Leave it, Stuart son...

In Gideon Haigh's book Inside Out there's an essay called Fabian Batsmanship, a lovely, subtle piece about the subtlest of arts: leaving the ball. It is, he writes, 'the exchange of an advantage so small as to be in most cases almost immeasurable'. This is brilliant, and true.

That advantage was more palpable than usual on saturday at the Rose Bowl when Kevin Pietersen left the ball with disdainful mastery. Then Kumar Sangakkara stayed inside the line of the swinging delivery so perfectly most of the crowd thought that he was playing and missing until they got home and turned on their televisions for the highlights.

But what is the bowling equivalent of the leave? How do they establish the same kind of tiny but incremental gain over a batsman? It's a pertinent question, especially for Stuart Broad, who is losing some torque on his Test career.

The blunt diagnosis is that he is not taking wickets. Yet unlike a batsman who is not getting runs, a bowler can still have a useful function while they wait for the gods to turn towards them again. They can block up an end, shut up shop and wait - or at least the best of them can. Think of Walsh, or Pollock, or McGrath. When they weren't running through teams - and they didn't always - they ratcheted down into a state of bloody-minded parsimony. They wouldn't have wrung their socks out over you at the end of play, let alone give away a run they didn't have to. They understood that this was their 'leave' - the exchange of an advantage so small as to be immeasurable, and one that would eventually alter the equation back their way.

Stuart Broad, like Steve Harmison before him, lacks that fallback position. When they're getting clouted, they can't seem to stop it happening. Harmi is a speck in the rear view mirror now, and Broad is approaching a crossroads. There are a lot of other quick bowlers coming up behind him. He has already been usurped by Tremlett, and if Onions had stayed fit and in form, Broad may not even be in the side right now.

The rhetoric from Dean Saker is not encouraging. The other day he called Broad 'a warrior'. It suggests that the team management want to massage his ego and still view him as the impact bowler that it's apparent he's not. England really don't need another Harmison. A Shaun Pollock would be infinitely preferable, because Broad has the potential. He just doesn't seem to know where his off stump is at the moment...

Bill for stickers

Well then, an out of form left hander whose batting had gone backwards did get a few yesterday - but it wasn't Alastair Cook. Cookie still can't buy a run. Stuart Broad - remember him, one time England number six in the making - did what he used to do, swung merrily and actually connected for once.

Some say Broad's batting went into reverse because he's not actually getting any batting, others think it's because he can only swing or block and he's been sussed out. It's none of those things though. Broady only went and did the classic didn't he? He changed his bat sponsor as soon as he started scoring runs.

Always fatal, that. Broad went from proper bat-making comrades Gunn & Moore to horrid arrivistes adidas. Graeme Swann went from Gray-Nicolls to Gunn & Moore and the same thing happened to him. Bit of hubris, really.

Just shows the perils of sponsoring tail-enders, eh?

The rest is noise

Halfway through New Zealand's innings tonight, Stuart Broad comes on to bowl to Scott Styris. He brings his fine leg, Ryan Sidebottom, up inside the circle. He bowls a long hop outside leg stump. Styris easily gets inside the line and whacks it past Sidebottom. Broad goes double teapot and gobs Sidebottom off for not stopping it...

There's some irony in the above, in that Sidebottom is by some distance England's least temperate cricketer in terms of displaying his emotions on the pitch. Yet Broad is not far off him now. Is it coincidence that they are the two England bowlers under the most pressure?

That would be a simple conclusion, and might contain some truth. But there seems to be a wider, more modern cause too. Broad and Sidders are of the generation of the sports psychologist. They've doubtless listened to hours of jargon and hype about process and hunger and the 'right' mental state. In short, they've probably been conned into thinking their bowling will seem faster if they bowl it with 'attitude'.

Yet despite the image of the mouthy tearaway fast bowler, what's remarkably common about many of the most deadly is their serpentine calm. Even Thommo and Lillee seemed to posture for effect rather than anything else. When they were bowling well, they didn't bother. Didn't need to. Think also of the implacable and implacably great Marshall, or of the vast stoicism of Walsh, or the knowing grin of Ambrose, or Waqar's marginally creased brow and McGrath's amusing chunter.

The truth is, if you've got it, you know it. You don't need to tell anyone - they already understand. Increasingly, we're learning about Broad and Sidebottom, too.