Starc vs Boult - who will have the better career?

[Furball]

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.

In fairness I think McGrath gets remembered as metronomic because it was his main skill - he didn't extract extravagant movement either off the seam or through the air and wasn't express pace either. You think pf the great quicks - Steyn is fast and swings it, Waqar and Wasim swung the ball around corners, Marshall was rapid, Hadlee moved the ball all over the place off the seam. McGrath had no obvious massive strength/skill in that sort of vein, so we go with 'metronome' because despite all that he just consistently got the best guys out again and again and again.

On the swing thing, I think it's a case of bowlers being taught wrongly. Anderson always got questioned for having the outswinger as his stock ball to lefties but if I could swing it both ways I'd go with exactly the same approach to righties, which appears to be unconventional as most lefties seem to be taught to swing it into righties.

 

[hendrix]

which appears to be unconventional as most lefties seem to be taught to swing it into righties.

That's just a mechanics thing. 3/4 right armers are naturally outswing bowlers, 3/4 lefties inswing. It just seems to be a more common action.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

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.

Yeah he's gained 10kph this WC over what he was sending down in tests before. I think the main difference is that in ODIs batsmen are more likely to drive loosely at his fuller balls which puts him in business. In tests he's more likely to have the same deliveries neatly timed through the covers or down the ground since batsmen aren't looking to attack everything.

 

[Riggins]

I think the main difference is that in ODIs batsmen are more likely to drive loosely at his fuller balls which puts him in business. In tests he's more likely to have the same deliveries neatly timed through the covers or down the ground since batsmen aren't looking to attack everything.

I think it's a combination of this and the fact that in ODI's he's bowling with a ball that is, at the very worst, 20 odd overs old. He's actually been alright with the new ball in tests, and especially good with the second new ball. When he gets taken down is when the ball is older and not doing anything, which doesn't really happen in ODI's.

 

[Burgey]

This is indeed true, and until he gets a decent run in the test side or at FC level where he can hone his skills during those middle overs, he will continue to struggle.

Once he finds out how to do it, he will be ridiculously good imo.

 

[Hurricane]

I am not a bowler so I appreciate top cat's and albi's comments / analysis.

This is a modest comment since I have more to say about batting than bowling, but I think to get that effectiveness in the middle overs with a red ball he will need to pull his lengths back to 'just short of a good length' and pressure the batsman into a mistake or hopefully have it hit the seam and do a little bit. With his height he could be difficult to handle and catch the shoulder of the bat etc

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Burgey brought it up in the match thread.

The two still has a long way to go but worth looking where they stand at this point.

*bump*

 

[Black_Warrior]

They call one the White Akram, the other the Poor man's Akram.

 

[Athlai]

Starc is better, and it honestly may end up by being by quite a sizeable margin.

 

[Shri]

They call one the White Akram, the other the Poor man's Akram.

Which is stupid. Akram could bowl perfect outswingers and inswingers at will, could bowl perfect leg and off cutters, epic slower balls, yorkers and bouncers and could also reverse it like no one else. There has never been a fast bowler with his skills in cricket after him.

I mean you can be a better and more useful bowler to your team without being as skillful as he was but that doesn't mean you can be as talented as him.

 

[Burgey]

They call one the White Akram, the other the Poor man's Akram.

TBF it was only ever the Kiwi Cabal which treated Boult as the White Akram, a name I sarcastically bestowed on him because he so regularly and gloriously fails to live up to any sort of hype, let alone that which our little brothers from across the Tasman bestow upon him.

Neither is in the same league as Akram, but Starc is better and the gap is growing exponentially.

 

[Daemon]

Spark

 

[Zinzan]

TBF it was only ever the Kiwi Cabal which treated Boult as the White Akram, a name I sarcastically bestowed on him because he so regularly and gloriously fails to live up to any sort of hype, let alone that which our little brothers from across the Tasman bestow upon him.

I really think you've been overplaying that hand for over 12 months now Burgey.

Unless I'm mistaken, only Kiwivictor and Flem tend to sensationalise & overrate NZ players massively. I might have missed it, but I don't recall the rest of the Kiwiblock over-hyping him that much at all.

 

[Blocky]

I really think you've been overplaying that hand for over 12 months now Burgey.

Unless I'm mistaken, only Kiwivictor and Flem tend to sensationalise & overrate NZ players massively. I might have missed it, but I don't recall the rest of the Kiwiblock over-hyping him that much at all.

Athlai, Flem, Hendrix, Howsie.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Let's see what happened after the thread was made,

Boult

39 Tests, Average 29.15, SR 60
29 ODIs, Average 22.40, ER 4.86

Starc

27 Tests, Average 27.17, SR 47.1
45 ODIs, Average 19.28, ER 4.70

Absolutely no contest in ODIs and although people including me had reservations about Starc with red ball, it's fair to say he has dismissed that as well

 

[Blocky]

Starc is the far brainier bowler too, sets them up and works to a plan rather than just relying on miracle swing.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Boult's not even the best left-armer in the Black Caps

 

[Black_Warrior]

Starc maybe the better bowler, but Boult might end up having the better career as Starc is likely to break down a lot more and get effected by injuries a lot more a bit like how Shoaib Akhtar was better than a lot of bowlers who ended up having a better career than him

 

[Blocky]

Starc maybe the better bowler, but Boult might end up having the better career as Starc is likely to break down a lot more and get effected by injuries a lot more a bit like how Shoaib Akhtar was better than a lot of bowlers who ended up having a better career than him

Boult isn't looking that great for staying on the park either to be honest. He's had a recurring back problem, now a knee issue - not good signs for a reasonably young quick.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Starc maybe the better bowler, but Boult might end up having the better career as Starc is likely to break down a lot more and get effected by injuries a lot more a bit like how Shoaib Akhtar was better than a lot of bowlers who ended up having a better career than him

That is where Australia have to manage him carefully. Starc is great in t20s but he does not need to play those and also as blocky said Boult is not a hard made wall as well