Mitchell Starc v. Vernon Philander

[andruid]

Both are decent fast bowlers, but as the atmosphere just now dictates, one has to be declared better than the other one.

Makes no difference to me through.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Philander is better for me though depending who else was in your pace attack you may actually pick Starc for his variety.

 

[Gnske]

One bowls too many pies, one eats too many pies.

 

[oblongballs]

Starc is actually a fast bowler.

 

[Flem274*]

philander, but starc will pass him if he can ever channel his inner hazelwood

 

[MediumFast]

It's not even close. Philander is substantially better.

 

[Slifer]

Philander

 

[cnerd123]

Starc is actually a fast bowler.

part of the coming of age process at Cricketweb is taking a stance which is undoubtedly wrong, and then trying to defend it while everyone tells you how incredibly wrong you are. It's our own version of the Trial By Fire.

I feel like this is oblongballs' coming of age.

 

[the big bambino]

Starc is actually a fast bowler. o'balls comes of age too easily. That wasn't a trial by fire. more like pissing on the coals of a dying camp fire.

 

[Spikey]

Philander is far better at missing games on flat pitches than Starc is

 

[MediumFast]

Cannot wait for Starc/Hazelwood/Cummins vs Steyn/Philander/Rabada

 

[the big bambino]

Good chance they'll all be injured.

 

[MediumFast]

Good chance they'll all be injured.

Like the whole lot? I hope not

 

[the big bambino]

Add Morkel too, lol. All of them except Rabada have been patchy fitness wise either generally or lately.

 

[Daemon]

Philander is far superior but I will admit Starc has the all important ability of taking poles on flat decks

What about batting wise? Think Philander's better but idk really.

 

[Spark]

Starc is actually a fast bowler.

So was Shaun Tait.

 

[Bijed]

I think that if both their careers were to end now, 95% of people would conclude that Philander was the better of the two. But Starc has been doing pretty well recently and seems to be hitting his prime, so if he keeps it up and stays fit (and Australia play enough tests over the next few years), could he manage a purple patch that is (statistically) similar to Vern's career so far? I'd say there's a chance.

 

[cnerd123]

Philander is far superior but I will admit Starc has the all important ability of taking poles on flat decks

What about batting wise? Think Philander's better but idk really.

Philander is more of a proper batsman but Starc is more likely to play a match-changing innings.

Kinda like their bowling really.

 

[Slifer]

I remember this same crap last Ashes series in Oz after Johnson ran through England and RSA right after. People were calling Johnson the most dangerous bowler ever and comparing him to atg like Steyn etc. Now that Starc is doing the same, we come up with these ludicrous comparisons...again. If Starc and Philander never bowled again, Philander could legitimately be remembered as an atg whereas Starc was good or maybe very good.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I remember this same crap last Ashes series in Oz after Johnson ran through England and RSA right after. People were calling Johnson the most dangerous bowler ever and comparing him to atg like Steyn etc. Now that Starc is doing the same, we come up with these ludicrous comparisons...again. If Starc and Philander never bowled again, Philander could legitimately be remembered as an atg whereas Starc was good or maybe very good.

At the time Johnson was legitimately bowling like an ATG though. I dont' think anyone was saying Johnson's career as a whole was more impressive.

I think it's different for Starc in that he can actually get a lot better from here and clearly hasn't hit his prime yet. In all likelihood I do see him becoming a legitimately great bowler. He's not as good as Philander is right now but in a few years he probably will be. Has all the tools, can bowl some ridiculous deliveries and while he is a bit erratic at times, these days he's never truly atrocious like some other express pacers like Johnson/Shoaib could be. Also, with Philander's absolutely rubbish fitness levels, I wouldn't be surprised if he declined sharply and suddenly in the next couple of years.

Philander is still mad underappreciated though. I disagree with the "Starc is more likely to run through the opposition" meme too. It's based on absolutely nothing but their bowling styles. Starc is a 150 kph left armer, and Philander a chubster who bowls low 130s who you don't expect to take 6-20 or something. Yet when the conditions suit him, Philander is about as crazy destructive as any bowler in the world. And he can do a job on flat pitches too. He can bwol dry and keep an end tight.

Tldr: Currently and overall career as of now: Philander better by miles. Potentially in the future: Starc could be better.