Would Stuart Broad make India's strongest test XI?

[hang on]

was positive that sharma has also bowled some match winning spells against australia, gingerfurball. and, while skittling the west indies might not be all that great, i distinctly recollect broad not being much cop in the skittling stakes in the west indies a couple of years ago!

 

[vcs]

So skittling a hopeless West Indian line up is the same as bowling match winning spells against Australia and South Africa?

Ok then.

Ishant Sharma has also been known to bowl well to decent batting lineups in the past.

Remind me how many times England took 20 wickets on their last visit to the Caribbean?

 

[biased indian]

So skittling a hopeless West Indian line up is the same as bowling match winning spells against Australia and South Africa?

Ok then.

just 2 good series don't make a good bowler either..

 

[Cevno]

I've finally figured out how to make sense out of this thread. Take each poster in isolation, and we get cause for amusement: some worthies claiming that Broad is or close to being an all time great, while others claim that he is no better than Unadkat.

The trick is to realise than Bun and Burgey are two sides of the very same coin; that together they produce something meaningful. Average out the delightful Burgey-Conjencture and the entertaining Bun-Proposition and we get something meaningful - the profound Bun-Burgey-Hypotheses: Broad is my no means great, but he isn't terrible either.

Gold.

 

[Howe_zat]

Ugh, this thread just gets worse. Gonna stop reading it before I fall out with people I actually like.

 

[Eloquentia]

Sharma's form in the last year despite 2 bad series has now matched Broad's form in 2009.
To quote myself -

Selective choice of stats. Don't 'bash' me for it.

Love your circular logic by the way. 'To quote myself' - using your own argument to prove yourself correct in an argument

You're essentially saying, because you and vcs are agreeing, it makes me incorrect!

And to quote VCS now -

So that is a bit innacurate statement in itself.

You are saying that 2009 should count but not 2008 for some reason and that is being selective.
Also Ishant only played 4 tests due to Injury in that period ,so that really proves nothing.

'for some reason'

I'd personal say that the fact the 2009 is closer than 2008 is a good enough reason. It's not being selective, it's being rational and logical - using a players recent performances to judge them - just not too recent, otherwise form plays too great a part. However, I agree that Ishant playing 4 tests means it is harder to judge - alike to Broad in the Ashes, and this year. Take your own medicine.

Then you say the following things -

Well first of all the difference in economy is not that huge and secondly Ishant and Zaheer are almost guaranteed starters for India after the tour Sharma is having in the Windies right now.

In cricketing terms, 0.5 runs difference in economy is pretty large mate.

Never refuted that Ishant is a definite starter.

All of this is bashing Indian bowlers to make Broad look better or something.
When there is no need to do it.

I particularly disagree with your points on Praveen Kumar who can be very useful with the red ball in certain conditions and also on certain points about Sreesanth who also remember here you are comparing to Broad who himself has not come anywhere near to achieving his potential at the moment ,not some great consistent bowler.

While i agree with the crux of your argument that Ishant or Sreesanth or Praveen are all in the same ballpark as Broad ,i don't agree with the arguments you are using there to show it.

Are you getting a bit upset that I'd be negative about your pace bowlers? Seriously. It's clearly the weakest part of your team, I'm 'bashing' them, because quite clearly, they are weak. No doubt Broad is quite weak too, it's a weak group.

----

Sidenote: West Indies batting lineup at the moment resembles Bangladesh's...it is second rate. Take Windies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out of an average and it's fair more representative of true skill - players who take wickets against test standard nations.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Ugh, this thread just gets worse. Gonna stop reading it before I fall out with people I actually like.

AWTA. Pretty much the worst aspect of these sort of threads.

 

[Cevno]

Selective choice of stats. Don't 'bash' me for it.

Love your circular logic by the way. 'To quote myself' - using your own argument to prove yourself correct in an argument

You're essentially saying, because you and vcs are agreeing, it makes me incorrect!

I was quoting myself because i had made the exact same point in the other thread which you posted in too ,but you chose to ignore it.
I wasn't saying that because i said so before it was correct ,but quoted it because that post only contained Statistics similar to one you posted and nothing else.

And What VCS posted is a fact too,which i didn't really want to type again and again.

And the fact that you are arguing about just quoting them posts,rather than what they contained says it all.

'for some reason'

I'd personal say that the fact the 2009 is closer than 2008 is a good enough reason. It's not being selective, it's being rational and logical - using a players recent performances to judge them - just not too recent, otherwise form plays too great a part.

Because you may start from 2008,from the start of the career or only from 2010 or 2011 and it is all arbitary and you are suiting your argument with it.

However, I agree that Ishant playing 4 tests means it is harder to judge - alike to Broad in the Ashes, and this year. Take your own medicine.

That's the point i was making in my post you quoted in your post initially with regards to form. What medicine should i take when you are only making my point to me again?

Wonder if you would have said the same about 6/7 months ago is the question though.

In cricketing terms, 0.5 runs difference in economy is pretty large mate.

Never refuted that Ishant is a definite starter.

You said that if India start with Sreesanth and Zaheer only ,when they won't really now.
Also 0.5 runs difference in economy is made up by 4 runs and more difference in average and a difference in strike rate.
Besides economy is relative to the conditions they have played in too and does not matter upto a point in tests.

Are you getting a bit upset that I'd be negative about your pace bowlers? Seriously. It's clearly the weakest part of your team, I'm 'bashing' them, because quite clearly, they are weak. No doubt Broad is quite weak too, it's a weak group.

Quite weak by what standards though?
You are comparing them to broad here not some ATG fast bowler and you were bashing them.
Besides they are better than what you were giving them credit for.
----

Sidenote: West Indies batting lineup at the moment resembles Bangladesh's...it is second rate. Take Windies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe out of an average and it's fair more representative of true skill - players who take wickets against test standard nations

.

Let's exclude a Crisis ridden Pakistan and Newzealand too while we are at it or does that not suit your argument?

At the end of the day they are all in the same ball park in all means. Just accept it and move on both ways.

 

[Howe_zat]

Also, Eloquentia, nice posting. Take my word for it that this is CC at its murkiest.

 

[Eloquentia]

I was quoting myself because i had made the exact same point in the other thread which you posted in too ,but you chose to ignore it.
I wasn't saying that because i said so before it was correct ,but quoted it because that post only contained Statistics similar to one you posted and nothing else.
And What VCS posted is a fact too,which i didn't really want to type again and again.
And the fact that you are arguing about just quoting them posts,rather than what they contained says it all.
Because you may start from 2008,from the start of the career or only from 2010 or 2011 and it is all arbitary and you are suiting your argument with it.
That's the point i was making in my post you quoted in your post initially with regards to form. What medicine should i take when you are only making my point to me again?
Wonder if you would have said the same about 6/7 months ago is the question though.
You said that if India start with Sreesanth and Zaheer only ,when they won't really now.
Also 0.5 runs difference in economy is made up by 4 runs and more difference in average and a difference in strike rate.
Besides economy is relative to the conditions they have played in too and does not matter upto a point in tests.
Quite weak by what standards though?
You are comparing them to broad here not some ATG fast bowler and you were bashing them.
Besides they are better than what you were giving them credit for.
----
Let's exclude a Crisis ridden Pakistan and Newzealand too while we are at it or does that not suit your argument?

At the end of the day they are all in the same ball park in all means. Just accept it and move on both ways.

Bolding the parts I'll address. The rest is just pointless dribble.

The reason I've used a 3 (or 2 1/2 to be precise) year rolling average as personally - I believe that it is the right mix between form, and the past - to gauge someone's 'class' - if it stretches into 4 years ago - it's too far back, and if it goes to 1 + 1/2 years ago, it's too recent for me. Yet again, this is just something I propose - others may disagree, but I feel 3 or so years is a good sample. You wouldn't factor in Jacques Kallis's first 2-3 years of test cricket if someone asked you what he's going to do tomorrow, would you?

The medicine I refer to is the notion you (or Indians, I get lost) seem to refer to:

"Broad is rubbish, look at his results from Englands recent matches and the Ashes"

It's like 3-4 matches....you seem to use that to infer that Broad is rubbish - yet are willing to pass off the year where Sharma played 4 games as 'uncountable' due to him only playing 4 matches.

I've seen this 6/7 month thing referenced a few times - I don't get it, what point is it attacking?

You're trying to hard to justify and intertwine stats, and use them as evidence. Something I think is really important, is that stats can justify anything if manipulated correctly - and they are not the be all and end all for performance indication. Watch a game of cricket, watch how they play, that's a better indicator.

However, trying to intertwine strike rate, economy and average is pointless - they all indicate different things about a cricketer - I'm referencing economy to highlight the difference in roles which they play. The economy factor highlights my point that Broad isn't just a bowler who's role is to take wickets. He's very much at times a containing bowler - Ishant doesn't seem to be that.

This whole 'conditions' argument, how does it effect them...as you say later, same ball park mate, economy isn't affected so drastically as it is between Broad and Sharma due to conditions. Circular logic.

I think it's fair to say that the top 5 teams are in one echelon, while NZ and Pakistan are in the next, followed by Windies, then Bangladesh/Zimbabwe.

Just because Pakistan is crisis ridden - doesn't mean they're poor - their whole team has virtually changed in 12 months, and they're still performing alright. They're by no means a rubbish batting unit, at least compared to the West Indies. New Zealand are passable as well.

Anyway, I'm absolutely sick and tired of arguing an argument with you based on false premises, fallacies, circular logic and manipulation of stats. Stats indicate little, it's ridiculous. Player X is not better than Player Y because his average is better. Think about the roles people have, not all cricketer's roles depend on taking wickets. Cut the stats nonsense.

 

[Eloquentia]

Also, Eloquentia, nice posting. Take my word for it that this is CC at its murkiest.

Haha, cheers. I'm worried I've entrenched myself into a pointless debate that'll get me off on the wrong foot here.

CC = Cricket Chat?

Just seems as if the place is overridden with statistical analysis and bias.

 

[Blaze 18]

Lets not get silly about this either way.

Zaheer is conclusively better than Broad. Broad is conclusively better than Mithun and Unadkat. He's in same league as Sharma, Sreesanth, Munaf and Praveen - all bowlers who have shown promise and/or the tools to be successful at Test level without proving their consistency just yet.

At this very moment Sharma's just coming off his best series ever and Broad has had a difficult return from injury, so Sharma's going to look better, but given the general inconsistency of both bowlers across their careers its definitely too early to say that Sharma is conclusively better. If we compared them just after Broad had run through the Australians in the 2009 Ashes while Sharma had been axed for Sreesanth it'd have a whole different complexion to it; we've just picked a random point in two young bowlers' careers that happens to favour one. Just because that point happens to be now doesn't give it special significance, particularly given how up and down the bowlers have been in their careers; it's no real pointer at all to how well or otherwise they'll play in their next series.

Personally I think Sreesanth is better than both but they're all in the same ballpark.

Great post. Agree with everything except the bit about Sreesanth being better than both.

 

[Cevno]

Bolding the parts I'll address. The rest is just pointless dribble.

The reason I've used a 3 (or 2 1/2 to be precise) year rolling average as personally - I believe that it is the right mix between form, and the past - to gauge someone's 'class' - if it stretches into 4 years ago - it's too far back, and if it goes to 1 + 1/2 years ago, it's too recent for me. Yet again, this is just something I propose - others may disagree, but I feel 3 or so years is a good sample. You wouldn't factor in Jacques Kallis's first 2-3 years of test cricket if someone asked you what he's going to do tomorrow, would you?

The medicine I refer to is the notion you (or Indians, I get lost) seem to refer to:

"Broad is rubbish, look at his results from Englands recent matches and the Ashes"

It's like 3-4 matches....you seem to use that to infer that Broad is rubbish - yet are willing to pass off the year where Sharma played 4 games as 'uncountable' due to him only playing 4 matches.

I've seen this 6/7 month thing referenced a few times - I don't get it, what point is it attacking?

You're trying to hard to justify and intertwine stats, and use them as evidence. Something I think is really important, is that stats can justify anything if manipulated correctly - and they are not the be all and end all for performance indication. Watch a game of cricket, watch how they play, that's a better indicator.

However, trying to intertwine strike rate, economy and average is pointless - they all indicate different things about a cricketer - I'm referencing economy to highlight the difference in roles which they play. The economy factor highlights my point that Broad isn't just a bowler who's role is to take wickets. He's very much at times a containing bowler - Ishant doesn't seem to be that.

This whole 'conditions' argument, how does it effect them...as you say later, same ball park mate, economy isn't affected so drastically as it is between Broad and Sharma due to conditions. Circular logic.

I think it's fair to say that the top 5 teams are in one echelon, while NZ and Pakistan are in the next, followed by Windies, then Bangladesh/Zimbabwe.

Just because Pakistan is crisis ridden - doesn't mean they're poor - their whole team has virtually changed in 12 months, and they're still performing alright. They're by no means a rubbish batting unit, at least compared to the West Indies. New Zealand are passable as well.

Anyway, I'm absolutely sick and tired of arguing an argument with you based on false premises, fallacies, circular logic and manipulation of stats. Stats indicate little, it's ridiculous. Player X is not better than Player Y because his average is better. Think about the roles people have, not all cricketer's roles depend on taking wickets. Cut the stats nonsense.

First of all it was you who started using stats and selective ones like averages per year and economy rates and what not. And then you are blaming me for using stats.Gold .

Secondly,you are conveniently ignoring the important parts of the posts before and again where your whole argument has been proven to be false about consistency and showing class.

Thirdly, The medicine I refer to is the notion you (or Indians, I get lost) seem to refer to:

"Broad is rubbish, look at his results from Englands recent matches and the Ashes"

Who did that ? I certainly didn't.

Also i suggest you read this thread from the start count the number of times Ishant ,Sreesanth and Broad each have been called rubbish or equivalent,think about it and then come back before making mass generalisations or something like that.

Fourthly, West Indies batting lineup is by no means much worse or even worse than Pakistan or Newzealand so don't know where you are going with that nonsense. That is another example of being selective to your argument which you have been doing.

Fifthly -

At the end of the day they are all in the same ball park in all means. Just accept it and move on both ways.

Do you agree with what i posted here or not?
Because without saying it openly actually you are implying the opposite in a hidden manner.

 

[marc71178]

was positive that sharma has also bowled some match winning spells against australia, gingerfurball. and, while skittling the west indies might not be all that great, i distinctly recollect broad not being much cop in the skittling stakes in the west indies a couple of years ago!

What, you mean when he took his wickets at 30 on some of the flattest tracks in recent history? Yes, he was really "not much cop" in that series.

 

[hang on]

What, you mean when he took his wickets at 30 on some of the flattest tracks in recent history? Yes, he was really "not much cop" in that series.

yep, u read that right, didn't u? not much cop in the skittling stakes was what i had written. not just about his bowling passing muster, which, according to me, it had.

regarding the flat track chestnut. was wondering when it was going to make its appearance. i imagine that the same courtesy is being extended to sharma for all the matches he does play on flat tracks in sri lanka or india (not always but when). i

btw, i do have broad ahead of sharma. it's just that the dismissal of his performance in the west indies (21 wickets so far) is quite ridiculous.

 

[marc71178]

Now which wickets were more conducive to skittling teams out, the one's where teams were regularly notching up 500+ or the one's where neither team could get to 300?

Also, which batting line up was harder to get out, the one where 4 of the top 6 averaged just about 50 or the one where only 1 batsman averaged 40?

To compare the 2 is a complete joke.

 

[vcs]

Now which wickets were more conducive to skittling teams out, the one's where teams were regularly notching up 500+ or the one's where neither team could get to 300?

Also, which batting line up was harder to get out, the one where 4 of the top 6 averaged just about 50 or the one where only 1 batsman averaged 40?

To compare the 2 is a complete joke.

But like I pointed out earlier, it's not like Ishant is an Irfan Pathan case where all his good spells have only come against minnows.

 

[hang on]

what's actually a complete joke is the way the sharma's decent performances are discounted while broad's are not. and allowances of the flat track variety are trotted out to excuse broad's less than ordinary performances while the same courtesy is not extended to sharma.

double standards much?!

anyways, it certainly seems that there will be no constructive debate on this one and so i leave u to big up broad and belittle sharma.

just to refresh your memory, my original comment, which brought up the fact that sharma has some matchwinning spells against australia, was directed at:

So skittling a hopeless West Indian line up is the same as bowling match winning spells against Australia and South Africa?

Ok then.

and, i repeat, i have broad ahead of sharma.

 

[square]

Now which wickets were more conducive to skittling teams out, the one's where teams were regularly notching up 500+ or the one's where neither team could get to 300?

Also, which batting line up was harder to get out, the one where 4 of the top 6 averaged just about 50 or the one where only 1 batsman averaged 40?

To compare the 2 is a complete joke.

What is the average of Broad in Bangladesh ?

Why couldn't England beat WI last time when they toured there ?

Agree comparing a side which hasn't won a series against India in last 15 years is a big joke to a side which has won twice is big joke.

 

[Blaze 18]

Meh, if we're going to split hairs to this extent, may I point out that the Australian side Ishant faced in 2007-2008 was superior to any Australian side that Broad has played to date?

And as far as flat tracks are concerned (*fifty-one all out* *cough*), Ishant has bowled on more than his fair share of flat pitches, incredible as it may sound!

I'm not really sure why this discussion is still going on. Everyone seems to agree that the two are middling test bowlers and in the same ballpark along with a number of others.