Are England missing a trick by not having Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad for the shorter formats?

[stevewittry]

The question I have is clear from the title. The more I see Anderson and Broad- two old war horses of English cricket the more impressed I am.

While England these days are a batting power house with a non existent tail, their bowling attack is also very thin. With Anderson and Broad, batsmen rarely get the opportunity to get the ball off the square and avoid being dismissed, leave alone hitting boundaries. Throughout this test series, batsmen have struggled to get any runs of these two.

Anderson in particular was toying with the Indian batting at Lord's. Wonder if they had played ODI series, India would have struggled to get past 200 in ODIs.

 

[jnaveen1980]

With not many slips with lot of wide restrictions on flat roads Andu will be a cannon fodder. Even at his peak he was the one who let England down in 2011 world cup against Bangladesh and Ireland.

 

[Ab Fan]

No, their workload is already too heavy playing 15 tests per year.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

No red ball, no green tops.
The above 2 lines are enough to discard this thought.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

They will be finished within a year if they start playing ODI's also.

 

[Zaz]

They are still effective in tests cos they don’t play meaningless Odis and their workload is managed

And anyway limited overs cricket is a totally different game with flat Wkts, less movement and short boundaries They were never as effective in Odis as their skill set suits test cricket more So this way is a win win situation for both the management and the players

 

[Robert]

The question I have is clear from the title. The more I see Anderson and Broad- two old war horses of English cricket the more impressed I am.

While England these days are a batting power house with a non existent tail, their bowling attack is also very thin. With Anderson and Broad, batsmen rarely get the opportunity to get the ball off the square and avoid being dismissed, leave alone hitting boundaries. Throughout this test series, batsmen have struggled to get any runs of these two.

Anderson in particular was toying with the Indian batting at Lord's. Wonder if they had played ODI series, India would have struggled to get past 200 in ODIs.

They got smashed in WC15 as I recall, and never played LO again.

Best to keep them in cotton wool between tests.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Anderson - NO. cause they already have Woakes and Willey who are able to do the same thing Anderson does but at higher pace(Woakes) and with left arm (Willey) plus both are very good lower order batters. So no place for Anderson IMO.

As for Broad, his competition is basically, Mark Wood. Wood adds raw pace to the bowling attack. He is able to take the pitch out of the equation and can go for 48-55 even on flat roads(something Wahab hasn't been able to do for Pak). So if Wood is playing, then no place for Broad.
But there is always a back up bowler and England use Jake Ball for that. Broad is IMO a lot better than Ball. Has experience, can vary his pace, seams the ball well, good bouncers, can operate as a good first change bowler.

So in my opinion, Broad can still find a place in the team ahead of Ball who is pretty mediocre.

As for Anderson, I still remember, even in his peak, back in 2010, how A Razzaq effortlessly took him and Bresnan for 20-22 runs per over in the last 4th ODI.

 

[introvert]

Broad had chance to comeback 2 year ago when he played in bigbash but selectors ignored him & he gave up after that.
Anderson has been exiled from odi squad long time ago due to inability to bowl at death & lack of pace as well. I don't think he has any desire left now to play limited overs cricket again even in county cricket.

England already have good new ball bowlers like woakes,willey,sam curran.
What they're missing is quick strike bowler someone like jofra archer who would add much needed pace && versatility to their bowling attack.

 

[introvert]

Anderson - NO. cause they already have Woakes and Willey who are able to do the same thing Anderson does but at higher pace(Woakes) and with left arm (Willey) plus both are very good lower order batters. So no place for Anderson IMO.

As for Broad, his competition is basically, Mark Wood. Wood adds raw pace to the bowling attack. He is able to take the pitch out of the equation and can go for 48-55 even on flat roads(something Wahab hasn't been able to do for Pak). So if Wood is playing, then no place for Broad.
But there is always a back up bowler and England use Jake Ball for that. Broad is IMO a lot better than Ball. Has experience, can vary his pace, seams the ball well, good bouncers, can operate as a good first change bowler.

So in my opinion, Broad can still find a place in the team ahead of Ball who is pretty mediocre.

As for Anderson, I still remember, even in his peak, back in 2010, how A Razzaq effortlessly took him and Bresnan for 20-22 runs per over in the last 4th ODI.

I agree about Jake ball. He is brain less one dimensional bowler. Broad is much much better than him any day.

 

[hadi123]

James Anderson would not be good in white ball cricket. No red ball and the different field settings would go against him.

Stuart Broad seems to be out of the picture too, but I have no doubt he's better than people like Jake Ball.

 

[happydavy]

My sense is English selectors will include one of them in the WC squad. He may not play all the matches, but it's a long tournament and there will be times when he will be required.

 

[Hasan123]

Anderson shouldn't be selected for LO but Broad could be . He should bowl most of his overs with the new ball though.

 

[ads101]

They'd both be pretty good if they were playing ODIs. They had a lot of success when they used to play too. And England's current pacers are terrible.

I'd keep them out of the LO regular teams as they don't want to injure them for tests. But I would be tempted to play both of them in the upcoming world cup, especially since it's in England. It's England's best chance in decades this world cup, and it would be a shame if they lost it only because they chose to not field their best bowlers.

 

[stevewittry]

They'd both be pretty good if they were playing ODIs. They had a lot of success when they used to play too. And England's current pacers are terrible.

I'd keep them out of the LO regular teams as they don't want to injure them for tests. But I would be tempted to play both of them in the upcoming world cup, especially since it's in England. It's England's best chance in decades this world cup, and it would be a shame if they lost it only because they chose to not field their best bowlers.

Exactly, that's my point. The English conditions will bring the best out of them and they will be able to defend 250 odd totals during world cup. Currently with their existing ODI setup even 350+ is not safe.

 

[Justcrazy]

NO.

They are doing well in Test matches.