Bowled exactly as Ben Hilfenhaus did tbh. That's what those bowlers look like when other people take wickets.Broad bowled superbly, really. We were very very fortunate to only give two wickets away to him.
Could easily have had Clarke many times tbh. Had Watson in a bit of a stiff spot as well.Bowled exactly as Ben Hilfenhaus did tbh. That's what those bowlers look like when other people take wickets.
Well Finn did that, to be fair Tremlett has bowled a lot better than both of them.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.
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.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.
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 JohnsonI 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.