Thread: What If?
View Single Post
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2007, 10:53 AM in reply to Ernest's post starting "Yes but Flintoff and Hoggard are a..."
flanflinger's Avatar
flanflinger flanflinger is offline
WAT England A Selector-2005
WAT Journalist  Read my Articles
(AUS-captain) Passed Kim Hughes' 4415 Test runs
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bristol
My main national team: England
My other team/s: Surrey and the Mighty Mighty Quinns
Posts: 4,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
Yes but Flintoff and Hoggard are a class above Broad and Sidebottom, Flintoff had pace even as a novice, and Hoggard could always make a ball swing, and like Flintoff could keep it tight.

That would be a fair point if new players were intoduced one at a time in the company of experienced players, but to have a near complete rookie attack IMO is never going to work, and will retard the players develompent.
First of all I agree with you, it is best to introduce players in to an established attack, which is what Australia seem to do so well, and in a perfect world Broad would make his debut with a fully fit Hoggard, Flintoff and Harmison to support him.

However, this is not an ideal world, Flintoff is on the long term injury list, Hoggard is struggling and Harmison has his own demons to fight. The fact is that in the last Test Anderson, Hoggard and Sidebottom were (as predicted) a little too one dimensional and so we needed to make a change.

So Broad gets a game, and the fact is that the quicker we get this guy the experince at Test level, then I am sure it will be of long term benefit to the team.
Reply With Quote