Nottinghamshire v Durham, Trent Bridge, 2nd day May 26, 2014

Broad advised to give up T20

  shares 34

Durham 78 for 2 trail Nottinghamshire 377 by 299 runs
Scorecard

Stuart Broad may have to call time on his England Twenty20 career - and with it the "kudos" that goes with being captain - to give him a better chance of staying fit for Test and one-day international cricket.

The 27-year-old fast bowler is playing competitive cricket for the first time since the World Twenty20 in Bangladesh as Nottinghamshire take on Durham at Trent Bridge and bowled six overs in no obvious discomfort after suffering tendonitis in his right knee.

But Mick Newell, Nottinghamshire's director of cricket and now one of the England selectors, said that the likelihood the problem would flare up again placed a question mark over Broad's involvement in all three formats at international level.

Given his importance in England's Test and ODI attacks, managing his workload would probably mean sacrificing his place in the Twenty20 side.

"Stuart is a key man for Test cricket and one-day internationals, so in terms of managing his fitness I think we are going to have to look at Twenty20 for Stuart," Newell said.

"The last two or three years he has picked up a lot of little things and he would want to have played more cricket than he has.

"There is a lot of ODI cricket coming up and how you manage the workload for players like Stuart through the summer and as you prepare for the 50-over World Cup next February is something that will have to be looked at."

Broad needed painkillers to get through the World Twenty20 and was rested for England's current one-day series against Sri Lanka. Earlier this month, speaking at the launch of Royal London's sponsorship of English one-day cricket, Broad expressed a desire to continue in all formats but Newell believes he would accept the need to give one up to give himself a better chance of prolonging his Test career, even if it means relinquishing the captaincy.

"Of course there is kudos in being captain, but I think he will get his head around [losing] that," Newell said. "He is proud and ambitious, but captaincy in a longer form of the game, perhaps in one-day cricket, would remain a possibility."

In the shorter term, Newell expressed concern that the poor weather forecast for the remainder of the current round of matches would not help either Broad or Ben Stokes in their plans to prove themselves match-fit ahead of the Test series against Sri Lanka next month.

Broad has the current match against Durham and Nottinghamshire's next Championship fixture, against Sussex next week, to get some overs into his legs. Stokes, who is back in action in this match following his self-inflicted broken wrist, is scheduled to play also against Middlesex at Chester-le-Street. The first Test begins on 12 June.

"I was quite impressed with what Stuart did," Newell said. "He bowled a good length, the full length we talked about on this pitch and swung the ball early on to the left-handers.

"But the forecast for the next two days is poor and if he comes out of this game with only six overs it will be disappointing and there will be a need for him to bowl a lot of overs at Hove."

Newell said that the same would apply to allrounder Stokes, although in his case he simply needs to demonstrate overall fitness. Although he still has some residual pain from needing a screw inserted to help his damaged scaphoid bone knit together, his bowling mechanism is not affected.

"Ben has that bit of magic about him, he makes things happen," Newell said. "He is a real competitor, he has a bit of fight, as you could see in Australia when he took it to the Aussies and stood up for himself. Once he is fully fit, as a fourth seamer he gives England what Shane Watson gives to Australia.

"He is desperate to start playing again and the only danger is that he rushes back too soon. Durham play Middlesex next and we will be looking at how much cricket he can get in."

Matt Prior's chances of regaining his place as wicketkeeper will also depend on how much cricket he can play in this and the next round of games. There was no play at all in Sussex's match against Middlesex at the Merchant Taylors' School Ground in Northwood on day one and the question mark over Prior's Achilles tendon means that he will have to demonstrate not only that he can keep wicket without discomfort but to show no reaction afterwards.

"After what happened in the winter, the first Test against Sri Lanka is a massive game for England and you have to go into that match with people who are 100 per cent fit," Newell said. "You don't want to be worrying about injuries or managing fitness."

Newell, who was interviewed for the England coach's job, has put aside his disappointment at missing out to Peter Moores and his relishing his involvement as a selector, a role in which his willingness to share his thoughts with frankness and clarity can only be welcome.

"It is a challenging time," he said. "There are probably only four or five players who are inked in, which is interesting given the history in the last few years."

He identified the wicketkeeper's position and the debate over replacing Graeme Swann as the spinner in the side as the biggest of the immediate challenges.

"Swanny not being around is one of the biggest headaches," he said. "Are you going to pick an out-and-out spinner, in which case you go for the best spinner, or is there a balance of team to be had? If your spin bowler is a batsman of quality, such as Moeen Ali or Samit Patel, and you have an allrounder such as a Stokes or Chris Woakes or Ravi Bopara type, then the wicketkeeper could come in as low as eight.

"The 'keeper situation is massive. If you are going to have high-quality seam bowling you want to have a good man behind the pegs. There are two camps of keeper - there is the Kieswetter, Buttler, Bairstow group and there is the Foster, Read group, more the old-school wicketkeeper. I watched Foster last week and he was terrific. There will be an interesting debate there.

"What has come out of the winter is a complete rethink with five, six, seven spots up for grabs, which is a bit scary but exciting at the same time."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Nutcutlet on May 28, 2014, 10:43 GMT

    @SirViv1973 & CodandChips: On the w/k issue, I side with C&C. Foster has been the best keeper around for years, but the selectorial wisdom was that he wasn't enough of a batsman to merit serious consideration - and while Prior was coming in with substantial contributions at #7 and his w/keeping was also going in the right direction, there was no argument. Now there is. Prior is clearly unfit and likely to remain so for a significant perod; Davies seems to have given over the gauntlets at Surrey to focus on his batting and, while Read is a fine keeper/ bat, he's not quite in Foster's class. Buttler is a work in progress - still at least a year from Test selection, either as bat or w/k and Keiswetter is a short format specialist - with nothing special about his w/k, so far as I can see. Bairstow? See comment on Buttler. And here's my cliching point: one of the pleasures of watching Test cricket should be seeing a top class w/k at work. We've been deprived of that for too long.

  • adamhw on May 28, 2014, 8:54 GMT

    Completely agree with some of the comments on here. The idea that giving up T20 (a maximum of 24 balls bowled by Broad per game, and sometimes not even that) will preserve Broad's fitness to bowl perhaps as much as 180 balls on some test match days, is risible. This, coupled with Paul Downton's apparent admission, if he has been correctly reported, that the sacking of KP was in part based upon a perceived disinteredness during one cricket match (was it considered that KP may simply have been having a bad patch during the days that Downton happened to watch him?), to my eyes creates a real concern as to the present England set-up.

  • CodandChips on May 28, 2014, 7:17 GMT

    @SirViv1973 You question whether we'll improve enough in the next 12 months to challenge Australia, but look how quickly they overturned their fortunes. Remember also how soon after the Moores KP saga and 50 all out in the Windies came the Ashes 2009.

    Moreover while there are a lack of clear wicket keeping options surely Foster can hold fort until they come to light.

  • on May 28, 2014, 4:15 GMT

    How exactly is giving up 20/20 going to help? The games are only about two hours long. Such ridiculous comments are a surprise from someone in charge of selecting England teams.

  • Patchmaster on May 28, 2014, 2:07 GMT

    Most ENG fans have been advising Broad to give up T20 for ages - because of fitness and form - both equally poor........

  • SirViv1973 on May 27, 2014, 21:25 GMT

    @Cod&Chips, Continue, he should have been given the chance to replace Stewart in 2003. They gave Read loads of opportunities back then and he was never a strong enough batsman. A decade or so ago an ave in the high 20's was good enough for a keeper/batsman at 7 providing he was top drawer with the gloves. I think Foster would have managed that back then. However I think the game has moved on mainly due to the legacy left by Gilchrist. Keepers now have to be genuine batsman who can ave 35 plus, be able to bat at 6 if a team needs to get a 5th bowler in & still be handy with the gloves. Prior still ave over 40 despite his very lean year. Then there's Devilliers who ave nearly 50, Haddin is also over 40 & Dhoni just below.

  • SirViv1973 on May 27, 2014, 21:09 GMT

    @Cod& Chips, I can't really agree with that. Foster has bags of county experience but not much at Int level & for that reason i'm not sure he could be considered a senior player if he came in. He could be around for the next ashes and may well do a job up until then but at this stage I don't think Eng should be looking at short term fixes. Yes the ashes are important but are we really going to make enough improvement in the next 12 months to seriously be in a position to turn the aussies over? I think we need to be looking at the big picture and picking players who are going to be around for at least the next 5 or 6 yrs because I think it's going to be a while before we are genuinely able to turn things around. There is no guarantee that Prior will find his best form again & Davies has been off the boil for a couple of years now. I know there aren't that many of them but we have to be brave and look at younger options. Foster has been unlucky cont.

  • Workieticket on May 27, 2014, 17:29 GMT

    Between now and the next T20 World Cup in Feb 2016, England are scheduled to play 24 Tests, at least 44 ODIs and 8 T20s. Based on his career to date, if Stuart Broad played in all of the Tests and ODIs he'd bowl approx 1,200 overs. If he plays in all the T20s, he'll bowl 32. I think he'll need to miss more than just the T20s to manage his fitness!

  • CodandChips on May 27, 2014, 17:24 GMT

    @SirViv1973 Surely the fact that we're trying to establish a new team would be the reason to pick Foster? He would be a calm head amongst all the inexperience. His keeping is truly magnificent and is worth any runs he can't contribute (though he is a better batsman than he is given credit for). He can hold fort while Prior recovers fitness and form, and while Davies finds form. He could certainly play in the next ashes, which is surely what we're building for. Bairstow has been a poor international cricketer with the gloves and bat. His career England stats are poor. And bar the odd innings here and there he hasn't made too many telling contributions. He should spend a couple of years at least in county cricket before being even considered to play again for England.

  • SixSmasher on May 27, 2014, 17:23 GMT

    This backward and illogical thinking needs to end once and for all in cricket. If this guy is struggling to bowl 4 overs in a day and play a 20 over game then his body clearly can't cut it at test level. He's going to have to bowl 20 overs or so a day at times in a test. The game also lasts 5 days.

    The logical thing to do if you are struggling from injuries is to retire from tests and focus on ODIs and t20s only.

    All the formats matter. England need to stop sitting on their high horse thinking tests are the only thing that matters. If anything t20 could be argued as the pinnacle in the modern era, generally speaking it draws the biggest crowds.

  • Nutcutlet on May 28, 2014, 10:43 GMT

    @SirViv1973 & CodandChips: On the w/k issue, I side with C&C. Foster has been the best keeper around for years, but the selectorial wisdom was that he wasn't enough of a batsman to merit serious consideration - and while Prior was coming in with substantial contributions at #7 and his w/keeping was also going in the right direction, there was no argument. Now there is. Prior is clearly unfit and likely to remain so for a significant perod; Davies seems to have given over the gauntlets at Surrey to focus on his batting and, while Read is a fine keeper/ bat, he's not quite in Foster's class. Buttler is a work in progress - still at least a year from Test selection, either as bat or w/k and Keiswetter is a short format specialist - with nothing special about his w/k, so far as I can see. Bairstow? See comment on Buttler. And here's my cliching point: one of the pleasures of watching Test cricket should be seeing a top class w/k at work. We've been deprived of that for too long.

  • adamhw on May 28, 2014, 8:54 GMT

    Completely agree with some of the comments on here. The idea that giving up T20 (a maximum of 24 balls bowled by Broad per game, and sometimes not even that) will preserve Broad's fitness to bowl perhaps as much as 180 balls on some test match days, is risible. This, coupled with Paul Downton's apparent admission, if he has been correctly reported, that the sacking of KP was in part based upon a perceived disinteredness during one cricket match (was it considered that KP may simply have been having a bad patch during the days that Downton happened to watch him?), to my eyes creates a real concern as to the present England set-up.

  • CodandChips on May 28, 2014, 7:17 GMT

    @SirViv1973 You question whether we'll improve enough in the next 12 months to challenge Australia, but look how quickly they overturned their fortunes. Remember also how soon after the Moores KP saga and 50 all out in the Windies came the Ashes 2009.

    Moreover while there are a lack of clear wicket keeping options surely Foster can hold fort until they come to light.

  • on May 28, 2014, 4:15 GMT

    How exactly is giving up 20/20 going to help? The games are only about two hours long. Such ridiculous comments are a surprise from someone in charge of selecting England teams.

  • Patchmaster on May 28, 2014, 2:07 GMT

    Most ENG fans have been advising Broad to give up T20 for ages - because of fitness and form - both equally poor........

  • SirViv1973 on May 27, 2014, 21:25 GMT

    @Cod&Chips, Continue, he should have been given the chance to replace Stewart in 2003. They gave Read loads of opportunities back then and he was never a strong enough batsman. A decade or so ago an ave in the high 20's was good enough for a keeper/batsman at 7 providing he was top drawer with the gloves. I think Foster would have managed that back then. However I think the game has moved on mainly due to the legacy left by Gilchrist. Keepers now have to be genuine batsman who can ave 35 plus, be able to bat at 6 if a team needs to get a 5th bowler in & still be handy with the gloves. Prior still ave over 40 despite his very lean year. Then there's Devilliers who ave nearly 50, Haddin is also over 40 & Dhoni just below.

  • SirViv1973 on May 27, 2014, 21:09 GMT

    @Cod& Chips, I can't really agree with that. Foster has bags of county experience but not much at Int level & for that reason i'm not sure he could be considered a senior player if he came in. He could be around for the next ashes and may well do a job up until then but at this stage I don't think Eng should be looking at short term fixes. Yes the ashes are important but are we really going to make enough improvement in the next 12 months to seriously be in a position to turn the aussies over? I think we need to be looking at the big picture and picking players who are going to be around for at least the next 5 or 6 yrs because I think it's going to be a while before we are genuinely able to turn things around. There is no guarantee that Prior will find his best form again & Davies has been off the boil for a couple of years now. I know there aren't that many of them but we have to be brave and look at younger options. Foster has been unlucky cont.

  • Workieticket on May 27, 2014, 17:29 GMT

    Between now and the next T20 World Cup in Feb 2016, England are scheduled to play 24 Tests, at least 44 ODIs and 8 T20s. Based on his career to date, if Stuart Broad played in all of the Tests and ODIs he'd bowl approx 1,200 overs. If he plays in all the T20s, he'll bowl 32. I think he'll need to miss more than just the T20s to manage his fitness!

  • CodandChips on May 27, 2014, 17:24 GMT

    @SirViv1973 Surely the fact that we're trying to establish a new team would be the reason to pick Foster? He would be a calm head amongst all the inexperience. His keeping is truly magnificent and is worth any runs he can't contribute (though he is a better batsman than he is given credit for). He can hold fort while Prior recovers fitness and form, and while Davies finds form. He could certainly play in the next ashes, which is surely what we're building for. Bairstow has been a poor international cricketer with the gloves and bat. His career England stats are poor. And bar the odd innings here and there he hasn't made too many telling contributions. He should spend a couple of years at least in county cricket before being even considered to play again for England.

  • SixSmasher on May 27, 2014, 17:23 GMT

    This backward and illogical thinking needs to end once and for all in cricket. If this guy is struggling to bowl 4 overs in a day and play a 20 over game then his body clearly can't cut it at test level. He's going to have to bowl 20 overs or so a day at times in a test. The game also lasts 5 days.

    The logical thing to do if you are struggling from injuries is to retire from tests and focus on ODIs and t20s only.

    All the formats matter. England need to stop sitting on their high horse thinking tests are the only thing that matters. If anything t20 could be argued as the pinnacle in the modern era, generally speaking it draws the biggest crowds.

  • SirViv1973 on May 27, 2014, 16:06 GMT

    @Cod&Chips, although the keeping issue is potentially a bit of a headache I don't think they can go back to Foster. Although he has been a tremendous keeper at county level and should have played more tests than he did, he is in his mid 30s now & Eng need to be building a team for the future. If Prior is fit then despite his horrible time against the Aussies last year Eng will need to give him the opportunity to try & restablish himself it was only a year ago he was recognises as the best keeper batsman in the world. Although Bairstow has been dissapointing to date I would rather see him get another chance than Foster. Failing that I would be tempted to have a look at Kieswetter. I think we are hoping that Buttler turns out to be Prior's heir apparent but he needs at least the whole season keeping for Lancs before he can seriously be considered. On another point I really hope they don't go back to Bresnan he's been consitently poor since his injury problems started.

  • Nutcutlet on May 27, 2014, 15:55 GMT

    Broad's chronic injuries have already limited his time as an elite cricketer. He should be kept back from all except Test cricket, but even then, I wonder how long he has got. He may, of course, decide that anything more than the 4 over max required in T20 is more his cup of chai. Then he can put himself up for consideration in all sorts of places.

  • SirViv1973 on May 27, 2014, 15:36 GMT

    I would agree that given Broad's history of fitness problems something has to give in terms of his commitment to playing all 3 forms of international cricket. I don't neccassarily think that Broad should retire for IT20 completley but common sense would sugget that with the WC coming up (No WT20 for 2 yrs) and the fact he is only 27 with plenty of achievable goals still left in tests that he make himself unavailable for T20s for the immediate future. Once the WC is over he could choose to make himself available for T20 again but perhaps not ODIs then maybe if the injurys persist in a few yrs time he give up tests & play ODIs

  • on May 27, 2014, 14:24 GMT

    Why on earth should he stop playing 20/20 for Tests if he wants to prolong his career? Test cricket takes a bigger toll on his body! Shorter format be better for his body. Just like all the other fast bowlers have done before him (Malinga, Tait, Nannes, etc)

  • Juiceoftheapple on May 27, 2014, 13:27 GMT

    Well Newell doesnt mind speaking his mind! Which is nice, but likewise, the quote about Shane Watson and Ben Stokes doesnt fill me with confidence to be honest. Namely because he is not a restrictive bowler, he goes for runs, plus he's not a batsman of Watson ability at the moment. And given we are notorious for batting collapses, which is made even worse given we are rebuilding a batting order, having Stokes at 6 smells of picking someone for all the wrong reasons i.e. because he was willing to have a fight with the Ozzies. But, between him, Samit Patel and Root there are 3 bowlers who can potentially add runs and take up the bowling slack (But only outside the subcontinent). So I would go with the following in the first test: Cook, Robson, Ballance, Bell, Root, Patel, Stokes, Buttler, Jordan, Broad, Anderson. And if Root doesnt nail on his place he should know Taylor will get it later in the summer. We are not the greatest batting nation, we need to bat deep.

  • Balladeer on May 27, 2014, 12:55 GMT

    I've always felt that we in England (self included) veer towards the longer, more traditional forms of cricket. I completely agree that if ODIs and T20s are given the same amount of importance, it doesn't make sense to take Broad out of the shorter format to rest him. It makes sense, however, if the ECB consider ODIs to be a more important form of the game than T20s.

    As they obviously are, natch. ;)

  • on May 27, 2014, 11:51 GMT

    I will play him in T20 and not ODI. he will be fitter playing T20's then ODI

  • anver777 on May 27, 2014, 9:54 GMT

    As mentioned by Mick Newell, that's not a bad idea..... but i think its better he plays only tests & give up both (T20 & ODI)

  • TheMysteryMan on May 27, 2014, 9:46 GMT

    I dont understand this move by England and couple of other boards. How many T20I are there? Not many. Each series is just 1 or 2 matches before ODI. You can even see it as a warm up. How can retiring from T20I help extend career in Test or ODIs? The only rigorous T20 is played in the form of Club/franchise cricket. And even then, it has helped many bowlers actually learn some skills and become better bowlers. Looks how Mitchell Johnson got his confidence back after doing well in IPL. We all know what happened in Ashesh after that.

    T20 internationals are not played enough to have any significant impact on a player's career. Injury can happen anywhere and in any form.

    I dont like how ECB plays with the careers of their players. This same thing happened prior to two previous world cups, players made to take wrong decisions. It has not helped England at all. Some backward thinking people are in charge of ECB.

  • jackiethepen on May 27, 2014, 9:07 GMT

    When Bell wanted to take responsibility at 3 in the Ashes, who supported him then? He was kicked downstairs by Flower, ever the man-management specialist. After that experience of being rejected at 3, Bell is opting for 4. Is it surprising? And Vaughan has the nerve to suggest that he is avoiding his responsibilities! Who did Vaughan support for 3 in the Ashes? Joe Root.

  • siltbreeze on May 27, 2014, 9:03 GMT

    It's refreshing to see Newell discussing the selection issues so openly - let's hope this really does indicate a less insular England set-up. It also gives a little renewed hope to those of us who would like to see the best keeper in the team, rather than someone who might average 10 more with the bat but give away more per innings with the gloves.

  • luggang on May 27, 2014, 8:33 GMT

    i think he should concentrate on 2020 and forget test cricket

  • CodandChips on May 27, 2014, 8:13 GMT

    (continued)

    Hence my predicted team: 1.Cook 2.Robson 3.Ballance 4.Bell 5.Root 6.Stokes 7.Prior (Bairstow if unfit) 8.Bresnan 9.Broad 10.Anderson 11.Panesar

    My chosen team: 1.Cook 2.Root 3.Bell 4.Taylor 5.Ballance 6.Woakes 7.Foster 8.Jordan 9.Anderson 10.Roland-Jones 11.Kerrigan

    In my chosen team, if after the first test there is not enough batting but more than enough bowling, swap Woakes with a batsman, like Vince, Mitchell or Robson. Of course if Broad is properly fit then he should come into the side, as he was the best bowler in the ashes for us.

  • CodandChips on May 27, 2014, 8:01 GMT

    (continued)

    The bowlers selected will depend on the balance of the side wanted. I assume England will want Stokes. If he plays, England must select a front-line spinner. I would pick Kerrigan but I think England will go with Monty, who is doing ok for Essex atm. I would also go with Woakes rather than rushing back Stokes, though Woakes hasn't scored many runs this season, and isn't playing cricket as he's on drinks duty.

    Many seam options so Broad shouldn't be risked. I assume though that England will go with Bresnan, Broad and Anderson. Plunkett, Meaker and Barker are all options. Finn is taking wickets but shouldn't be risked yet, especially after being taken apart by James Vince on Sunday. Newell may be impressed by Shazad. I like Jordan and Roland-Jones.

    (continued)

  • CodandChips on May 27, 2014, 7:53 GMT

    Test selection ideas in this article are interesting. I'm surprised Newell is allowed to openly suggest selection ideas like these.

    Broad, Stokes and Prior should not be rushed back. I'd certainly not play them in the first test match. But if England can play them, they will.

    The keeper I'd select is Foster. I did like Davies but he's been poor this season. Foster is an excellent keeper and has scored runs this season. But I'm sure England will be desperate for Prior to play.

    Newell doesn't mention any batsmen but I assume that's already done. Cook, Root and Bell are definites. Robson and Ballance look to have played themselves into the side. The order will be interesting. Ballance bats 5 for Yorkshire but batting 3 in ODIs may be test preparation.

    Personally though I'd open with Root. Give him the opportunity. Bell must bat 3 and take responsibility. Then the 2 most talented young batsmen in county cricket: Taylor and Ballance.

  • Martensad on May 27, 2014, 7:48 GMT

    KP wanted to give up ODIs, but was told that he had to do both T20 and ODIs or none at all. It will be interesting to see if Broad is treated differently.

  • CodandChips on May 27, 2014, 7:09 GMT

    I agree with @dunger.bob and @Sir_Francis that it's a good idea. His workload should be managed. He was our best bowler in Australia. He has improved as a bowler. We don't want a repeat of the many other English bowlers run into the ground, like Flintoff, Harmison, Jones etc

  • markatnotts on May 27, 2014, 6:54 GMT

    With 238 wickets, another five years of Tests could see him go to 450 plus even with the odd injury period. With Jimmy likely to run out of steam in the next 18 months at around 400 wickets, Broad could end up our leading wicket taker for quite a while.

  • Sir_Francis on May 27, 2014, 6:39 GMT

    It's not ironic. You're missing the point. He's playing 3 forms of the game. Dropping one will probably help his fitness and ability to play the other two. That's all. I'd rather he gave up Tests. (I'm australian)

  • Rick777 on May 27, 2014, 6:36 GMT

    It doesn't make any sense how he is going to get more fitness by giving up T20 as it's the shortest format and needs lesser fitness compared to other formats (4 overs max). In that case he needs to give up both ODIs & T20s to be more fit for Tests.

    Stupid thinking.

  • on May 27, 2014, 6:30 GMT

    @TheMiddlestump : Can you please elaborate on "he may break a few English records"

  • on May 27, 2014, 6:29 GMT

    @TheMiddleStump: Just wow....THUMBS UP

  • TheMiddleStump on May 27, 2014, 0:37 GMT

    I don't see that logic in this. He gives up the T20 format where he doesn't regularly bat (unless there is a collapse) and only needs to bowl 24 legal deliveries. He'll be on the field for just 90 minutes. All this to keep on playing ODIs where he needs to bowl 60 legal deliveries being pace spearhead and face an average of 10-15 balls when batting and be on the field for 3 hours. AND he wants to play Tests where he'll need to bowl an average of 25 overs per inning (50 for the match), being on the field for a combined 2-3 days, and facing around 20-30 balls when batting.

    ....Oh the irony.

    Dropping T20 is never a matter of fitness or so called "commitment to the "true" formats of the game", but rather its just a matter of convenience and more free time with family. In any case Broad doesn't even come to mind when T20 auctions are going on.

    He's a very good Test player so I see no issue with him wanting to focus more of his energy in the format. He'll break a few English records

  • dunger.bob on May 26, 2014, 23:13 GMT

    At only 27 there's still theoretically a lot of cricket left in Broad. Given his history of injury it would seem prudent to start managing his work load now, so this decision looks a good one. There's no shame in dropping a format to concentrate on one or the other. So many players do it these days it's almost the trendy thing to do.

    I warmed to Broad over the summer. We knew he was a happy winner but there were some doubts about how he would handle defeat. .. He took it on the chin and stood up manfully all tour so he went up considerably in my estimation. If you guys can get another 5 or 6 years out of Stuart he'll end up as one of your most celebrated players if he isn't already.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • dunger.bob on May 26, 2014, 23:13 GMT

    At only 27 there's still theoretically a lot of cricket left in Broad. Given his history of injury it would seem prudent to start managing his work load now, so this decision looks a good one. There's no shame in dropping a format to concentrate on one or the other. So many players do it these days it's almost the trendy thing to do.

    I warmed to Broad over the summer. We knew he was a happy winner but there were some doubts about how he would handle defeat. .. He took it on the chin and stood up manfully all tour so he went up considerably in my estimation. If you guys can get another 5 or 6 years out of Stuart he'll end up as one of your most celebrated players if he isn't already.

  • TheMiddleStump on May 27, 2014, 0:37 GMT

    I don't see that logic in this. He gives up the T20 format where he doesn't regularly bat (unless there is a collapse) and only needs to bowl 24 legal deliveries. He'll be on the field for just 90 minutes. All this to keep on playing ODIs where he needs to bowl 60 legal deliveries being pace spearhead and face an average of 10-15 balls when batting and be on the field for 3 hours. AND he wants to play Tests where he'll need to bowl an average of 25 overs per inning (50 for the match), being on the field for a combined 2-3 days, and facing around 20-30 balls when batting.

    ....Oh the irony.

    Dropping T20 is never a matter of fitness or so called "commitment to the "true" formats of the game", but rather its just a matter of convenience and more free time with family. In any case Broad doesn't even come to mind when T20 auctions are going on.

    He's a very good Test player so I see no issue with him wanting to focus more of his energy in the format. He'll break a few English records

  • on May 27, 2014, 6:29 GMT

    @TheMiddleStump: Just wow....THUMBS UP

  • on May 27, 2014, 6:30 GMT

    @TheMiddlestump : Can you please elaborate on "he may break a few English records"

  • Rick777 on May 27, 2014, 6:36 GMT

    It doesn't make any sense how he is going to get more fitness by giving up T20 as it's the shortest format and needs lesser fitness compared to other formats (4 overs max). In that case he needs to give up both ODIs & T20s to be more fit for Tests.

    Stupid thinking.

  • Sir_Francis on May 27, 2014, 6:39 GMT

    It's not ironic. You're missing the point. He's playing 3 forms of the game. Dropping one will probably help his fitness and ability to play the other two. That's all. I'd rather he gave up Tests. (I'm australian)

  • markatnotts on May 27, 2014, 6:54 GMT

    With 238 wickets, another five years of Tests could see him go to 450 plus even with the odd injury period. With Jimmy likely to run out of steam in the next 18 months at around 400 wickets, Broad could end up our leading wicket taker for quite a while.

  • CodandChips on May 27, 2014, 7:09 GMT

    I agree with @dunger.bob and @Sir_Francis that it's a good idea. His workload should be managed. He was our best bowler in Australia. He has improved as a bowler. We don't want a repeat of the many other English bowlers run into the ground, like Flintoff, Harmison, Jones etc

  • Martensad on May 27, 2014, 7:48 GMT

    KP wanted to give up ODIs, but was told that he had to do both T20 and ODIs or none at all. It will be interesting to see if Broad is treated differently.

  • CodandChips on May 27, 2014, 7:53 GMT

    Test selection ideas in this article are interesting. I'm surprised Newell is allowed to openly suggest selection ideas like these.

    Broad, Stokes and Prior should not be rushed back. I'd certainly not play them in the first test match. But if England can play them, they will.

    The keeper I'd select is Foster. I did like Davies but he's been poor this season. Foster is an excellent keeper and has scored runs this season. But I'm sure England will be desperate for Prior to play.

    Newell doesn't mention any batsmen but I assume that's already done. Cook, Root and Bell are definites. Robson and Ballance look to have played themselves into the side. The order will be interesting. Ballance bats 5 for Yorkshire but batting 3 in ODIs may be test preparation.

    Personally though I'd open with Root. Give him the opportunity. Bell must bat 3 and take responsibility. Then the 2 most talented young batsmen in county cricket: Taylor and Ballance.