Broad vs Swann

[Owzat]

Is Broad definitely the better all-rounder, or is it just in Tests he's been given more and better opportunity to shine with the bat? Swann has played 71 ODIs, Broad 93.

ODIs

Swann : 44 inns, 468 runs @ 14.63 (HS 34, SR 89.83)
Broad : 50 inns, 415 runs @ 12.58 (HS 45no, SR 73.58)

Swann : 96 wkts @ 26.34 (BB 5/28, SR 35.38, ER 4.47)
Broad : 148 wkts @ 27.55 (BB 5/23, SR 31.96, ER 5.17)

Swann has scored more runs at a better rate, Broad has a higher score, Bowling there isn't much in it, Swann is more economic but Broad has a better strike rate.

ODI batting by scores

Ducks : Swann 2, Broad 6
0-9 runs : Swann 22, Broad 28
10-19 runs : Swann 14, Broad 6
20-29 runs : Swann 3, Broad 9
30+ runs : Swann 3, Broad 1


From the above you could conclude Swann puts in more 'significant' contributions of 30+ . While Broad does score more in the 20-29 runs range, six of those 9 scores were 20-22. I doubt many will disagree that Broad has been disappointing with the bat in ODIs.


Swann has played 44 Tests, Broad 47 Tests

Tests

Swann : 51 inns, 978 runs @ 21.73 (HS 85, SR 79.06, 50 x4, 100 x0)
Broad : 62 inns, 1508 runs @ 27.93 (HS 169, SR 64.31, 50 x9, 100 x1)

Swann : 188 wkts @ 28.58 (BB 6/65, SR 57.73, ER 2.97)
Broad : 161 wkts @ 30.43 (BB 7/72, SR 61.02, ER 2.99)

Broad definitely "wins" with the bat in Tests, Swann has batted over half his innings at #9 while the rest are split evenly at #8 and #10. Broad has batted over 60% of his innings at #8, his highest score of 169 ironically scored at #9 and both have their highest score one batting slot lower than their usual slot.

I feel Swann has a lot of batting ability that isn't used while Broad's is recognised and England try to use it, especially in Tests. I think Swann could be the solution to the ODI all-rounder problem by batting either #6 or #7, at least someone should give him a chance.

Swann's only real chance with the bat in Tests is a bit of lower order slogging and the odd chance at a proper innings. Batting #9 you might be batting with a top order batsman, more likely you'll be batting with the #7 or #8 and pretty soon even #10 and #11.

Swann's significant Test scores

63no off 89 balls vs WIN (Lords 2009)
Added 93 runs with Bopara (143) and then just a further nine runs were scored as he was left stranded.

47no off 40 balls vs AUS (Sophia Gardens 2009)
Batting #10 he added 68 runs with Anderson (#8) and then 12 with Panesar before again he was left stranded. Noone scored more than Pietersen's 69.

62 off 72 balls vs AUS (Headingley 2009)
Added 108 with Broad and then 31 with Harmison, top scorer in the innings and the highest score by batsman (32) or keeper was 37 as England lost by an innings.

63 off 55 balls vs AUS (Oval 2009)
Added 90 with Trott before getting out, scoring 63 of those 90 runs himself.

85 off 81 balls vs SAF (Supersport Park 2009)
No batsman scored more than 50, Swann came in at 221/7 and was last to fall having scored 81 of the 135 runs added and added 106 with Anderson.

36no off 26 balls vs AUS (SCG 2011)
Batting #10 he scored 36 of the last 55 runs added before yet again being stranded.


34 off 65 balls vs PAK (Dubai 2012)
Second top scorer behind Prior's 70no, Swann helped Prior add 57 for the 8th wicket. Prior was left stranded as England were bowled out for 192.

39 off 52 balls vs PAK (Dubai 2012)
Second top scorer behind Trott's 49, Swann replaced Prior this time to add 48 with Broad and then was last out as the score went from 87/7 to 160 all out.

 

[barmyarmy]

Broad is definitely a better batsman. He can actually build an innings whereas Swann just slogs from the get-go.

 

[Owzat]

But my point is does Swann play slog innings because he's batting down the order, thus not only affording him the freedom to have a swing, but also being the only way he'd get many runs?

Or put another way, would or could he play a more solid secure innings if batting higher up the order? He's a better batsman than say De Freitas proved in internationals, four fifties in just 51 innings batting #8 or lower is a pretty handy rate for a lower order batsman and he's a bit more than just a slogger, even if a lot of his innings show urgency.

Considering the advantage Broad gains batting slightly higher, coming in five down so five wickets to fall, his average is only six runs better. Broad actually has more not outs as well, 8-6, which is a little surprising. So on average Broad scores 24 runs per innings to Swann's 19, given where Swann bats that is a lot closer than you'd think it would be. Broad also was a batsman until someone decided his height meant he should bowl, so has that advantage too.

I'm not suggesting Swann is the better bat in Tests, but might be the better bet in ODIs to be a #7 all-rounder. And it may benefit his batting in Tests as well, although batting higher would also.

 

[barmyarmy]

From memory of reading his autobiography he used to fancy himself as a batsman and has some FC centuries.

 

[Ahmad94]

IMO, Broad is more of a stable batsmen, while Swann has opened the batting in a lot of county FLT20 games.

 

[angryangy]

Neither is a one-day batsman and in some ways it is hard to compare players who are 9 years apart. On paper Swann is the more handy hitter, but they've always seen something in Broad as a batsman. Maybe it's better to back him for the long term and see what he can do.

 

[Owzat]

From memory of reading his autobiography he used to fancy himself as a batsman and has some FC centuries.

I think at Northants he was an all-rounder, according to wiki he scored some fairly big hundreds. Not sure you can really call 1998-2007 "early years" considering it is a decade and he was 28 in 2007, it is more commonly descriptive of an early career.

Graeme Swann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"He had the potential to become a genuine allrounder, with a wide range of attractive strokes, though he needs to use them more selectively".

----------

On paper Swann is the more handy hitter, but they've always seen something in Broad as a batsman. Maybe it's better to back him for the long term and see what he can do.

Broad will find it hard to be a quick bowler and bat to the level of an all-rounder. Swann would find it easier with spin being less physically demanding on the whole body, I think trying to make Broad more of a batsman would be asking too much.

I think both have a case for batting seven.

 

[angryangy]

Neither has a case for batting seven in ODIs.

 

[Owzat]

Neither has a case for batting seven in ODIs.

Not on current statistics, but I think Swann could do it so your statement is wrong in being outright

 

[angryangy]

I didn't say it couldn't happen. I said there's no reason for it to happen. I'm not going to qualify everything with "except in magical fairy land", I think that's quite implicit.

 

[puddleduck]

I really think you should though. I'd like you to end all statements of opinion with it... at least in magical fairy land I would.