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

Zinzan · 28-12-2010, 11:27 PM

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 · 28-12-2010, 11:55 PM

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 · 29-12-2010, 12:00 AM

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

BoyBrumby · 29-12-2010, 12:54 AM

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 · 29-12-2010, 02:26 AM

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 · 29-12-2010, 02:37 AM

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 · 29-12-2010, 02:57 AM

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

" 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 · 29-12-2010, 04:24 AM

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 · 29-12-2010, 04:25 AM

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 · 29-12-2010, 04:28 AM

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

Ruckus · 29-12-2010, 05:22 AM

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 · 29-12-2010, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spark

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.

M0rphin3 · 29-12-2010, 05:33 AM

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

Spark · 29-12-2010, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

Rant0r · 29-12-2010, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spark

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeusEx

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

View Poll Results: Did Broad's injury strengthened, weakened or make no difference to Eng's bowling?
Broad's injury was a blessing in disguise for England	19	57.58%
Made no difference whatsoever	8	24.24%
Broad's injury weakened their bowling attack	6	18.18%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

28-12-2010, 11:27 PM	#1 (permalink)
Zinzan Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: cover point Posts: 9,734	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.

29-12-2010, 12:54 AM	#4 (permalink)
BoyBrumby Englishman Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Doing the stance Posts: 42,623	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. __________________ *- As featured in The Independent.* "This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers." - Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
11 Internationals	Goughy	Cricket Chat	43	31-08-2008 12:35 AM
Stuart Law/ Ricky Pointing	jemo27	Cricket Chat	32	30-01-2008 07:35 AM
Stuart Clark - World's Best BOWLER	MattO	Cricket Chat	80	01-01-2008 04:55 PM
Stuart Law granted British citizenship	Crazy Sam	Cricket Chat	77	01-02-2005 05:04 AM
Darren Lehman's injury progess	Tyke	Cricket Chat	0	01-01-2004 09:30 PM

28-12-2010, 11:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
FBU State Vice-Captain Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: London Posts: 1,057	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.

29-12-2010, 12:00 AM	#3 (permalink)
Zinzan Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: cover point Posts: 9,734	Have sent an email if the moderators could kindly move this to the Ashes thread if possible

29-12-2010, 02:26 AM	#5 (permalink)
four_or_six Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: UK Posts: 9,136	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.

29-12-2010, 02:37 AM	#6 (permalink)
Redbacks International Vice-Captain Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Barrow Island, WA Posts: 4,063	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

29-12-2010, 02:57 AM	#7 (permalink)
Ruckus International Captain Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Oz Posts: 5,760	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 " 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.

29-12-2010, 04:28 AM	#10 (permalink)
Spark Global Moderator Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: A Blood Rainbow Posts: 26,749	Broad bowled superbly, really. We were very very fortunate to only give two wickets away to him.

29-12-2010, 05:22 AM	#11 (permalink)
Ruckus International Captain Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Oz Posts: 5,760	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)