wfdu_ben91

Seeing as you didn't want to make that 'Versus' thread in fear of being proven wrong, I've just asked the question in the Ashes thread. Wonder if there'll be a response, hope so.

A few runs came from the edge and misplaced shots, but 40% is just a bull**** statistic.

I'm only defending the comparison with Daren Powell, which you're simply wrong about. Broad is better. If you're confident about your opinion make a versus thread in Cricket Chat. I'd guess that the large majority will hold Broad in far higher regard. Powell is useless.

So Simon Katich is going to get his average up by 8 runs over the course of the series is he?

That is utter drivel. Not even going to bother replying to it mate. You really do talk some rubbish. Where on earth did that "40% of England's runs came off the edge" drivel come from?

I thought the average of 28 on the Windies roads compared to Powell's average of 57 showed the sheer gulf. The difference in average between the Windies batsmen and the rest of the World is certainly not 29 runs. You're talking rubbish. Powell was dropped from the Windies sides for Lionel Baker, think that says it all.

Powell has played as part of a very decent bowling attack. Jerome Taylor, Fidel Edwards and Dwayne Bravo are very good fast bowlers, so that last statement is utter drivel. It's not like he's playing with utterly useless team-mates, he was just woeful compared to them, hence why he's been replaced by a very average bowler like Baker. Surely the fact that Baker is better than Powell is proof that Broad is better than him.

As for bouncing Pietersen out, not that impressive, Bravo has bounced Pietersen out. Hell, Warne nearly did it in 2005. He's actually quite a poor player of the short ball, and was in far more trouble against Edwards' bouncer than Powell's. Broad took a 5fer against South Africa for not many, 1 performance means very little. Broad's miles better than Daren Powell.

I never said it did, just defending the fact that you thought that Daren Powell is better than him, which simply isn't true. He has bowled well in the last 6-8 months, and against the West Indies especially got the figures he deserved. The tracks he played on in the Windies were flat as roads, and he still averaged 28, which shows how well he bowled. He sure as hell isn't at his best in this Test, and if you feel that Powell is better than him because of this 1 poor performance then you'll be proven wrong. If we were going by this Test alone (which you obviously are), then Hilfenhaus > Siddle and Johnson.

He came into Test cricket far too early, and is now starting to warm to the task. Michael Holding had the same problem. Was brought in far too early, and his record early in his career was poor, but as he gained experience he improved immensely. Not saying that Broad will be as good as Holding, but it's not completely impossible.
New Zealand and West Indies are not minnows either. They've got some very decent batsmen, West Indies had the best batsman in the world when we played them in the Windies. Chris Gayle is a very good player, as is Ramnaresh Sarwan, and Brendan Nash was impressive as well. They're nowhere near as bad as you make them out to be, so simply dismissing performances against them is incredibly harsh.
The reason Broad hasn't got wickets in this Test is because he's bowled poorly, not because Australia are miles better than anyone else he's played. He can bowl far better than he has, and you're just plain ignorant if you can't see that.

Yeh that makes sense, take out the opposition he's played well against. Genius. You did the same with Matt Prior's Test record as well iirc, laughable way of justifying your argument really. Manipulating stats is all well and good, but just taking out good performances against a Test nation to make a guy look **** is ridiculous. Take out Warnes performances at home and against South Africa, England, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and the World XI and he averages 38. Worse than Graeme Swann tbh.

It's a ridiculous method of scrutinising a player. Broad's miles better than Powell.

Powell averages 57 in the West Indies. Pretty big gap that, irrespective of the opposition.

Broad averaged 28 in the West Indies.

Not even going to bother replying to that. Powell ahead of Broad, lol.

You obviously didn't watch any of that series then, as you'd know he's bowled rubbish compared to what he was doing against the West Indies. It's got bugger all to do with the batsmen he's bowling too, he's bowled way too many short and wide deliveries and his pace has been down. If you honestly believe this is Broad at the top of his game, and it's just the batsmen he's bowling to then you'll definitely be proven wrong. He is far better than the showing in this game.

I wouldn't be so confident about writing him off yet. I do still firmly believe he's got alot of potential, and will have a long and successful Test career, just had a bad game that's all. He'll be back. No way I can defend him in this Test though, he's been ****e. Bowled 3 or 4 good overs out of 20odd, rubbish. Get Jimmy or Fred on.

He's only a part-timer. In for his batting tbh. May have been wrong about him I guess, has been ****e in this game. Onions and Harmison could have been better options than Broad. Have to see as the series goes on.

Jimmy > Australia.

Swann's outbowled Hauritz. He's been putting good pressure on, with 6 maidens, going at under 2 an over. Just the pressure built up by him has been released by Panesar and Broad. Broad's has been awful though I'll give you that, only bowled 2 good overs all day. He can and will bowl a heck of alot better than this as the series goes on though, you'll be proven wrong yet.

He's bowled much better after lunch. He will prove you wrong.

Check message below for details.

Flintoff > Hughes.

I knew how good Hughes was, and 2 overs show nothing about Broad.