Is Stuart Broad that good?

[WalkingWicket]

Browsing through 'current World XI' and a whole number of people are nominating Broad for one of the best in the world at the moment. Is that right? Is he really that good?

IMO, his 8-15 was more of a collective Aussie brainfade rather than any particular Broad magic, and it just happened be in the right place at the right time, and just put the ball in decent areas and let the Aussies do the work. Same when he cleaned up the Kiwis with a 7fer in 2013 - it was swinging and the Kiwis played some daft shots - KW IIRC played a rubbish drive to get caught at cover off him. Plus he's only taken the most wickets this year because England have played loads more Test matches than anyone else this year.

He's not that quick, doesn't swing it or seam it massively, compared to Anderson and other top class fast bowlers in the world. Unfortunately, due to the funky nature of cricket, I doubt he'll ever be exposed.

His average is 29, a long way off ATG or just even G status - his skill is inflated by those troll spells he bowls and I think people forget the regular Stuart Broad which is nothing more than a standard test-class fast-medium bowler.

IMO Stuart Broad is an overrated bowler, and not that great.

Just my two cents.

 

[Flem274*]

good baiting.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Since January 2013 he has played 35 tests and has 143 wickets with an average under 26. Make of that what you will, also has an average under 30 away from home in that time so not just a homer.

 

[Flem274*]

good baiting.

He's a world class bowler. Inconsistent, not a great, but definitely a guy you want in the team.

edit - my edit double posted or i can't hit buttons

 

[Spark]

Browsing through 'current World XI' and a whole number of people are nominating Broad for one of the best in the world at the moment. Is that right? Is he really that good?

IMO, his 8-15 was more of a collective Aussie brainfade rather than any particular Broad magic, and it just happened be in the right place at the right time, and just put the ball in decent areas and let the Aussies do the work. Same when he cleaned up the Kiwis with a 7fer in 2013 - it was swinging and the Kiwis played some daft shots - KW IIRC played a rubbish drive to get caught at cover off him. Plus he's only taken the most wickets this year because England have played loads more Test matches than anyone else this year.

He's not that quick, doesn't swing it or seam it massively, compared to Anderson and other top class fast bowlers in the world. Unfortunately, due to the funky nature of cricket, I doubt he'll ever be exposed.

His average is 29, a long way off ATG or just even G status - his skill is inflated by those troll spells he bowls and I think people forget the regular Stuart Broad which is nothing more than a standard test-class fast-medium bowler.

IMO Stuart Broad is an overrated bowler, and not that great.

Just my two cents.

"Reality doesn't agree with my superficial theory so therefore I will call reality wrong"

 

[Howe_zat]

People love the **** out of 70s and 80s bowlers who picked up 200 wickets at 25, Broad has that. His record, much like Anderson's, is the way it is because he had to learn on the job. If he were from a few other countries he'd likely have 30 fewer Tests and a mid 20s average.

Barring a couple of injury hit tours he's been a consistently world class bowler for four years or so and we should be thankful to have him

 

[Spark]

He's played critical roles in how many major series victories now? I really don't know what more he's expected to do.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

He's played critical roles in how many major series victories now? I really don't know what more he's expected to do.

Do it all dressed as a superhero and doing the funky chicken before he starts his run up.

 

[Pratters]

Well, he has far too many bad days and people remember that when compared to some other of his contemporaries. That's why he averages 25.7 and not 23.5, say in the last 3 years. That's the bowler he is though, he will have far too many bad days but then he will produce match winnings spells too.

 

[Pratters]

WalkingWicket, what you are saying is weird though. It's fair enough to have him in the World XI for 2015. That doesn't make him a player at the same level as some of the absolute ATG players like Steyn in any way. No one is saying that. Darren Gough is a far better comparison point. I would rate Gough higher though.

 

[cnerd123]

Broad's a hack.

 

[91Jmay]

This is a dopey thread. If you don't want him in a World XI side, name blokes who get in ahead of him. You can't though, because there isn't really a justification for it.

 

[WalkingWicket]

"Reality doesn't agree with my superficial theory so therefore I will call reality wrong"

OK, I agree, that part of my argument was poorly worded and poorly thought-out. What I was trying to say is that the way international cricketers play so much, and particularly bowlers have so many opportunities in short spaces of time, that Broad could bowl 7 rubbish innings, but then bowl one and take 7/20 and everyone will remember that and says he's amazing.

People love the **** out of 70s and 80s bowlers who picked up 200 wickets at 25, Broad has that. His record, much like Anderson's, is the way it is because he had to learn on the job. If he were from a few other countries he'd likely have 30 fewer Tests and a mid 20s average.

Barring a couple of injury hit tours he's been a consistently world class bowler for four years or so and we should be thankful to have him

I'm very thankful to have him - he has indeed won England a number of series over the last few years, but primarily through a number of wacky spells that defied logic and batsmen's technique.

This is a dopey thread. If you don't want him in a World XI side, name blokes who get in ahead of him. You can't though, because there isn't really a justification for it.

Meh, I think he's not that great - I presented my ideas as to why not. He's only in the World XI this year by virtue of playing more games and bowling more than anyone else excluding Anderson. Therefore he is statistically more likely to take more wickets and appear better. I was using his almost universal appearance in people's World XI teams as a credit for people believing him to be a top quality fast bowler. There's no justification (there's an argument against that in itself) because Broad has had so many more opportunities than any other quick bowler, besides perhaps the Australians, and I think I'd prefer Starc over Broad.

My argument is that Broad has a reputation as a bowler better than I think he actually is, courtesy of a few outrageous spells. If I'm wrong, so be it, it's just my opinion, which is hardly lore.

 

[Jono]

he's a jet

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I guess the question we should ask is would Stuart Broad get in the Indian side?

 

[Prince EWS]

After I read the OP I went to reply with ">inb4 Spark".. then read on to see Spark was on the ball already.

Jono can add it to his list of things that make people show up automatically. I think Spark is already on that list for something else too. Nice to know he can be summoned.

 

[Jono]

haha yeah Spark also = SA stuffing up chases

 

[Howe_zat]

After I read the OP I went to reply with ">inb4 Spark".. then read on to see Spark was on the ball already.

Jono can add it to his list of things that make people show up automatically. I think Spark is already on that list for something else too. Nice to know he can be summoned.

where's the list

 

[Spark]

OK, I agree, that part of my argument was poorly worded and poorly thought-out. What I was trying to say is that the way international cricketers play so much, and particularly bowlers have so many opportunities in short spaces of time, that Broad could bowl 7 rubbish innings, but then bowl one and take 7/20 and everyone will remember that and says he's amazing.

When was the last time he bowled a rubbish innings apart from coming back from injury? He was good to excellent in every single one of the first four Ashes Tests, and bowled better than his figures suggested in the first three. Very solid in the UAE as well without getting the returns.

Broad bowls rubbish most of the time then becomes a wrecking ball is such a cliche that people haven't bothered to check whether the "Broad bowls rubbish most of the time" is even true any more.

I'm very thankful to have him - he has indeed won England a number of series over the last few years, but primarily through a number of wacky spells that defied logic and batsmen's technique.

They don't defy logic at all. He gets disconcerting bounce and seam movement delivered from a deeply unsettling wide-of-the-crease angle, which is just horrible to face for any batsman.

Meh, I think he's not that great - I presented my ideas as to why not. He's only in the World XI this year by virtue of playing more games and bowling more than anyone else excluding Anderson. Therefore he is statistically more likely to take more wickets and appear better. I was using his almost universal appearance in people's World XI teams as a credit for people believing him to be a top quality fast bowler. There's no justification (there's an argument against that in itself) because Broad has had so many more opportunities than any other quick bowler, besides perhaps the Australians, and I think I'd prefer Starc over Broad.

This is frankly patent nonsense. Starc has done... what, at Test level, exactly? I mean, "there's no justification" is just manifestly untrue, given that there's been plenty of justifications given.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I only really see Broad bowl against Australia for a whole match, other matches I just see a few overs here or there. He's always impressed me with his 'Godmode' function.
Saying he doesn't move the ball a long way doesn't bother me too much. Many test class bowlers have had the ability to just do enough to catch the edge or beat the bat. He's got plenty of test wickets and an average sub 30 at this stage. He's someone who'd make a fair few teams in history even if he's not an ATG