-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Would you pick Stuart Broad as a bowler alone?
- Thread starter 91Jmay
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Broad is better than both Siddle and Morkel IMO. I think he'd be even better than he is now in the role they play, too.
Siddle's not an incumbent though, it must be remembered.
Siddle's not an incumbent though, it must be remembered.
Are you serious? Broad performs just once every series, how is he better than Siddle? Ridiculous
Spark
Global Moderator
He's taller, quicker, gets more movement, gets much more disconcerting bounce from a good length (when he pitches it up) and is more or less a lock to win you one Test in any given series of decent length.
Given that there are 22 players in a cricket match and a series has at most five Tests, having one player you can be reasonably sure will single-handedly win you one of the Tests is an astonishingly valuable asset. Far more than 3/70.
I mean, I'd say even their average, okay-ish bowling is at best roughly even. Broad's best is just so, so far ahead of Siddle's though that it renders the comparison kind of silly.
Given that there are 22 players in a cricket match and a series has at most five Tests, having one player you can be reasonably sure will single-handedly win you one of the Tests is an astonishingly valuable asset. Far more than 3/70.
I mean, I'd say even their average, okay-ish bowling is at best roughly even. Broad's best is just so, so far ahead of Siddle's though that it renders the comparison kind of silly.
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
I actually feel Broad gets consistently underrated these days because his best is so flagrantly destructive that people sort of expect him to be doing constant Mitchell Johnsons on sides just by virtue of pitching it up. But "okay" Broad is basically the bowler that turned up down here and it was still perfectly solid Test bowling.
There was a day, in the not too distant past no doubt...but it isn't now. In saying that, Siddle is still an admirable third banana and not at all in the sort of decline some people would have you believe.
Spark
Global Moderator
Watson?
Bell is far better than Watson, but I would have assumed Doolan would have got the chop first. Either way Bell (and Root) are better than both of those players. Mixing the two teams:
Cook (Form is temporary etc)
Warner
Bell
Clarke
Root
Smith
Haddin
Johnson
Harris
Anderson
Lyon
Would be my team.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Alternating between being **** and being injured. Best call the selectors made not taking him to Australia.
Agree, and Watson good at his role but that team doesn't need a holding bowler IMO. Root/Smith more than good enough when you have 3 big time wicket takers and a spinner who can defend and when conditions suit attack.
Almost perfect attack that actually raw left arm pace, just a ****ing beast in Harris and a monster swing bowler with an ultra reliable spinner.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Viscount Tom
International Debutant
That thread has had a habit of getting better eƿery series.