Broad has bowled excellently in partnership with Anderson throughout 2010. It's not a simple case of who has the better average, although Broad should maybe have cashed in a bit more in the English summer.
I couldn't care less what the numbers say, Johnson is a complete liability for at least half the games he plays. Broad's role in the team isn't to be the strike bowler, it's to keep control and I think he does it fairly well.
I mean it is extremely impressive that Broad bowled on the two flattest decks only and yet no one was able to better his ER.
Yes, he bowled too short to take a bagful of wickets but as I said he dovetails very nicely with an England attack that isn't exactly short on wicket-takers. Their entire philosophy nowadays is pressure bowling, and tight, probing bowling is exactly the way to go about that. Broad's arguably their best bowler at doing so.
TBF to Johnson (not something you hear me saying a lot) it's not his fault he doesn't have an Anderson or a Swann, although I suppose he's meant to be Australia's Anderson. Johnson and Broad have different roles as bowlers so it's not an easy comparison.
At the end of the day who would you prefer, the dream-spell-every-5-matches that you get from Johnson and utter filth in between where he'll take a few wickets but leak so many runs that it makes the entire attack less effective, or the dream-spell-every-10-matches but bowls tight, probing bowling that makes the entire attack more penetrative that you get from Broad?
I'll pick the latter. Pressure bowling is a severely underrated tactic nowadays. Too many bowlers trying to be bloody heroes than to just bowl in a partnership for 10 overs for 20 runs.
I prefer Johnson's broad.
Broad's more consistent, Johnson's more lethal at his best. Depends on the side.