• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Would Stuart Broad make India's strongest test XI?

Salamuddin

International Debutant
On a side note, Shane Bond is definitely a bit overrated as a test match bowler.
You could argue a case for Broad for making the all time Kiwi side.
 

MrPrez

International Debutant
Hmm, does he definitively take out Chatfield? I think I'd take Hadlee and Cowie ahead of him.

I also think Bond would have been ahead of him if he hadn't had such an injury-ridden career, but meh.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
In terms of quality, Broad just isn't as good as Bond/Shoaib/Asif/Harris imo. He's had a better career, of course, but those are two different things.
 

Gob

International Coach
Hmm, does he definitively take out Chatfield? I think I'd take Hadlee and Cowie ahead of him.

I also think Bond would have been ahead of him if he hadn't had such an injury-ridden career, but meh.
I'm thinking Hadlee,Bond and Broad
 

Flem274*

123/5
poor mans bruce taylor, let alone bond, hadlee, cowie level. he'd bowl too short at home anyway if he was kiwi, like he does every time he comes here.

he'd take the new ball as heath streaks understudy for zimbabwe.
 

MrPrez

International Debutant
Bond was a better bowler but it's always difficult to place him given how he was more often injured than not.
 

Flem274*

123/5
he almost played as many tests as his non-hadlee rivals though because before 1980 nz played **** all full stop

england and australia really do play an insane amount of tests. blokes who couldn't even average 30 like ramprakash played 52 tests. it's no wonder james anderson looked half dead for 4 tests of an ashes series not long ago.
 

MrPrez

International Debutant
he almost played as many tests as his non-hadlee rivals though because before 1980 nz played **** all full stop

england and australia really do play an insane amount of tests. blokes who couldn't even average 30 like ramprakash played 52 tests. it's no wonder james anderson looked half dead for 4 tests of an ashes series not long ago.
Yeah, I'm saying that you have to take his injury-proneness into account, imo. The others played so few tests because they weren't given the opportunity to play more; Bond played so few tests because his bowling was unsustainable.
 

MrPrez

International Debutant
I find it weird how people will still insist on measuring by some other metric than winning matches
I mean I'd argue that if we take someone like Imran Khan, at his prime he was better than someone like Garry Sobers. But since he couldn't replicate that level of performance across both batting and bowling throughout his career, we usually see him as worse than Sobers.

Likewise with Bond. You can't just take the instances when he was fit and bowled superbly, and ignore the fact that he could only play in like 30% of matches.

I'd take Stuart Broad over Bond in a team every time, knowing that Bond was so rarely available. I'd forgo his superior performance for someone who could actually bowl in most matches at a high level.
 

91Jmay

International Coach
In terms of quality, Broad just isn't as good as Bond/Shoaib/Asif/Harris imo. He's had a better career, of course, but those are two different things.
Then 'quality' is a meaningless thing to be honest. Harris basically only became a good bowler the age Broad is now, so judging 'quality' on that is absolutely ridiculous.

Having a shorter career can absolute benefit a player's stats for a myriad of reasons, which is never acknowledged on this forum.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I mean I'd argue that if we take someone like Imran Khan, at his prime he was better than someone like Garry Sobers. But since he couldn't replicate that level of performance across both batting and bowling throughout his career, we usually see him as worse than Sobers.

Likewise with Bond. You can't just take the instances when he was fit and bowled superbly, and ignore the fact that he could only play in like 30% of matches.

I'd take Stuart Broad over Bond in a team every time, knowing that Bond was so rarely available. I'd forgo his superior performance for someone who could actually bowl in most matches at a high level.
Then 'quality' is a meaningless thing to be honest. Harris basically only became a good bowler the age Broad is now, so judging 'quality' on that is absolutely ridiculous.

Having a shorter career can absolute benefit a player's stats for a myriad of reasons, which is never acknowledged on this forum.
Sure, but you're assuming I'm ignoring the fact that Harris, Shoaib etc. were often injured. I'm not. I consider them better even after considering that baggage.
 

Top