**Official** New Zealand in England

[gettingbetter]

^ What I wanted to say. Too late to be verbose.

 

[Richard]

Disagree, if Broad couldn’t bat I very much doubt he would be in the test side. Almost on every occasion when the England set-up discusses Broad they always harbour on about his added value with the bat and how that is so important in balancing the side, with the question of his actual bowling been a mere afterthought.

So that explains Anderson's even more constant and every bit as inexplicable place despite being as poor at batting as MSP?

 

[Prince EWS]

Disagree, if Broad couldn’t bat I very much doubt he would be in the test side. Almost on every occasion when the England set-up discusses Broad they always harbour on about his added value with the bat and how that is so important in balancing the side, with the question of his actual bowling been a mere afterthought.

You reckon? Most people suggested Flintoff would replace Anderson if he was fit for the first Test, which would mean Broad would have been picked as a seam-bowling allrounder to bat #9 with no genuine bowling options in the top 7 - ie. lunacy. I suggested otherwise, saying Broad was occupying Flintoff's position as the first change bowler and lower order batsman, but received little support.

I think Broad is genuinely seen as one of England's four best bowlers by not only quite a few members of this forum, but the selectors as well.

 

[Goughy]

Nah, people actually do think Broad is currently a good enough bowler to be playing Tests.

Who would possibly think that?

 

[Richard]

Lots of people. One such example

Broad, well I can see that there is something there, most definately, and I think he is worth a place right at the moment, given the situation with other players injured or not performing.. The wickets will come, I dont think it means he is bowling badly

This seems to me to sum-up an attitude which is very widespread.

As far back as 2006, people were saying Broad should be playing because he had obvious promise, and it couldn't hurt to pick him now to see, and then when he did play that the wickets would come despite him barely looking particularly threatening. When Broad was excluded for the 2006/07 CB Series, one piece in Wisden (I forget where) read "if Stuart Broad had not been left out, considered too young and inexperienced at 20, he would surely have made a difference too".

Broad has that young player's gift of hoodwinking the masses. Someone like Vikram Solanki had it too, though not to the extent Broad has. Irfan Pathan had it for years. I'm sure there's other examples that I can't think of right now from recent times.

 

[GIMH]

This one?

Nope

 

[Leslie1]

Broad has that young player's gift of hoodwinking the masses. Someone like Vikram Solanki had it too, though not to the extent Broad has. Irfan Pathan had it for years. I'm sure there's other examples that I can't think of right now from recent times.

You can argue that for Southee. But I think it's fair that each international side has a prodigy in their lineup to blood to develop into potential match winners. Broad has such potential and I don't see why his selection should be scorned and frowned upon when he hasn't set a foot wrong or bowl an Anderson-like spell. Let the 'boy' be and the longer he stays in the lineup consistently, the faster he will develop into your genuine match winner. You cannot expect him to master his talents from the get go. Take Steyn for example, he got plucked quite young and now he is a genuine threat even at mid 20s.

This England side needs another Flintoff, and I dare suggest Broad is the next potential Flintoff material.

Having said that, don't get to the stage like NZ where a mass exodus of xp means we blood a side with an average age of 24.

 

[GIMH]

You can argue that for Southee. But I think it's fair that each international side has a prodigy in their lineup to blood to develop into potential match winners. Broad has such potential and I don't see why his selection should be scorned and frowned upon when he hasn't set a foot wrong or bowl an Anderson-like spell. Let the 'boy' be and the longer he stays in the lineup consistently, the faster he will develop into your genuine match winner. You cannot expect him to master his talents from the get go. Take Steyn for example, he got plucked quite young and now he is a genuine threat even at mid 20s.

This England side needs another Flintoff, and I dare suggest Broad is the next potential Flintoff material.

Having said that, don't get to the stage like NZ where a mass exodus of xp means we blood a side with an average age of 24.

Hmm, not sure on this but if he is, then we should have learned from when Flintoff played at Broad's age and was, um, ****

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Take Steyn for example, he got plucked quite young and now he is a genuine threat even at mid 20s.

Steyn was picked young and then dropped. He then learned to bowl at domestic level and was recalled a much improved bowler. It's not the same situation as Southee and Broad as of yet.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, not sure on this but if he is, then we should have learned from when Flintoff played at Broad's age and was, um, ****

Flintoff was far worse than Broad, though. Flintoff was a raw, raw, raw case - Broad is simply not all that good.

Flintoff could barely work-out when he needed to play a defensive stroke or hit the ball on the ground and could barely string 4 overs together. Broad can bowl plenty of overs and has a good head on his shoulders when batting. He just currently isn't a particularly skilled bowler, doesn't do enough with the ball and doesn't hit the right areas enough.

 

[Richard]

You can argue that for Southee.

Oh, no, you can't. Southee genuinely is a teenage prodigy. Southee has won plenty of spurs already; he's torn through everyone he faced at the U19 WC, he's done pretty superbly at domestic level in the few games he's had the chance to play, and he's already taken a Test five-for, in his very first spell. AND it didn't flatter him at all. Oh, and he has a good bowling action and already has some obvious basic skills as a bowler - ie, he can bowl an outswinger to order, he knows what lines he needs to bowl and is pretty good at hitting them. I don't think he's someone who should be playing Test cricket now, but that's not because I think he's clearly, obviously not yet good enough. With Broad, he is.

But I think it's fair that each international side has a prodigy in their lineup to blood to develop into potential match winners. Broad has such potential and I don't see why his selection should be scorned and frowned upon when he hasn't set a foot wrong or bowl an Anderson-like spell. Let the 'boy' be and the longer he stays in the lineup consistently, the faster he will develop into your genuine match winner.

Why? There's absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that. Playing at international level before you are ready for it does not, cannot, do anyone any good. Whereas it can, potentially, do harm. Who knows how many Indians and Pakistanis have turned-out useless who might've been better if they'd been left longer. Broad would be much better off in domestic cricket, and England would be better off with a better bowler in the side.

This England side needs another Flintoff, and I dare suggest Broad is the next potential Flintoff material.

I don't. Even if Broad can be good, there's no way he's ever going to be a bowler of the standard of Flintoff. Could possibly be a slightly better batsman though.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I'm scared at how often I'm agreeing with Richard these days.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Always a worrying sign.

 

[FBU]

That could probably only happen in a NZ side. A number 9 being chosen for his batting

Mills 2 Tests 3 wickets at 38.33 batting 25.00
Broad 2 Tests 3 wickets at 72.66 batting 27.50

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Mills 2 Tests 3 wickets at 38.33 batting 25.00
Broad 2 Tests 3 wickets at 72.66 batting 27.50

Needless to say, Broad has looked much better at the crease than Mills, aside from the first innings of the last Test. It's really bizarre how Mills, with apparent batting ability, has so often looked so poor in Tests.

 

[Richard]

I'm scared at how often I'm agreeing with Richard these days.

Be but proud of how long you fought the inevitable for.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I think you're been a bit harsh on Broad there Richard. The guy has obvious talent and a great action. While Flintoff is injured who else would you put in the team? Hoggard is really fighting with Anderson for the place so you cant count him either :P
Not to mention his Batting is fairly valuable, and dont say it shouldnt count when you pick a bowling line up. Giles got picked alot more due to the fact he could bat a bit rather than just on his bowling ability.

You cant have a team of aging players, you have to bring in younger blood gradually rather than have 3-4 leave at once which can totally decimate a team. Broad is the best of the young bunch so he gets his chance.

 

[Leslie1]

Agreed with the above - Oh. Is that what AWTA is... So many jargons I've yet to uncover.

 

[Halfpast_Yellow]

I dislike Flynn intensely (re first Lords test 2nd innings). Made absolutely no attempt to score, and with every totally harmless ball he left the smug look on his already irritating face became smugger still. You could sort of appreciate it when NZ were in trouble, but for the last hour or so, there was just no excuse. He made it dull. No attempt to rotate strike, totally bogged down Oram who was looking to accelerate. I really hope that he gets his head knocked off next match - which he shouldn't be playing anyway given his entire philosophy of batting seems to be "leave ball, look smug".

Sorry if it's been done, but I just found this now - LOL. Predict and bet on any results as well in that week Isolator?

 

[Swervy]

Why? There's absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that. Playing at international level before you are ready for it does not, cannot, do anyone any good. Whereas it can, potentially, do harm. Who knows how many Indians and Pakistanis have turned-out useless who might've been better if they'd been left longer. Broad would be much better off in domestic cricket, and England would be better off with a better bowler in the side.

I don't. Even if Broad can be good, there's no way he's ever going to be a bowler of the standard of Flintoff. Could possibly be a slightly better batsman though.

a completely unfair assessment of a young player with obvious talent. How on earth can you say he has no chance of being the bowler Flintoff is? Even just 5 years ago no-one knew how good a bowler Flintoff was going to turn out to be, so how can you make that judgement about Broad.