Starc vs Boult - who will have the better career?

[Bahnz]

After winning a match against NZ all of a sudden they've gone to having an attack in the top 3 of world cricket and will be in the top 3 sides in the world in 4 years time according to this joker. Wow.

I know, he does have a ridiculously inflated sense of the capabilities of this aussie side, doesn't he?

 

[benchmark00]

Stop misquoting me.

 

[benchmark00]

 

[hendrix]

Which implies that our attack isn't that strong, because whilst I agree that NZ's attack has potential, they've hardly set the world on fire over the past few years.

Well, my intention wasn't to make a point of comparing the two attacks, just more trying to point out that saying Boult won't do as well because he's in an inferior bowling attack might not necessarily be true.

Realistically, both sides are capable of fielding strong attacks, and I don't think either bowlers are going to suffer from lack of support in the way that, say Yadav might.

After winning a match against NZ all of a sudden they've gone to having an attack in the top 3 of world cricket and will be in the top 3 sides in the world in 4 years time according to this joker. Wow.

Sorry, but I must have mistaken the theme of these two threads. I was under the impression that the whole point was to speculate on the development of bowlers/test sides.

 

[Prince EWS]

NZ bowling attack over Australia's. Stop it.

Yeah I rate NZ's bowling attack higher than most non-Kiwis do here and I've always been a big fan of Boult, even before he'd actually done anything, but that's pretty silly. New Zealand don't have a bowler who'd make Australia's Test side at full strength IMO, even if we decide that a fit Ryan Harris isn't really a thing anymore.

 

[Flem274*]

Yeah kiwis, I think Hilfenhaus is a myth and Cummins, Harris, Pattinson all being fit at the same time is a pipe dream, not to mention Starc, Hastings and MJ love working at the buffet, but our ****s still have a fair bit to prove and the next 2-3 series are crucial. Southee needs to show this is not a false dawn, Bracewell needs consistency and Boult needs some slips who can catch. We also need a consistently test standard spinner. Having awesome talent depth is not quite the same as having awesome depth guise.

It's quite feasible that after our tour of England one of the current crop could be dropped because as we like to fap over in the domestic thread, there is a lot of competition atm.

So yeah, if they kill South Africa and England on decks that will be more favourable than the P Sara Oval, we open our mouths and gloat. Until then, don't tempt fate into having us Tastle it.

And Boult is better than Starc and always will be. Run at me u ozzies.

 

[sphynx]

Do you think so?

Full strength Aus team for me would be Cummins, Starc, Pattinson, Watson and Lyon.

Tough on Siddle but I think the other 3 will be better strike bowlers in the long run. Plus there's the left arm variety there as well.

For 2012.

Anderson - 26 Inn, 48 wickets @ 29.5
Philander - 17 Inn, 43 wickets @ 21.1
Steyn - 19 Inn, 39 wickets @ 29.7
Morkel - 19 Inn, 38 wickets @ 30.2
Siddle - 14 Inn, 38 wickets @ 23.2


Siddle still has 1 more test this year, the way he's going, he will end up with the second highest amount of wickets amongst the quicks, from the least amount of innings.

Siddle's now ranked above Anderson in the ICC rankings, at 6.


Would you drop the 6th best bowler in the world out of your attack?

And in terms of the pecking order, it would be this, fully fit imo:


Pattinson, Siddle, Cummins, Harris, Hilfenhaus, Starc, Johnson, Hazlewood, Bird.

With Hilfenhaus sliding down that the longer Starc remains in the side. Also, I heard on the radio Pattinson is hoping to be fit for Sydney test.


Doomsdayers over.

 

[Jono]

I think the NZ quicks are better than the Aussie ones, at least on current form.

 

[DriveClub]

Starc is easily the better bowler, kiwis over hyping their mediocre talents as usual

 

[Howsie]

Which implies that our attack isn't that strong, because whilst I agree that NZ's attack has potential, they've hardly set the world on fire over the past few years.

Well tbf two of the three didn't debut until late last year so that's a little unfair, since then they've been pretty damn impressive as a group though.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

And this group has actually won New Zealand games away from home, something we've struggled to do for years. If they were actually backed up by half competent batsmen it could've been one or two more games too.

 

[Flem274*]

England averaging 35 as a pace unit surprises me a bit.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I'd definitely take Pattinson over Southee.

Not sure I would until Pattinson shows he isn't going to break down every 5 minutes. Makes Bond, Reid, Gough and Flintoff look fit the way he misses games.

Australia have a very impressive array of pacemen but sadly they are all injured way too much. At least Siddle has shown he is strong and fit and improving.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Not really surprised that you've tried to argue that our full-strength attack isn't that strong when you haven't picked our full-strength attack.

Surely if Siddle doesn't make the full strength Aussie attack then that means they have far more depth as he would walk into the NZ side?

 

[benchmark00]

The science is showing that fast bowlers get injured and need to be managed until they're 24-25, then after that they become much more resilient and bullet proof.

Pattinson is 22.
Starc is 22.
Cummins is 19.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The science is showing that fast bowlers get injured and need to be managed until they're 24-25, then after that they become much more resilient and bullet proof.

Pattinson is 22.
Starc is 22.
Cummins is 19.

Will you just **** off. You with Science and Scaly with Maths. Cricket is sport played on a field.

 

[benchmark00]

And Hazelw00d is 21 ftr.

 

[uvelocity]

how old is mavis

 

[Spikey]

how old is the science

 

[Prince EWS]

Apparently the question we should be asking isn't this, but in fact who should sit at #2 behind Boult between Wagner and Starc. Wagner has the inside running according to this post:

Too much pessimism. Southee would have been good but isn't he equally likely to go missing in action every now and then? And Wagner looks very good also; let him play, you might uncover something there. He and Boult have to be the two most promising lefties around, now that Amir isn't in the frame. Get Martin to do a support gig and everything isn't so bleak.

Live and learn folks, live and learn.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha he's edited that post now to include Starc at the end. Guess he just forgot.