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

[Mike5181]

I'd pick Philander at number 8 personally. You aren't talking a massive difference runs-wise here.

 

[Spark]

Seriously? Philander averages 26 with the bat in FC... that's more than good enough at no8.

pick composite test teams on test results.

 

[Prince EWS]

Seriously? Philander averages 26 with the bat in FC... that's more than good enough at no8.

We're talking about a game to be played at a level above Test cricket, so what you're saying is akin to taking into account James Anderson's batting average in the Lancashire League when selecting the England Test side. Philander's batting at Test level has been wholly disappointing - so much so that he's ended up batting below Steyn. There's firm evidence to suggest his batting had declined a bit even at domestic level anyway - he hasn't hit a First Class fifty in franchise cricket since the 2007/08 season.

Even if you did assert that Philander would be good enough to bat eight at such a theoretical level - which is frankly a massive stretch IMO - there's no doubt that Broad is far more qualified for the role. Given it's extremely hard to separate on them on bowling alone at this point, it's a factor.

 

[MrPrez]

We're talking about a game to be played at a level above Test cricket, so what you're saying is akin to taking into account James Anderson's batting average in the Lancashire League when selecting the England Test side. Philander's batting at Test level has been wholly disappointing - so much so that he's ended up batting below Steyn. There's firm evidence to suggest his batting had declined a bit even at domestic level anyway - he hasn't hit a First Class fifty in franchise cricket since the 2007/08 season.

Even if you did assert that Philander would be good enough to bat eight at such a theoretical level - which is frankly a massive stretch IMO - there's no doubt that Broad is far more qualified for the role. Given it's extremely hard to separate on them on bowling alone at this point, it's a factor.

It depends on your selection criteria though.
I am a believer in a Test side being comprised of the 6 best batsman, the best keeper, and the four best bowlers. The no8 should be able to hold a bat, but doesn't get picked because of his batting. A Warne or a Lee is perfectly fine at 8 imo.

I certainly would look at the bowling of a no8 as of much more importance than his batting - give me a guy with batave=20; bowlave=25 over a batave=25; bowlave-28 at no8 any day.

 

[Prince EWS]

It depends on your selection criteria though.
I am a believer in a Test side being comprised of the 6 best batsman, the best keeper, and the four best bowlers. The no8 should be able to hold a bat, but doesn't get picked because of his batting. A Warne or a Lee is perfectly fine at 8 imo.

I certainly would look at the bowling of a no8 as of much more importance than his batting - give me a guy with batave=20; bowlave=25 over a batave=25; bowlave-28 at no8 any day.

Yes, obviously. I'm in no way suggesting that we select a batting allrounder at 8. I'm merely saying that given we find it difficult to split the bowling of the two, and given none the rest of the bowling attack members are good enough to bat #8, Broad's batting should be the tiebreaker. If he bowled like Tsotsobe I wouldn't be suggesting it.

 

[MrPrez]

Yes, obviously. I'm in no way suggesting that we select a batting allrounder at 8. I'm merely saying that given we find it difficult to split the bowling of the two, and given none the rest of the bowling attack members are good enough to bat #8, Broad's batting should be the tiebreaker. If he bowled like Tsotsobe I wouldn't be suggesting it.

That's the point, Philander is good enough to be a no 8. He might not be as good as Broad (debatable btw) but he still is good enough to do that batting job. Rather than choose the guy that you are saying is more useful with the bat out of the two, choose the guy who is more useful with the ball.

 

[Spark]

That's the point, Philander is good enough to be a no 8. He might not be as good as Broad (debatable btw) but he still is good enough to do that batting job. Rather than choose the guy that you are saying is more useful with the bat out of the two, choose the guy who is more useful with the ball.

He hasn't been thus far.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's the point, Philander is good enough to be a no 8. He might not be as good as Broad (debatable btw) but he still is good enough to do that batting job. Rather than choose the guy that you are saying is more useful with the bat out of the two, choose the guy who is more useful with the ball.

Well, I just fundamentally disagree. I don't think Philander is good enough to be a number eight at a theoretical level above Test cricket, and my entire point was that there isn't a guy who is more useful with the ball as it's too hard to split them.

 

[Mike5181]

Yes, obviously. I'm in no way suggesting that we select a batting allrounder at 8. I'm merely saying that given we find it difficult to split the bowling of the two, and given none the rest of the bowling attack members are good enough to bat #8, Broad's batting should be the tiebreaker. If he bowled like Tsotsobe I wouldn't be suggesting it.

That only works if you rate Broad's bowling = Philander's.

 

[Cabinet96]

I was gonna say that I'd rather pick the better bowler as both Broad and Phillander are decent bats, but then when I think about it, Broad has been just as good as Phillander in a similar time scale IMO. Broad would probably make my World XI with Steyn, Anderson and Ajmal as well.

 

[MrPrez]

He hasn't been thus far.

Well, I just fundamentally disagree. I don't think Philander is good enough to be a number eight at a theoretical level above Test cricket, and my entire point was that there isn't a guy who is more useful with the ball as it's too hard to split them.

The guy averages more than 25 in FC ffs. Just because England have guys like Bresnan and Broad batting at no 8 for them, doesn't mean that is the global norm. Guys like Vaas, H.Singh and Warne are all decent no 8s - they can bat but aren't quite ARs (Vaas is debatable). no 8 doesn't have to be a genuine AR, just a guy who is decent enough with the bat. Philander is that and more.

 

[Prince EWS]

That only works if you rate Broad's bowling = Philander's.

Indeed, but that was my initial point: that I find it pretty hard to split the bowling credentials of quite a few initial candidates for the third seamer position so I'd go with Broad based on batting. The whole thing was based on the assumption that Broad is roughly as good as Philander with the ball at the moment, as that was my personal belief. If you want to argue that Philander is a better bowler than Broad then do that, but there's certainly no logical fallacy or ideologically controversial statements in my balance argument.

 

[Spark]

He also hasn't hit a (proper) FC fifty in four years. Meanwhile Broad has a Test ton and several match-turning fifties at Test level.

Broad could viably end up batting 7 at some stage in the future. Don't think he should, mind, but he could. Depends how desperate England get to play 5 bowlers, or how bare the batting cupboard is.

 

[Prince EWS]

The guy averages more than 25 in FC ffs. Just because England have guys like Bresnan and Broad batting at no 8 for them, doesn't mean that is the global norm. Guys like Vaas, H.Singh and Warne are all decent no 8s - they can bat but aren't quite ARs (Vaas is debatable). no 8 doesn't have to be a genuine AR, just a guy who is decent enough with the bat. Philander is that and more.

Philander's good enough to bat eight in Tests. He's not good enough to bat eight at a level above Tests unless he's a clearly better bowler than the alternatives IMO, and even if he is then he's definitely inferior to Broad which was the heart of my logic. Quoting his First Class average ad nausium without context is meaningless - as I said, he hasn't scored a First Class fifty in franchise cricket since the 2007/08 season and that too was some 30+ games ago.

I'm not saying "Philander's a better bowler but I'm going to pick Broad anyway because he's a better batsman"; I'm saying "it's very hard to split them on bowling I'm going to pick Broad based on batting as a tiebreaker." If you disagree that it's hard to split them on bowling then that's the part of my post you should arguing. I don't really have a problem with that.

 

[MrPrez]

@Prince EWS: If the two were really dead equal in bowling, then you're right, but I really do think that there is always some reason to pick one bowler over another other on bowling alone. It might be minute, but its there.

@Spark: I'm not denying that Broad>Philander with the bat. I'm saying that his batting should not get him in the lineup if Philander is a better bowler.

 

[Spark]

Nah don't agree. #8 runs are very important nowadays, if there is negligible difference in the bowling then the difference in batting should come into account. It effectively gives you an extra batsman, which is often critical in tight situations, more so than averaging 1 less with the ball would.

 

[MrPrez]

Nah don't agree. #8 runs are very important nowadays, if there is negligible difference in the bowling then the difference in batting should come into account. It effectively gives you an extra batsman, which is often critical in tight situations, more so than averaging 1 less with the ball would.

In a world XI, you really shouldn't be relying on you no 8 to score you matchwinning runs tbh. You should be able to rely on your 3rd pacer for matchwinning wickets though.

As I've said, if they were really equal on the bowling front, then theoretically you would have to look at batting. However, I really don't think that two bowlers with different bowling styles can be seen as giving a team the exact same level of bowling benefit.

 

[Spark]

You're not playing the West Indies or Australia, though. You're playing a team of comparable strength - #8 runs matter.

I actually think they have very similar bowling styles tbh. Probably Broad is the more "agressive" and Philander the more metronomic, but otherwise they (nowadays) look for nicks, bowleds, LBWs.

 

[Mike5181]

Nah don't agree. #8 runs are very important nowadays, if there is negligible difference in the bowling then the difference in batting should come into account. It effectively gives you an extra batsman, which is often critical in tight situations, more so than averaging 1 less with the ball would.

He's not averaging 1 less with the ball though. That's just an opinion you've formed on where his bowling average could potentially rise to. There's enough to suggest in his first class bowling record and current test record he's better than the 24-25 average test bowler that Broad has been in the last two years.

 

[Spark]

You can't talk about the last two years in Philander's case though, you can only talk about the last six months to a year. It's not really a fair comparison. In any case the 1 average thing was an illustration that a minute improvement in bowling isn't really the be-all-and-end-all of picking bowlers.