Starc vs Boult - who will have the better career?

[Bahnz]

An interesting thread to have a look at atm.

Things haven't changed all that much in the last couple of years though. Boult is still comfortably the more refined of the two, and is a far more mature test cricketer. However, Starc has gotten faster in the last couple of years from what I've seen and just appears to have everything that he needs to succeed, save maybe a decent bowling brain.

I can't help but think that in the next couple of years, once Harris and Johnson move off into retirement and a regular place in the test XI opens up for him, that Starc will become an absolute world beater in all forms and surpass Boult. Still, that eventuality is contingent on the patience of the Australian selectors and coaching staff, so it's far from certain.

 

[Flem274*]

I dont think its his brain. He just loses his radar and some swing in tests.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah the repeatability of his action and ability to consistently hit the spot in Tests may have nothing to do with his cricket brain.

But yeah, one imagines it's only a matter of time.

 

[hendrix]

Boult has a massive advantage at this point; they're both the same age but Boult has nearly 3 years of consistent Test cricket in which he's both dominated and gone through spells where he's looked inept. It took him a long time to develop his old ball skills which are only just coming to the fore, and his bowling on dead tracks has improved quite a bit. Starc has been in and out of the side and hasn't been given an opportunity to develop in that way.

Both were always likely to take bags of wickets at certain times but the ability to take wickets when nothing's happening could be the deciding factor.

 

[straw man]

Starc is far more like Southee than Boult. Just like Southee, Starc has all the physical attributes to be a top bowler so it becomes a question of mastering the mental side of bowling, plus experience.

Still stick by this - Starc and Southee both have the physicality to rock up to the bowling crease and send the ball down at 135-ish km/h with little apparent effort and with the natural bounce that their height offers. In my mind this leaves a lot of spare capacity to focus on accuracy, seam/swing (they both have good seam position anyway), extra pace or long spells, depending on what they think will work best against the opposition batsman.

Southee has passed that threshold of experience, can 'executes plans' and has confidence in the repeatability of his action, but this is bound to happen to a greater or lesser extent for Starc too. Starc also quicker obv - his no-effort ball 5ks faster than Southee and his fastest ball 10ks faster (though Southee nearly always bowls into the wind).

 

[Jono]

Starc vs. Boult aka Ironman vs. the Flash.

 

[Flem274*]

Which is which?

 

[Jono]

Starc = Tony Stark = Ironman
Boult = Lightning bolt = The Flash

 

[Burgey]

Go back to work Jono

 

[Jono]

 

[Furball]

I dont think its his brain. He just loses his radar and some swing in tests.

He looks really hittable with a red ball IMO. Just sort of floats it up there begging to be smacked.

Love his action though, it's so beautifully languid. Almost looks like he could bowl 200ks if he bothered trying given how effortlessly he bowls at 150.

 

[hendrix]

He looks really hittable with a red ball IMO. Just sort of floats it up there begging to be smacked.

This is true of any swing bowler if things aren't quite perfect. Southee and Anderson can look the same.

 

[Furball]

Nah for the pace Starc bowls at he looks so unthreatening with the red ball, he's the left handed Steve Finn in that regard. On paper has all the attributes to be a quality Test quick but just doesn't cut it quite yet.

 

[Zinzan]

Nah for the pace Starc bowls at he looks so unthreatening with the red ball, he's the left handed Steve Finn in that regard. On paper has all the attributes to be a quality Test quick but just doesn't cut it quite yet.

I'm sure one really good test spell will change that & then there will be no looking back.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Nah for the pace Starc bowls at he looks so unthreatening with the red ball, he's the left handed Steve Finn in that regard. On paper has all the attributes to be a quality Test quick but just doesn't cut it quite yet.

It's all down to his consistency in length. He bowls the most rank half volleys I've ever seen.

 

[Top_Cat]

Personally think he needs to make the decision most quick swing bowlers have to make for Tests, whether to bowl for pace or bowl for swing. The latter is his jam, tbh, because I don't think his quick stuff is anywhere near as good as his swing stuff.

 

[hendrix]

It's all down to his consistency in length. He bowls the most rank half volleys I've ever seen.

yeah half volleys seem to be punished far less in ODI cricket than Tests.

 

[Flem274*]

well when those half volleys are 150kph hooping inswingers to the right hander they become just a bit harder to hit.

whereas his test stuff is just nude half volleys that come on at a nice pace.

 

[Top_Cat]

Let's not forget being a leftie swing bowler to a world full of righties is inherently a harder thing to do, let alone perfect. Even if you're swinging the ball (and sometimes because you are), everyone remembers the one or two per over which slipped onto middle-and-leg and gave the batsman an easy one to deep fine, obviously a much easier thing to do when you're trying to bring the ball back in. It sticks because it is such a massive momentum killer to the fielding side ("Bloke's trying too hard to swing it, just bowl dry mate!"). So poor Leftie McSwinger feels the pressure and tries to get the batsman on the drive, giving up some easy 4s through cover instead. The fielding captain, wary of such bowling, pulls poor Leftie from the attack to stem the bleeding and quietly makes a decision to use other Lefties more for 'shock' than 'stock' from that point on. Leftie then feels the pressure to get bags of wickets and quickly because, well that's what he's being picked for, and the cycle repeats, spirals, gets worse.

Always find it interesting how different bowlers are remembered. Virtually noone ever puts Wasim as equal to or ahead of McG, the former mostly remembered as enigmatic/inconsistent vs McG's professional/metronomic, etc. Yet, to achieve McG's bowling average Wasim would only have to have taken, say, 38 more Test wickets. He played in 43 Test series' so that adds up to less than one extra per series. Bugger-all, in other words but who's first thought upon thinking Wasim's bowling was how consistent he was? I know mine wasn't.

 

[Riggins]

Always find it interesting how different bowlers are remembered. Virtually noone ever puts Wasim as equal to or ahead of McG, the former mostly remembered as enigmatic/inconsistent vs McG's professional/metronomic, etc. Yet, to achieve McG's bowling average Wasim would only have to have taken, say, 38 more Test wickets. He played in 43 Test series' so that adds up to less than one extra per series. Bugger-all, in other words but who's first thought upon thinking Wasim's bowling was how consistent he was? I know mine wasn't.

Same with Sachin too. If he had just taken a little less than one extra wicket per series he'd have achieved McG's average. Wasim and Sachin both under-rated imo.