Dec 3-7: 2nd Test: Australia v England at the Adelaide Oval

[Sureshot]

Broad needs to get some wicket second innings, one wicket in the 1st Test and one wicket in the 1st innings of the 2nd Test. Add to that a duck in his only innings and he's not justifying his place. With six batsmen in the side his place can be decided on bowling alone, his batting is a bonus but not if he's not scoring any more runs than Anderson, Swann etc

How on earth can you question his place based on 6 days cricket? He's bowled well without reward, but please, continuity is one of the reasons why we've had success over the last couple of years. Going horses for courses like the Aussies are doing will not work. Everyone we could bring in is raw back up and nothing else.

 

[Owzat]

How on earth can you question his place based on 6 days cricket? He's bowled well without reward, but please, continuity is one of the reasons why we've had success over the last couple of years. Going horses for courses like the Aussies are doing will not work. Everyone we could bring in is raw back up and nothing else.

Easy, because I'm basing it on more than just six days, that's he's done nothing so far is just the time to make the change rather than the entire basis of it.

He has lowered his average from the 40s, but mainly because of two 5wis vs the aussies in 2009 and then playing a weak Pakistan side. He's yet to cut it in my opinion, and with only four frontline bowlers we need someone who can carry his weight not rely on the odd burst of brilliance and this "bowled well without reward" excuse to carry him in the side.

Bunkum re the continuity cobblers, most of the success has been over second rate sides with the odd win over decent opposition - the 2009 win was far from easy, we could just as easily have lost 2-3 as won 2-1. Add to that the fact that continuity hasn't been rife anyway and it adds up to justification of including an underperformer. He's a bits n pieces cricketer, just slightly better than other players of the same ilk

 

[War]

Easy, because I'm basing it on more than just six days, that's he's done nothing so far is just the time to make the change rather than the entire basis of it.

He has lowered his average from the 40s, but mainly because of two 5wis vs the aussies in 2009 and then playing a weak Pakistan side. He's yet to cut it in my opinion, and with only four frontline bowlers we need someone who can carry his weight not rely on the odd burst of brilliance and this "bowled well without reward" excuse to carry him in the side.

Bunkum re the continuity cobblers, most of the success has been over second rate sides with the odd win over decent opposition - the 2009 win was far from easy, we could just as easily have lost 2-3 as won 2-1. Add to that the fact that continuity hasn't been rife anyway and it adds up to justification of including an underperformer. He's a bits n pieces cricketer, just slightly better than other players of the same ilk

We could have easily lost 2-1 in S Africa as well if the saffies didnt have so much injuries to key players in that series.

Plus although i'd say you are being a bit harsh on Broad calling him a "bits and pieces" cricketer, since he certainly is a level above that. He just needs to work on his bowling on flattish decks.

Overall i'd say this fair assesment on Braod & England's recent run of performances.

 

[Sureshot]

He just needs to work on his bowling on flattish decks.

What you mean on the flattish decks that all bowlers struggle on, thus why they are called flat?

I really can't be bothered to fight all your brilliant British pessimism in the rest of both your posts.

 

[War]

What you mean on the flattish decks that all bowlers struggle on, thus why they are called flat?

The reason great bowlers in test history from Larwood to Steyn earn that accolade of "great". Was because they where wicket taking threats not just when they got greentops or bouncy decks - but also when they bowled on unresponsive flat decks.

Thats what seperates bowlers like them from the Stuart Broads type bowlers in test history.

So our boy Broad clearly has to work on his bowling on flat pitches, since in his career to date when he doesn't get seaming conditions or bouncy decks his wicket taking threat is decreased.

I really can't be bothered to fight all your brilliant British pessimism in the rest of both your posts.

Ok. I'm just agreeing with Owzat, you should go respond to him since its your post he was debating/questioning.

 

[Sureshot]

By "both" I meant you and Owzat, not both of your posts. Though that wasn't clear.

Don't see the relevance of bringing the great bowlers (Steyn? Lol, but that's for another time), I made no mention of Broad being great, just I don't think there's enough weight in him being dropped, or enough wait from those who would replace him. I think he's bowled well in both tests and has been bowling well for the last couple of years. Some stats:

year 2007 		1 	1 	36.0 	5 	95 	1 	1/95 	1/95 	95.00 	2.63 	216.0 	0 	0 	
year 2008 		9 	18 	325.2 	67 	1081 	25 	3/44 	5/104 	43.24 	3.32 	78.0 	0 	0 	
year 2009 		14 	22 	421.3 	84 	1333 	47 	6/91 	6/87 	28.36 	3.16 	53.8 	3 	0 	
year 2010 		10 	18 	321.4 	76 	948 	26 	4/38 	6/104 	36.46 	2.94 	74.2 	0 	0

Yeah, his stats for 2010 aren't great (though in the modern era of pitches, I think anything below 35 is decent, given batsman are now expected to average over 40, when it used to be less in the 90s, when the threshold for bowlers was under 30). He had a great year in 2009, including two iconic bowling performances in The Ashes, on stats. There are two sides to cricket, Flintoff never had a great average, but was he good enough to bowl for the side? Of course he was, Broad also creates pressure like Flintoff and is a versatile bowler who can be used in many aspects. If you take in to account his age, he's probably still 5 years away from the peak of his career. The improvements he already has made, his fantastic results in ODIs and the fact he is a long-term investment. Throw in to the mix he averages nearly 30 with the bat for a number 8, including 160 odd earlier this year, and I just don't see any weight in him being dropped outside of the typical pessimism so many hold. Not saying he can't improve or could be doing more in the side, but do you think Shahzad or Tremlett will offer more?

 

[MUFC1987]

Great day for England and especially for Anderson after all the negative stuff he gets from around the world. It's the type of score where we can be terrible with the bat and still be in the game.

I also like how the pitch went from flat, to 'doing something for the bowlers' just because Anderson blew the top order away.

 

[barmyarmy]

I'm still not convinced by Broad or Finn but Anderson looks like the real deal atm. The key for day 2 is no soft wickets; drive them into the ground again and make Aus bat for 2 days to save the match.

 

[pcfan123]

Finn did look pretty wayward yesterday but there is no actual reason to drop Broad or Finn right now. Everyone performed poorly in the 1st Test and this one has just started.

If anything I wanna see Finn at the WACA, I doubt he will be dropped before then, especially if England win the 2nd test

 

[barmyarmy]

I don't expect them to be dropped; I just think we may need to make a horses for courses selection at some point with Shazad or Tremlett coming in.

 

[Sureshot]

Yeah, Finn looked a bit wayward. But he does take wickets, wouldn't drop him yet. Though I think Tremlett would do a good job, there's some obvious building for the future going on.

 

[shravi]

I don't think Finn's problem is waywardness, although he does bowl a little wide at times. I think it's the discrepancy between his natural length and the best length on the pitch he's given. He will thrive on pitches where he can afford to pitch it a little shorter but because of his lack of movement- both through the air and off the pitch- he will find it more difficult when he has to pitch it fuller.

 

[TumTum]

I don't think Finn's problem is waywardness, although he does bowl a little wide at times. I think it's the discrepancy between his natural length and the best length on the pitch he's given. He will thrive on pitches where he can afford to pitch it a little shorter but because of his lack of movement- both through the air and off the pitch- he will find it more difficult when he has to pitch it fuller.

Well it wasn't just length with him, but also direction. Despite his height, his short balls are easy to play (lack of pace) and when he pitches it up it is almost a free hit. For me Tremlett is definitely a better bowler between them right now.

 

[MUFC1987]

I don't see the need to either drop Finn, or call Tremlett in to replace him. Yes Tremlett did well in the game against Australia A, but he's been with the Performance Squad and didn't take a wicket in the match, so it's not like he's in red hot form and knocking the door down. Meanwhile Finn took 6 wickets in the last game. No-brainer.

 

[darthlewis1]

I think doug bollinger has to much sun cream on