• 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.

Stuart Broad

ozone

First Class Debutant
What do people really think about him? I'm sure most would agree that on current form, he doesn't warrant his place in the England Test side, but do people think that he will become a world class bowler? Or is he just going to end up as a mediocre player, picked over a long period of time more for his ability to bat at number 8 than his bowling abilities?
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Bowls mid 80's and can't get the ball to move an inch....go away and don't come back to test cricket till you can bowl and/or have facial hair.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
As Ive been explaining for a long time (though not the only one) he shouldnt be close to selection. Simply he isnt a very good bowler. It has nothing to do with form. He isnt capable of being much better.

He will be an ordinary bowler for the forseeable future.

Pro
Tall

Cons
Medium pace
Lacks accuracy
Doesnt move the ball

People are hoping for him to get a lot more accurate and add a yard of pace. That is wishful thinking.

He needs to earn a spot rather than being gifted a spot. Not close to being in the top 10 bowlers in England

The problem with Broad is that he isnt very good. At the moment he doesnt offer anything.

He bowls medium-medium/quick with decent shape and ordinary accuracy from a good height.

He isnt remotely penetrative nor can he control the run rate.

He hasnt done anything at any level of note and hasnt shown anything during his time in Test cricket.

Now he may progress into something good. I hope he does. However, Ill judge him on what he is rather than what he maybe at some unknown time in the future.

ATM he is a bargain basement version of Martin Bicknell.
 
Last edited:

grecian

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm afraid I'm losing faith, he has bowled a couple of decent spells in Test cricket, but so has Paul Collingwood, just been elevated fair too quickly for no discernible reason, and I'm beginning to think he just hasn't even got any basic skills.

*sighs*
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
Solid ODI bowler but really does not warrent a spot in the Test team (or squad) unless he is to be given massive faith and batted at seven as a batting all rounder - something I'd disagree with. I don't doubt his ability to bowl good Test spells as he can crank it up to 90mph and get some bite out of the pitch when in his stride, but he is far too often not in his stride to be a good Test bowler. He seems to lack the stamina to convert ODI bowling to Test bowling.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
As Ive been explaining for a long time (though not the only one) he shouldnt be close to selection. Simply he isnt a very good bowler. It has nothing to do with form. He isnt capable of being much better.

He will be an ordinary bowler for the forseeable future.

Pro
Tall

Cons
Medium pace
Lacks accuracy
Doesnt move the ball

People are hoping for him to get a lot more accurate and add a yard of pace. That is wishful thinking.

He needs to earn a spot rather than being gifted a spot. Not close to being in the top 10 bowlers in England
What baffles me is that he can bowl in the 90s in ODIs. Hasn't been able to touch this in Tests, very strange. Looks so damn good in ODIs as well, could wind up being an English Bracken??
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
What baffles me is that he can bowl in the 90s in ODIs. Hasn't been able to touch this in Tests, very strange. Looks so damn good in ODIs as well, could wind up being an English Bracken??
Would not go that far, as Bracken is an extremely skillful ODI bowler whereas I would not be surprised if Broad's ODI impact wears off over time due to issues like lack of accuracy which plague him in Test cricket. It is the bite he gains off the pitch which appears to be his major weapon and when the pace is down, as it is in Tests, he loses penetration.

The drop in pace seems an evident lack of stamina, which is perhaps understandable and is shown by many bowlers who bowl quick in T20s and ODIs but not in Tests but also a noticable change in action which Goughy has pointed out and has become quite obvious, if you look out for it. His front arm goes in an arc when he is not bowling quickly but it is a much more focussed, streamlined motion when he is bowling quickly and accurately.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He should concentrate on his batting, because there's probably more potential there than in his bowling. Everyone says he looks like a Test bowler, but he's not particularly accurate and does nothing with the ball.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Would not go that far, as Bracken is an extremely skillful ODI bowler whereas I would not be surprised if Broad's ODI impact wears off over time due to issues like lack of accuracy which plague him in Test cricket. It is the bite he gains off the pitch which appears to be his major weapon and when the pace is down, as it is in Tests, he loses penetration.

The drop in pace seems an evident lack of stamina, which is perhaps understandable and is shown by many bowlers who bowl quick in T20s and ODIs but not in Tests but also a noticable change in action which Goughy has pointed out and has become quite obvious, if you look out for it. His front arm goes in an arc when he is not bowling quickly but it is a much more focussed, streamlined motion when he is bowling quickly and accurately.
I didn't mean they are similar bowlers, and obviously Bracken is better. Just referring to him being a good ODI bowler (arguably our second best) yet clearly shouldn't be in the Test team (though Bracken should be in Australia's, many feel)

Yeah, stamina would make a lot of sense, I think you have suggested this before. But what baffles me is that, if it was stamina, you'd expect the odd quick ball, but no
 

popepouri

State Vice-Captain
What baffles me is that he can bowl in the 90s in ODIs. Hasn't been able to touch this in Tests, very strange. Looks so damn good in ODIs as well, could wind up being an English Bracken??
In the ODIs against SA he was hitting 90mph and swinging the ball where he took his 5fer. It's baffling why he can't reproduce this in Tests.

This is a gem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB42L0-O-xc
 
Last edited:

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Hilarious that Broad is part of the leadership ground.

He doesn't deserve his place and is only being picked cause the selectors feel that the number 8 needs to be able to bat abit cause of Flintoff at 6.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
He doesn't deserve his place and is only being picked cause the selectors feel that the number 8 needs to be able to bat abit cause of Flintoff at 6.
Yeah, PEWS nailed it with "Agarkar's Law".

Personally, if we want to avoid the "four number elevens" scenario (well, three and a ten-and-a-half in fairness to Sid, I suppose) we'd be better served by dumping him & Panesar for Anderson and Swann.

Swann averages more with the bat in FC cricket than Broad and his bowling doesn't lose too much by comparison to Monty's either just now.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Swann averages more with the bat in FC cricket than Broad and his bowling doesn't lose too much by comparison to Monty's either just now.
But it seems obvious that Broad only played because the selectors preferred to play Panesar. It's a Panesar > Swann selection, rather than a Broad > Anderson. On this pitch England would have been better served picking Anderson, Harmison, Swann and Panesar, because Sidebottom looks woefully underdone and Broad is thus far typically rubbish.
 

Top