England v NZ, 1st Investec Test, Lord's, 4th day May 19, 2013

Mercurial Broad proves class again

His search for consistency goes on but Stuart Broad's display once more showed he has the attributes to be a special bowler
34

He may be inconsistent and he may be infuriating but there is no doubt that, when the mood takes him, Stuart Broad is a terrific bowler. In front of a large crowd at Lord's, with a Test in the balance, he produced a devastating display of fast bowling that sealed his side's first victory of the year. He later agreed it was the best spell of his career to date.

Perhaps there is something of the far-from-flat-track bully about Broad. Certainly there were times in India and against South Africa last year when he seemed to go missing in action, when, with the pitch looking flat and the batsmen on top, he appeared to wither in the heat of battle. Times when James Anderson carried too heavy a burden of leading the attack. Great bowlers deliver in those circumstances. As yet, Broad does not belong in that category.

But when Broad bowls like this - and here he displayed pace, persistence, control and swing - he is an irrepressible force. Maintaining an immaculate length, he looked unrecognisable from the lacklustre first-innings Broad impersonator, relishing the helpful conditions and vulnerable prey. It was a great spell.

Broad's partnership with Anderson was devastating. So tight was their control, so adept were they at moving the ball in either direction and so helpful were the conditions that it revived memories of some of England's better fast bowling partnerships of the recent past: Botham and Willis; Caddick and Gough; Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones.

Some of New Zealand's batting was tentative and flimsy, certainly, but a couple of players - notably Dean Brownlie and Hamish Rutherford - can console themselves with the knowledge that they received deliveries that were close to unplayable. Alastair Cook rated Anderson and Broad's bowling in the first hour of the New Zealand second inning s "as good as I've seen in an opening spell".

Brendon McCullum agreed. "Broad's spell of bowling was high class," he said. "He swung the ball beautifully, he was able to get the odd ball to hold its line up the slope and his lengths were impeccable. He bowled at a reasonable pace as well. We weren't quite able to work out a way to get through him. So there is partial blame from our point of view but also credit to Stuart for his performance."

Broad has now claimed two five-wicket hauls in his last three Tests but the search for consistency goes on. Circumstances will not often align so nicely for him as they did here and questions remain about his potency on the flattest wickets. But if that sounds a harsh analysis it is only because, with such spells, Broad shows he has all the attributes to be a special bowler. He to whom much is given much is expected. And Broad has been given plenty.

Unlocking the full potential of Broad must be a key objective for England's management team. But perhaps there was a clue to the secret in his comments following the game that he had taken confidence from his batting earlier in the day. Broad has reached 30 only once in his last 20 Test innings but, coming to the crease with England's lead still appearing fragile, he thumped four boundaries in a run-a-ball 26 that constituted the highest individual score of the day.

"Once I got to 20 I got a bit of nosebleed," he said. "I think that gave me a bit of confidence with the ball. That can happen with guys who do both things. Hopefully I can do it a bit more consistently this summer."

What conclusions can we draw from such a statement? Perhaps that, while there is a perception from some that Broad is sometimes a little self-satisfied and lazy - a perception that owes more to the presumption of observers than any factual evidence - it may well be that he is actually lacking the reserves of self-confidence that have proved so valuable to players as varied as Shane Warne, Viv Richards and Kevin Pietersen. Perhaps Broad needs to believe how good he can be to deliver more consistently on his substantial promise.

It is encouraging that, aged 26, he continues to look to improve. His delivery to bowl Rutherford, the ball moving up the Lord's slope to take the left-hander's off stump, was a beauty and the product of recent hard work. "It's something I worked on in New Zealand and since coming back," he said. "With Hamish you can't give any width. He thrives on that. So I wanted to pitch it on the stumps and run it across him; it was quite hard to run it up the hill but it nipped up there.

"I had confidence going into the day knowing, if I got the ball up there, there was enough in the wicket to help the bowlers out. I just hit my straps right away and felt in a nice rhythm"
Stuart Broad on his 7 for 44

"It's about rhythm as a bowler. I felt my stride pattern has been pretty good through the start of the summer. I didn't get enough balls in the right area in the first innings, but I felt in decent rhythm. So I had confidence going into the day knowing, if I got the ball up there, there was enough in the wicket to help the bowlers out. I just hit my straps right away and felt in a nice rhythm. As a partnership we built pressure, we didn't give them anything and we were rewarded with the wickets."

While it is the bowlers who will gain the plaudits, it is also worth reflecting on the contribution of a couple of England batsmen. Many players can plunder runs when the sun shines and the pitch is flat, but it is in low-scoring encounters that true class shines through. Here, Joe Root (with 111 runs in the match) and Jonathan Trott (with 95) contributed 206 runs between them and, from the moment they were parted in the second innings, 18 wickets fell for the addition of just 122 runs. Their calmness under pressure, their technique and their patience played a huge role in this success. Both can take huge pride in this result.

"I don't think I've experienced a game that ebbed and flowed as much," Cook said. "There were times when we got ourselves in a strong position but New Zealand came fighting back."

While New Zealand possessed fine bowlers - Tim Southee certainly did not deserve to finish on the losing side - they lacked players such as Trott or Root. Ross Taylor thumped a pleasing, counterattacking half-century during a period on Friday when England's bowlers dropped too short but as soon as they reverted to a fuller length New Zealand struggled. They lost their last 17 wickets in the match for only 128 runs.

Certainly the result - and the fact that it was achieved with a day-and-a-half of the game unused - vindicated England's careful approach on the first day. Such cricket may not always be to the taste of a generation familiar with T20 run rates but it bodes well for England that they have batsmen prepared to display the old-fashioned virtues of graft and determination. They are dying attributes and, in an era where drawn Tests are rare - certainly in England if rain does not intervene - there is plenty of time to display them.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on May 21, 2013, 6:35 GMT

    @RandyOz, Welcome back after your hiatus following the Indian tour. Now you're into stats, how many wickets has Siddle taken compared to Anderson and how many games played by each too? Ouch.

  • CricketingStargazer on May 21, 2013, 5:42 GMT

    Was the match really so much in the balance? Largest score of the match to win? It was closer than the scoreline suggested, but I suspect that people are exagerating just how close it really was. There was a single New Zealand partnership in the whole match and only three scores by their batsmen over 20 in the whole match (England had nine which, in the end, was the difference).

    The New Zealand bowlers kept their side in with a chance, but realistically, in a low-scoring match, they were only very briefly ahead in the game and most of the time were playing catch-up.

  • jmcilhinney on May 21, 2013, 5:35 GMT

    @RandyUK on (May 20, 2013, 20:19 GMT), I commented on another story "If all you can do is look up a player's average then you're a poor excuse for a cricket fan" and here you are to prove my point. Perfect timing! Whatever else, I think that we would agree that Anderson is England's best bowler and Siddle is by no means Australia's best. If England's best bowler would make Australia's second XI and yet England are ranked 2 places higher than Australia, how much better than Australia's must England's batting be? Far more than anyone thought, it would seem, so thank you for bringing that important fact to light

  • on May 21, 2013, 3:31 GMT

    Mercurial Broad???? Highly questionable. He is nothing but a decent bowler who can bowl good only in certain conditions. Otherwise, he is nothing but fodder for the cannons elsewhere. Well you can rewrite the article with Anderson as subject, but have to say Broad has/had potential which was lost somewhere in-between London and Dubai, and with Oz coming well with there weak batting line up and a fragmented attack (needs a quality spinner) he can do well with both bat (if he gets the chance) and with the ball.

  • Stouffer on May 21, 2013, 3:26 GMT

    There's no doubt that on his day Broad can be a great bowler. Trouble is that too often he ends up bowling short of a length, and seems to lack the patience to bowl in the corridor. However, I'm willing to look over the rubbish he bowled in India as he was carrying an injury, it was England's fault for picking him!

  • SirViv1973 on May 20, 2013, 21:14 GMT

    @Valvoulx, I don't remmeber there being too much cloud cover in the UAE last year when Broad's stats read 13W @ 20.46 in 3 tests!

  • SirViv1973 on May 20, 2013, 20:47 GMT

    @Chris_Howard, Yes Root deserves a lot of plaudits for his efforts in both inns in what were very tricky batting conditions as does Jimmy for his match figs of 7-70. However the game was very much in the balance before Broad's burst on the 4th morning & I really don't think you can argue with him being MOM. You also shouldn't forget the 26 runs he made on that morning either. It may have only been 26 but it ensured NZL would need to make the highest score of the match batting last, something which seldom happens in test cricket & something which would have given the team a lift when the match was still in the balance. Finally not to take anything away from Root but there is an argument which says Eng would still have won the game without his runs, he made a combined total of 111 & Eng won by 170!

  • RandyOZ on May 20, 2013, 20:19 GMT

    Anderson has a worse average than Siddle, and wouldn't even make the Oz 2nd XI. Hilarious how much the English press are beating them up!

  • CricketingStargazer on May 20, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    @SirViv1973 It may not be beside the point that Stuart Broad himself said that it was Jimmy Anderson who should have been man of the match, not him.

    @64blip I would have played Bresnan at Lords. Despite his wrapping up the tail, the pitch was never going to favour Steve Finn, who has not been on song at all this season, whereas Tim Bresnan is looking back to his best again. As it turns out he was able to get back to Edgbaston and have a decent bowl, which will have done him some good and showed that he is in good knick: if he is good enough to be put in the Test XII he has to be good enough to play on the day.

  • 64blip on May 20, 2013, 17:23 GMT

    I'd like to see Bresnan in for Finn at Headingley. He gives more control and can reverse the ball later in the innings. He seems to be in good nick after his operation. However, I think they may stick with Finn to see if they can get him to come right, knowing Bresnan is there if not. At 26 Broad is coming into his physical prime, so if his heel really is better, and the penny has finally dropped regarding length and line, England could be in for some good times.

    @ Manie Meyer While we're comparing what NZ did with whom, how did they do in Australia?

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on May 21, 2013, 6:35 GMT

    @RandyOz, Welcome back after your hiatus following the Indian tour. Now you're into stats, how many wickets has Siddle taken compared to Anderson and how many games played by each too? Ouch.

  • CricketingStargazer on May 21, 2013, 5:42 GMT

    Was the match really so much in the balance? Largest score of the match to win? It was closer than the scoreline suggested, but I suspect that people are exagerating just how close it really was. There was a single New Zealand partnership in the whole match and only three scores by their batsmen over 20 in the whole match (England had nine which, in the end, was the difference).

    The New Zealand bowlers kept their side in with a chance, but realistically, in a low-scoring match, they were only very briefly ahead in the game and most of the time were playing catch-up.

  • jmcilhinney on May 21, 2013, 5:35 GMT

    @RandyUK on (May 20, 2013, 20:19 GMT), I commented on another story "If all you can do is look up a player's average then you're a poor excuse for a cricket fan" and here you are to prove my point. Perfect timing! Whatever else, I think that we would agree that Anderson is England's best bowler and Siddle is by no means Australia's best. If England's best bowler would make Australia's second XI and yet England are ranked 2 places higher than Australia, how much better than Australia's must England's batting be? Far more than anyone thought, it would seem, so thank you for bringing that important fact to light

  • on May 21, 2013, 3:31 GMT

    Mercurial Broad???? Highly questionable. He is nothing but a decent bowler who can bowl good only in certain conditions. Otherwise, he is nothing but fodder for the cannons elsewhere. Well you can rewrite the article with Anderson as subject, but have to say Broad has/had potential which was lost somewhere in-between London and Dubai, and with Oz coming well with there weak batting line up and a fragmented attack (needs a quality spinner) he can do well with both bat (if he gets the chance) and with the ball.

  • Stouffer on May 21, 2013, 3:26 GMT

    There's no doubt that on his day Broad can be a great bowler. Trouble is that too often he ends up bowling short of a length, and seems to lack the patience to bowl in the corridor. However, I'm willing to look over the rubbish he bowled in India as he was carrying an injury, it was England's fault for picking him!

  • SirViv1973 on May 20, 2013, 21:14 GMT

    @Valvoulx, I don't remmeber there being too much cloud cover in the UAE last year when Broad's stats read 13W @ 20.46 in 3 tests!

  • SirViv1973 on May 20, 2013, 20:47 GMT

    @Chris_Howard, Yes Root deserves a lot of plaudits for his efforts in both inns in what were very tricky batting conditions as does Jimmy for his match figs of 7-70. However the game was very much in the balance before Broad's burst on the 4th morning & I really don't think you can argue with him being MOM. You also shouldn't forget the 26 runs he made on that morning either. It may have only been 26 but it ensured NZL would need to make the highest score of the match batting last, something which seldom happens in test cricket & something which would have given the team a lift when the match was still in the balance. Finally not to take anything away from Root but there is an argument which says Eng would still have won the game without his runs, he made a combined total of 111 & Eng won by 170!

  • RandyOZ on May 20, 2013, 20:19 GMT

    Anderson has a worse average than Siddle, and wouldn't even make the Oz 2nd XI. Hilarious how much the English press are beating them up!

  • CricketingStargazer on May 20, 2013, 19:43 GMT

    @SirViv1973 It may not be beside the point that Stuart Broad himself said that it was Jimmy Anderson who should have been man of the match, not him.

    @64blip I would have played Bresnan at Lords. Despite his wrapping up the tail, the pitch was never going to favour Steve Finn, who has not been on song at all this season, whereas Tim Bresnan is looking back to his best again. As it turns out he was able to get back to Edgbaston and have a decent bowl, which will have done him some good and showed that he is in good knick: if he is good enough to be put in the Test XII he has to be good enough to play on the day.

  • 64blip on May 20, 2013, 17:23 GMT

    I'd like to see Bresnan in for Finn at Headingley. He gives more control and can reverse the ball later in the innings. He seems to be in good nick after his operation. However, I think they may stick with Finn to see if they can get him to come right, knowing Bresnan is there if not. At 26 Broad is coming into his physical prime, so if his heel really is better, and the penny has finally dropped regarding length and line, England could be in for some good times.

    @ Manie Meyer While we're comparing what NZ did with whom, how did they do in Australia?

  • voma on May 20, 2013, 16:57 GMT

    Hes still got plenty of time on his side , only being 26 . He got slaughtered against South Africa for sure , but i reckon he will be more than a handfull for this inexperienced Australian touring team .Hes frustrating , but when its his day . Unstoppable .

  • SirViv1973 on May 20, 2013, 16:22 GMT

    @Nutcutlet, I agree re the combination of SB & JA was the driving force behind this win & not SB alone. I susepct the selectors will stick with Finn as the 3rd seamer for Leeds but I would prefer Bresnan. For me even when SB is in the groove he goes for a few & the same can be said of Finn I think TB who looks back to his best offers far more control & can certainly keep an end tight. In terms of the batting I would be in no rush to see Root thrust to the top of the order he seems to be doing fine in the middle so why change? Its way too early to write off Compton. He has shown he has the temperment for tests by scoring 2 100s in NZL albeit on flat surfaces. To drop him & move Root would leave the same gapping at 6 that we have had since Collingwood retired & bell moved up to 5 I don't think Bairstow is ready for a staring role in an ashes series yet, but the 1 change I would poss make once KP returns is pushing Bell back down to 6 & leaving Root at 5.

  • CricketingStargazer on May 20, 2013, 14:47 GMT

    @landl47 Very irritating. Tim Bresnan as well. If you play when unfit and play poorly as a result, you do a disservice both to yourself and to your side. I know that in India there was a desire to manage the injury, but the simple fact is that having two bowlers who can't give 100%, or even 80%, is too many save in an emergency. The only positive result is that it has made the Australians over-confident that the England attack will cause them no problems.

    I see the usual calls for Chris Tremlett to come back. He has... wait for it... eactly 4 First Class wickets this season, at an average of 52. Not exactly the form to strike terror into Australian hearts. Maybe he will play a one-off Test, but I cannot see him playing a full series again and even less touring.

  • jmcilhinney on May 20, 2013, 13:36 GMT

    @Dwarkaprasad Chakravarty on (May 20, 2013, 13:18 GMT), I don't think that you'd find too many to argue the case that Broad is a better bowler than Anderson but, with regards to Broad's performance in India, let's not forget the fact that he was carrying an injury and may have been for some time. He lost pace inexplicably and the fact that he seems to have regained it since getting that injury under control suggests that it may have been a significant factor in his poor performance for a while. If he can now put 100% or close to it of what he used to into every delivery and he can again learn to maintain an appropriate length then this will not be the last match-winning spell we see from him this summer.

  • Chris_Howard on May 20, 2013, 13:31 GMT

    Joe Root should have been MotM.

    In conditions which clearly favoured bowlers, his batting in both innings made a significant difference, and kept England in the game.

    Without his batting, England would likely have lost. Whereas, in favourable bowling conditions, and chasing the highest innings score of the match, you knew it was always going to be difficult for New Zealand.

    Today it was broad's day, but he got those wickets when the conditions suited, Root got runs when the conditions didn't suit.

    Root was the difference between the two sides and his batting - 25% of the English total - affected the result more than Anderson's 7 and Broad's 8. Broad just a accelerated the inevitable.

    But the inevitable was made possible by Joe Root.

    Too often MotM goes to the player with the most significant contribution , rather than the one most significant on the result.

    MotM judges need to ask "Whose performance was the most critical to the result?"

    And in this Test, that was Joe Root's.

  • on May 20, 2013, 13:18 GMT

    There's no comparison between Broad and Anderson. Anderson is a matchwinner in all conditions - just look at Anderson's devastating spells on the flat wickets in India recently, where Broad was so poor that he was dropped. Broad has a lot to prove overseas before he can even be sure of his place in the test team.

  • Nutcutlet on May 20, 2013, 10:32 GMT

    Well though Broad bowled, it was the combination of SB & JA that was more than the sum of their parts - a devastating combination that has been glaringly lacking in the NZ 1st innings. This bloodless win shouldn't disguise England's weaknesses. The jury can be no nearer their verdict over who should be the third seamer. IMO, Finn did not advance his case on his home ground & when the Ashes gets underway, I'd feel much more confident about England's chances if Bresnan took Finn's place. I am quite sure that the batting is also giving cause for concern yet changes are unlikely there, but by the end of the summer, it wouldn't surprise me if Root was opening in place of Nick Compton with KP fit once more. Bairstow, on the other hand, will be given an extended run in the side, if only because there is no obvious candidate to give him serious competition on the evidence so far this season. England's batting is apparently lacking in reserve strength. That may matter later in the piece.

  • SDHM on May 20, 2013, 10:15 GMT

    The thing about Broad, and what makes him so immensely frustrating, is that when he bowls like this he doesn't just take wickets, he's nigh on irresistible, but when he's bad he's awful. He just rips through sides in a way that very few bowlers do. The flip side of that is that he often seems to forget how he bowls when he does this and goes back to whazzing it in back of a length and looking unthreatening as a result. The six-fer he took at Wellington & this one here shows he looks to be getting back to the form he found in 2011 where India (& Pakistan in the UAE, let's not forget - he bowled superbly there) just couldn't handle him, but let's see if he can put in another good spell in the next few tests before we start saying he's found some consistency. What's definitely true is that while he remains mercurial England cannot afford him & Finn in the same team.

  • on May 20, 2013, 8:23 GMT

    Broad is the Tim Henman of English cricket, overrated and will never make it on the biggest stage. Sure he tries, sure he has moments, but top quality...never. Anderson on the other hand is class (barring a few psychological deficiencies). As for comparing them to the SA attack...haha! Everyone saw what happened to England in England against SA. A further comparison is to look at what NZ did against SA in NZ and in SA.

    NZ was in this game right til the end, in fact they probably had the better of the session count across the match. And yes, NZ is POOR. England is currently extremely average. Can't wait for the Ahes.

  • gbqdgj on May 20, 2013, 7:48 GMT

    @Jayzuz I actually think that Maximum had a point about comparing Anderson and Broad to Steyn and Morkel in THIS game which was the point he was making. I don't think he was comparing them all the time. However, I do agree with you about his second point, they were outplayed and outclassed by the Saffers as was the entire England team but don't ever call NZ a poor team. They certainly lack the depth of resource to consistently challenge but I think that on their day they will give most teams a good game.

  • landl47 on May 20, 2013, 7:00 GMT

    Broad looked to be back to the form he showed against India two years ago. I suspect that foot problem bothered him more than he let on.

    Hopefully he will build on this and become the bowler he has occasionally showed that he might be.

  • valvolux on May 20, 2013, 4:52 GMT

    Hang on this article makes little sense - what Broad showed is what everyone has always known - when heavy cloud comes over, he can be useful. When clouds roll away - he is the most useless new ball bowler in test cricket. C'mon - this is like his spell against Australia in the 09 ashes - bowling conditions COULDNT OF BEEN BETTER. My grandma could've taken wickets yesterday. Thank god he's found a few wickets - that means Tremlett and Bresnan will be kept on the outer, who are the only bowlers in England besides Anderson that the Aussies wont clatter all over the place. That is except...if the clouds dont roll in and make the bowling conditions perfect. Average cricketer Broad - the main reason England haven't been able to stay consistent - they have the nucelous of players to have been number 1 for years...but having the most mediocre new ball bowler in world cricket have held them back.

  • jmcilhinney on May 20, 2013, 1:47 GMT

    I'm not sure that I agree with George regarding the match result justifying England's low run rate in the first innings. Certainly many people were too hard on them at the time and too quick to use Taylor's innings as proof that the pitch was easy to score on after all but I still think that England lacked urgency in that first innings. At the very least, they should have been on the lookout for every scoring opportunity and taken more singles.

  • Jayzuz on May 20, 2013, 0:20 GMT

    @Maximum 6 "I think in this game Anderson and broad were the equal of Steyn and Morkel. Maybe last year they were overawed against South Africa."

    This comment defies belief. The reason Broad was innocuous vs SA was because (besides the fact it is #1 vs #8), there was no humidity, it was as dry as a bone and the wicket flat. The weather was crystal clear for the first test, and the SAs got 2/600.

    Broad just doesn't generate enough pace through the air. It's a tough call to tell who is more penetrating, he or Jonathan Trott, half the time. Bowelrs like that will only do well on dodgy or greén tracks. That's why SA have been laying down absurdly green tracks for the past few years. We saw what happened to Philander (and Steyn and Morkel to a lesse degree) as soon as he went to Australia - took him 5 innings to get his first wicket. Entirely predictable, as is Broad. No juice, no show.

  • Jayzuz on May 20, 2013, 0:11 GMT

    Let's be honest. Broad is only ever threatening nowadays when conditions are super-friendly and the opposition poor. His match figures weren't even as good as Southee's. Last 18 wickets fell for not much more than 100 runs.

    Dodgy track, storm clouds brewing, 8th ranked test team who haven't won a series for eons.

    Call Broad.

    On the bright side for us Aussies, looks like he'll be there for the Ashes. Australia are smarter. Got rid of Johnson, whose stats are better than Broads' by the way, and he gets his wickets against good opponents.

  • on May 19, 2013, 23:05 GMT

    My comparison of Stuart Broad with Glen McGrath (mentioned on Sky) was not gratuitous. Despite what Bob Willis said Jimmy Anderson is nothing like McGrath - Broad can be and he was today at Lord's. Of a similar height to the great Aussie Broad uses that height well. If the line and length is right he is outstanding.

  • RodStark on May 19, 2013, 22:32 GMT

    Great performance by Broad, but he is indeed "mercurial" and can be inconsistent and expensive. I don't know whether England can afford both him and Finn in the same team, and since Broad has staked his claim, I'd be very tempted (with a lot of regret) to replace Finn with the steadier Bresnan or Onions for now. Finn's time will definitely come though.

  • Shash28 on May 19, 2013, 22:15 GMT

    @maximum6 that little tryst England had with South Africa is over... the last three tours have yielded results of 5-2 in favour of the Proteas (+ two 9 wicket draws). Both England's batting and bowling are good but they are completely outclassed by South Africa. Check the numbers and also remember that two of your top 6 are pure Saffers as well... stay humble England; remember what happened with all that chat of "legacy"...

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on May 19, 2013, 21:01 GMT

    Well bowled Broad. Unlike Anderon, whose average is affected by the first six years of his career being ruined by injury and a re-modelling of his action (check out his average in the last five years to end that little debate.. or ask any Aussie or Indian fans), Broad deserves his average of 30, and has been an endless point of contention for England fans for a while due to his lack of consistency and his failure to adapt abroad. He's back though with one of the best bowling performances ever in the history of the game. When you take a seven-fer and the best opposition fans can do is embarrass themselves by spouting jealousy, you know it's been a good day. England whitewash and thrash their Ashes opponents just for fun these days, we can safely say that the historic B2B Ashes looks certain to continue this long-established trend.

  • 2.14istherunrate on May 19, 2013, 20:55 GMT

    Broad has less than ten wickets to get for 200 wkts. For all his ins and outs that is a good harvest and he is only 26. People talk about him as still learning so what will he be like when he achieves consistency and seniority. An interesting point was made about his batting helping him today, which I think was right. Besides which it is great to watch. I could sit through another Broad ton anytime. I think in this game Anderson and broad were the equal of Steyn and Morkel. Maybe last year they were overawed against South Africa. Hopefully revenge will be sweet when we meet again.

  • dropoutguy on May 19, 2013, 19:25 GMT

    Still not satisfied. I want to see a whole series when Broad pitches the ball up when he bowls and plays himself in when he bats. That's not too much to expect.

    I'd like to see Onions play at Headingley in place of Finn. After day two I was dropping Broad as well, but I suppose he'll have to play now!

  • TenDonebyaShooter on May 19, 2013, 19:11 GMT

    "In front of a large crowd at Lord's" seems to be the operative phrase. Mind you, given the number of international days' cricket England play at Lords these days the players should be good there; some of them must play more competitive cricket there than they do on their home county grounds. king, possibly the selectors will have an eye on how the South African batters fared against that 'skilful seamer' Bresnan last year.

  • king78787 on May 19, 2013, 18:47 GMT

    Congrats to broad did well. However for the next test England need to bat a LOT quicker and have more runs. Finn is a one trick pony with the bat, gets 1 half ton and is inked in as nightwatchmen whenever he plays. Bowled too short and his wickets were all tailenders except Brownlie. Bring in Bresnan and 2 things happen. 1 the england attack gains a skillful seamer who can bowl WELL and at Finn's pace and 2 the tail becomes VERY short. If Bresnan plays nos 8,9 and 10 will have 17 half tons and a ton between them at TEST level. That is the kind of tail that the Kiwi's and the Aussies will find hard to dismiss. In the ashes you would back at least 1 of the 3 to get some runs per match. Could be the difference against 2nd bets pace attack in world cricket...

  • Herbet on May 19, 2013, 18:44 GMT

    I was scathing about England on the first day, but I take it all back. It was the highest score of the match, and priceless.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Herbet on May 19, 2013, 18:44 GMT

    I was scathing about England on the first day, but I take it all back. It was the highest score of the match, and priceless.

  • king78787 on May 19, 2013, 18:47 GMT

    Congrats to broad did well. However for the next test England need to bat a LOT quicker and have more runs. Finn is a one trick pony with the bat, gets 1 half ton and is inked in as nightwatchmen whenever he plays. Bowled too short and his wickets were all tailenders except Brownlie. Bring in Bresnan and 2 things happen. 1 the england attack gains a skillful seamer who can bowl WELL and at Finn's pace and 2 the tail becomes VERY short. If Bresnan plays nos 8,9 and 10 will have 17 half tons and a ton between them at TEST level. That is the kind of tail that the Kiwi's and the Aussies will find hard to dismiss. In the ashes you would back at least 1 of the 3 to get some runs per match. Could be the difference against 2nd bets pace attack in world cricket...

  • TenDonebyaShooter on May 19, 2013, 19:11 GMT

    "In front of a large crowd at Lord's" seems to be the operative phrase. Mind you, given the number of international days' cricket England play at Lords these days the players should be good there; some of them must play more competitive cricket there than they do on their home county grounds. king, possibly the selectors will have an eye on how the South African batters fared against that 'skilful seamer' Bresnan last year.

  • dropoutguy on May 19, 2013, 19:25 GMT

    Still not satisfied. I want to see a whole series when Broad pitches the ball up when he bowls and plays himself in when he bats. That's not too much to expect.

    I'd like to see Onions play at Headingley in place of Finn. After day two I was dropping Broad as well, but I suppose he'll have to play now!

  • 2.14istherunrate on May 19, 2013, 20:55 GMT

    Broad has less than ten wickets to get for 200 wkts. For all his ins and outs that is a good harvest and he is only 26. People talk about him as still learning so what will he be like when he achieves consistency and seniority. An interesting point was made about his batting helping him today, which I think was right. Besides which it is great to watch. I could sit through another Broad ton anytime. I think in this game Anderson and broad were the equal of Steyn and Morkel. Maybe last year they were overawed against South Africa. Hopefully revenge will be sweet when we meet again.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on May 19, 2013, 21:01 GMT

    Well bowled Broad. Unlike Anderon, whose average is affected by the first six years of his career being ruined by injury and a re-modelling of his action (check out his average in the last five years to end that little debate.. or ask any Aussie or Indian fans), Broad deserves his average of 30, and has been an endless point of contention for England fans for a while due to his lack of consistency and his failure to adapt abroad. He's back though with one of the best bowling performances ever in the history of the game. When you take a seven-fer and the best opposition fans can do is embarrass themselves by spouting jealousy, you know it's been a good day. England whitewash and thrash their Ashes opponents just for fun these days, we can safely say that the historic B2B Ashes looks certain to continue this long-established trend.

  • Shash28 on May 19, 2013, 22:15 GMT

    @maximum6 that little tryst England had with South Africa is over... the last three tours have yielded results of 5-2 in favour of the Proteas (+ two 9 wicket draws). Both England's batting and bowling are good but they are completely outclassed by South Africa. Check the numbers and also remember that two of your top 6 are pure Saffers as well... stay humble England; remember what happened with all that chat of "legacy"...

  • RodStark on May 19, 2013, 22:32 GMT

    Great performance by Broad, but he is indeed "mercurial" and can be inconsistent and expensive. I don't know whether England can afford both him and Finn in the same team, and since Broad has staked his claim, I'd be very tempted (with a lot of regret) to replace Finn with the steadier Bresnan or Onions for now. Finn's time will definitely come though.

  • on May 19, 2013, 23:05 GMT

    My comparison of Stuart Broad with Glen McGrath (mentioned on Sky) was not gratuitous. Despite what Bob Willis said Jimmy Anderson is nothing like McGrath - Broad can be and he was today at Lord's. Of a similar height to the great Aussie Broad uses that height well. If the line and length is right he is outstanding.

  • Jayzuz on May 20, 2013, 0:11 GMT

    Let's be honest. Broad is only ever threatening nowadays when conditions are super-friendly and the opposition poor. His match figures weren't even as good as Southee's. Last 18 wickets fell for not much more than 100 runs.

    Dodgy track, storm clouds brewing, 8th ranked test team who haven't won a series for eons.

    Call Broad.

    On the bright side for us Aussies, looks like he'll be there for the Ashes. Australia are smarter. Got rid of Johnson, whose stats are better than Broads' by the way, and he gets his wickets against good opponents.