at the time is counted clueless and hence a worthless wicket. Can't possibly be because they bowled really well at him.

FMD can't believe I'm actually trying to justify why averaging 13 against a lineup including Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman probably should be taken into account. I assume that means that given that Phil Hughes is useless against the moving ball, Shane Watson has had a terrible year with the bat, Ponting couldn't get off nought half the time, Hussey was useless once again in SA and Usman Khawaja averages in the 20s in Tests, Philander's performance against Aus doesn't count either, right?

And since the ball swung a bit in New Zealand and they aren't that good a batting lineup anyway, Philander was bowling to useless hacks on a greentop, hence we can discount that too. Because Broad and Anderson managed to swing the ball for about 5 overs and, well, historically Pakistan haven't been that good (never mind how profilgate Azhar, Younis and Misbah, who occupy the three key positions in the lineup, have been) against pace and so we're not taking that into account either.

In short, all bowlers are hacks and the only reason they only take wickets is because pitches are greentops and batsmen are ****.

Or not.

Spark courting the GIMH vote for BOTM. Great post.

 

[Prince EWS]

I wasn't claiming he was. I was just saying that to discount his performance against India was borderline absurd.

EDIT: inb4pewssnark because he's reading the thread

Well it's no fun now.

 

[Spark]

Well it's no fun now.

Success!

 

[LegendaryProtea]

Well, everything we've seen from Philander so far has been quality. Even his FC cricket prior to the Tests, this is pretty much what he has been delivering. So there is enough evidence to suggest that he can maintain this level. As for Broad, up until recently, we've seen some rather average stuff by and large. His place was in jeopardy, his lengths were all wrong. So we don't really know if this is just a purple patch that will eventually fizzle out or whether this is a standard he will maintain for the coming years.

 

[Spark]

I presume that you considered Mike Hussey to be greatest batsman since Bradman at once stage, then? Averaged 80+ after 20+ Tests, after all.

Whilst his place was in jeapordy it has to be considered that he was competing against Bresnan, who showed in that series that he could seriously bowl as well.

 

[LegendaryProtea]

Well, seeing as Hussey's FC record was still only in the 50s, there was enough to suggest it was just a fabulous start that he couldn't sustain. I'm not saying Philander is going to be at 14 throughout his career, that's just absurd but since his FC bowling average is 18, I can't see why he can't maintain a 21-22 average.

Yes, but it wasn't just because Bresnan was bowling well, it was also because Broad wasn't. His success in the last two series is being spoken about so favourably partially because it wasn't really expected as he wasn't bowling that well prior to it.