In the long term I agree we do need 5 bowlers: if Flintoff keeps being Plan A and B, bowling half the time, then surely he'll be back on crutches before we know it. So yes, there will come a point where if Broad isn't a test bowler then he isn't in the team. A batsman who can nearly bowl isn't an all-rounder. For that matter, if Flintoff can't bat 6 then he's not the all-rounder we want him to be.
But if Broad does become a credible test bowler, then he's better than a classic number 8. Anyone saying "gah, he can't bowl, he's taken 3 wickets for 280 this series and averages 50 in tests" has to also say, "hmm, he's averaged 80 this series and 40 in tests", and pick him as number 6 batsman :-)
I'd have been happy with Harmison, but I do think Broad has to be kept close to the team. Still, we're about to find out whether we can make do with 4 bowlers.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 10:24 am (UTC)But if Broad does become a credible test bowler, then he's better than a classic number 8. Anyone saying "gah, he can't bowl, he's taken 3 wickets for 280 this series and averages 50 in tests" has to also say, "hmm, he's averaged 80 this series and 40 in tests", and pick him as number 6 batsman :-)
I'd have been happy with Harmison, but I do think Broad has to be kept close to the team. Still, we're about to find out whether we can make do with 4 bowlers.