See, I disagree. I think there's a certain element there of trying to justify your own mistaken beliefs about Broad's ability - ability now - by trying to manufacture his figures from diabolical to merely very very poor indeed. You can justify your errant selections better if he's averaging 45 than if he's averaging 70. I've said it before - there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for picking someone now because you believe he'll be good enough in 9 months' time. You wait until such a time happens, then pick a player - trying to pre-empt it is fraught with all sorts of dangers.
No, not at all. I actually said earlier in the thread that I didn't think Broad should have been playing last summer, and I agree that the long-term should be a secondary consideration in Test cricket, because each Test match is just that and the best XI should be selected. I am not trying to manufacture anything - he averages what he averages (couldn't tell you what it is tbh) this has nothing to do with anything. If Broad was still bowling constantly poorly (has had an up and down series IMO) then it wouldn't change my belief that Vaughan did the right thing.
Richard said:
And I do care about figures in a broader sense BTW. If the team was all that mattered in cricket I'd probably not watch it. The thing that's so interesting about cricket is that it's a game about both individual and team, and where individual feats cumulate to make team ones. It's why I dislike Twenty20 - the individual aspect of it is significantly marginalised.
I care about individual feats, course I do, everyone who has read my posts in CC over the last three years knows I worship Freddie & KP. But my primary concern will always be England winning, as such if a game is pretty much wrapped up, then letting a bowler whose head has dropped take a couple of easy poles strikes me as intelligent man-management of that guy, and you'd imagine the other bowlers should be team players enough to deal with it.
See I might not think he should have been in the team, but he was and clearly was going to be. So there is no point debating the merits of the strategy, fact is they stuck broad in thinking he would develop, so you have to therefore, as a captain, do what is necessary to achieve this.
Disagree about T20 as well - a century or what not will have a greater impact in T20 than an ODI a lot of the time.
Richard said:
Nor do I think Broad gained any real confidence which helped him by dismissing those few tailenders - he kept bowling the same way and it was only after a long break in games, the last in which he'd been ineffective as usual, that things changed.
Well only he could tell us for sure, but gaining confidence obviously doesn't equate to an instant improvement. Losing confidence would have a more quickly visible detrimental effect IMO, but you could see during the ODI series against South Africa that Broad hadn't let his head drop in spite of a highly disappointing summer in Tests for him. If he had been badly managed then he would surely have been at a low ebb at this point. Instead he has reinvigorated himself and showed some real promise at points this winter.