Be patient, for the world is broad

Broad cutting a typically frustrated figure.

Is Stuart Broad's form with the ball a problem for England?

The superficial statistics would say yes: even including a very successful summer series against Pakistan last year, where he took 14 wickets in the low twenties, his average since the turn of 2010 is over 40, dragging his career average comfortably the wrong side of 35. For a four man attack, this causes problems. This period has however been one of the most successful in England's history - why?

James Anderson has led the Test attack brilliantly in this period, and has become the incisive, consistent spearhead that we on this blog hoped he could be. Barring injuries, he should be able to lead the attack for the next few years. He's been sharing the new ball with Broad when they've both been available and whilst Broad has been economical, Anderson has been making the breakthroughs.

Graeme Swann has also played a huge role, consistently taking wickets and rarely being dominated, he has made a four man attack possible.

These two mainstays have been well supported by a succession of good reserve seam and swing bowlers: Chris Tremlett, Tim Bresnan and Steven Finn have all contributed effectively to a four man attack when needed. Although Broad did not bowl badly in the first two tests of the Ashes, this attack was improved by Tremlett.

Career records of England's current fast bowlers (before Third Test v Sri Lanka)

Bowler Tests Wickets Average Strike Rate Economy

James Anderson 58 215 30.98 56.8 3.26
Stuart Broad 36 105 35.97 68.4 3.15
Steven Finn 12 50 26.92 41.4 3.89
Chris Tremlett 8 38 26.84 53.7 2.99
Graham Onions 8 28 31.03 51.0 3.64
Tim Bresnan 7 25 28.28 59.2 2.86

So the solution to the Broad "problem" seems obvious: when everyone's fit, replace him with better bowlers until he can prove he's more effective. If this is the solution, then why do England still so obviously regard him as a guaranteed selection in all forms of the game, a view reinforced by his appointment as Twenty20 captain?

I think it is because, perhaps subconsciously, the selectors and management have glimpsed his true value. He has latent talent with the bat, having played several genuinely top class innings, capped by his spectacular century last summer at Lord's against Pakistan. He looks a proper batsman when he bothers to build an innings. He also has the aura of a matchwinner, and has produced some bowling spells of real quality to swing big games in England's favour, more often in ODI cricket, but also famously in the Oval Test in 2009. So even though on paper he has not taken the wickets to justify inclusion, they cannot bring themselves to put someone so clearly talented, capable of taking 5fers and scoring tons, on the sidelines. Despite having played a lot of cricket already, he's still only 24 years old, one of the youngest ever to do the Test double of 1000 runs and 100 wickets.

This is the right instinct, but will hinder England unless they change their structure. They should back this instinct, and move Broad up the order, in my view to six, at the expense of their sixth batsman. This would then allow for the inclusion of a fifth bowler, and lessen the pressure on Graeme Swann. I think it would also help Broad. If he could be largely entrusted with holding an end up and going for under two runs an over, he would pay a really valuable role. His bowling tends to fall apart when he stretches for magic balls. He is capable of real pace, but should rely on his height to bowl a Pollock/McGrath line; fractionally back of a length on or outside the top of off-stump. If he can achieve this consistently, he will be able to throttle back his pace and bowl long, economical spells.

We should be brave enough to do this: England's top four has never been stronger in my memory, Bell has found his feet at five, and Prior staying at seven is a great insurance policy. The lower order, with Bresnan and Swann potentially at eight and nine, also compares very favourably to recent, successful, years.

So to answer the question I set myself, Broad's lack of wicket-taking recently should be pushing us towards taking the opportunity to move to a five man attack. Opponents of this view will point to our successful track record with four bowlers in the Strauss-Flower era. This is valid, but if we really want to be the number one side in the world then this is the sort of move we need to make. We seem to be entirely wedded to the Australian model in the Waugh and Ponting eras - this was obviously a successful four-bowler formula but was successful only because two of the bowlers were McGrath and Warne, and came about because the Australians have not produced a genuine Test standard allrounder for several generations.

Having a genuine quick bowling allrounder also paves the way for playing two spinners when we need to without unbalancing the side - crucial to England's prospects on the subcontinent...