Would Stuart Broad make India's strongest test XI?

[Spark]

Yepp just like saying Broad > Harris or Sehwag > Warner on CW

This is a bad post, unless you can point to any instances of anyone actually saying either of these things.

 

[Gob]

Yepp just like saying Broad > Harris or Sehwag > Warner on CW

Your posts are worse than poop imho

 

[Salamuddin]

On a side note, Shane Bond is definitely a bit overrated as a test match bowler.
You could argue a case for Broad for making the all time Kiwi side.

 

[Gob]

On a side note, Shane Bond is definitely a bit overrated as a test match bowler.
You could argue a case for Broad for making the all time Kiwi side.

Easily imo.

 

[MrPrez]

Hmm, does he definitively take out Chatfield? I think I'd take Hadlee and Cowie ahead of him.

I also think Bond would have been ahead of him if he hadn't had such an injury-ridden career, but meh.

 

[OverratedSanity]

In terms of quality, Broad just isn't as good as Bond/Shoaib/Asif/Harris imo. He's had a better career, of course, but those are two different things.

 

[Gob]

Hmm, does he definitively take out Chatfield? I think I'd take Hadlee and Cowie ahead of him.

I also think Bond would have been ahead of him if he hadn't had such an injury-ridden career, but meh.

I'm thinking Hadlee,Bond and Broad

 

[Senile Sentry]

Nope, Jhulan Goswami is eons better.

 

[Flem274*]

poor mans bruce taylor, let alone bond, hadlee, cowie level. he'd bowl too short at home anyway if he was kiwi, like he does every time he comes here.

he'd take the new ball as heath streaks understudy for zimbabwe.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm thinking Hadlee,Bond and Broad

Nah respect the Cowie.

 

[MrPrez]

Bond was a better bowler but it's always difficult to place him given how he was more often injured than not.

 

[Flem274*]

he almost played as many tests as his non-hadlee rivals though because before 1980 nz played **** all full stop

england and australia really do play an insane amount of tests. blokes who couldn't even average 30 like ramprakash played 52 tests. it's no wonder james anderson looked half dead for 4 tests of an ashes series not long ago.

 

[Pratters]

Nope, Jhulan Goswami is eons better.

Goswami may not compare with her ment counterparts but she is pretty amazing in her own rights actually. Terrific bowler.

 

[MrPrez]

he almost played as many tests as his non-hadlee rivals though because before 1980 nz played **** all full stop

england and australia really do play an insane amount of tests. blokes who couldn't even average 30 like ramprakash played 52 tests. it's no wonder james anderson looked half dead for 4 tests of an ashes series not long ago.

Yeah, I'm saying that you have to take his injury-proneness into account, imo. The others played so few tests because they weren't given the opportunity to play more; Bond played so few tests because his bowling was unsustainable.

 

[Howe_zat]

I find it weird how people will still insist on measuring by some other metric than winning matches

 

[MrPrez]

I find it weird how people will still insist on measuring by some other metric than winning matches

I mean I'd argue that if we take someone like Imran Khan, at his prime he was better than someone like Garry Sobers. But since he couldn't replicate that level of performance across both batting and bowling throughout his career, we usually see him as worse than Sobers.

Likewise with Bond. You can't just take the instances when he was fit and bowled superbly, and ignore the fact that he could only play in like 30% of matches.

I'd take Stuart Broad over Bond in a team every time, knowing that Bond was so rarely available. I'd forgo his superior performance for someone who could actually bowl in most matches at a high level.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah I agree 100% with that ^

 

[91Jmay]

In terms of quality, Broad just isn't as good as Bond/Shoaib/Asif/Harris imo. He's had a better career, of course, but those are two different things.

Then 'quality' is a meaningless thing to be honest. Harris basically only became a good bowler the age Broad is now, so judging 'quality' on that is absolutely ridiculous.

Having a shorter career can absolute benefit a player's stats for a myriad of reasons, which is never acknowledged on this forum.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I mean I'd argue that if we take someone like Imran Khan, at his prime he was better than someone like Garry Sobers. But since he couldn't replicate that level of performance across both batting and bowling throughout his career, we usually see him as worse than Sobers.

Likewise with Bond. You can't just take the instances when he was fit and bowled superbly, and ignore the fact that he could only play in like 30% of matches.

I'd take Stuart Broad over Bond in a team every time, knowing that Bond was so rarely available. I'd forgo his superior performance for someone who could actually bowl in most matches at a high level.

Then 'quality' is a meaningless thing to be honest. Harris basically only became a good bowler the age Broad is now, so judging 'quality' on that is absolutely ridiculous.

Having a shorter career can absolute benefit a player's stats for a myriad of reasons, which is never acknowledged on this forum.

Sure, but you're assuming I'm ignoring the fact that Harris, Shoaib etc. were often injured. I'm not. I consider them better even after considering that baggage.

 

[91Jmay]

Harris wasn't injured, he just couldn't get into South Australia's team.