Mitchell Starc v. Vernon Philander

[GotSpin]

to the above post

 

[Slifer]

Yep, Hazlewood is probably a more reasonable comparison. Excellent bowler. Bright future ahead. Not quite sure who he replaces in a RSA line up outside of Morkel.

Steyn lol no!!. Philander nope either. Rabada?? Close but no again.

 

[Tec15]

Wonder if there's still any debate about this. Also remember Rabada being a "poor man's Cummins" from the same Aussie posters. Next poll?

 

[oblongballs]

Starc is still the better, faster, ACTUAL fast bowler.

Don't get me wrong, philander is terrific but if I had to pick a team to play across formats in all conditions, I'd pick Starc and think so would anyone. None of that stops Philander being world class, it just means Starc is even better.

 

[Black_Warrior]

When we have these threads and polls on Cricket Chat, we're generally referring to Test cricket unless ODIs/T20s are specifically mentioned. Most people voted here keeping Test cricket in mind. 32 of his 40 Tests are outside of Asia and he still averages 27. The only reason this is even a topic is because Starc is Australian. I mean Bhuvnesh Kumar also averages 27 and he mostly plays in Asia but would anyone put Kumar and Philander in the same conversation? Or comparison?

 

[Stefan9]

Not close and has never been. Vern is a much better bowler and the test stats prove it.

Only thing starc has on him is pace.

 

[Slifer]

Starc is still the better, faster, ACTUAL fast bowler.

Don't get me wrong, philander is terrific but if I had to pick a team to play across formats in all conditions, I'd pick Starc and think so would anyone. None of that stops Philander being world class, it just means Starc is even better.

Without qualification, usually when the world's best is mentioned we mean tests. And in tests, it's Vern daylight then Starc. I don't think anyone with a brain thought there was much debate between these two...

 

[a massive zebra]

Yeah, this isn't even a contest. Big Vern is leagues ahead.

 

[stephen]

I'm not sure last night did anything to change the equation. Philander still ahead on decks with assistance. Starc still ahead on dead tracks.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Well Starc is ahead on them as big Vern always pulls a fat before those matches so we don't know.

 

[oblongballs]

Without qualification, usually when the world's best is mentioned we mean tests. And in tests, it's Vern daylight then Starc. I don't think anyone with a brain thought there was much debate between these two...

Maybe that's how you see it, but the best of anything has to be the best across formats. The ODI game is important too and philander isn't close to Starc's level in that. This whole idea that only test cricket matters is so outdated, I assume most of you here are even older than me.

 

[Chrish]

If Australian batsmen are criticized for averaging too high at home, surely their bowlers should get extra points for having to bowl consistently on these lifeless tracks?

Conversely SA batsmen should get extra credit as well?

 

[GotSpin]

Maybe that's how you see it, but the best of anything has to be the best across formats. The ODI game is important too and philander isn't close to Starc's level in that. This whole idea that only test cricket matters is so outdated, I assume most of you here are even older than me.

We're discussing test cricket bowling. Not that hard to get really

 

[smash84]

If Australian batsmen are criticized for averaging too high at home, surely their bowlers should get extra points for having to bowl consistently on these lifeless tracks?

Conversely SA batsmen should get extra credit as well?

This is just like SL batsmen dominating the flattest pancake tracks at home while Murali was taking dozens of wickets per match on dustbowls of SL.

 

[Chrish]

This is just like SL batsmen dominating the flattest pancake tracks at home while Murali was taking dozens of wickets per match on dustbowls of SL.

Is it the same thing though? SC wickets usually start breaking down from the 4th day and so spinners can always take can wickets in bunch. OZ decks on the other hand have been completely torrid for past few years with no sign of life even on 4th-5th days in many games.

 

[Coronis]

Is it the same thing though? SC wickets usually start breaking down from the 4th day and so spinners can always take can wickets in bunch. OZ decks on the other hand have been completely torrid for past few years with no sign of life even on 4th-5th days in many games.

That way Murali and Sanga suck!

 

[randycricfreak]

That way Murali and Sanga suck!

Ponting sucked more.

Looked an absolute dump in India

 

[Black_Warrior]

Maybe that's how you see it, but the best of anything has to be the best across formats. The ODI game is important too and philander isn't close to Starc's level in that. This whole idea that only test cricket matters is so outdated, I assume most of you here are even older than me.

Well in that case, Kohli the better overall player than Smith because ODI game is important too and Smith is not even close to Kohli in ODIs.

 

[Black_Warrior]

If Australian batsmen are criticized for averaging too high at home, surely their bowlers should get extra points for having to bowl consistently on these lifeless tracks?

Conversely SA batsmen should get extra credit as well?

Sure, except that this is applied almost always selectively and generally for English/Australian cricketers. English batsmen don't average 50+ because they bat in the toughest conditions. Australian bowlers don't average below 24 because they bowl on the flattest of pitches.

Wasim Akram played 41 tests on the flattest pitches in the world in Pakistan and they are different kind of flat than the Australian ones.They don't even have pace, or carry and his slip fielders won't even catch. He still averaged 22 in Pakistan where Dennis Lillee would not tour, and 23 overall but then we say "Wasim gets no extra credit for bowling well on his home tracks". Wasim is considered 'tier 2' on CW.

As long as this is applied consistently across all players, then sure give Starc extra credit. But if it's just going to be "Murali is not all that as he played on the most helpful tracks" but then subsequently we offer no extra credit to Vaas for bowling well on those same tracks, then it's just a continuation of the same hypocrisy "“Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.”

 

[Chrish]

Sure, except that this is applied almost always selectively and generally for English/Australian cricketers. English batsmen don't average 50+ because they bat in the toughest conditions. Australian bowlers don't average below 24 because they bowl on the flattest of pitches.

Wasim Akram played 41 tests on the flattest pitches in the world in Pakistan and they are different kind of flat than the Australian ones.They don't even have pace, or carry and his slip fielders won't even catch. He still averaged 22 in Pakistan where Dennis Lillee would not tour, and 23 overall but then we say "Wasim gets no extra credit for bowling well on his home tracks". Wasim is considered 'tier 2' on CW.

As long as this is applied consistently across all players, then sure give Starc extra credit. But if it's just going to be "Murali is not all that as he played on the most helpful tracks" but then subsequently we offer no extra credit to Vaas for bowling well on those same tracks, then it's just a continuation of the same hypocrisy "“Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.”

Such things should certainly be considered although I am not sure what's the correct way to quantify it. The reason for my original post was someone here posted the bowling averages from each country not long ago, and Australian bowling average was a complete outlier.