Broad atones - but what about the future?

In 2008, in the aftermath of defeat in Hamilton, an era in England cricket ended.

Ahead of the second Test against New Zealand, Matthew Hoggard and Steve Harmison were dropped by England. The pair had been integral to the side's success over six or seven years and had, among their many achievements, helped England win back the Ashes in the memorable series of 2005. Both had served their country with distinction.

While Harmison briefly made it back into the side - he played six further Tests - for Hoggard it was the end of the road. Mike Selvey, writing in the Guardian, termed it the "most ruthless" termination of a career he had witnessed.

But history tells us the decision taken by the coach, Peter Moores, and captain, Michael Vaughan, was correct. It allowed England to renew and a new, successful period to start.

For as one era ended, another began. And the exclusion of Hoggard and Harmison allowed two new relatively new players their chance to form what has turned out to be one of the finest new-ball partnerships in England's Test history.

James Anderson and Stuart Broad have been outstanding cricketers for England. They have more than 650 Test wickets between them and played leading parts in England going to No. 1 and several Ashes triumphs. Anderson was also to the fore when England won the Ashes in Australia and defeated India in India.

They remain skilful, whole-hearted cricketers and you do not have to look back far to find examples of their match-turning capabilities. Broad claimed 6 for 25 against India at Old Trafford only four Tests ago; Anderson took a five-wicket haul against the same opposition in the previous Test.

Both were noticeably quicker - and better - with the second new ball in this match. Broad, at least, provided a glimpse of the bowler he used to be, dismissing Denesh Ramdin with a beauty timed at 90.8mph that nipped away to take the edge. He took two more lower-order wickets in a vastly improved spell that may well have helped him avoid further scrutiny just as it was beginning to look dangerous for him.

But are they still the best men for the job? And, most pertinently, are they still the men for the new ball?

England squandered the first new ball in Grenada, just as they squandered it in similarly helpful conditions against India at Lord's. With an opportunity to seize the game and inflict serious damage, England's opening bowlers failed to make the batsmen play: not one ball in Broad's five-over opening spell would have hit the stumps; only three balls in Anderson's seven-over spell would have done so.

Both Broad and Anderson have lost pace in recent times. It is not that they are completely unable to hit high pace; it is that they are unable to sustain it as they once could. Anderson's first spell started with him bowling at 76mph; Broad was - with an average speed of 81.5mph - the slowest of England's four seamers on the first day.

Perhaps for this reason, both men have pulled their length back a little to compensate. While this makes them harder to drive and therefore protects their bowling figures, it also renders them less dangerous. They will gain less swing and they will demand fewer strokes from batsmen. While their figures may appear admirably frugal, it is the wickets column that will always remain most important.

There may be another factor.

England's method over recent years - certainly since the early days of Andy Flower - has been to "bowl dry". That means to make run-saving a priority. While that is an admirable method most of the time in Test cricket - where pitches tend to be flat and patience plays a huge role - there are times when it is not enough.

There are times, with conditions in the bowling side's favour, when you need your opening pair to go for the throat. To aim to destroy. To forget - temporarily - about conceding runs and go on the attack in the knowledge that such opportunities are rare and precious.

There are some important differences between now and the end of the Hoggard-Harmison era, however. At that time, Vaughan feared that the pair had lost their mental, as much as their physical, edge for Test cricket. While Hoggard may also have lost a bit of pace, it was the change of mindset that convinced Vaughan his race was run. There is little evidence to suggest Broad and Anderson are in a similar place.

The other key difference is that England had, in Broad and Anderson (and Ryan Sidebottom was another important member of that attack) obvious replacements who were starting to demand selection.

That is not quite the same this time. While Chris Jordan and Ben Stokes have bowled with impressive pace - Jordan bowled the quickest delivery of the Antigua Test; Stokes has bowled in excess of 91mph in Grenada - it would be a brave call to promote them to take the new ball. Brave does not mean wrong, though.

Mark Wood is looking hugely impressive in training - batsmen speak of his sharp pace and his swing - and Liam Plunkett continues to look wonderfully strong and sharp, but it would be disingenuous to claim they are pushing in quite the way that Broad and Anderson once did.

Still, Moores showed in 2008 that he is prepared to make such tough decisions. And while Anderson's mastery of swing might protect him for a little while longer - there remains nobody in the English game to compete with him in terms of skill - more serious questions are starting to be asked of Broad. Aged only 28, he should be at his peak. His average has been above 30 for most of his career - despite impressive returns in the last two years - and he can no longer claim any dispensation in terms of the runs he provides as an allrounder.

Perhaps it seems harsh to question such long-serving, successful players. Perhaps it is a case of not appreciating the familiar. Perhaps, if they were given a break - and rested from this tour - they might come back stronger in time for the Ashes. There was talk, a few months ago, of resting one or both of them from this trip. But when jobs are at stake - and selectors and coaches and captains are all under threat at present - decisions tend to be taken with a shorter-term view.

But England must not be afraid to question long-established players now. Just as India allowed Sachin Tendulkar's reputation to influence his continued selection long after it became apparent that he was in decline, so England must not be swayed by Anderson's record-breaking past to make a decision on his future.

It is undeniable that the pair have lost pace. And it is undeniable that, when conditions have favoured them of late, they have not taken advantage. England need to confront that issue, rather than making excuses or looking the other way.

It may not be dark for Anderson and Broad just yet, but it's getting there. The era of Wood and Jordan and Stokes and Chris Woakes could be upon us sooner than we thought.