The same Test where you are saying Sreesanth bowled well without reward. Also brought us back into the first Test against Australia in Mohali by taking 3 quick wickets in the 2nd innings when Watson was threatening to run riot. Granted, Sreesanth bowled better in SA, and played a vital part in our success despite having ordinary figures, while Ishant was complete tripe throughout that series.Uppercut, I'd argue that Sree has bowled some absolutely beautiful spells to not deserved effect in the past year too. Mohali, second Innings-lower order, NZ - 3rd test, second Innings to the top 3-4. Also pretty much all of his wickets in SA were top order batsman. It isn't a broad as daylight case as make it out to be. I'd have them about equal right now. Broad still wins on batting ability though.
Ishant is a **** **** and shouldn't be in this debate. His stats are massively boosted by knocking out the tail and injured McCullum and taking 8 wickets in the third test against NZ.
India play half their Tests or more in the subcontinent and there is no guarantee any of those guys bar Bresnan perhaps would do any better than the incumbents. If the World Cup is any indication, they probably wouldn't.Broad's bad run isn't five Tests, it's two, maybe three if he doesn't step up tomorrow (or today if they come back on).
If you wanna purely play cricket-by-numbers, then sure he had a poor Ashes. However, he bowled well. He didn't let us down over there and it was a worry when he went down with the sidestrain. Prior to that, he averaged something pretty low against Pakistan.
He does need to step up, and soon. There are very good alternatives available, Finn really bowled well from day three onwards at Lord's, Bresnan is quality. But this thread isn't about whether he should be in the England XI.
He'd walk into the India side. As would Anderson, Tremlett, Finn, Bresnan, Shazhad, Onions etc
If the world cup is anything to go by, Broad is actually our best seamer.India play half their Tests or more in the subcontinent and there is no guarantee any of those guys bar Bresnan perhaps would do any better than the incumbents. If the World Cup is any indication, they probably wouldn't.
It's fair enough to say that you're not convinced after a few Tests. But Finn doesn't even swing the ball, and Tremlett has played as many Tests in Australia on his current run as in England. A difference in average of 15-20 can't be explained by conditions alone.Most of those guys have played <10 Tests, mostly in England. Well, I'm not convinced TBH. I'd like to see more, and the early signs are certainly more promising than the Indian seamers have shown, but that's what it comes down to.. more evidence in varied conditions. If I was picking for a Test tomorrow, both Tremlett and Finn will make it over Sreesanth and Sharma on current form, but I can't say I'm convinced they'll keep their position in the long term, yet.
Sorry, poor wording on my part, what I meant by alternatives was Ishant and Sree.GIMH how do you know that? You have seen jack **** of India's alternatives.
It's what Uppercut would call a lol sample size, especially in case of Tremlett.It's fair enough to say that you're not convinced after a few Tests. But Finn doesn't even swing the ball, and Tremlett has played as many Tests in Australia on his current run as in England. A difference in average of 15-20 can't be explained by conditions alone.
Indeed.It's what Uppercut would call a lol sample size, especially in case of Tremlett.
Sreesanth is your second best seamer. I don't need to see your alternatives to know that they're probably crap.GIMH how do you know that? You have seen jack **** of India's alternatives.
Typical cheerleading posting from you lately.Sreesanth is your second best seamer. I don't need to see your alternatives to know that they're probably crap.