Despite the title above this isn’t TFT’s biannual symposium on ethical egoism. Today I’d like to discuss another burning issue: the form and fitness of the world’s new number one test bowler, Stuart Broad.
It’s been a long time since England boasted the world’s top ranked bowler. The last time it happened was 2004 when Steve Harmison belatedly located his all-important radar. However, because Harmy’s stint at the top was relatively short lived, I’m sure we’d all like Broady’s reign to last a little longer. And that means England making sacrifices.
Long time readers of this blog know that I’ve always rated Stuart highly. When it comes to fast bowlers I’m a sucker for pace and bounce. I remember watching Broad play a T20 at The Oval when he was just a wee whippersnapper. He was consistently reaching 88mph and hitting the keepers gloves hard with a loud thud. I really liked what I saw, and I’m not at all surprised that he’s now taken over 330 test wickets.
However, I’ve also been a Broad critic over the years. I’m not talking about his penchant for standing his ground when he’s middled the ball to first slip (when in Rome and all that); I’m not even talking about his overzealous appealing and penchant for reviewing every umpiring decision that doesn’t go this way. I simply mean that I don’t always like Stuart’s bowling …
Unless Broady’s on top of his game, and in rhythm, he’s a tad innocuous. Think back to The Oval in 2012, when Amla and Kallis made the England attack look like Darren Stevens on a midsummer’s day at Taunton. You might even recall the first innings at Joburg last week. Sometimes Stuart just has this laboured look about him: his approach seems awkward, his body creeks, and the ball trundles towards the batsman at little over 80mph. Meat and drink to top class batsman I’m sure you’ll agree.
However, when Broad feels good, his body’s right, and he sprints to the wicket like an Olympic champion, he looks every inch a champion bowler too. He operates in the high 80s, hits the pitch hard and gets disconcerting bounce. It’s not quite Curtley Ambrose but it’s not a million miles away. At times like this, Broad looks every inch the world’s best test bowler.
Because the disparity between off-colour Broad and on-his-game Broad is so large, Bayliss and the England selectors are currently looking after Stuart by leaving him out of the limited overs squads and saving his body for tests. This is all very good, of course, but didn’t Andrew Strauss tells us that England were prioritising limited overs cricket too these days? I don’t know about you, but I’d quite like England to win a global ODI tournament in my lifetime.
Broad’s omission from the short forms of the game is actually an unprecedented move for England. Some might argue that Jimmy Anderson is rested from limited overs cricket too, but that’s not quite the case. Broad is easily good enough to play in both England’s T20 and ODI sides, but I don’t think that Jimmy is. Anderson’s record away from home in 50 over cricket is average and his T20 record is poor in general. I’m not sure Anderson would get into the team on merit these days. Broad, on the other hand, would be an automatic pick in all formats.
I would love to know what you all think about the current situation. Speaking after England’s brilliant win in the third test, Broad said he would still like to play limited overs cricket and that he wanted to “force his way back into the side”. However, I’m not sure you’ll have much of a choice, Stuart. The management seems determined to save you for test cricket whether you agree with the policy or not.
Of course, the Broad situation brings into focus the very same issues raised by AB de Villiers last week. The world’s best players play too much cricket – even if they’re not playing in the IPL (as England players well know). Looking after the physical wellbeing of your superstars, managing their workloads, and perhaps rotating players, seems quite an astute way to increase their longevity.
However, in many ways I think this is a shame. Global tournaments need superstars, and England’s record in these tournaments is too poor to rest our match-winners. Do I want to see David Willey and Reece Topley opening the bowling in the upcoming T20 World Cup, the Champions Trophy and the World Cup? No sane person would. I’m sure everyone wants to see Broad steaming in with his arms and legs pumping furiously.
The problem, of course, is finding a solution that works for everyone: the player, his team and the spectators. The obvious solution is for Broad to miss most limited overs cricket but play in the games that really matter. However, this situation could get messy when it comes to current contract structures. It’s also a bit unfair to pick your big guns for big games if it means leaving out the poor sods who ploughed through those irrelevant ODI series at the arse end of tours. Basically, it might disrupt squad harmony if certain stars walk in and out of the team on a whim.
However, in these crazy days of laborious schedules and player burnout, I think this is a chance worth taking. If I was in charge of English cricket, I’d generally save Broad for test cricket but also let him participate in big tournaments. But I wouldn’t just dictate to him. I’d discuss the situation with the player and come to some sort of mutual agreement.
What’s more, if Broad ever wanted to retire from T20 cricket and keep playing ODIs (or vice versa) I’d bloody let him. England’s approach has been far too inflexible in the past, and it’s led to bad feeling between star players and the ECB. I’m sure we can all think of one high-profile example that went horribly wrong. It’s important we don’t repeat the same mistakes.
Thoughts?
James Morgan
I’m not sure that we need Broad in limited overs; I’m damn sure we need a fully fit Broad to lead the test attack, particularly when some of our better bowlers (Finn, Wood…) have their own fitness problems. And I wouldn’t read much into the Joburg first innings – the guy was sick.
Note, for example, that Rashid is one of the top ranked bowlers (both wickets and parsimony) in the Big Bash – he must be a big part of England’s limited overs plans, while only barely featuring in the current test lineup. And England have usable bowling options in the short format who arguably don’t quite make the grade for test matches. As Anderson gets older, Broad is the test gold standard, and not to be risked unnecessarily, IMO.
Separate squads (with some exceptions) must be they way to go – which would also solve our Buttler/Bairstow wicket keeping conundrum.
And if England were really smart, they might consider bringing back Pietersen for the T20 stuff.
Finally, welcome back !
Cheers Nigel. Appreciated.
I reckon a fit and pumped up Broad is definitely worth his place in the ODI side. He’s a wicket taker and we don’t really have someone of genuine quality sharing the new ball atm. The one day team is shaping up well but our young bowlers haven’t really been tested / exposed yet. Let’s see how things shape up over the coming months.
I think you could be right that we might eventually move to totally separate ODI and test teams in the future, but I doubt we’ll always have the strength in depth to do so effectively. Most countries only have a handful of world class cricketers.
I can’t see a situation where any team will have totally separate test and limited overs (T20 and ODI) teams: there are too many players that get into both (AB, Warner, Root, Steyn, Kohli, the list goes on). There are also players who are excellent in tests and ODI’s but not T20 (Amla would be one). A fully pumped up Broad might be useful in the ODI and T20 side (as might a fit and focussed KP), but the 80mph trundler wouldn’t. As I understand it, though, it’s very important in a limited overs team for everyone to understand their roles (one of the criticisms of Moores in the World cup was over bringing in Gary Ballance at the last minute), and bringing Broad in for the tournament might upset that understanding. Also, let’s remember that the World T20 is in India where you won’t get the kind of pace, bounce and movement that Broad thrives on. So, I’d say, keep him for tests.
Like Nigel, I’m not sure we need Broad in ODI’s. His recent record is poor – since 2011, he’s played 46 ODI’s and taken 53 wickets at 39.39 (at an economy rate over well over 5). Conversely, in that period, his test record is very good. It seems that after a mediocre test start, he has developed into a wonderful test bowler, while the opposite has occurred in One Day cricket. So I’d stick with the recent crop of young One Day bowlers who are showing promise, and keep Broad totally fresh for test matches.
A bit of an unknown for me is how much more of a workload it is to play limited overs as well as Tests. In terms of actual balls bowled in match time it’s obviously heavily weighted towards Tests, but I’m guessing extra training / travel / intensity of limited overs takes it’s toll? Is it so much more of an effort for a Test player to play ODI and 20-20?
I see pros and cons both ways – you definitely don’t want to risk burn out, particularly towards the end of a player’s career. On the other hand for the major tournaments you’ll look a little silly if the number one bowler (potentially by a margin) isn’t involved due to this policy.
By excluding Broad from ODIs, it does make an extra place available which could potentially be used to “sound out” whether a player is capable at full international level without throwing them straight into a Test match. Which will be helpful with the likes of the Currans / Overtons….
I’d go the football PL way. Start with a squad. Pick teams to suit the matches. England will surely pick their best team for the next Test – which they don’t have to win. They’ve already won the series. I’d be happy to see Broad in the World event. Let’s try and win the thing.
I’m not sure Stuart is one of the top 10 T20 bowlers in the country. The skills required of a top T20 fast bowler (basically bowl over 1 and over 20 and 2 overs in between at crucial moments at short notice) are very different from test cricket and getting more dissimilar by the year.
His one weakness for me in the shorter format is the lack of variation in his bowling. A must have in my book. On flat batting wickets he can look pretty ordinary. At times he has been taken apart and seems to have no response.
However in his favour is his batting, he is an all rounder in ODI terms for me.
Welcome back too, even though I like the other blog as well and will stay with it.
Welcome back James!
I think a side of Broads bowling which has improved is his economy, much like Anderson, when he’s not taking wickets he can tie an end down and keep the scoreboard in check, especially useful on flat wickets.
Good to see England heading in the right direction in all forms and winning test series home and away to the worlds best despite regualarly giving the opponent a 30-3 head start.
A solid batting line up we perhaps don’t have, but now seem blessed with a number of players who can turn a game with bat or ball (including S. Broad) consistent they may not be but it’s great watch!
Welcome back TFT!
The trick that the managers seem to have missed as far as I can see is failing to make Broad permanent Test vice-captain and then to formally include him in the management structure. He’s surely selectable for every format, but with relative priorities and contributions I think that with his own involvement in the decision making he would naturally self-select towards the Test side only with only occasional outings in the ODI format and probably miss the T20 entirely. (Not an anti-Root comment, I just think Broad would have made a better choice and that that would have allowed Root a couple more years of undisturbed dedication to batting…)
A warm welcome back to you James and to all of your respondents. It’s good to see the old hands back again.
My first inclination was to wrap up Broad in cotton wool and keep him as fit and fresh as possible for test cricket, but thinking about it I would really love to see us win something big in the limited overs format. I’m not sure that the wickets in India will suit him. He was a bit of a disaster out there the last time but if I recall he was carrying an injury which would not have helped.
It would be brilliant to be able to cherry pick the limited over championship events where he might be key and to prepare his work load and team integration for that. I can’t see his lack of variety being too much of a problem. He has ideas and once on a roll he seems able to adapt to pretty much anything.
I agree with Xan B that he would make an ideal vice captain. It would be excellent to get him involved in the strategy of his overall career management and planning. It’s best to leave Joe Root free to further develop his batting without the pressure of taking on more responsibility. His time will come later. A very good idea Xan B!
According to Twitter sources Broad has just been picked for the ODIs against South Africa! Typical.
I’ve seen that and in some ways it disappoints me. England has played a lot of cricket in the last year, in fact 17 tests since the start of the West Indies tour that was around 9 months ago. How is this a good thing? We are then asking him to play in the ODI series where we would rather see the younger, most specialist ODI players get a go. I must confess I’m not especially happy. Hopefully he may get a game or two, but no more.
Broad has said he doesn’t want to be considered a test bowler only.
The next two major tournaments are in the English spring/early summer
I think he still has a lot to give to that team.
13 overs, 0 for 65….
Thus far, Woakes’ selection does not look inspired (though to be fair neither does much of the rest of England’s bowling today).
I don’t get his appeal to the England test selectors – the fact that he can bat a bit is pretty well irrelevant.
And Bairstow now owes England a big score when they bat.
He owes the team about 200!