Stuart Broad

[flibbertyjibber]

Does he count as a genuine allrounder now or just a bowler who can bat pretty well?

Obviously he is having the series of his life at the moment but is this just a run of good form or is he a genuine all rounder now.


My take on it is that Flintoff was regarded by some as a world class all rounder yet he averaged 31.77 with the bat and only got 3x5 wicket hauls. Broad currently has a batting average of 28.68 yet has 4x5 wicket hauls in half the games. If Broad was allowed to bat higher I am sure he would get more tons than the 1 he currently has (Fred got 5 in 79 matches) and his bowling is on the similar upward curve that Flintoff's was after a shaky start.

Not saying he will ever have the aura that Flintoff got yet he is probably a better asset to the team as he produces with the ball more often and despite an injury ravaged last year or so is generally a lot fitter.

 

[smash84]

I am quite biased against Lady Broad so I won't comment but with a little more application he can become a genuine all rounder. How is his overseas performance with the bat?

 

[Cevno]

Averages 14 away with the Bat while 39.42 at Home. 39 with the ball away while ,30 at home.Think he needs to prove himself both with the ball and the bat away from home more.

Flintoff had a few years where he was much better than his overall record, too which people remember him for the most.
Broad certainly has potential though can't see him reaching that peak as a allrounder(may as a bowler).

 

[G.I.Joe]

As long as he doesn't grow a mullet, his figures should only get better with time.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Just looked, in his last 20 matches (including the current one) he averages 28 with both bat and ball. Impressive when you consider the lack of pace bowlers averaging under 30 worldwide at present.

I agree he has to perform abroad but he didn't do badly in South Africa and the next 2 tours he has been on he was injured on both so until he has a couple of injury free winters we have to remain openminded about him.

 

[Prince EWS]

To me, whether or not you're an true allrounder depends entirely on the balance of the team, your role and the team's selection. If Jimmy Anderson was playing 5th grade park cricket I'm sure he'd be regarded as the greatest allrounder in the competition; it's not a label that IMO transcends team structure.

Broad's being selected as a bowler at the moment. His runs are a bonus. If he couldn't bat at all, England would not have to ponder over whether to change the balance of the rest of the team - he'd just slide down the order and the other ten players would be constant. As such I'd just call him a bowling allrounder - he's someone whose batting is not influencing the selection of the team at all at the moment, but is of a high enough standard to occasionally make a significant difference.

 

[fredfertang]

When Broad first appeared I thought he would become a top class batsman as his bowling tailed off - he just didn't look that good a bowler to me, and sometimes still doesn't to be fair, but on his day, like today, he is - and his batting will never fully blossom while that remains the case

 

[oitoitoi]

atm he's a bowler who can bat, and though he has potential with the bat I think it would be a mistake to play him as an allrounder, certainly away from home. They should play him like the saffers did Polly.

 

[Howe_zat]

To me, whether or not you're an true allrounder depends entirely on the balance of the team, your role and the team's selection. If Jimmy Anderson was playing 5th grade park cricket I'm sure he'd be regarded as the greatest allrounder in the competition; it's not a label that IMO transcends team structure.

Broad's being selected as a bowler at the moment. His runs are a bonus. If he couldn't bat at all, England would not have to ponder over whether to change the balance of the rest of the team - he'd just slide down the order and the other ten players would be constant. As such I'd just call him a bowling allrounder - he's someone whose batting is not influencing the selection of the team at all at the moment, but is of a high enough standard to occasionally make a significant difference.

Agree completely that whether or not you're an allrounder is a judgement of your role rather than ability.

He clearly is being picked first and foremost for his bowling, and the balance of the team doesn't depend on his batting, so I agree that he can't be a "true" or "balanced" allrounder. But very few are.

I class him as a bowling allrounder, however, as Broad wouldn't have got anywhere near the chances he has if he couldn't bat. Not so much this year but back in 08/09. He couldn't afford to just slide down the order when he was keeping people like Harmison out. England needed him to bat at #8, because their lineup had Sidebottom/Hoggard, Panesar, and an Anderson who back then was even an even worse bat than Panesar.