Spark
Global Moderator
This is a bad post, unless you can point to any instances of anyone actually saying either of these things.Yepp just like saying Broad > Harris or Sehwag > Warner on CW
This is a bad post, unless you can point to any instances of anyone actually saying either of these things.Yepp just like saying Broad > Harris or Sehwag > Warner on CW
Your posts are worse than poop imhoYepp just like saying Broad > Harris or Sehwag > Warner on CW
Easily imo.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.
I'm thinking Hadlee,Bond and BroadHmm, 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.
Nah respect the Cowie.I'm thinking Hadlee,Bond and Broad
Goswami may not compare with her ment counterparts but she is pretty amazing in her own rights actually. Terrific bowler.Nope, Jhulan Goswami is eons better.
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.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.
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.I find it weird how people will still insist on measuring by some other metric than winning matches
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.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.
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.
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.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.