I never thought I’d be saying this about Stuart Broad. On the field, he epitomises the term “lion-hearted”, but I didn’t give him a lot of credit for his thinking on the game as a whole.
An article by Sam Ferris recently appeared on the Cricket Australia website. It was quoting comments taken from a piece Broad wrote for a UK publication.
In a nutshell, he suggests the key to winning back the Ashes rests mostly with the English batsmen, who need to give the bowlers something decent to work with. That means scoring at least 400 in their first innings for each Test.
“”We should take the focus off which bowlers are going to be selected for that series because it’s an irrelevant conversation if you’re going to be bowled out for 200. It’s equally irrelevant if you’re bowled out for 300. You need to be reaching the 400s.”
He also mentions how Glenn McGrath was more than capable of holding his own bowling at 80mp/h (130 km/h), once Australia had scored 500.
Given how England have performed in their last three series – especially if Broad and James Anderson have played – he makes a very valid point. When England have made big first-innings scores, they’ve had the bowlers capable of getting sides out twice.
Granted two of these series have been in England, but they comprehensively beat the Proteas in South Africa too, suggesting they know how to win away from home but more importantly, there’s proof the method Broad describes works for them.
Much has been made about the need for speed in Australia, but he talks about the last time England took an Ashes series in Australia in the 2010-11 series.
Their attack consisted of James Anderson, Chris Tremlett, Tim Bresnan and Graeme Swann. Anderson is still a quality bowler as was Swann, but the other two were not exactly at the elite level in the fast bowling categories. In saying that, they did enough to take 20 Australian wickets in at least three Tests, to ensure an English series win.
The obvious issue is whether the current England batting line-up of Rory Burns, Dom Sibley, Zak Crawley, Joe Root, Ben Stokes, Ollie Pope and Jos Buttler can stand comparison with the line-up of Andrew Strauss, Alistair Cook, Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen, Paul Collingwood, Ian Bell and Matt Prior that dominated the Australian attack in that 2010-11 series?
Comparisons should also be made between the Australian attack in 2010-11 of Ryan Harris, Doug Bollinger, Peter Siddle, Xavier Doherty, Ben Hilfenhaus, Mitchell Johnson and Steve Smith with the current Australian attack.
The points Stuart Broad makes are not earth-shaking or revolutionary, but simple Test match common sense. Get in, bat for a lot of overs, build a big total, run the opposition into the ground, then see what the attack can do.
If Broad’s thoughts are combined with Joe Root’s dream to become the world’s number one Test-playing nation, it sounds as though England have both a vision and a plan. All that remains is to be seen, is whether they have the personnel capable of achieving the desired results.
Liam
Guest
In other news, water is wet. I don't know if the idea that, if you make a lot of runs in your first innings, your bowlers tend to play better, is that revolutionary. And it also reveals a bit of a mindset problem with England's bowlers; that they feel themselves incapable of pulling a game back in on foreign soil should their batsman not dig in. This is in wild opposition to the Australian side, who were bowled out for 179 at Headingley, proceeded to answer by bowling England out for 67. They might have lost that match, but it shows a difference between the sides; England's bowlers need the game on their terms. Australia's don't.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Thing is, rain plays far less havoc here than in England - particularly in the grip of the ongoing contemporary dry spell, one of the worst in recent decades.
matth
Roar Guru
He got dropped during the series for being too expensive and was replaced by Bresnan I think
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
England had a fairly ordinary attack in 2010-11 on paper, but they played well. And Anderson had his best series in Australia. Australia’s attack had a couple of good names, but Harris missed a couple of games, Johnson was ordinary and Siddle and Hilfenhaus weren’t world beaters. And they had no spinner - all three used averaged over 100. Can’t argue with the theory that getting a lot of runs is always better than not scoring less than the opposition! Equally, having good bowlers who bowl well is always going to help restrict the opposition’s total.
Simoc
Guest
I reckon 350 is the target score for any test team going out to bat on the first day of a test. Get more and a win is likely and less will be a struggle. With 400 you are in bonus territory. But mostly I think the scene is set on Day 1 of the series. You win the toss go out and bat positively and win the series, here anyway. Bit harder in England if Broad and Anderson are bowling.
Paul
Roar Guru
Exactly. England knew they had batsmen capable of scoring lots and lots of runs, but they also knew Australia had batsmen who could score lots MORE runs, hence Bodyline
Paul
Roar Guru
You'r right of course, but I thought of him more as a good honest bowler, rather than a superstar quick. In that series, he took 14 wickets at 33 and if you take out the 6 for 125, he only took another 8 wickets in 5 innings.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Finn also played in 2010/11 and took a 6 for.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Even in the bodyline series England's world class bats had to score heavily in order to win the series.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Yeah winning an Ashes away is kind of opposite for both teams: scoring heavily is a must for England out here, while for us over there, the key is dismissing the local team cheaply. 2005 was as much lost by some unbelievably bad bowling as anything else, and this trend has continued ever since. In 2010-11, England had a capable, rather than a mighty attack, but their batting lineup was probably as good as they’ve ever had, especially given all bar Collingwood were at the peak of their careers.