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

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.

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.

Have sent an email if the moderators could kindly move this to the Ashes thread if possible

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.

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.

Would like to have voted - made no difference (even slightly weakened the batting) However with the benefit of our friend below:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:e...outhpa.png&t=1

Definitely a blessing in disguise

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Bowled exactly as Ben Hilfenhaus did tbh. That's what those bowlers look like when other people take wickets.

Tremmo>>Broad except for the batting tbh. So yes.

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 Finn did that, to be fair Tremlett has bowled a lot better than both of them.

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 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