Starc vs Boult - who will have the better career?

[Flem274*]

Starc has wonderful assets and a high celing and everything but he's in the basement of the house that is his potential atm. For every spell like yesterday there are five spells of MJ esque filth, especially if I happen to be watching for some reason. If you can't put the ball in the right areas often enough, you are going to forever suck even if you bowl 145kph.

Boult is going to return to NZ and look like a God in conditions that will actually suit him swinging it in to the right hander at 140kph, but with the way we manage our fast bowlers there's probably a 50/50 chance he's permainjured by the time he's 27. Or maybe he'll take a break from cricket after getting infuriated by some **** in NZC.

What I'm saying is these guys have a lot of water to go under their bridges.

[derail]thread[/derail]

And one note on Henry Bahnzie: he's been simply too good in every game he's played, bowling in pain apparenty, as a teenager. He won't play for NZ for a while yet because he's finally having his surgery but he isn't in the same bracket as Duffy, Small etc.

Wheeler and Milne have bossed every game they've played but much like Boult three or so years ago, they only play half the damn FC games each season.

 

[hendrix]

Boult won't get injured.

Know how I know? Because he's fit.

Unlike almost every other bowler out there.

 

[Flem274*]

He's already had the back injuries. Once you start, they're always there to follow you around.

 

[Bahnz]

He's already had the back injuries. Once you start, they're always there to follow you around.

Not necessarily. Once Bond fixed his action in 2005 he never suffered another serious back injury in the last 5 years of his career. Too bad that his knees turned out to be just as fragile as his spine.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Not necessarily. Once Bond fixed his action in 2005 he never suffered another serious back injury in the last 5 years of his career. Too bad that his knees turned out to be just as fragile as his spine.

I just don't see Boult being as lethal after an action change, his frame is just to small to give much to work with. Luckily however Bond is probably the perfect coach to give Boult a chance of an injury free career without turning him into another mid 130kmh plodder.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Boult generally does bowl in the mid 130s anyway.

 

[Pup Clarke]

For every spell like yesterday there are five spells of MJ esque filth, especially if I happen to be watching for some reason. .

Come on - Starc's average spells are nothing like MJ at his worst. Starc just looks utterly innocuous because he has a tendency to overpitch far too often, Johnson just bowled short and wide rubbish and looked laughably bad, which Starc never has imo.

 

[MrPrez]

Starc will be better because he's an Aussie. Boult will probably be good, but nothing special. average around 32 probably.

Starc will be supported by quality quicks and will sit around a 27 average.

 

[hendrix]

Starc will be better because he's an Aussie. Boult will probably be good, but nothing special. average around 32 probably.

Starc will be supported by quality quicks and will sit around a 27 average.

Well, you're welcome to your opinion but if anything I think the NZ quicks are better than the Aussie ones, at least on current form. If you compare both recent tests against the Sri Lankans the NZ quicks were more consistent and bowled SL out for less runs on even flatter wickets.

A bowling attack of Siddle, Pattinson and Starc would look pretty awesome though.

 

[Blakey]

Boult generally does bowl in the mid 130s anyway.

Yeah he does but I think he chooses when to ramp things up based on the sort of movement and is getting.

I wonder if he can bowl consistently at 140 range. I couldn't care less if he bowls faster than that as long as he can consistently do 140 when he decides to.

I think the guy could be a sub 30 bowler plus he looks like the guy from the Inbetweeners which is cool.

 

[sphynx]

Well, you're welcome to your opinion but if anything I think the NZ quicks are better than the Aussie ones, at least on current form. If you compare both recent tests against the Sri Lankans the NZ quicks were more consistent and bowled SL out for less runs on even flatter wickets.

A bowling attack of Siddle, Pattinson and Starc would look pretty awesome though.

Err, I dont think so.


As you said, Australia didn't exactly have its first choice bowling attack, and was 1 bowler down after Hilfenhaus got injured early in SL's first innings.

Australia had the better of SA, will beat SL, without 3 or 4 of their best fast bowlers, I'd say they have the best depth in this department in world cricket.

I mean, Starc is definately in the stands if the lineup is full strength.

Pattinson, Cummins, Siddle, Watson, Lyon.

Starc, Harris, Hilfenhaus, Johnson in the sheds, and Jackson Bird will probably debut on boxing day, coming off a FC average of 20.

Then they have the likes of Hazlewood, Richardson, Mitch Marsh, Coulter-Nile etc who were all u/19 stars doing well in the shorter formats.


They are entering a golden age of fast bowlers imo, probably to rival the 90's imo.

They are going to do some damage in the Ashes.

 

[hendrix]

Err, I dont think so.


As you said, Australia didn't exactly have its first choice bowling attack, and was 1 bowler down after Hilfenhaus got injured early in SL's first innings.

Australia had the better of SA, will beat SL, without 3 or 4 of their best fast bowlers, I'd say they have the best depth in this department in world cricket.
.

I do think Aus has a lot of depth and it's very exciting. Once Australia do get all their top bowlers fit they may well perform better, but it's at least pretty even as it stands right now.

Australia only managed to take 20 wickets against SA once during that series. Their batsmen outplayed SA in the first 2 tests, not the bowlers.

Aus's batsmen have put up some pretty big scores with Clarke and Hussey recently, but wasn't this their first win this year?

 

[sphynx]

I do think Aus has a lot of depth and it's very exciting. Once Australia do get all their top bowlers fit they may well perform better, but it's at least pretty even as it stands right now.

Australia only managed to take 20 wickets against SA once during that series. Their batsmen outplayed SA in the first 2 tests, not the bowlers.

Aus's batsmen have put up some pretty big scores with Clarke and Hussey recently, but wasn't this their first win this year?

this summer?

They've whitewashed India and beaten the WI's at home this year.

Again, Pattinson got injured early in Adelaide, and they were without Watson who averages under 30 with the ball, and still ran it pretty close.

For all of Philander's lauding this year, Siddle will probably finish with more wickets from less innings this year, and be second only to Anderson on wickets taken this year for fast bowler, despite bowling almost 10 less innings....

 

[straw man]

Pattinson, Cummins, Siddle, Watson, Lyon.

Oh I didn't realise we were naming mythical bowling attacks . Here's NZ's from the early 2000s

Bond, O'Connor, Nash, Cairns, Vettori

Pity you could never get more than 2 or 3 on the field at once.

 

[sphynx]

Oh I didn't realise we were naming mythical bowling attacks . Here's NZ's from the early 2000s

Bond, O'Connor, Nash, Cairns, Vettori

Pity you could never get more than 2 or 3 on the field at once.

It was a hypothetical to demonstrate the depth.


Pattinson is 22, Cummins 19.

They will be back eventually.


Pattinson has a side strain ffs, people are treating it like ****ing terminal leukemia, he'll be back for the Indian tour.

Cummins doesn't even have stress fractures, "hot spots", according to Australian radio during the SL test, he's fit, but being held back by Cricket Australia atm......

 

[Tricia McMillan]

Mohammed Amir -

Wait.

 

[hendrix]

It was a hypothetical to demonstrate the depth.


Pattinson is 22, Cummins 19.

They will be back eventually.

Yup, Southee is 24, Boult 23, Bracewell 22 and they're all fit and on the park.

We also have Milne who's 20, Wheeler, Small, McGleneghan etc. At the end of the day depth i only hypothetical. It's who's on the park.

Don't get me wrong, I think Australia's pace bowlers are great.

The point I was disagreeing with was this:

Starc will be better because he's an Aussie. Boult will probably be good, but nothing special. average around 32 probably.

Starc will be supported by quality quicks and will sit around a 27 average.

Which just doesn't make sense when you look at the form of the New Zealand quicks.

I wouldn't take any one of the Aussie pace bowlers over Southee right now.

 

[sphynx]

Yup, Southee is 24, Boult 23, Bracewell 22 and they're all fit and on the park.

We also have Milne who's 20, Wheeler, Small, McGleneghan etc. At the end of the day depth i only hypothetical. It's who's on the park.

Don't get me wrong, I think Australia's pace bowlers are great.

The point I was disagreeing with was this:


Which just doesn't make sense when you look at the form of the New Zealand quicks.

I wouldn't take any one of the Aussie pace bowlers over Southee right now.

If Cummins gets on the park, he's got the most potential of any young quick in the world, and by a fair distance.

He has bounce, he swings it, and he bowls at 150km/h. He's almost the quickest bowler in the world, and he's 19. anyone that can roughKallis up as an 18 year old has serious potential..

I'd take Pattinson over Southee, but thats probably personal preference, as he's a 140km/h swing/seam bowler thats suited to English conditions.

 

[Spark]

I'd definitely take Pattinson over Southee.

 

[hendrix]

right now