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

[MW1304]

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.

[Rant0r]

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]

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

[Jono]

England didn't lose a test with Broad for the record.

[Rant0r]

You seen how many losses Gilchrist played in ?

[Jono]

Not too many when he was in his prime.

[Black_Warrior]

Broad's injury was a blessing in disguise? LOL thats a joke..
One of the main reasons England lost in Perth apart from Johnson was Stuart Broad.
Steve Finn is a bit of a pie chucker IMO and he really was the weak link in that match.
I was just thinking about this..if Broad comes back..
Anderson, Tremlett, Broad, Swann - that would be the best bowling attack in the world hands down.

I am glad Bresnan performed so he will play at Sydney..Steve Finn is just not ready in my opinion. He doesnt have the pace..I dont know why he is so slow at 21..he does not have immaculate line and length to make up for it..he tries to bang it in short at his pace and gets hammered.

Bresnan looks a good prospect but Anderson, Broad and Tremlett would be my first choice.

[JBH001]

Tremlett is a better bowler than Broad so from that aspect Broad's injury strengthened the bowling attack although I doubt it would have made much difference at Perth. It would have been interesting to see which of Bresnan and Tremlett England selected for the Perth test. No way to tell now, of course. You also have to consider if the difference in their batting outweighs the difference in bowling.

But the rise of Tremlett, if it can be sustained over the next 3 - 5 years (given his age) would mean that Broad can give up this delusion of being a top grade bowler/strike bowler and focus on his batting, so that in time he can become a test standard no.7 (perhaps even a 6?) and a good first change bowler. An attack of Anderson, Tremlett, Broad, and Swann would be the most effective all-around attack in world cricket, IMO.

[MW1304]

Originally Posted by JBH001

Tremlett is a better bowler than Broad so from that aspect Broad's injury strengthened the bowling attack although I doubt it would have made much difference at Perth.It would have been interesting to see which of Bresnan and Tremlett England selected for the Perth test. No way to tell now, of course. You also have to consider if the difference in their batting outweighs the difference in bowling.

But the rise of Tremlett, if it can be sustained over the next 3 - 5 years (given his age) would mean that Broad can give up this delusion of being a top grade bowler/strike bowler and focus on his batting, so that in time he can become a test standard no.7 (perhaps even a 6?) and a good first change bowler. An attack of Anderson, Tremlett, Broad, and Swann would be the most effective all-around attack in world cricket, IMO.

Not sure what you're saying here tbh because there is a way to tell who they would have chosen considering they did choose Tremlett.

If you meant Melbourne, they probably would have chosen Bresnan, considering we hadn't really seen what Tremlett was capable of so far (wasn't a huge difference between them in the tour game. Bres was probably better in the game at the MCG) and he suited the surface better. They were well prepared, so either decision was proven to be pretty good anyway.

[JBH001]

Sorry yeah, I meant Melbourne.

[Athlai]

Tremlett is a better bowler than Broad but their best attack still involves him IMO. Anderson, Broad, Tremlett, Swann.

[FBU]

Originally Posted by MW1304

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

.

Broad this year

10 Tests 332.4 overs 26 wickets at 37.69 econ 2.94 s/r 76.7

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by FBU

Broad this year

10 Tests 332.4 overs 26 wickets at 37.69 econ 2.94 s/r 76.7

Yeah, he's had it seriously easy too. Should have been cashing in hard this year given the batting lineups and conditions he's been faced with.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Spark

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.

Well he wasn't two wickets in four innings bad but he wasn't an effective bowler and he's kinda lucky the team played so well around him and hence deflected criticism.

[Bun]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Yeah, he's had it seriously easy too. Should have been cashing in hard this year given the batting lineups and conditions he's been faced with.

How'd he go in South Africa? Personally I believe he's a better bowler than those stats suggest, I am not sure he would've emulated what Tiny Ts did.