Australia v England, 3rd Test, Perth, 3rd day December 18, 2010

England's attack missing Broad's mongrel

When the short ball failed them for three sessions, England sorely missed Stuart Broad
  shares 26

As at the Gabba, so at the WACA, the short ball worked in the end. The trouble is, by the time Michael Hussey hoisted Chris Tremlett to deep midwicket, he had already amassed 116 game-changing runs - to add to the 195 he made up in Brisbane before Steven Finn tempted him into one cross-bat too many. To claim it as a success would be to ignore the three sessions of failure that preceded it, a period of the game in which one man's absence was felt more keenly than at any stage of the series to date.

Throughout his career, the cry that has followed Stuart Broad all around the world is "pitch it up, son!" - a reflection of the success that he has enjoyed when he's nailed a full length and found some jag off the seam, never more devastatingly than at The Oval in August 2009, and at Durban four months later. But in between whiles, Broad has got carried away with the short stuff precisely because he is very good at dishing it out. And that is a claim that cannot be made of the three seamers at England's disposal in this match.

Tremlett has impressed in this contest, without a shadow of a doubt, claiming eight wickets in the match including his maiden five-for in the second innings. But as the man himself admitted on Thursday night, he is a gentle giant at heart, and there's no real way to change that.

His particular brand of menace comes from delivering the ball from a cloud-snagging, splice-rattling, trajectory. Forced aggression does not come naturally to him, especially against a batsman as good as Hussey, a WACA-trained cricketer for whom cross-batted shots come as standard.

The same is also true of Finn, whose game at this early stage of his career should be entirely devoted to line and length. Despite, by some distance, being the leading series wicket-taker, he has also disappeared at more than five an over in this Test - which is not the modus operandi of either of the men whom he seeks to model himself upon, Glenn McGrath and Angus Fraser. Before his stomach injury, Broad claimed two wickets in the series at 80.50, but those stats did not do justice to the control that offered England's bowlers. His economy rate of 2.30 remains the best, by a distance, of any bowler in the series to date.

And there's Anderson, who surely feels the absence of Broad more keenly than any of his colleagues. Full length is the only length that he should ever have to bowl, such is the success he has found with swing and lately movement off the seam. But the beauty of his partnership with Broad has been its good cop, bad cop dynamic. Broad drilled the batsmen back, deep into the crease; Anderson lured them forward again, and the slip cordon did the rest.

At the WACA, England have missed the mongrel that Broad brings to their game. He pushes the bounds of sportsmanship at times, and attracts a label for petulance when things do not go his way, but beneath the choirboy features there's a spiky-collared Rottweiler snarling to get out. From the moment he made his debut on a pancake-flat deck in Colombo in December 2007, Broad has known how to get ugly on demand. He bowled 36 overs in that stamina-sapping maiden innings, but charged in with demented intent from first ball to last, and claimed his maiden wicket with a bouncer to Chaminda Vaas.

It was later in the winter that Broad produced arguably his finest supporting role to date, at Napier in a must-win third Test against New Zealand, when he linked up superbly with Ryan Sidebottom, claiming a vital three-wicket haul that had the purists purring even though it went almost unnoticed against the backdrop of Sidebottom's 7 for 47. Michael Vaughan later stated that Broad was the most intelligent fast bowler he'd ever captained, because when issued with orders, he had the nous to follow them to the letter.

England's bowlers were not lackadaisical in their efforts at the WACA, but they lacked application in critical areas of the game; in the first innings, when Australia's tail were allowed to double their total from a flimsy 139 for 6, and then today, when Graeme Swann - on a wicket that made his natural length sit up and beg - was swatted out of the attack by Hussey and Brad Haddin. There was no-one with the intimidatory clout to bully him back in.

"At times we went with [a short-pitched] tactic, and we set the field accordingly, and the plans at times didn't work," admitted Tremlett. "But when we come up with a plan we try to stick to it 100%. Sometimes boring line and length doesn't always work so you have to come up with different plans. It was a pretty good wicket and the ball was pretty old and tired, so it was something we tried. It didn't come off today, but another day it will do."

The thinking wasn't exactly wrong, but the execution was awry, because it was carried out with neither the intent that Broad would have brought to the role, nor the accuracy, with Hussey's innings notable both for the number of balls he was able to leave alone, as well as the number that whistled away through the leg-side. There were too few purposeful, aggressive, into-the-armpit lifters that could really have hurried Hussey's innings, because there was no-one in the England attack who was sufficiently comfortable with the tactic.

Australia, on the other hand, had no such problem, with their very own Sid Vicious, Peter Siddle, producing a burst of bodyline to Matt Prior on Friday evening that proved in hindsight to have been a pivotal passage of play. By extracting England's last recognised batsman, Siddle hastened the moment that Ian Bell was forced to go for broke, and the prospect of first-innings parity receded there and then. It was a shock tactic that paid off, and could then be shelved, as Johnson returned after his breather to wreck the tail with his devastating full length.

"I think it depends on the players you bowl to, because it's definitely a wicket when you pitch the ball up you get your success," said Siddle. "Mike Hussey's not a player you want to bowl short to, you choose your batsman, but it helps having four quicks and everyone bowling well, with different roles for each of us. At that time [against Prior] it was my role to have a good go, and it brought along the wickets and opened it up there and kept us going.

"I don't think you want to hurt them, you want to get them out," added Siddle. "That's the main aim. You want to get the wickets, you want to get ten of them." But it helps if you don't care too much about collateral damage. Broad and Siddle share a bond in that regard. England's trio for this Test, however, simply lacked the necessary mean streak.

Andrew Miller is UK editor of Cricinfo.

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY zakusa on | December 19, 2010, 5:54 GMT

    AGAIN TYPICALANDREW MILLER ARTICLE.trying to justify reasons for a heavy english defeat.This is the same andrew miller who was asking ian chappell 1st day of third test at waca if england look like taking the ashes. For a side who had won in adelaide so convincingly and to melt within hours was a stark reminder to A.MILLER.GIVE IT UP and start respecting your oppositions. Also Graeme swann looked so innocus and listless in this test.Broad has always gotten away with bad behaviour being a son of Chris broad,former england captain.He believes short balls are an answer for all forms of cricket.sooner or later most players will figure him out. BACK TO YOU ANDREW MILLER.england were sore losers admit it

  • POSTED BY Percy_Fender on | December 19, 2010, 5:50 GMT

    Without any of the pyrotechnics that Broad engages in, for which reason he is considered a quality bowler, I think Chris Tremlett is far superior in his craft of fast bowling. I am sure he will do even better in the future because he thinks probably, only about his bowling. He is certainly a breath of fresh air in this age of Johnsons and Andersons. He reminds me of Brian Statham the lesser sung half of the famed Trueman Statham combine of the 60s. Gentleman to the core and yet devastating with a cricket ball.Long live their tribe.

  • POSTED BY amit1807kuwait on | December 19, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    Nonsense. Poms lost because of inept batting. Surely they cant miss a bowler who has only 99 wickets in 35 test matches, with an average of above 36. Surely, they cant be relying on one of the very few select bowlers who has been hit for six sixes in the over.

  • POSTED BY Dax75 on | December 19, 2010, 5:03 GMT

    Too bad he got Injured just like Simon Katich did, you win some you lose some, excuses excuses.

  • POSTED BY on | December 19, 2010, 3:53 GMT

    Non-sensical article. Tremlett was by far England's most effective bowler and the least of their concerns now. Broad would not necessarily even get back into the team at the minute. In terms of the batting Bell must be promoted ahead of Collingwood. No need for panic stations, England always struggle with the bouncy wickets - in Perth as at Headingley of late and Johannesburg. England are still the more disciplined batting and bowling units on flat decks, such as those expected at Melbourne and Sydney. Bearing in mind England would retain the Ashes with the current scoreline at 1-1, I can't see Australia winning one of the remaining two games, and England failing to do so. Australian over-confidence in unique conditions will lead to them falling just as they did after Headingley last year...

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | December 19, 2010, 0:03 GMT

    I think Tremlett won this contest, if any was intended, by a country mile. No long hops from him, thought to be fair 'Hopalong' Broad did manage to put a lid in it this series. I hope he gets to play a good role in a winning situation. He lacks Broad's ready sulphurous glower or curse,and his batting is slightly less but you would have to say that his wicket taking and accuracy make him a better bet.

  • POSTED BY clearhead on | December 18, 2010, 23:25 GMT

    Broad may have been Vaughn's smartest bowler then but since I think Broad has become swell-headed and appears to be unconcerned about pitch and playing conditions. He seems to feel now that he can just bully his way, he does not need to apply common-sense.

    Regarding the other bowlers, I believe they can be trained to understand the use of intimidatory tactics as part of their weaponry. I find that the captain could play a greater role in reminding the bowlers of this and try and control them to a greater degree.

  • POSTED BY andrew-schulz on | December 18, 2010, 21:41 GMT

    Yep they must be really missing that 2-161 he took in this series. Only performed once in England last year too. And what Broad has is not mongrel, it's the most immature petulance of anybody whose ever played Test cricket.

  • POSTED BY Caveman. on | December 18, 2010, 21:30 GMT

    Strange. I thought the sub-heading of this article was actually Tremlett's description rather than Broad's.

  • POSTED BY KarachiKid on | December 18, 2010, 21:26 GMT

    Broad is a mediocre bowler. Just because he bounced out inept Pakistani batsmen during Englsih summer does not make him better than either Finn or Tremlet, both of whom have better strike rates and averages. I dont know why English selectors sometimes take strange decisions like replacing Straus with Flintoff during the last Ashes tour down under ?

  • POSTED BY zakusa on | December 19, 2010, 5:54 GMT

    AGAIN TYPICALANDREW MILLER ARTICLE.trying to justify reasons for a heavy english defeat.This is the same andrew miller who was asking ian chappell 1st day of third test at waca if england look like taking the ashes. For a side who had won in adelaide so convincingly and to melt within hours was a stark reminder to A.MILLER.GIVE IT UP and start respecting your oppositions. Also Graeme swann looked so innocus and listless in this test.Broad has always gotten away with bad behaviour being a son of Chris broad,former england captain.He believes short balls are an answer for all forms of cricket.sooner or later most players will figure him out. BACK TO YOU ANDREW MILLER.england were sore losers admit it

  • POSTED BY Percy_Fender on | December 19, 2010, 5:50 GMT

    Without any of the pyrotechnics that Broad engages in, for which reason he is considered a quality bowler, I think Chris Tremlett is far superior in his craft of fast bowling. I am sure he will do even better in the future because he thinks probably, only about his bowling. He is certainly a breath of fresh air in this age of Johnsons and Andersons. He reminds me of Brian Statham the lesser sung half of the famed Trueman Statham combine of the 60s. Gentleman to the core and yet devastating with a cricket ball.Long live their tribe.

  • POSTED BY amit1807kuwait on | December 19, 2010, 5:49 GMT

    Nonsense. Poms lost because of inept batting. Surely they cant miss a bowler who has only 99 wickets in 35 test matches, with an average of above 36. Surely, they cant be relying on one of the very few select bowlers who has been hit for six sixes in the over.

  • POSTED BY Dax75 on | December 19, 2010, 5:03 GMT

    Too bad he got Injured just like Simon Katich did, you win some you lose some, excuses excuses.

  • POSTED BY on | December 19, 2010, 3:53 GMT

    Non-sensical article. Tremlett was by far England's most effective bowler and the least of their concerns now. Broad would not necessarily even get back into the team at the minute. In terms of the batting Bell must be promoted ahead of Collingwood. No need for panic stations, England always struggle with the bouncy wickets - in Perth as at Headingley of late and Johannesburg. England are still the more disciplined batting and bowling units on flat decks, such as those expected at Melbourne and Sydney. Bearing in mind England would retain the Ashes with the current scoreline at 1-1, I can't see Australia winning one of the remaining two games, and England failing to do so. Australian over-confidence in unique conditions will lead to them falling just as they did after Headingley last year...

  • POSTED BY 2.14istherunrate on | December 19, 2010, 0:03 GMT

    I think Tremlett won this contest, if any was intended, by a country mile. No long hops from him, thought to be fair 'Hopalong' Broad did manage to put a lid in it this series. I hope he gets to play a good role in a winning situation. He lacks Broad's ready sulphurous glower or curse,and his batting is slightly less but you would have to say that his wicket taking and accuracy make him a better bet.

  • POSTED BY clearhead on | December 18, 2010, 23:25 GMT

    Broad may have been Vaughn's smartest bowler then but since I think Broad has become swell-headed and appears to be unconcerned about pitch and playing conditions. He seems to feel now that he can just bully his way, he does not need to apply common-sense.

    Regarding the other bowlers, I believe they can be trained to understand the use of intimidatory tactics as part of their weaponry. I find that the captain could play a greater role in reminding the bowlers of this and try and control them to a greater degree.

  • POSTED BY andrew-schulz on | December 18, 2010, 21:41 GMT

    Yep they must be really missing that 2-161 he took in this series. Only performed once in England last year too. And what Broad has is not mongrel, it's the most immature petulance of anybody whose ever played Test cricket.

  • POSTED BY Caveman. on | December 18, 2010, 21:30 GMT

    Strange. I thought the sub-heading of this article was actually Tremlett's description rather than Broad's.

  • POSTED BY KarachiKid on | December 18, 2010, 21:26 GMT

    Broad is a mediocre bowler. Just because he bounced out inept Pakistani batsmen during Englsih summer does not make him better than either Finn or Tremlet, both of whom have better strike rates and averages. I dont know why English selectors sometimes take strange decisions like replacing Straus with Flintoff during the last Ashes tour down under ?

  • POSTED BY Rahulbose on | December 18, 2010, 21:15 GMT

    Are you watching the same game as the rest of us? His replacement just picked up a fifer and you Broad in the side, only the Aussie team would agree to that one.

  • POSTED BY AaDIICBM on | December 18, 2010, 21:13 GMT

    i can't understand one thing in all these articles abt' missing a key player' in a professional sports . does missing a player means something? how can a professional teams have such variation in performance due to the absence of one player. especially when he is replaced bt another good quality player

    ar we expecting a player to play every match in his life?

    I ASK THIS TO SEEK UNDERSTAND AND NOT AT ALL TO CRITICIZE!!

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 19:56 GMT

    The bouncer that Ryan Harris bowled to Collingwood, before he sized him for the edge, is the best bouncer I have seen in this Test Match.

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 19:28 GMT

    The 'mongrel' was hit for 6 sixes in an over not that long ago...

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 19:26 GMT

    I think everyone is underestimating Broads effect on the England attack. Had he been playing in this match, he would have been England's quickest and possibly bounciest bowler. This would have caused the Aussies a lot of problems and they would probably not have got to 268 or 309 in either innings.

    Broad keeps it tight and is aggressive unlike Finn who is the weak link. Even though he has taken some wickets on this tour, Finn has been bowling virtually one boundary bowl per over throughout this tour.Not good enough

    In this game Finn has lacked control and leaked too many runs too quickly in both innings. This has taken the pressure off the Aussie batsmen.

    I feel he needs more experience and control and needs to get stronger to add a yard of pace as well. He'll then be ready for a permanent England spot.

    Until then, England should go with Anderson, Tremlett and Swan as the three main bowlers with one of Bresnan / Shazad/ Monty as the fourth/ fifth bolwer depending on the need

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 17:07 GMT

    Also, it would be nice to see Broad dropped from the team to make way for Tremlett. An average of 30+ and fewer Test wickets than Paul Harris is not the sort of record a Test fast-bowler should be aiming for. A stint in the counties would do him good - let people like Tremlett, who have had to prove themselves to get their chance, have a go in the team and take wickets more regularly.

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 17:02 GMT

    This would make sense if Tremlett had struggled, but he's been more effective than Broad. Sure, Broad has a low economy rate, but if he's not taking wickets, batsmen are still scoring runs against him. Besides, this article has missed the point of England's downfall in the match: low batting scores. The run deficit England currently have is the difference between the two teams, not Broad - an overrated cricketer who has done little to justify the hype he has generated.

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:44 GMT

    In my humble opinion, Stuart Broad has been a massive loss for England. In this Test match in particular, he would have been the quickest and bounciest England bowler and probably the most economical. I don't think Australia would have reached 268 in the first innings or 309 in the second, with Broad in the side.

    Finch has been the weak link in this game. He is far too expensive - gives at least one four bowl every over which eases the pressure off the opposition. I feel he needs more experience, control and need to get stronger to add a yard of pace as well. He'll then be ready for England.

    Once Broad is fit, England should drop Finch (work in progress) and go in with Anderson, Broad and Tremlett and Swann as the four main bowlers. With Bresnnan and Shazzad as the third seamer options - who will do as good a job as Finch but with a lot more control.which in turn will increase the presssure on the opposition.

    I am convinced that Broad would have made a huge diffrence in this match

  • POSTED BY Puffin on | December 18, 2010, 16:38 GMT

    At the moment Broad seems to be more of a bowler who chips in with 2-3 wickets per innings regularly rather than ripping a side apart with 6+ wickets. This is still useless, but on this sort of wicket the potential to run through an innings is necessary. Possibly Tremlett has it but he needs more experience at the highest level. Perhaps a bit too much reliance on Anderson & Swann?

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:38 GMT

    He's probably being missed more for his lower-order batting, than his steady but nothing-to-write-home about bowling. Compare England's number 7-11 who have been dismal with the bat to Haddin, Johnson and Siddle who all scored vital runs in the first innings. Those runs will prove to be the difference in this match.

  • POSTED BY Winsome on | December 18, 2010, 16:36 GMT

    I suppose the real problem with this line of argument is that the man who has replaced Broad has had far more effect on the game than Broad had in the two previous. Are you saying that Broad would have taken those three wickets in the first innings and then the five for in the second and included Hussey in his scalps? That sounds like fantasy. Broad has an average of over 36 and does not even average 3 wickets a match despite bowling most of his career in England.

    Still, it's good PR for one of the golden boys of cricket.

  • POSTED BY Ellis on | December 18, 2010, 16:33 GMT

    Another load of b/s by Miller. England's failure in this game is due to poor batting. Cook, Strauss, Pietersen (twice), and Trott were out to very poor shots. Not one of them has the experience of Hussey in batting on wickets such as this. Of the fast bowlers, Finn was too short in length and got cleaned up by Hussey. Tremlett bowled very well, and Anderson was on the mark. Miller must have been at another game.

  • POSTED BY Beertjie on | December 18, 2010, 16:28 GMT

    Come off it, Miller, you've got to be kidding with this "analysis" - talk about rubbish! "There was no-one in the England attack who was sufficiently comfortable with the tactic" that according to you would have worked a treat on Hussey or Watson? Let me not go there then and rather merely endorse the view of @ findadiat by agreeing that you're merely guilty of " wishful thinking at its best"!

  • POSTED BY kabe_ag7 on | December 18, 2010, 16:13 GMT

    That's wishful thinking at its best, Andrew. Had Hussey not clicked again (what a champion this guy is), you'd have been saying that Broad's injury was a blessing in disguise given how many wickets Tremlett took. You can't possibly say Broad would have got Hussey out with his short stuff or would have helped others get him out. He couldn't do it in the previous 2 Tests. Give Hussey full credit without any if's and but's.

  • POSTED BY Something_Witty on | December 18, 2010, 13:29 GMT

    I don't think Broad's absence can be attributed to the lack of penetration today. Especially given that his replacement took 5 wickets and is basically an identical (but superior) bowler.

  • POSTED BY CustomKid on | December 18, 2010, 13:29 GMT

    I'm still not sold on Broad. There is a lot of hype about him from public, press, and team mates and so far his results stink. Sure he had a moment of glory at the oval last year but I'd say that 5 of those six dismissals came from pretty arrogant shots of players who still think they're millionaires of yesteryear.

    Potential is one thing bringing that to the table consistently is another. Until he gets his average down below 30 and is consistently taking wickets I'm not sold. If I had to choose between Broad and Johnson I'd have Mitch in my side every day of the week.

    I hope he comes good but I'm not sure he's the kind of guy who puts the fear of god in batsman? Good luck in the recovery as you don't want to see young ones out injured for long periods. Looking forward to a series leveling victory tomorrow.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY CustomKid on | December 18, 2010, 13:29 GMT

    I'm still not sold on Broad. There is a lot of hype about him from public, press, and team mates and so far his results stink. Sure he had a moment of glory at the oval last year but I'd say that 5 of those six dismissals came from pretty arrogant shots of players who still think they're millionaires of yesteryear.

    Potential is one thing bringing that to the table consistently is another. Until he gets his average down below 30 and is consistently taking wickets I'm not sold. If I had to choose between Broad and Johnson I'd have Mitch in my side every day of the week.

    I hope he comes good but I'm not sure he's the kind of guy who puts the fear of god in batsman? Good luck in the recovery as you don't want to see young ones out injured for long periods. Looking forward to a series leveling victory tomorrow.

  • POSTED BY Something_Witty on | December 18, 2010, 13:29 GMT

    I don't think Broad's absence can be attributed to the lack of penetration today. Especially given that his replacement took 5 wickets and is basically an identical (but superior) bowler.

  • POSTED BY kabe_ag7 on | December 18, 2010, 16:13 GMT

    That's wishful thinking at its best, Andrew. Had Hussey not clicked again (what a champion this guy is), you'd have been saying that Broad's injury was a blessing in disguise given how many wickets Tremlett took. You can't possibly say Broad would have got Hussey out with his short stuff or would have helped others get him out. He couldn't do it in the previous 2 Tests. Give Hussey full credit without any if's and but's.

  • POSTED BY Beertjie on | December 18, 2010, 16:28 GMT

    Come off it, Miller, you've got to be kidding with this "analysis" - talk about rubbish! "There was no-one in the England attack who was sufficiently comfortable with the tactic" that according to you would have worked a treat on Hussey or Watson? Let me not go there then and rather merely endorse the view of @ findadiat by agreeing that you're merely guilty of " wishful thinking at its best"!

  • POSTED BY Ellis on | December 18, 2010, 16:33 GMT

    Another load of b/s by Miller. England's failure in this game is due to poor batting. Cook, Strauss, Pietersen (twice), and Trott were out to very poor shots. Not one of them has the experience of Hussey in batting on wickets such as this. Of the fast bowlers, Finn was too short in length and got cleaned up by Hussey. Tremlett bowled very well, and Anderson was on the mark. Miller must have been at another game.

  • POSTED BY Winsome on | December 18, 2010, 16:36 GMT

    I suppose the real problem with this line of argument is that the man who has replaced Broad has had far more effect on the game than Broad had in the two previous. Are you saying that Broad would have taken those three wickets in the first innings and then the five for in the second and included Hussey in his scalps? That sounds like fantasy. Broad has an average of over 36 and does not even average 3 wickets a match despite bowling most of his career in England.

    Still, it's good PR for one of the golden boys of cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:38 GMT

    He's probably being missed more for his lower-order batting, than his steady but nothing-to-write-home about bowling. Compare England's number 7-11 who have been dismal with the bat to Haddin, Johnson and Siddle who all scored vital runs in the first innings. Those runs will prove to be the difference in this match.

  • POSTED BY Puffin on | December 18, 2010, 16:38 GMT

    At the moment Broad seems to be more of a bowler who chips in with 2-3 wickets per innings regularly rather than ripping a side apart with 6+ wickets. This is still useless, but on this sort of wicket the potential to run through an innings is necessary. Possibly Tremlett has it but he needs more experience at the highest level. Perhaps a bit too much reliance on Anderson & Swann?

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 16:44 GMT

    In my humble opinion, Stuart Broad has been a massive loss for England. In this Test match in particular, he would have been the quickest and bounciest England bowler and probably the most economical. I don't think Australia would have reached 268 in the first innings or 309 in the second, with Broad in the side.

    Finch has been the weak link in this game. He is far too expensive - gives at least one four bowl every over which eases the pressure off the opposition. I feel he needs more experience, control and need to get stronger to add a yard of pace as well. He'll then be ready for England.

    Once Broad is fit, England should drop Finch (work in progress) and go in with Anderson, Broad and Tremlett and Swann as the four main bowlers. With Bresnnan and Shazzad as the third seamer options - who will do as good a job as Finch but with a lot more control.which in turn will increase the presssure on the opposition.

    I am convinced that Broad would have made a huge diffrence in this match

  • POSTED BY on | December 18, 2010, 17:02 GMT

    This would make sense if Tremlett had struggled, but he's been more effective than Broad. Sure, Broad has a low economy rate, but if he's not taking wickets, batsmen are still scoring runs against him. Besides, this article has missed the point of England's downfall in the match: low batting scores. The run deficit England currently have is the difference between the two teams, not Broad - an overrated cricketer who has done little to justify the hype he has generated.