• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Would you pick Stuart Broad as a bowler alone?

91Jmay

International Coach
Say he is ok to bowl going into the 5th test but for whatever reason (the mask doesn't fit/obscures his view) he can't bat. Do you pick him as a bowler alone and go with 10 batsmen when you consider the makeup of the England side and lack of other wicket takers?
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Yes. He's had one innings of any significance in ages so it's not as if he's been playing as anything other than a bowler.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'd be tempted to bat him at 11 and if we have enough runs to declare before he bats so yes I would.

Only if they are not going to risk him long term and he isn't in trouble in his run up wearing the mask.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
It's the deciding Test of a significant series. Short of a live Ashes Test there aren't many more situations where you would be more inclined to take a risk on one of your two world-class bowlers, especially given the standard of the rest.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I guess people are missing the question. If I've understood it correctly, he's basically asking if Broad should play if he can't bat, meaning we would finish both innings 9 down
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It has to be said I would play him, but if I was the opposing captain I'd bounce the living crap out of him if and when he came into bat.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
No, i wouldn't play him if he can't bat. Even if he's not the best batsman, late innings partnership runs have the same value as top order runs.

Moreover, he's likely to be a liability in the field, and there's no guarantee he can bowl well with a face mask on.
 

cnerd123

likes this
Only reason I wouldn't play him is if his bowling with the mask is ****, or if his playing risks injuring him further. Not that crucial a Test, India are shattered already and Finn/Plunkett/Stokes would do fine as a replacement. No point injuring him further or carrying a passenger for a morale boost, England dont need it.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Stuart Broad at the top of his mark, ready to bowl his first ball of the Test...

 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No way. I'd be stunned if the English selectors went for it anyway.

EDIT: that is to say, I'd be stunned that, having picked him, they allowed him not to bat. If he's playing, he's batting.
 
Last edited:

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
1. He can test whether he can still bowl with the mask in the nets prior to the match. If he can, he plays.
2. He has a helmet FFS. Obviously it didn't help him much last Test, but one freak occurrence aside, that should keep the vast majority of short balls from hitting him in the nose again.
3. Even if he were to play but not bat, you can be sure that if England is 9 down chasing a total, he'd be out there in a flash.

Maybe 20 runs in the first dig (if he's not batting) lost, compared to the obvious drop off in bowling quality you'd get from an attack of Anderson-Woakes-Stokes-Jordan. No brainer; you pick Broad.

If your specialist batsmen can't make enough runs to win the game on their own, you probably don't deserve to win it anyway. Your batsmen bat and your bowlers bowl; any crossover in skills is just a really nice bonus.
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
Yes. Even if he literally couldn't go out to the crease, Broad is so far above your next best bowling option that he's an absolutely essential pick, especially now that he's starting to come into top form.
 

watson

Banned
I do realise that you don't bowl with your nose, and that Anderson and Broad are currently England's best quicks by some margin - however, surely having a busted nose such that you look like Hannibal Lector would be enough to throw any bowler off his rhythmn and perhaps spray the ball all over the shop. What's Onions doing these days?
 

Top