*Official* Second Test at Lords

[Richard]

You would have thought after the last match that it would've been Broad's last Test for awhile, but the general consensus was that it was that his only had 1 poor match. Clearly when you are averaging 40 in Test Cricket, it takes a little more then 1 bad game to acchieve such a poor average. Clearly his success against the West Indies was just a matter of facing lesser batsman and so many English supporters overlooked this.

Actually they didn't. Yes, there were a few who actually did expect Broad to be successful against Australia, but most of us simply said he had to play given his success against West Indies, even though he was unlikely to perform all that well.

Your ability to construct straw-man arguments is among the most annoying in CW history. Seriously, respond to what people have posted, not what you'd like them to have. Or just shut the **** up and stop making posts whose only use is to annoy people.

 

[GIMH]

Oh dear, last week flashback

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Not a big fan of Onions, tbh. He is by no means Stuart Broad poor, but is hardly a world beater. Looks a typical 135-140kph bowler that any half decent batsman can negociate.

 

[Redbacks]

Can't believe Broad played ahead of Onions in the last game.

I get the feeling priority number one from England is to avoid a heavy defeat. Thus they play 9 batsmen and have prepared two lame duck wickets in the hope of avoiding a big defeat. Maybe the master plan is to unleash some aggresive cricket in the 4th test, Harmison on ice to ensure he doesn't get the lethal combination of the swine flu and home-sickness given 5 matches need to be played.

 

[Richard]

maybe if we could borrow the time machine the majority of people in England must have used given their complete lack of acknowledgement of the last Ashes series occurring

Said lack of acknowledgement is in jest... yes?

(It certainly is on my part, and I do it far less often than most)

 

[Demolition Man]

There appears to be some long term plan with keeping broad in the side, thats fine but if you want to win the ashes you bring in harmison.

 

[Redbacks]

There are very few England supporters who actually want Broad in the team so I don't know where you've got that from.

similar case to all the apparent Aussies who have called Johnson the second coming of Jesus. But in Ashes tradition, our false remarks are still closer to the mark than England's

 

[Demolition Man]

Not a big fan of Onions, tbh. He is by no means Stuart Broad poor, but is hardly a world beater. Looks a typical 135-140kph bowler that any half decent batsman can negociate.

Im not so sure, on par with broad so far IMO

Holding says harmison has currently taken 6/20 for durham.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

There are very few England supporters who actually want Broad in the team so I don't know where you've got that from.

I don't think that was "the general consensus at all". All England fans have had pretty massive reservations about Broad's bowling, even though they've seen it improve a bit in recent months.

Edit: what Pizzorno said.

The general consensus comment was directed at the commentators and selectors was that Broad had only had 1 bad game. The English supporter crack was mainly targetted at King Pietersen, who I have been telling that Broad is rubbish for the past year and a half and he has been disagreeing, telling me that I would be eating my words by now. Just a friendly reminder.

 

[Richard]

There appears to be some long term plan with keeping broad in the side, thats fine but if you want to win the ashes you bring in harmison.

Long-term plans involving picking cricketers for Tests who are clearly not yet good enough for it are never under any circumstances a good idea, but The Ashes is the last place of all to be doing it.

Nonetheless, it's been believed for most of Broad's career that the breakthrough is around the corner. Nearly 2 years down the line now, it's yet to arrive.

 

[.matt]

Im not so sure, on par with broad so far IMO

Holding says harmison has currently taken 6/20 for durham.

Notts 79/9 (31.2 ov, MA Ealham 17*, CE Shreck 0*, SJ Harmison 6/20) | Live Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Yep, Notts 9/77. 6-20 off 12 overs. He's making it hard not to pick him.

 

[Redbacks]

Said lack of acknowledgement is in jest... yes?

(It certainly is on my part, and I do it far less often than most)

Aimed at the media, don't think it has even being uttered in the commentary box so far. Although it's not really riveting conversation, I can see it more as a nice memory in the years to come as the culmination of the Warne-McGrath era.

Edit: plus a petty attempt to save my joke

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Your ability to construct straw-man arguments is among the most annoying in CW history. Seriously, respond to what people have posted, not what you'd like them to have. Or just shut the **** up and stop making posts whose only use is to annoy people.

 

[pasag]

Good partnership, long way to go yet though. Another wicket and we're pretty screwed.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Notts 79/9 (31.2 ov, MA Ealham 17*, CE Shreck 0*, SJ Harmison 6/20) | Live Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Yep, Notts 9/77. 6-20 off 12 overs. He's making it hard not to pick him.

Thank god he got that supposed "12th man" from the last Test out.

 

[Richard]

Ah, so you're deliberately posting just to annoy people.

I suggest in that case you read the forum rules.

 

[.matt]

Just a popular here as you were at PC I see, Ben

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Just a popular here as you were at PC I see, Ben

Pretty much, the planetcricket population on this forum seems to have grown since I started posting here.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually they didn't. Yes, there were a few who actually did expect Broad to be successful against Australia, but most of us simply said he had to play given his success against West Indies, even though he was unlikely to perform all that well.

Uppercut to rage.

 

[Richard]

Uppercut to rage.

As I say to him constantly, you can only pick the players who have constructed for themselves the strongest cases (or sometimes who have had the strongest cases constructed for them by ineptitude of opposition). You cannot say "well I think Harmison might do better than Broad so even though Broad did way better than Harmison against West Indies I'm going to pick Harmison".