Humble response from Sturat on topping the bowling rankings

After his recent top form, Stuart Broad has become the first English bowler since Steve Harmison in 2004 to top the world rankings.

In an interview, whilst acknowledging it's nice to be in that position, he says that he doesn't really consider himself the best bowler in England, let alone the world - those honours go to Jimmy A and Dale Steyn respectively. I was quite surprised to see such a humble reaction, because at this moment in time, he probably is the best.

However, he feels that Steyn is the outstanding bowler of this generation (as Malcolm Marshall was considered by Broad Snr), and that Jimmy has become our best ever.

Atricle

Whilst there will be people who don't think JA is our best ever for various reasons, I'm not sure anyone could argue that Broad & Anderson as a partnership are the best we have had.

Thoughts ?

They certainly have longevity on their side.

Trueman and Statham comprised a great partnership, albeit in a different era

In terms of wickets they are hard to argue against. On the downside both have pretty high averages and have played together in series where England have not performed.

I wasn't alive in the era but Willis and Botham in the late 70s and early 80s would be in with a shout, no?

Also depends, in terms of longevity then easily, Broad has been producing match (and series) winning spells since 2009 and Jimmy has been decent since 2008 so they have over half a decade together.

But then our opening partnership in 2005 didn't do a bad job but injuries and inconsistencies in latter years meant the players in question didn't flourish together for many years.

We've had a fair bit of success since they've both been in the team and performing well (although also having a decent spinner certainly helped in the first few years), but that second 5-0 should never have happened, the first was understandable, we were hampered with injuries, stand in captain and playing against one of the best teams ever who were determined to win back the Ashes after losing them for the first time in 16 years, plus the 2nd test would have destroyed the morale of any team.

The more recent whitewash was inexcusable (although Broad was one of the few bowlers who performed) and they were both a part of that team and whilst it doesn't discount their success, it is a significant blot on their record together.

Not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it's indisputable (as indisputable as Broad's claim that Steyn is the number one bowler of this generation, although I think he's being hard on himself in comparison to Jimmy, don't think there's much to choose between them.).

Agreed Broad has a better average and S/R than JA.

taipan wrote:Agreed Broad has a better average and S/R than JA.

Indeed. I think Anderson tends to be the one who will perform well over the course of a series and be the more consistent performer but Broad will win individual key matches (and therefore series) at key moments with devastating spells that Jimmy hasn't been able to produce (or certainly hasn't done so as often or at such key moments).

Great partnership though and again in terms of longevity they are without (English) peers.

Good points Vilky. While Sturat was part of the 5/0 drubbing, I expect he learnt some lessons. On that tour his batting was a joke and will be remembered for backing off to square leg. He seems to have rectified that element too.

He is undoubtedly in fine form.

Larwood and Voce?

Richardson and Lohmann?

Horrie & vilks - certainly you could both make a case for the fine partnerships you suggested. Best is always subjective rather than objective, of course - but IMHO there's not a great deal between all three.

However, the fact that they are from three distinct eras did get me thinking, and a quick look at the records on dickinfo threw up an interesting point.

When I was in my teens (1970s) a batting average of 40 was considered the benchmark of excellence, and 45+ was exceptional. Now, an average of 40 is, well ....... average - certainly not great among his generation. let alone all-time. To this day, only 43 players have an average of 50+ over a minimum of 20 innings.

At the same time regarding bowlers, 30 was the benchmark for decent, 26-28 one of the best, and below 25 exceptional. I don't think that's really changed since those days. In comparison to the batting greats, 74 bowlers average below 25 (qualification 2000 balls, the equivalent of 330 odd six-ball overs)

Now, bear in mind that the first test match ever was played in 1877 ..... 139 years ago. Here's the thing that stood out for me. Of the 43 batsmen averaging 50+, 24 retired before the year 2000, 5 between 2001 and 2010, another 10 between 2011 and 2015, and a further 5 are current players. That's almost half the highest average batsmen playing within the last 20 years.

Only 18 of the 74 (just under a quarter) bowlers with <25 average retired post 2000. The last one to average below 20 was Frank Tysonin 1959.

There are several factors to account for the contest between bat and ball becoming less balanced, so increasing batting averages while bowling averages remain fairly constant. The top 20 bowlers average below 21. In 18th, 19th and 20th place respectively are the WIndian greats Marshall, Garner and Ambrose. The 17 above them played on uncovered wickets pre 1960 (and so of course did the batsmen facing them). Bats have got thicker, boundaries have got shorter, leg-spin all but died out, pitches have got flatter, and one day cricket has brought about an increase in unorthodox batting unimaginable in test matches 40 years ago.

I guess the point I'm getting at here is basically is that - given the changes explained above, some of which even younger bailers like vilks have seen in their cricket watching time (especially the increase in batting average) - I think Jimmy & Stu B's record does justifiably stand alongside any others, and not just in terms of longevity. They are playing in a really batsman friendly era more than their predecessors - which, as SB said, makes Dale Steyn stand up among the best we've seen in the history of test cricket.

[quote]They are playing in a really batsman friendly era more than their predecessors - which, as SB said, makes Dale Steyn stand up among the best we've seen in the history of test cricket./quote]

I said it before Broad did.....Unfortunately, Steyn may have played his last test.

Willis + Botham are the only English opening duo I have seen that might have compared.

Well done to Sturat on reaching no. 1.

Henry wrote:

They are playing in a really batsman friendly era more than their predecessors - which, as SB said, makes Dale Steyn stand up among the best we've seen in the history of test cricket./quote]

I said it before Broad did.....Unfortunately, Steyn may have played his last test.

http://www.supersport.com/cricket/sa-team/news/160120/Im_not_going_anywhere_Steyn

Growler wrote:
I guess the point I'm getting at here is basically is that - given the changes explained above, some of which even younger bailers like vilks have seen in their cricket watching time (especially the increase in batting average) - I think Jimmy & Stu B's record does justifiably stand alongside any others, and not just in terms of longevity. They are playing in a really batsman friendly era more than their predecessors - which, as SB said, makes Dale Steyn stand up among the best we've seen in the history of test cricket.

A couple of points that follow on from this.

Firstly, as you say, I think it puts in to context the magnificence of Steyn's average, wickets and strike rate. Due to it clearly being a batsman's era then the fact that he is still managing to average what would be considered world class in any era is truly exceptional (Philander has a similar average but he's 30 now and is yet to take 200 wickets, I think he might be another addition to the "what if" bowler pile, he's done great in the 32 tests he's played and if he performs for another 30 tests at the same level then he can start to join the conversation). 

In addition, the achievements of some of the Batsmen from the era of uncovered pitches seem quite phenomenal. Hobbs in particular, looking at the averages of the bowlers that were around in his time, for him to average 56.94 in tests is out of this world as is keeping his first class average over 50 after playing 834 matches (Bradman of course is essentially godlike and his record is already so insanely outrageous that there is no point in him even being in this conversation).

Tangent, but I wonder if Joe Root will finish with an average above 50. Every other major test nation has had players to do so but even England's best batsman of my generation so far (KP) didn't manage it. Hopefully Root can break that particular hoodoo (Barrington who retired in 1968 was the last to manage it by my calculations). I know batting conditions are perhaps more difficult in England than certain other countries but there are still plenty of players who have averaged over 50 having played a significant number of matches in England and it's not like we play all of our matches in England. Particularly with the odd Bangladesh series to fill your boots, 50 odd years really is too long to not have a single English player finish with an average above 50.

Since the start of 2010, Branderson have taken 538 wickets between them at an average of 26.49. That's some pretty outstanding figures, all-in-all. It's contributed to many series victories that in the past we'd likely have lost. It's quite some partnership, one that sometimes gets underrated and played down.

I didn't realise the figures were quite so good, Danny - it shows a degree of consistency for well over half of both their careers.

I'm not so sure their partnership gets played down as such - but in many matches one of the two stars with the other kind of playing second fiddle - you don't often see them both taking a hat-load together. In that sense, they don't always appear to be bowling as a partnership, so  I'd certainly agree it's underrated.

Because I don't have Sky telly, I don't see that much live cricket - but the thing I have noticed on here which makes the 26.49 you quote quite remarkable is this.

I've lost count of the matches where the gripe at the pair of them has been bowling too short. Your good self, Trev and Dello have been particularly frustrated on here - with justification I must say, as radio commentators have said the same thing, as have match reports that I've seen afterwards.

Can't help wondering what that 26.49 could have been if the new ball hadn't been squandered so often. I suspect openers have made significant runs over the years, and that it's added that odd half a run to that fine average.

I think that's part of the problem - with these two bowlers, you can never trust them for a decent spell. There's a likelihood they're going to bowl one, but not a definite as it was with the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath etc.

And TGM, Mr Monkeh

Brass Monkey wrote:I think that's part of the problem - with these two bowlers, you can never trust them for a decent spell. There's a likelihood they're going to bowl one, but not a definite as it was with the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath etc.

This is where I think Bayliss might have helped Broad, I'm guessing it was the statisticians and experts behind the scenes that said "if you bowl this length then you are statistically 0.04% more likely to take a wicket against this batsman so please bowl there. Remember if you don't you aren't a team player and are not looking at the bigger picture".

Have mentioned previously that I read an interview with Bayliss saying that he has done away with all that and has trusted them to have confidence in their abilities and to play as they see fit. And look at the difference it has had.

It's only 12 matches but since Bayliss has become coach and Broad has been "set free" as it were he has taken 50 wickets at 21.60. Will be difficult to keep that sort of form up but I think his "enforcer" days and of bowling too short all the time are over and if anything I would be surprised if Broad's stint at the top (or near the top) of the rankings is just a purple patch and doesn't last for a few years now that he has the freedom to bowl how he wants.

There seems no reason for his form to dissipate. Expect Bayliss would be embarrassed

vilkrang wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:I think that's part of the problem - with these two bowlers, you can never trust them for a decent spell. There's a likelihood they're going to bowl one, but not a definite as it was with the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath etc.

This is where I think Bayliss might have helped Broad, I'm guessing it was the statisticians and experts behind the scenes that said "if you bowl this length then you are statistically 0.04% more likely to take a wicket against this batsman so please bowl there. Remember if you don't you aren't a team player and are not looking at the bigger picture".

Have mentioned previously that I read an interview with Bayliss saying that he has done away with all that and has trusted them to have confidence in their abilities and to play as they see fit. And look at the difference it has had.

It's only 12 matches but since Bayliss has become coach and Broad has been "set free" as it were he has taken 50 wickets at 21.60. Will be difficult to keep that sort of form up but I think his "enforcer" days and of bowling too short all the time are over and if anything I would be surprised if Broad's stint at the top (or near the top) of the rankings is just a purple patch and doesn't last for a few years now that he has the freedom to bowl how he wants.

I dunno... I read an interview about the first innings at Jo'berg - he talked as if it was a mystery to make the batsmen play on that pitch. It's all down to him how he bowls, out on the pitch.

Didn't read that, was only going on what I read in the Bayliss interview and Broad's stats since he took over (which are world class by any standard).

Hopefully he doesn't start with the short pitched approach again but either way the interview with Bayliss inspired a lot of confidence not just regarding Broad but with the England team as a whole it will hopefully see an end to "we'll have to take a look at the stats and see what went wrong" type interviews when we do lose.