Stanford 2020 for $20 Million

[aussie_ben91]

Your ODI list is funny considering all bar 3 or 4 players average under or around about 35, which you consider to be mediocre, not top quality.
Brendan McCullum, Stephen Fleming, Ross Taylor, Hashim Amla, Mark Boucher, AB De Villiers and Neil McKenzie aren't top quality Test players either. None of them have scored more then 10 centuries and only 3 of them average of 40. If you're going to count players like that then you may aswell count every batsman that isn't a tailender.

I did research but you can't claim that getting Sachin Tendulkar out two or three times is as good as getting someone like MS Dhoni out 5 or 6 times.

How you can call a knick to the keeper or slips a shocking wicket is beyhond me and idiotic.
If you actually played cricket, it can be extremely hard to reach wide delieveries after you've been tied down by a bowler. It's smart bowling if anything.

Mitchell Johnson has played on flat subcontinent tracks where teams have scored 500s & 600s constantly but has still managed be one of the leading wicket takers in the series.
You can't say Lords was 'ridiculously' flat because you bowled South Africa out for 150 and then failed to do so again and struggled against batsman like Hashim Amla.

The fact that Broad hasn't had his opportunity constantly against class opposition but yet still averages 40+ in Test Cricket, aswell as bowling in two of the more favourable conditions in world cricket furthermore proves that he is massively overrated and not better then Mitchell Johnson.

 

[King Pietersen]

They're good players though, you can't doubt that. You claimed that Broad only gets poor players out, when that just isn't the case. Obviously getting players like Tendulkar out on more than one occassion is impressive, but it doesn't prove that he's a better bowler. Steyn's got a better record than Asif, but you'd be mad to claim that Asif was the better bowler because he got a few decent players out. Oh wait......

ROFL, so now you're claiming that Johnson's lack of control is a plan. You're claiming that he bowled that ball purposely wide to tempt a player who is known to have the best temprement in the game into a shot. It was just complete fluke that he got a wicket with that ball, Dravid wouldn't have chased that ball on 99/100 ocassions, and hence wasn't a good delivery.

You're right about Lords, it's a right minefield, that's why England, who apparently aren't much better than Zimbabwe made 563 on the pitch, a pitch that hasn't seen a result since the 2005 Ashes test. If it was a minefield England wouldn't have made 400, and South Africa wouldn't have saved that test match. For the record as well, Amla's a top batsman, he's improved alot, looked top class in England.

Broad's bowled in Sri Lanka, not easy in the slightest, probably the hardest place for a fast bowler to go. He's done well in England against South Africa, but his average was ruined by that first Test and then the 2nd as well, where South Africa happened to bat immensely well. Broad didn't get a chance with the new ball in either of those tests, Vaughan had very little faith in him, and he was bowled with defensive fields to try and set the batsmen up for the bowlers at the other end. Pietersen has faith in him, he was first change in the 3rd SA test, and took 5 wickets in 30 overs in the test.

Broad also bowled incredibly well in New Zealand, and was unlucky not to improve on his figures, which are still impressive, averaging 31.25 in the series. The partnership between him and James Anderson turned that series in England's favour. Broad almost always takes a wicket in an innings, and really has been unlucky not to take more. When the conditions suit the bowlers he gets wickets, it's just on the really flat tracks like Lords where he struggles, and even Dale Steyn and Makhaya Ntini struggled in England this year, so the conditions can't be too favourable.

 

[irottev]

Well, Fleming was a top quality test batsman, I don't care what's said. His record is modest largely due to his first few yearsin the game. Over the last 4-5 years he played he was carrying our batting by himself. Anyone who can score a double hundred against the SA attack he did it against at the time was a special player let alone Murili at his home ground. He hit a few other fantastic doubles in his last 5odd years too.

262 vs Ntini, Steyn, Nel, Kallis attack, 274* in Sri Lanka (Colombo even) vs Murili and Vaas in 2003. That innings was where his batting career kicked off. Since the start of 2003, Fleming averages 47.95 with the bat. That for a New Zealand player was fantastic.

The rest include some of the better keepers and some up-coming talents, probably not proven a heck of a lot but they're still talented players.

In my opinion, in tests Johnson > Broad, in ODI's Broad > Johnson.

Theyre totally different bowlers by the way, why compare a left arm skiddy bowler with a right arm tall bounce medium fast bowler?

 

[aussie_ben91]

All I can say is...

Mitchell Johnson > Stuart Broad

There is no evidence to say otherwise, despite King_Pietersen's best efforts.
Here are the facts that matter, that can't be possibly be argued and the facts that truly matter.

Johnson has a better Test & ODI record then Broad.
Johnson takes wickets of better batsman.
Johnson capatilizes on weak opposition, Broad doesn't.
Johnson takes wickets in tough conditions, Broad doesn't.
Johnson doesn't bowl in the most bowler friendly conditions in world cricket, Broad does.

To be fair, if Broad was Australian then he would recieve as much (probably more) criticisim as what Johnson has over the past few years if he got selected. The only reason why Broad's selection isn't constantly under scrunity is because England are a relatively weak cricketing nation and the bowlers around him don't make him look as bad as what he really is.

It's ironic that you mock Zimbabwe's batting as they have produced a more successful batsman then England has in about 60 years in Andy Flower.

 

[karnog]

It's ironic that you mock Zimbabwe's batting as they have produced a more successful batsman then England has in about 60 years in Andy Flower.

Dude your gonna get hammered....

 

[King Pietersen]

Johnson's got a better record in Tests, but didn't you accuse me of looking too much into stats Ben? Having better stats doesn't prove a better bowler. Technically, Broad's better, not quite as much pace, but I'll say again, better accuracy, can bowl to plans, gets more bounce off a wicket, gets seam movement, swings the ball as much as Johnson, can bowl long spells. He's also far better with the bat in his hand.

Then we turn to the ODi's, Yes, Johnson has a better record against India. But, what about his record against New Zealand, apparently the 2nd most favourably conditions in the world, in New Zealand, in 3 matches, Johnson took 3/194 at an average of 64.66 with an economy of 7.18. Compare this with Broad, he took 8/206 from 5 matches, at an average of 25.75 with an economy of 5.42. Seems that Johnson doesn't bowl as well as Broad in favourable conditions. Johnson also got spanked by South Africa in the 1 match they played, going at over 9 an over, Broad, 8 wickets at 18.12 at an economy of 4.37. Then in games against Sri Lanka, Broad's were played IN Sri Lanka, possibly the least favourable conditions for a bowler, whereas Johnson's were on his home turf. Here are the stats:

Johnson: 4 matches, 5/109, average of 21.80. Economy of 3.40.
Broad: 5 matches, 11/212, average of 19.27. Economy of 4.64.

Johnson's economy may have been better, but he was bowling in Australia, fairly favourable to fast bowling with quick pitches. Broad took his wickets on Sri Lankan pitches, in Sri Lankan conditions and apart from the economy, he took 6 more wickets than Johnson in 1 extra game. I'd say Broad is the 2nd best ODi opening bowler in the world atm, only trailing Nathan Bracken, Broad's got a tremendous record, he's got the batting to match and it's only a matter of time before he transfers that to Test cricket.

Also, you've just said possibly the most ludicrous thing I've ever seen you post. Flower, a better batsman than any Englishman in the last 60 years. Gooch, Gower, Atherton, Hutton, Barrington, Compton, Dexter, Grieg, May, and Pietersen. You're telling me that Andy Flower is better than all of them players?

 

[Will_NA]

The funny thing is Ben hardly uses any stats. It's most him just assuming everything.

 

[WestIndian]

You know guys am trying to understand when and where did this thread lose it, I mean I have read stuff about how poor, WI players are and how much more they needed this money than the English players, and all this sort of bullshit, with guy refusing to just accept that England was out played, beaten, I mean it was not no second string team out of England, it was the same set of guys that beat SA 4-0!!!
But all that aside, this thread has become a war between England and Australia, and its pathetic, you want to debate this continuous BS between AUS and Eng open a new thread, but by God let Stanford 2020 for $20 million be just that, Stanford 2020 for $20 million and take all you war else where!!!

 

[Will_NA]

I'm not sure how one team needing the money more than the others is an excuse for England's poor performance. You're making links that aren't there.

Joe said it. Dan said it. I said it. You can't expect to turn up and beat a team who's been training for 6 weeks. The SS were simply better.

 

[manee]

Sorry for not following the current discussion but well done to the Stanford Superstars. They trained long and hard and it paid off. Forget Buchanan's 3 day Ashes camp, this was 6 weeks - and what an impact! England were off the boil and it suits them for no training camps and clearly not focussing on the cricket. The right result occured, even though England played abysmally and the Superstars could have played better, definately. The standard of cricket was not great, but the gulf between the teams was massive and justified.