• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Do you think Stuart Broad's injury....

Did Broad's injury strengthened, weakened or make no difference to Eng's bowling?


  • Total voters
    33

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do you think Broad's injury strengthened England, weakened England's side or make no difference whatsoever?

Personally, I think Broad's injury benefited England & I doubt he would have been as successful as either Tremlett or Bresnan.
 

FBU

International Debutant
I don't think Broad wouldn't have been as successful as Tremlett. After 34 Tests Broad has a strike rate of 67.6 however Broad will be missed in the upcoming ODIs. England's best one day bowler.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Have sent an email if the moderators could kindly move this to the Ashes thread if possible
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Blessing in disguise, IMHO. Allowed Tremmers to come in for the third test and the big fella's performance (as economical as Broad, but taking wickets with it) meant the expensive but wicket-taking Finn could be moved to the exit door for Melbourne.

Bresnan exceeded my expectations in the wickets column, but always fancied him to keep things tighter than Finn.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
Thread moved :)

Difficult to say about Broad. If he was fit they may well have switched Tremlett in for Finn at Perth, and in the end I think Jimmy, Broad, Tremlett is probably our best attack ATM.
 

Redbacks

International Captain
Would like to have voted - made no difference (even slightly weakened the batting) However with the benefit of our friend below:


Definitely a blessing in disguise
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Broad's injury was pretty symbolic of the entire series tbh: everything was on England's side. As soon as Broad got injured, I was thinking "oh great 8-)" because Tremlett will come in and boost their already far better attack. Where as for Australia, we lost Katich (who has been one of our most reliable and best performers over the past few years). It was always on the cards; Australia was simply not meant to win these Ashes.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
I actually think it wouldn't have made any difference. Broad could've bowled exactly the same as he had all series and picked a stack of wickets like Tremlett did.
 

King Pietersen

International Captain
I thought Broad bowled beautifully without reward, and was due a massive haul of wickets. Sure, Tremlett and Bresnan did well, but I think we missed Broad's all-round ability at Perth, and I think if given the last 3 Tests would have performed excellently. I'm expecting him to come straight back in when fit, to make up an attack of Anderson, Tremlett, Broad and Swann.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Broad bowled superbly, really. We were very very fortunate to only give two wickets away to him.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
I think superbly is a bit too kind. He bowled a nice line and length, but never really got the ball to do enough. Tremlett is a much more dangerous bowler imo, but we played so badly I anyway I doubt it would have changed the end-result of the games. If the results were tight, it would have definately been a godsend for England, but as it was we got thrashed so it probably doesn't really matter.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Broad bowled superbly, really. We were very very fortunate to only give two wickets away to him.
Bowled exactly as Ben Hilfenhaus did tbh. That's what those bowlers look like when other people take wickets.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Bowled exactly as Ben Hilfenhaus did tbh. That's what those bowlers look like when other people take wickets.
Could easily have had Clarke many times tbh. Had Watson in a bit of a stiff spot as well.

If anything he was guilty of bowling a tad short, but I didn't think he looked innocuous. Hilfenhaus was economical without looking threatening but Broad did look threatening.
 
Last edited:

Rant0r

International 12th Man
I actually think it wouldn't have made any difference. Broad could've bowled exactly the same as he had all series and picked a stack of wickets like Tremlett did.
Well Finn did that, to be fair Tremlett has bowled a lot better than both of them.

Blessing in disguise, IMHO. Allowed Tremmers to come in for the third test and the big fella's performance (as economical as Broad, but taking wickets with it) meant the expensive but wicket-taking Finn could be moved to the exit door for Melbourne.

Bresnan exceeded my expectations in the wickets column, but always fancied him to keep things tighter than Finn.
Agreed, as much as an old ball bowler Bresnan is, he tore apart the Australian middle order. Inspired selection or pot luck, it worked. If only he could get wickets with the new ball.

I think superbly is a bit too kind. He bowled a nice line and length, but never really got the ball to do enough. Tremlett is a much more dangerous bowler imo, but we played so badly I anyway I doubt it would have changed the end-result of the games. If the results were tight, it would have definately been a godsend for England, but as it was we got thrashed so it probably doesn't really matter.
I don't think broad bowled as well as Tremlett did, but probably better than Finn for little reward. Not sure if it changed the result, you could argue either way, Broad seems to get wickets and get under the Australian players skins like the last series in England, so you'd be loathe to leave him out. He's a bit like England's Mitchell Johnson
 

MW1304

Cricketer Of The Year
I personally don't think i would have made a huge amount of difference. He was bowling pretty well before he got injured.

I think its especially true if Tremlett had been brought in for Finn at Melbourne, considering we lost at Perth even when Tremmers was bowling well. He certainly could have done just as good a job as Bresnan did imo.

Edit: And he's nothing like Mitchell Johnson, much more consistently accurate bowler. Especially now.
 
Last edited:

Rant0r

International 12th Man
I meant the way he just seems to get wickets from nowhere. He has a rather poor seam position yet seems to bowl corkers all of a sudden and get a bunch of wickets. But yes, I see your point, he doesn't bowl any Harmy's
 

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't think it made a huge difference, after all Tremmers best performance was at Perth, and that didn't go well for us. Broad was luckless, IMHO. Would of bowled well at Perth too. Tremlett may well have come in for Finn anyway. a more natural swap, and strengthened our batting. Bres really exceeded my expectations, but I'm not sure that Broad wouldn't of done a decent job too, maybe we would of only won by an innings an 80 runs:unsure:
 

Top