He's looking pretty keen for them to me.There are runs for Broad here if wants them, which he probably doesn't.
Agreed, he has a very good record for a lower order player but you know deep down he should have a better one. The amount of times he has gone in and had a reckless slog when we needed a sensible knock with the proper bat at the other end can not be forgotten.He really should be a very good number 8 though.
You could say the same for someone like Pietersen. This kind of flawed thinking - let's punish him by denigrating him as just a "lower order player", because he hasn't kicked on and improved as much as we wanted him to - results in poor decision making. Like promoting debutant Jordan ahead of Broad in the batting order. Absolutely senseless. Glad that the brief innings today once again showcased his ability to take the game away from the opposition. He is not a lower order player; he is an all rounder with a suspect technique against the short ball. If he can be persuaded to work within those limitations and cut out some of the uncontrolled hooking and pulling then there isn't a more useful bowling all rounder in the game. He can take the game away from even top teams - and you simply can't legislate for that.Agreed, he has a very good record for a lower order player but you know deep down he should have a better one. The amount of times he has gone in and had a reckless slog when we needed a sensible knock with the proper bat at the other end can not be forgotten.