Stuart Broad - is he worth his place in the Test XI?

[Owzat]

Broad does not contribute enough with the ball to warrant a place in the England Test side, he can only be in the side because he can bat and that isn't enough when you're playing just four bowlers and others like Swann and Tremlett can bat a bit.

No doubt he'll retain his place on the back of a rapid 50, but on a pitch where wickets are at a premium and his rapid 50 is currently one of FIVE 50s and there have been two 100s in just one and a half innings, it's value in the context of the game is relative.

SCJ Broad (35 Tests)

46 inns, 1150 runs @ 28.05 (100x1, 50x6)
103 wkts @ 36.13 (SR 68.86, ER 3.15)

On face value it doesn't look that bad, although a bowling average of 36 is nothing to write home about, especially in light of his split by opposition :

vs BAN/NZE/PAK/WIN - 17 Tests, 622 runs @ 32.74 & 55 wkts @ 31.42
vs AUS/IND/SAF/SRI - 18 Tests, 528 runs @ 24.00 & 48 wkts @ 41.52

And if anyone claims he is "unlucky", well for one poppycock and for two why pick an "unlucky" bowler? As for his importance in the balance of the side, he's batted 41 times at 8-9 compared to five times elsewhere and the fact that he's now in his 35th Test (I don't count abandoned West Indies games) and batted only 46 times out of a possible 69 which is 2/3 suggests he is not needed nearly as much as you might think.

Is he improving? Not really :

Tests 01-07 : 18 wkts, 287 runs
Tests 08-14 : 20 wkts, 180 runs
Tests 15-21 : 26 wkts, 300 runs
Tests 22-28 : 22 wkts, 106 runs
Tests 29-35 : 17 wkts, 277 runs

No great improvement, the latter seven Tests he could still take wickets in the current Test and that includes his 169, but generally speaking he isn't picking up more than three wickets per Test average bar one purple patch which was 38 wickets in 10 Tests with 11 against West Indies, 18 in the 2009 Ashes and then nine in two Tests against South Africa. Since then he's taken 30 wickets in 11.5 Tests. To put his runs into context, 280 runs in seven Tests is 40 runs per Test and can be two innings per Test obviously.

If his batting were a lot better he could be an asset a la Kallis, that is how I would try and use him if at all. But in a four man bowling attack he isn't good enough in my book, I find it funny that when we have a four man bowling attack, and therefore could afford to pick specialists, we go for a batsman keeper and bowler who must be in because he can bat.

 

[cricket_icon]

That is why I think many made the argument for Bopara being in the side intead of Morgan. Bopara can fill in some overs, consrtict the runs and may be get a wicket or 2 which is the role the Colly had for so long. In addition I do think Bopara's bowling is better than Collys but Morgan seemed the right choice as it was largely acknowledged that Anderson and Swann are real wicket taking threats but with Anderson almost certainly missing the series and Swann not looking as threatening as before, the attack does seem some what one sided and Broads selection is becoming a problem because he isn't carrying his weight.

 

[MDStar]

I've always wondered what was very special about Broad- no doubt he is young and has time to improve but his selection in the test side, clearly isn't justified as you(Owzat) pointed out.

From what I've seen, apart from the occasional surprise delivery he doesn't have any lethal wicket-taking ones.
--
Steve Harmison is currently playing county cricket and seems to be as aggressive and dangerous as ever; not to mention the likes of Graham Onions, James Harris and Kabir Ali who have all been performing consistently at the domestic level.
_____
If I were an English selector, I'd give Broad a "jump-into" Domestic cricket, ask him to hit the right 'rhythm' and unless he does so, will he be able to get into the national test squad.

MDStar

 

[harrisb]

Maybe, but if you look at it in terms of current form, many would say that Strauss shouldn't be in the team, also don't forget that he is just comin back from injury which ruled him out of the Ashes and the World Cup.

I agree with MDStar though, Broad should've been allowed to play some county cricket during the SL test series, this would have allowed him to find some form and get his rhythm back, thus allowing somebody like Dernbach or Onions to make a claim for a place in the team

 

[Owzat]

Maybe, but if you look at it in terms of current form, many would say that Strauss shouldn't be in the team, also don't forget that he is just comin back from injury which ruled him out of the Ashes and the World Cup.

Not sure how you conclude that. Since 07/08 Strauss averages 44.29, since 2010 he averages 35.37 but that's far better as a batting average than 35.27 by Broad with the ball in the same period (and near enough same average in his career)

Can't argue Strauss hasn't scored any runs this series, but Broad has only taken 2+ wickets in an innings ONCE since the South Africa tour (20 innings bowled, 28 wickets taken @ 37.57)

I think giving him some time in the counties and playing ODIs is the solution, maybe even work harder on his batting so he could conceivably become a genuine all-rounder. If he's not taking wickets in a four man attack then he is an ill-affordable luxury. 6 wkts @ 48.00 in the series ain't good enough, a bit more from him in the 1st innings and we might have been 2-0 up. Might sound harsh, as if I'm singling him out for us not winning the Test, but he needs to put in a match winning performance every now and again and only in 1/3 of his matches does he take 4+ wickets (reasonably evenly split between 4, 5 and 6)

 

[sami ullah khan]

Broad has everything a fast bowler needs. He is tall and can bowl pretty quick. Still his stats do not justify the continued selection in English team. That guy Onions was looking very good. I am sure Broad will also be feeling the heat now. We may yet see him get ousted sooner than later.

 

[cricket_icon]

i still believe shahzad gets in ahead of onions

 

[sifter132]

Well I've seen only a tiny bit of Broad outside the Ashes so my opinion isn't as enlightened as it could be But Broad seems a solid, reliable bowler - the type Australia could use right now... But I don't see the potential that others see in him. He's got better control than Finn, but I think Bresnan looked really good to me and when he gets back I'd put him back into the team. I just think Broad doesn't know what he's meant to do - keep it tight? bang it in? intimidate? try and get reverse? which one is it?

That's what makes it difficult if you drop him. If he gets dropped he might be playing in a different role for his county than what he would be for England.

 

[Sureshot]

A lot of it is that he's told to bang it in short. Everyone seems to think he has some issue where he can only bang it in half way, despite the fact he's doing it because he's been told to, it's his role. That type of bowling can bring wickets at other ends (this is a pretty hard stat to back up). That all said, he needs to bring in more wickets. I believe his Test form is one of the reasons for his T20 captaincy.

He's not someone to write off, by any means, but would like to see him grab a couple of 5 fors this summer.

 

[Owzat]

That type of bowling can bring wickets at other ends (this is a pretty hard stat to back up)

It's a myth and impossible to back up, you can't create a cause and effect relationship at two ends. You can surmise that a batsman got out because of pressure, but then that is more likely to be a batsman getting himself out than the bowler of the previous over/at the other end ie the batsman doesn't have to get out just because Broad is conceding at two an over.

It's a weak theory at best, as it was with other bowlers before Broad

. That all said, he needs to bring in more wickets.

He needs to take more wickets, bang halfway down theory wants knocking on the head in favour of pitching it up which is how you bring the slips into play. And if he is to persist with wasting deliveries, maybe the new ball should be given to someone else. All you do giving him the new ball is reduce the amount of balls a batsman has to play and early on that is criminal.

He's not someone to write off, by any means, but would like to see him grab a couple of 5 fors this summer.

Therein lies one of two main problems for me, he'll take a 5wi or have a good match and secure his place for eternity, that and his batting potential meaning the selectors want him to succeed as a bowler rather than taking his success or relative failure and basing his selection (or not) on that.

The bottom line is best put in a question, can you afford to have a bowler not taking his fair share of wickets in a FOUR man bowling attack? Simple answer and truth is no you cannot. He is effectively in as a batting all-rounder, means the bowling is sometimes four but more often 3.0-3.5

 

[ZoraxDoom]

It's a myth and impossible to back up, you can't create a cause and effect relationship at two ends. You can surmise that a batsman got out because of pressure, but then that is more likely to be a batsman getting himself out than the bowler of the previous over/at the other end ie the batsman doesn't have to get out just because Broad is conceding at two an over.

It's a weak theory at best, as it was with other bowlers before Broad

To be fair, while hard to prove, anyone who's played cricket at any level can tell you that such an effect is real. Pressure from one end does help produce wickets at the other. It's is even an accepted argument for bowlers with not-so flattering records in weak teams to say that this is due to the lack of support they have from the other end over their career (read: Vettori). Not fair to totally write it off.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Broad has everything a fast bowler needs. He is tall and can bowl pretty quick. Still his stats do not justify the continued selection in English team.

His stats, and bowling style in general, are eerly similar to Umar Gul's. Both are devastating ODI/T20 bowlers, but struggle to find their lengths in the Test format. They both show their brilliance from time to time with the occasional 5-fer, but are no where near consistent in the longer format.

 

[manee]

Broad is not worth a constant spot in the Test XI. He has been given a long go and has not developed the consistency that England thought that he would! The likes of Shahzad and Finn are not improvements upon proceedings, either. England need people with FC experience like Tremlett, Onions, Bresnan - ie. people picked on the back of performances rather than 'potential'.

 

[Sureshot]

To be fair, while hard to prove, anyone who's played cricket at any level can tell you that such an effect is real. Pressure from one end does help produce wickets at the other. It's is even an accepted argument for bowlers with not-so flattering records in weak teams to say that this is due to the lack of support they have from the other end over their career (read: Vettori). Not fair to totally write it off.

This.

He needs to take more wickets, bang halfway down theory wants knocking on the head in favour of pitching it up which is how you bring the slips into play. And if he is to persist with wasting deliveries, maybe the new ball should be given to someone else. All you do giving him the new ball is reduce the amount of balls a batsman has to play and early on that is criminal.

But as said, this is a tactic he is encouraged if not told to bowl by his captain and the team management.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

and yet, if you were to rank them by their economy. Broad would come 4th out of Tremmers, Swann, Bresnan, Finn and himself.

similarly of the same 5 bowlers he's 4th on the list in terms of percentage of his overs that are maidens. (but funnily Swann this time is last)

so he's not applying pressure, he's giving away more runs and bowling less maidens than the other bowlers.