The v2 Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

+12
Duty281
kingraf
banbrotam
Biltong
Gerry SA
msp83
sirfredperry
dummy_half
VTR
liverbnz
Hoggy_Bear
Stella
16 posters

Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Stella Wed 14 Aug 2013, 12:16 pm

Has Flower lost the plot or been misquoted? Or do you agree?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDkQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmetro.co.uk%2F2013%2F08%2F13%2Fstuart-broad-is-one-of-the-greats-of-the-game-insists-england-coach-andy-flower-3922690%2F&ei=k2YLUu2ZJ8aYhQfx6YDwBw&usg=AFQjCNFZfqdgmh8xKmENtLQ5Eob_AQXYPw&sig2=2G41lt6VxT9tyQWP8eQelA&bvm=bv.50723672,d.ZG4
Stella
Stella

Posts : 6671
Join date : 2011-08-01

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Hoggy_Bear Wed 14 Aug 2013, 12:28 pm

I can understand to an extent what Flower is getting at, if he did actually say that. Broad DOES have the ability to bowl match changing/winning spells, as great bowlers do. But he doesn't do it as consistently as the players Flower mentioned, and he isn't anywhere near as good as those bowlers when he's not on one of 'hot streaks'.

Hoggy_Bear

Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 56
Location : The Fields of Athenry

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Stella Wed 14 Aug 2013, 12:35 pm

There have been lost of bowlers who could take 3-4 wickets in an instant but like you say, not consistently. If he's lumping Broad in with them, then you may as well say Freddie, Shoaib, Bond, as well as others are as well.

At the end of the day, it matters not Very Happy
Stella
Stella

Posts : 6671
Join date : 2011-08-01

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Hoggy_Bear Wed 14 Aug 2013, 12:39 pm

Stella wrote:There have been lost of bowlers who could take 3-4 wickets in an instant but like you say, not consistently. If he's lumping Broad in with them, then you may as well say Freddie, Shoaib, Bond, as well as others are as well.

Yep, I think that's about Broad's level. Not a bad level at all. But one below the true greats.

Hoggy_Bear

Posts : 2202
Join date : 2011-01-28
Age : 56
Location : The Fields of Athenry

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by liverbnz Wed 14 Aug 2013, 12:41 pm

Just motivation and a little pat on the back for his match winning performance at Durham.

liverbnz

Posts : 2958
Join date : 2011-03-07
Age : 38
Location : Newcastle, County Down

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by VTR Wed 14 Aug 2013, 12:42 pm

Misquoted I would say. He has said something, then the Metro have added to a list of great bowlers making it look like Flower was referring to them.

The actual thing he said is "I think it would be fair to place him with those kind of great bowlers who could change a game with a spell of bowling" without being specific as to who is in this group, you could argue he is comparing him to Dev Malcolm rather than Glenn McGrath!

VTR

Posts : 4252
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by dummy_half Wed 14 Aug 2013, 12:55 pm

Journalistic rhetoric - look at which bits of the article are actually direct quotes from Flower and which are just the journalist's words.

Flower is kind of right - Broad does have the ability to produce a day of being absolutely unplayable, and fortunately for us he had one on Monday. It seems to just be a case of everything in his action coming together and him suddenly being 5mph faster, more accurate and getting more seam movement all at once. It looks to be one of those things that just happens rather than something he can strive for, as more effort seems to break down his action a little.

I was going to write a little compare and contrast between Broad and Mitchell Johnson, and why I think Broad is the right pick for England while Mitch J is a risky one for the Aussies. Both are capable of producing a match turning spell every now and again (maybe 1 in every 10 innings), but the difference is that of the other 9 innings Broad will do a competent job 5 times, be good a couple and pretty rank a couple. Mitchell Johnson will have a similar number of good days, but fewer where he is OK-ish and 4 or 5 where he is rank.


dummy_half

Posts : 5538
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 50
Location : East Hertfordshire

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by sirfredperry Wed 14 Aug 2013, 1:45 pm

D-Half. Personally, I would only be too delighted to see Mitchell J back in the Aussie side, and so would the Barmy Army. I well remember Mitchell's splendid efforts before lunch at Lord's in 2009 when Cook and Strauss smashed him all over the ground.
As for Broad, he is clearly a match winner. Yes, he's not going to do it every match but you pick him in the knowledge that the great spell CAN come. Similarly with Pietersen with the bat.

sirfredperry

Posts : 6003
Join date : 2011-02-14
Age : 71
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by dummy_half Wed 14 Aug 2013, 3:08 pm

sfp

I agree with you - Broad will win you a match every now and again, but when he's not in that form he won't lose you many, while Mitch 'He bowls to the left, He bowls to the right' Johnson could win the Aussies a Test somewhere in this double series, but he'd possibly be the cause of 2 or 3 defeats as well.

The comparison with KP is reasonably fair as well - you can get away with having someone a bit inconsistent but sporadically brilliant if there is plenty of solidity elsewhere in the team.

dummy_half

Posts : 5538
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 50
Location : East Hertfordshire

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by msp83 Wed 14 Aug 2013, 8:16 pm

Stella wrote:There have been lost of bowlers who could take 3-4 wickets in an instant but like you say, not consistently. If he's lumping Broad in with them, then you may as well say Freddie, Shoaib, Bond, as well as others are as well.

At the end of the day, it matters not Very Happy
I wouldn't say Broad is in the league of any of the 3 bowlers mentioned above. Bond was pure class, it is unfair to say that he was inconsistent. The only thing he was not consistent in, was to be able to keep himself injury free.
As for Fredye Flintoff, I don't think he has produced too many Broad like Run-through lineup spells regularly. But since he established himself as a bowler of note, Fredye hardly had an atrocious day with the ball. He could come with produce some unplayable spells, and legendary overs, but wouldn't really run through a line up even then. But not many could really get hold of him, and facing up to him was always difficult and demanding.
Shoaib had the pace that could trouble anyone. and He could do it in any conditions. But the closest that Broad comes to in the list is him, if we take out the pace factor.

msp83

Posts : 15402
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Gerry SA Wed 14 Aug 2013, 10:06 pm

Andy Flower must've been drunk when he made such a farcical claim.

Broad's level is around Mitchell Johnson's.

On his day unplayable. Most other days rubbish.

Gerry SA

Posts : 2428
Join date : 2012-08-20
Location : RIP PHILLIP HUGHES 63 NOT OUT FOREVER

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Biltong Thu 15 Aug 2013, 9:18 am

Recognition of performance is important to any person, be it at work or in sport.

It encourages the individual and motivates him to sustain that level of performance.

It doesn't really matter how the outside world sees it, does it?
Biltong
Biltong
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 26945
Join date : 2011-04-27
Location : Twilight zone

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by sirfredperry Thu 15 Aug 2013, 9:23 am

Gerry SA - Actually, if you check the Test bowling averages, Mitchell J's and Broad's are fairly similar, with Broad taking five wickets in an innings 10 times in 61 Tests to Johnson's 7 in 51 Tests.
Both have been devastating at their best, but some may think that Broad at his worst is not as expensive as Johnson at HIS worst.

sirfredperry

Posts : 6003
Join date : 2011-02-14
Age : 71
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Biltong Thu 15 Aug 2013, 9:34 am

sirfredperry wrote:Gerry SA - Actually, if you check the Test bowling averages, Mitchell J's and Broad's are fairly similar, with Broad taking five wickets in an innings 10 times in 61 Tests to Johnson's 7 in 51 Tests.
  Both have been devastating at their best, but some may think that Broad at his worst is not as expensive as Johnson at HIS worst.
I agree with that, I often look at Johnson and he does remind me a bit of Brett Lee, who could also be prone to leaking runs at times, but Johnson when he leaks runs, he leaks them at an alarming rate.
Biltong
Biltong
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 26945
Join date : 2011-04-27
Location : Twilight zone

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by dummy_half Thu 15 Aug 2013, 9:49 am

msp

Agree with much of what you said - Flintoff was a very good economical and accurate bowler who on occasion would produce a short burst of excellence, but he rarely if ever ran through a side.

Broad has 10 5 wicket innings in the 110 innings he has bowled in, while Freddy had 3 5 wicket hauls in 137 innings. Broad has a slightly lower average and takes more wickets per match (3.5 compared with just under 3). OK, one consideration is that Flintoff was often part of a 5 man attack, but he was rarely a match winning bowler.

Don't quite agree with Gerry above, as while Broad and Mitch J (and Harmison a few years ago) have the ability to run through a side every now and again, the difference is that when they aren't at their best, Broad is still a useful bowler in support of Anderson and Swann, while Mitch (and Harmless) is frequently unbowlable.

dummy_half

Posts : 5538
Join date : 2011-03-11
Age : 50
Location : East Hertfordshire

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by banbrotam Thu 15 Aug 2013, 8:25 pm

Hilarious stuff. I've noticed that in my short time on the Cricket Boards, that Stella seems to have a problem waking up and smelling the roses when it comes to Broad
 
He's 27 and already has more than 200 wickets. Most bowlers don't hit their peak until they are 29 and can sustain it (with a bit of care). This means that Flower continues his reputation of not making outrageous statements as this isn't an outrageous statement
 
Broad could get 500 wickets. Now let's see what the author says about that!!


Last edited by banbrotam on Thu 15 Aug 2013, 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

banbrotam

Posts : 3373
Join date : 2011-09-22
Age : 60
Location : Oakes, Huddersfield - West Yorkshire

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by kingraf Thu 15 Aug 2013, 9:10 pm

Broad is an interesting case. I dont particularly like him (as a cricketer, never met the guy in my life), but I cant doubt his ability to just turn it on. Sometimes through sheer force of will, as I have seen him bowl wicket-stocked spells, even when said spells were not quite quality. He ran through the South African line-up in the second Test last year, and I dont think he bowled particularly well, he just took five wickets. The key with Broad is that he is pretty decent when he isnt "hot", making him very handy.

I dont think he is actually as good as Mitch, mind you. Lest we forget it took him 10 more Test to break the 200 club than Mitchell. Broad is good, of that I there is no doubt but exactly how good he is a slightly more difficult question.

I would interject and add that if Broad does take five wickets, at this rate its more likely be because of consistency, and Englands ridiculously fattened fixture list rather than any underlying "greatness". Lest we forget Broad has only played four Test less than Steyn, and is 120 wickets behind him. No one thinks Walsh is a greater bowler than Donald, Marshall, Tyson, Holding, Hadlee, Marshall et al just because he crossed the 500 threshold and they didnt. Unlike other disciplines, total wickets isnt the deciding factor in deciding where you group a player. After all, looking at Broads age, and fixture list opportunity, no matter how well Steyn does, Broad, fitness permitting will probably still overtake him in due time. Steyn might not make a 100 tests, Broad, could realistically get to 150-160. Banbro, God love you, but I dont quite agree with what youre saying
kingraf
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16414
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 27
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by banbrotam Thu 15 Aug 2013, 9:36 pm

Erm, interesting views kingraf (nice to see you on a different board by the way Cool)

A bit disingenous though as;-

1) Steyn is 3 years older, i.e we'd expect him to have better stats, given that he's in that 'peak' phase

2) Steyn is a different type of bowler. For a bowling all-rounder if Broad got 500 wickets and say 4000 runs are you really telling us that doesn't give his career a greater sheen? Which bowling all rounders will have done better?

3) I don't agree with your Walsh put down. I certainly don't think he was worse than Donald or Holding. Marshall was remarkable, given his height. Walsh worse than Hadlee? chin I've never thought taking 500 wickets didn't put you in a very special category - but what do I know!!

4) Do we really pay heed to how may tests someone played to achieve the target, to such a degree we'll have a 'he was just OK' attitude in comparison to legend status?


I'm actually no great fan of Broad, but I admire his sheer will to win. What creases me up, is because he has a bit of a know all attitude and makes it quite obvious that he's only here to win and not to be liked, his achievements are consistently belittled

27. More than 200 wickets and nearly 2000 runs, deserves far more respect

banbrotam

Posts : 3373
Join date : 2011-09-22
Age : 60
Location : Oakes, Huddersfield - West Yorkshire

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Duty281 Thu 15 Aug 2013, 9:43 pm

Broad just has to remember one thing - pitch the ball up!

He's so much more effective when he does that.

Duty281

Posts : 27017
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 26
Location : Not having Chance on here

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by banbrotam Thu 15 Aug 2013, 9:48 pm

Gerry SA wrote:Andy Flower must've been drunk when he made such a farcical claim.
So it's deemed "farcical" that 27 year old with more than 200 wickets and nearly 2000 runs might become one of the greats Rolling Eyes 


Gerry SA wrote:Broad's level is around Mitchell Johnson's.


What the 27 year old Johnson or the nearly 32 year old one? picard


Gerry SA wrote:On his day unplayable. Most other days rubbish.
He must have an awful lot of unplayable days then Whistle



banbrotam

Posts : 3373
Join date : 2011-09-22
Age : 60
Location : Oakes, Huddersfield - West Yorkshire

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by msp83 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 9:05 am

I don't think every aspect of the debate can be put down saying Broad is only 27. Someone like a Steve Harmison was pretty decent at 27, but things got progressively difficult as he aged further.
And Walsha was a great bowler, whichever way one looks at it. First to 500, superb average, good strike rate....... There is a lot more than the stats, impressive though they are. He was one half of one of the most remembered bowling partnerships in the world, Walsh and Ambrose. How many others bowled as quick as Walsh managed at the age of 38? For how many years was he the workhorse who supported the likes of Ambrose and Marshel, running into the wind time and again? How many matches in which he kept the West Indies alive with his bowling, particularly towards the latter part of his career when the process of West Indies decline had gathered speed? How many bowlers managed to maintain Walsh's fitness levels for such a long period?
Courtney Walsh is an absolute legend of the game, no doubts whatsoever.

msp83

Posts : 15402
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Stella Fri 16 Aug 2013, 9:16 am

Banbro

Firstly, I am not criticising Broad and never have done, so not sure where you're coming from?

Secondly, Walsh was a great bowler but not as good as Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose and a few others. The more wickets you take doesn't equate to the how good you are.

Is Dev better than Marshall?

Broad will probably end up with about 320 wickets, and be rightly seen as a very good quickie, but not great, given his average, and strike rate.
Stella
Stella

Posts : 6671
Join date : 2011-08-01

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by msp83 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 9:54 am

Stella wrote:Banbro

Firstly, I am not criticising Broad and never have done, so not sure where you're coming from?

Secondly, Walsh was a great bowler but not as good as Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose and a few others. The more wickets you take doesn't equate to the how good you are.

Is Dev better than Marshall?

Broad will probably end up with about 320 wickets, and be rightly seen as a very good quickie, but not great, given his average, and strike rate.
As I said above, there is a lot more to Walsh than the massively impressive 519 test wickets he got. Superb average, very good strike rate, excellent control besides his extremely impressive longevity in the game on top form and fitness levels. Most certainly among the very best, may not be the flashiest, but among the very best nevertheless.

msp83

Posts : 15402
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Stella Fri 16 Aug 2013, 9:56 am

msp83 wrote:
Stella wrote:Banbro

Firstly, I am not criticising Broad and never have done, so not sure where you're coming from?

Secondly, Walsh was a great bowler but not as good as Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose and a few others. The more wickets you take doesn't equate to the how good you are.

Is Dev better than Marshall?

Broad will probably end up with about 320 wickets, and be rightly seen as a very good quickie, but not great, given his average, and strike rate.
As I said above, there is a lot more to Walsh than the massively impressive 519 test wickets he got. Superb average, very good strike rate, excellent control besides his extremely impressive longevity in the game on top form and fitness levels. Most certainly among the very best, may not be the flashiest, but among the very best nevertheless.
I followed Walsh since he first toured England in 1984, and am a big fan, but for me, he was a hair behind some of the others. I would say most batsmen would say the same.

btw

I agree with regards to Flintoff thumbsup 
Stella
Stella

Posts : 6671
Join date : 2011-08-01

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by banbrotam Fri 16 Aug 2013, 9:59 am

Stella wrote:Banbro

Firstly, I am not criticising Broad and never have done, so not sure where you're coming from?

Secondly, Walsh was a great bowler but not as good as Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose and a few others. The more wickets you take doesn't equate to the how good you are.

Is Dev better than Marshall?

Broad will probably end up with about 320 wickets, and be rightly seen as a very good quickie, but not great, given his average, and strike rate.
You've not been exactly fulsome in praise, either Stella. That's where I'm coming from. For instance, are you seriously telling us that at the age of 27 and already having more than 200 wickets he's going to struggle to get 100 more?

You say "not great, given his average, and strike rate". This interests me as you obviously know that these stats will stay the same or worsen. This means that you can predict the future. Can you give me tomorrow's winning lottery numbers? Laugh 

I jest because your utterances about Broad are shrouded in undermining his career so far. Why else, would you assume that he would buck the trend of established fast bowlers and not get better as he get's to his peak

Maybe you just love been cautious, the glass is half empty and all that. Fine, but some of us do want to smell the roses that are a lot better than they were in that horrible 1988 to 1997 period and hence we'll celebrate what is surely currently the world's most impressive young fast bowler

banbrotam

Posts : 3373
Join date : 2011-09-22
Age : 60
Location : Oakes, Huddersfield - West Yorkshire

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by VTR Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:00 am

If we're arguing Walsh vs Donald etc its a matter of trying to split all time greats. For me both were amazing bowlers, and I would personally go for Walsh over Donald based on what I saw (rather than just using stats to judge it), there is barely anything in it though.

VTR

Posts : 4252
Join date : 2012-03-23
Location : Fine Leg

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Stella Fri 16 Aug 2013, 10:03 am

banbrotam wrote:
Stella wrote:Banbro

Firstly, I am not criticising Broad and never have done, so not sure where you're coming from?

Secondly, Walsh was a great bowler but not as good as Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose and a few others. The more wickets you take doesn't equate to the how good you are.

Is Dev better than Marshall?

Broad will probably end up with about 320 wickets, and be rightly seen as a very good quickie, but not great, given his average, and strike rate.
You've not been exactly fulsome in praise, either Stella. That's where I'm coming from. For instance, are you seriously telling us that at the age of 27 and already having more than 200 wickets he's going to struggle to get 100 more?

You say "not great, given his average, and strike rate". This interests me as you obviously know that these stats will stay the same or worsen. This means that you can predict the future. Can you give me tomorrow's winning lottery numbers? Laugh 

I jest because your utterances about Broad are shrouded in undermining his career so far. Why else, would you assume that he would buck the trend of established fast bowlers and not get better as he get's to his peak

Maybe you just love been cautious, the glass is half empty and all that. Fine, but some of us do want to smell the roses that are a lot better than they were in that horrible 1988 to 1997 period and hence we'll celebrate what is surely currently the world's most impressive young fast bowler
When was that? I'm just being honest. Aren't you predicting the future with you 500 test wicket talk. I admit, 320 was a little small, given the amount of cricket he will play, barring injury.

Stella
Stella

Posts : 6671
Join date : 2011-08-01

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Gerry SA Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:27 pm

banbrotam wrote:Hilarious stuff. I've noticed that in my short time on the Cricket Boards, that Stella seems to have a problem waking up and smelling the roses when it comes to Broad
 
He's 27 and already has more than 200 wickets. Most bowlers don't hit their peak until they are 29 and can sustain it (with a bit of care). This means that Flower continues his reputation of not making outrageous statements as this isn't an outrageous statement
 
Broad could get 500 wickets. Now let's see what the author says about that!!
Predicting Broad taking 500 poles is like predicting the lottery numbers...

Injuries, loss of form are variables that can't be accounted for.

I'll give you an example Mohammad Amir, youngest to take a Test 5fer and 50 wickets.

Was billed to be the next 500 wicket Test bowler.

6 months later career in ruins and in jail.

Broad could get injured, he's got a history for it.

Gerry SA

Posts : 2428
Join date : 2012-08-20
Location : RIP PHILLIP HUGHES 63 NOT OUT FOREVER

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Gerry SA Fri 16 Aug 2013, 12:29 pm

banbrotam wrote:
Stella wrote:Banbro

Firstly, I am not criticising Broad and never have done, so not sure where you're coming from?

Secondly, Walsh was a great bowler but not as good as Hadlee, Marshall, Ambrose and a few others. The more wickets you take doesn't equate to the how good you are.

Is Dev better than Marshall?

Broad will probably end up with about 320 wickets, and be rightly seen as a very good quickie, but not great, given his average, and strike rate.
You've not been exactly fulsome in praise, either Stella. That's where I'm coming from. For instance, are you seriously telling us that at the age of 27 and already having more than 200 wickets he's going to struggle to get 100 more?

You say "not great, given his average, and strike rate". This interests me as you obviously know that these stats will stay the same or worsen. This means that you can predict the future. Can you give me tomorrow's winning lottery numbers? Laugh 

I jest because your utterances about Broad are shrouded in undermining his career so far. Why else, would you assume that he would buck the trend of established fast bowlers and not get better as he get's to his peak

Maybe you just love been cautious, the glass is half empty and all that. Fine, but some of us do want to smell the roses that are a lot better than they were in that horrible 1988 to 1997 period and hence we'll celebrate what is surely currently the world's most impressive young fast bowler
Young bowler aged 27?

As I understand it, 25 and under is considered a young player.

Gerry SA

Posts : 2428
Join date : 2012-08-20
Location : RIP PHILLIP HUGHES 63 NOT OUT FOREVER

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by kingraf Fri 16 Aug 2013, 2:26 pm

I dont consider 27 to be a young fast bowler, by any stretch. Maybe if he has just made his debut, an argument can be made, but we are talking about a guy with 61 Test caps. He is only a year younger than Vernon Philander who has nine fifers (16 Tests,31 innings) to Broads ten (61 Tests 110 innings) (given the "Thirty = peak" theory, surely he is the best young bowler in world cricket).

To answer Banbro's issues with my arguments

1) Yes Steyn is three years older than Broad, but at 27, had taken 202 wickets in 41 Tests. Nineteen Tests faster than Broad. My point stands.

2) Yes Steyn is a different type of bowler, but all-rounder is a little kind to Broad, if thats whats going to be used excuse the chasm in quality. Broad can bat, but I think he isnt consistent enough to try paint him as a true bowling all-rounder. A guy like Shaun Pollock averaged 33.

3) There is no Walsh put down. I simply said he isnt a top tier talent bowler. In a game which has seen tens of thousands of prospective Fast bowlers, I listed only six above him, hardly an insult. Five Hundred is a great feat, but fact remains, Walsh played 130 Tests, vs Donalds 72, and Holding 60. To decide he is better because he took more wickets is disinigenous. Which brings me to

4) I dont actually count Tests taken to achieve a target as measuring tape. Kallis has played 170-odd Tests for 288 wickets. That doesnt seem mightily impressive, but he has largely been seen as a luxury, in a country that had four great quicks in his lifetime, (Ntini, Donald, Pollock and now Steyn) as well as a small army of really good ones. He wasnt needed, but when there was a brief period when we were a little light he was the 7th best bowler in the world. So the stats dont show just how good he actually can be. But... Im not sure you can convince me that 200 wickets equal 200 when one did it in 40 Tests, and the other did it in 60.
kingraf
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16414
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 27
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by The Terror of Tylorstown Fri 16 Aug 2013, 3:39 pm

Do we also not have to take into account when the wickets were taken, for the large part Broad has been either 1st or 2nd change bowling with the old ball whereas i'd wager that all of the big wicket takers in test cricket have been either opening bowlers or spin bowlers.

The Terror of Tylorstown

Posts : 685
Join date : 2013-07-17

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by kingraf Fri 16 Aug 2013, 7:21 pm

I would say... No, I dont take that into account, especially if its a pace bowler, not a spinner. If a pace bowler bowls first change, its not because his team is conspiring against him to stop his wicket tally, its because his not the best equipped to handle the new ball. And really Broad has had to convince the captain he is better than Finn, Onions, and Bresnan. Hardly a barrage of quality new ball bowlers, he gets no pity mark for bowling first change, imo.

kingraf
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16414
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 27
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by msp83 Fri 16 Aug 2013, 7:53 pm

I don't really consider Stuart Broad as a young bowler as such, he has had more than 60 tests, and more than 5 years of international cricket and he's not 23 but 27.
But the most impressive young fast bowler is an English lad. His name is Steven Finn. Good stats, and good attributes for a fast bowler.
I am a bit concerned though that the messing about by the England management might hamper his development into the finished article, which he's not, at the moment.
Australians James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc are next in line, though they aren't as good as Finn is at the moment. Pat Cummins is not to be considered at this point, as he has hardly played any real test cricket to even assess him, the ability is there, but the fitness remains a massive concern in his case.

msp83

Posts : 15402
Join date : 2011-05-30
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by The Terror of Tylorstown Sat 17 Aug 2013, 12:04 am

kingraf wrote:I would say... No, I dont take that into account, especially if its a pace bowler, not a spinner. If a pace bowler bowls first change, its not because his team is conspiring against him to stop his wicket tally, its because his not the best equipped to handle the new ball. And really Broad has had to convince the captain he is better than Finn, Onions, and Bresnan. Hardly a barrage of quality new ball bowlers, he gets no pity mark for bowling first change, imo.

I'm not talking about right now though am I where he opens the bowling with Anderson but when he first came through he had Anderson, Harmison and Flintoff above him in the pecking order. To start with he was considered an all rounder something which has dimmed with time, he hasn't always been a mainline fast bowler. Since he's become an opening bowler he has become far more consistent.

The Terror of Tylorstown

Posts : 685
Join date : 2013-07-17

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by kingraf Sat 17 Aug 2013, 12:12 am

And Steyn was the back-up to Pollock and Ntini when he first started... For four years. And they are a much better bowling pairing then Anderson and Flintoff. He was also first change for the England series, where he was the leading bowler. So basically, swing and roundabouts, mate.
kingraf
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16414
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 27
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Diggers Sun 18 Aug 2013, 5:56 pm

If fully fit Id now rather have Broad than Anderson in my England side, clearly Id rather both but if I had to lose one say for the next series Id prefer to lose Anderson.
I think Broad is peaking and Anderson is inevitably showing a few signs of decline. And of course Broad really is a decent bat which helps in the choice.

Diggers

Posts : 8681
Join date : 2011-01-27

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Twitchey Tue 20 Aug 2013, 11:42 pm

Did I just read 'Walsh is not a top tier bowler'? Really?

Twitchey

Posts : 38
Join date : 2011-06-27

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by ChequeredJersey Wed 21 Aug 2013, 12:24 am

See Broady talking about the Not Walking incident on the BBC website? And all the Aussie papers getting ironically and entirely uninsightfully up on their high horse about it?
ChequeredJersey
ChequeredJersey

Posts : 18707
Join date : 2011-12-23
Age : 33
Location : London, UK

Back to top Go down

Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away! Empty Re: Now, Let's Not Get To Carried Away!

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum