Bresnan vs Finn

First topic message reminder :

Well played England and on to Trent Bridge where the pitch will be quicker.

The only possible change will be Finn for Bresnan.

Finn is arguably a better bowler and may get more out of the pitch than Bresnan but we have just won and Bresnan has been a key player for us of late, so I will be more than surprised to see him dropped.

Thoughts?

Stella wrote:REST?

You're paid to play, so play (take from the film, Roadhouse )

But this next test being a dead rubber as it were offers a very rare opportunity to try out another batsman before the serious business starts against South Africa.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:REST?

You're paid to play, so play (take from the film, Roadhouse )

But this next test being a dead rubber as it were offers a very rare opportunity to try out another batsman before the serious business starts against South Africa.

It still affects the ranking points. 3-0 gets you more that 2-1 or 2-0. And with such a lot being fanfared about England being world #1, every test is important. There is oodles of time for players who need rest to get rest before the 1st SA test. You should play your best team very time. More players get injured in warm-ups or in training or in domestic accidents that on the field of play.

Well said, Jardinesbox.

There is no real need to rest people for the Edgbaston Test, unless they are genuinely injured. Finn will simply have to wait.

After this we have a number of one-day matches and domestic T20. During that period Anderson will probably be rested for all of the T20 and some of the ODIs. He will then probably play against Surrey at Guildford in the Championship the week before the SA Test. Broad can also be given rest during the ODIs if England feel that that is necessary, before warming up for the SA series v Middlesex at Uxbridge.

In essence the point I am making is that it is too early to start resting people for South Africa. The first Test is still almost two months away.

Shelsey93 wrote:There is no real need to rest people for the Edgbaston Test, unless they are genuinely injured. Finn will simply have to wait.

After this we have a number of one-day matches and domestic T20. During that period Anderson will probably be rested for all of the T20 and some of the ODIs. He will then probably play against Surrey at Guildford in the Championship the week before the SA Test. Broad can also be given rest during the ODIs if England feel that that is necessary, before warming up for the SA series v Middlesex at Uxbridge.

In essence the point I am making is that it is too early to start resting people for South Africa. The first Test is still almost two months away.

But what will happen then if someone like Trott or Pietersen or Strauss or Cook gets injured from now until that first test V South Africa? England will then have huge problems as they will have no batsman in reserve to fall back on who has played test cricket this summer.

I would go with what they think is the best X1 to win the match. To rest a player at this stage results in them playing no First class cricket before the 1st Test against South Africa, which I think is way over the top. Had the 3rd Test been a back to back Test then I could see the point more, but its not.

After the West Indies series there is only one First Class game that the Test Players could play in and even then it only finishes a few days before the First Test, so there is no chance of them being risked. More great fixture planning from the ECB.

Of course if the medical team say that a player is carrying a knock and playing in the Test could aggravate it then yes leave them out, but for those who are fit then they should play.

Manage the players who are involved in all forms of the games, by allowing them to skip the odd ODI or T20.

As for Bairstow it’s a hard call. It’s very difficult to judge him on two knocks, however it is hard on Bopara who lost his place because of injury and now may find the door slammed shut on him, despite Bairstow failing to take his chance. I would give Bairstow one more go and if he fails again then I would leave him out for South Africa.

gboycottnut wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:There is no real need to rest people for the Edgbaston Test, unless they are genuinely injured. Finn will simply have to wait.

After this we have a number of one-day matches and domestic T20. During that period Anderson will probably be rested for all of the T20 and some of the ODIs. He will then probably play against Surrey at Guildford in the Championship the week before the SA Test. Broad can also be given rest during the ODIs if England feel that that is necessary, before warming up for the SA series v Middlesex at Uxbridge.

In essence the point I am making is that it is too early to start resting people for South Africa. The first Test is still almost two months away.

But what will happen then if someone like Trott or Pietersen or Strauss or Cook gets injured from now until that first test V South Africa? England will then have huge problems as they will have no batsman in reserve to fall back on who has played test cricket this summer.

So, do they rest Prior and give Davies a go just in case Prior gets injured?

gboycottnut wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:There is no real need to rest people for the Edgbaston Test, unless they are genuinely injured. Finn will simply have to wait.

After this we have a number of one-day matches and domestic T20. During that period Anderson will probably be rested for all of the T20 and some of the ODIs. He will then probably play against Surrey at Guildford in the Championship the week before the SA Test. Broad can also be given rest during the ODIs if England feel that that is necessary, before warming up for the SA series v Middlesex at Uxbridge.

In essence the point I am making is that it is too early to start resting people for South Africa. The first Test is still almost two months away.

But what will happen then if someone like Trott or Pietersen or Strauss or Cook gets injured from now until that first test V South Africa? England will then have huge problems as they will have no batsman in reserve to fall back on who has played test cricket this summer.

Where do you stop though, Should Prior be dropped? What if he gets injured, we won't have a keeper who has played Test Match cricket this Summer?

gboycottnut wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:There is no real need to rest people for the Edgbaston Test, unless they are genuinely injured. Finn will simply have to wait.

After this we have a number of one-day matches and domestic T20. During that period Anderson will probably be rested for all of the T20 and some of the ODIs. He will then probably play against Surrey at Guildford in the Championship the week before the SA Test. Broad can also be given rest during the ODIs if England feel that that is necessary, before warming up for the SA series v Middlesex at Uxbridge.

In essence the point I am making is that it is too early to start resting people for South Africa. The first Test is still almost two months away.

But what will happen then if someone like Trott or Pietersen or Strauss or Cook gets injured from now until that first test V South Africa? England will then have huge problems as they will have no batsman in reserve to fall back on who has played test cricket this summer.

Bopara should be available for the SA series. I would hazard a guess that he will go straight into the team if Bairstow fails. Therefore, if one of Trott, KP or Bell gets injured one of Bairstow/ Bopara will be available to cover. Carberry can step into open, and doesn't need to play a Test to prove/disprove that he can.

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:There is no real need to rest people for the Edgbaston Test, unless they are genuinely injured. Finn will simply have to wait.

After this we have a number of one-day matches and domestic T20. During that period Anderson will probably be rested for all of the T20 and some of the ODIs. He will then probably play against Surrey at Guildford in the Championship the week before the SA Test. Broad can also be given rest during the ODIs if England feel that that is necessary, before warming up for the SA series v Middlesex at Uxbridge.

In essence the point I am making is that it is too early to start resting people for South Africa. The first Test is still almost two months away.

But what will happen then if someone like Trott or Pietersen or Strauss or Cook gets injured from now until that first test V South Africa? England will then have huge problems as they will have no batsman in reserve to fall back on who has played test cricket this summer.

Bopara should be available for the SA series. I would hazard a guess that he will go straight into the team if Bairstow fails. Therefore, if one of Trott, KP or Bell gets injured one of Bairstow/ Bopara will be available to cover. Carberry can step into open, and doesn't need to play a Test to prove/disprove that he can.

But bringing Bopara in during the SA test series should he be needed is very risky as he hasn't played at a test level for a long time now against one of the big guns of world cricket. Therefore it would be an ideal time next week to bring him in for a dead rubber test match to help him ease himself back into test cricket.

Better still, pick a completely new side

Stella wrote:Better still, pick a completely new side

Or even better yet, select an England XI for next week's test match from those players who played against the West Indies in the 2 whitewash test series in the mid-1980's (such as Paul Allott, Jonathan Agnew) who don't know what an England victory over the West Indies feels like in a test match!

Lamb and Gower it is then.

Stella wrote:Lamb and Gower it is then.

But Allan Lamb has experienced an England test win over the West Indies. His moment to saviour was at Sabina Park, Jamaica in 1990. As for David Gower, certainly he is a shoe-in for such an England XI as obviously he was the England captain in both test series whitewashes. Gower then is the captain for any such 1980's England XI to play the current West Indies team next week at Edgbaston!

1980's England XI:-

1) Graeme Fowler
2) Chris Broad
3) Andy Lloyd
4) David Gower (captain)
5) Paul Terry
6) Geoff Miller
7) Paul Downton
8) Richard Ellison
9) Nick Cook
10)Paul Allott
11)Jonathan Agnew

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:Lamb and Gower it is then.

But Allan Lamb has experienced an England test win over the West Indies. His moment to saviour was at Sabina Park, Jamaica in 1990. As for David Gower, certainly he is a shoe-in for such an England XI as obviously he was the England captain in both test series whitewashes. Gower then is the captain for the 1980's England XI for next week!

I take it we lost the series though.

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:Lamb and Gower it is then.

But Allan Lamb has experienced an England test win over the West Indies. His moment to saviour was at Sabina Park, Jamaica in 1990. As for David Gower, certainly he is a shoe-in for such an England XI as obviously he was the England captain in both test series whitewashes. Gower then is the captain for the 1980's England XI for next week!

I take it we lost the series though.

Sadly we did lose it by 2 tests to 1. It could and actually should have been very different had the West Indies not resorted to time wasting tactics in the 3rd test match at Trinidad when England were chasing a target score to go 2-0 up! Anyone remember that test match?

I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Liam_Main wrote:I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Well if England are going to experiment with different players for next week's third test, they should try out the Essex all-rounder Graham Napier. Not only can Napier do a good job batting at 6 but he also can offer England an extra bowling option as the 5th choice bowler in England's attack.

Liam_Main wrote:I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Well heres a thing...everyone thinks that Finns a better bowler but can we argue with Breadvans record?
25 with the ball, 40 with the bat. Finns figures with the ball are slightly worse, but lets say the evidence so far puts them as equally successful test bowlers. Bresnan is the man in, and has the trump card of his batting. If those figures start to slip then yes lets look at replacing him, the knives were out after the first test no question but he answered that pretty emphatically. yes for all we know Finn may have bowled better and took even more wickets in both games, but the evidence so far is that Bresnan is more than capable of troubling and team anywhere in the world. England have never lost a game hes played in, and on a few occassions that been down to him bailing them out with the bat.
it would be a hell of thing to drop a guy with his record.

Finn a no brainer for the limited overs games though. England have long lacked a genuine strike bowler in those formats, and his record in T20s and ODIs stacks up against any bowlers.

gboycottnut wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Well if England are going to experiment with different players for next week's third test, they should try out the Essex all-rounder Graham Napier. Not only can Napier do a good job batting at 6 but he also can offer England an extra bowling option as the 5th choice bowler in England's attack.

Napier doing a great job at number six... I've heard it all now. He doesn't even get in the Essex XI all the time...

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Well if England are going to experiment with different players for next week's third test, they should try out the Essex all-rounder Graham Napier. Not only can Napier do a good job batting at 6 but he also can offer England an extra bowling option as the 5th choice bowler in England's attack.

Napier doing a great job at number six... I've heard it all now. He doesn't even get in the Essex XI all the time...

No, he's talking of a different Napier. Surely he must be?

Stella wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Well if England are going to experiment with different players for next week's third test, they should try out the Essex all-rounder Graham Napier. Not only can Napier do a good job batting at 6 but he also can offer England an extra bowling option as the 5th choice bowler in England's attack.

Napier doing a great job at number six... I've heard it all now. He doesn't even get in the Essex XI all the time...

No, he's talking of a different Napier. Surely he must be?

No I'm talking about the same Graham Napier who was in England's T20 World Cup squad in the 2009 tournament.

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Well if England are going to experiment with different players for next week's third test, they should try out the Essex all-rounder Graham Napier. Not only can Napier do a good job batting at 6 but he also can offer England an extra bowling option as the 5th choice bowler in England's attack.

Napier doing a great job at number six... I've heard it all now. He doesn't even get in the Essex XI all the time...

No, he's talking of a different Napier. Surely he must be?

No I'm talking about the same Graham Napier who was in England's T20 World Cup squad in the 2009 tournament.

I know, I was being sarcastic, sorry!

Doesn't he normally bat down the order for Essex when he does get picked?

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Well if England are going to experiment with different players for next week's third test, they should try out the Essex all-rounder Graham Napier. Not only can Napier do a good job batting at 6 but he also can offer England an extra bowling option as the 5th choice bowler in England's attack.

Napier doing a great job at number six... I've heard it all now. He doesn't even get in the Essex XI all the time...

No, he's talking of a different Napier. Surely he must be?

No I'm talking about the same Graham Napier who was in England's T20 World Cup squad in the 2009 tournament.

I know, I was being sarcastic, sorry!

Doesn't he normally bat down the order for Essex when he does get picked?

Yep. Usually about number eight... He comes off about once a season with the bat. He is a decent bowler, but far from Test standard.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Stella wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Stella wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Well if England are going to experiment with different players for next week's third test, they should try out the Essex all-rounder Graham Napier. Not only can Napier do a good job batting at 6 but he also can offer England an extra bowling option as the 5th choice bowler in England's attack.

Napier doing a great job at number six... I've heard it all now. He doesn't even get in the Essex XI all the time...

No, he's talking of a different Napier. Surely he must be?

No I'm talking about the same Graham Napier who was in England's T20 World Cup squad in the 2009 tournament.

I know, I was being sarcastic, sorry!

Doesn't he normally bat down the order for Essex when he does get picked?

Yep. Usually about number eight... He comes off about once a season with the bat. He is a decent bowler, but far from Test standard.

A bit like many of the so-called all-rounders who got selected for England in the 1990's. These include Adam Hollioake, Mark Ealham, Gavin Hamilton, Ronnie Irani (the last Essex all-rounder to have played test cricket for England).

And that's one of the reasons why we have been so successful recently, that we've stopped picking bits and pieces cricketers. Why would we change that policy now? I'd rather see 5 specialist bowlers than Napier picked. None of his disciplines are good enough for Test cricket.

Well, Bresnan played and played pretty well.

They may rest Jimmy (I wouldn't) for Edgbaston, in which case Finn will no doubt get a run out.

Stella wrote:Well, Bresnan played and played pretty well.

They may rest Jimmy (I wouldn't) for Edgbaston, in which case Finn will no doubt get a run out.

But then England will have no out and out swing bowler. The problem that Finn will bring is that he is too similar a bowler to Stuart Broad. If England are going to rest Jimmy for Edgbaston, they may as well rest Broad, Swann and also Bresnan as well, and send out onto the field a bowling attack of Onions, Finn, Tremlett, and Panesar.

Why the devil would England want to rest Anderson for a Test that is ten days after the previous one and ages before the next? If he were suffering from a minor injury , sure (same goes for anyone else) but otherwise it seems pointless.

Would Jimmy appreciate a "rest" at this time ? Doubt it...

What do you do if Finn - or Onions - comes in , takes eleven wickets : do you say OK , thanks for that effort now off back to your county while the big boys play?
Or drop one of the last two MOTM bowlers for the SA series? Or tell England's best bowler to prolong his vacation?.

It is a Test Match . Pick your best team. Rotate your bowlers during the (many!) ODI s that are coming soon to a ground near you ...

alfie wrote:Why the devil would England want to rest Anderson for a Test that is ten days after the previous one and ages before the next? If he were suffering from a minor injury , sure (same goes for anyone else) but otherwise it seems pointless.

Would Jimmy appreciate a "rest" at this time ? Doubt it...

What do you do if Finn - or Onions - comes in , takes eleven wickets : do you say OK , thanks for that effort now off back to your county while the big boys play?
Or drop one of the last two MOTM bowlers for the SA series? Or tell England's best bowler to prolong his vacation?.

It is a Test Match . Pick your best team. Rotate your bowlers during the (many!) ODI s that are coming soon to a ground near you ...

I agree but there have been rumours of resting Jimmy or maybe Broad!

Why would they rest them? It will come down to them checking the numbers of balls theyve bowled and the numbers they are expected to coming ahead. the players workloads are all carefully managed now.
They arent going to rest someone just to try someone else out, they already have the 4 bowlers they need and they already know Finn, Tremlett and Panessar can step straight in as and when needed.
The only reason to do it would be because of workload or if one is carrying a niggly injury.
Bairstow will retain his place as they are still in the process of deciding if he can settle into test cricket and what it will take to fix any problems he has. Theres value in continuing to play him if they are serious about him becoming a regular.

There were rumours of Jimmy carrying a slight twinge in the previous game IIRC, I think that's where the idea of him being rested is coming from TBH.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:I think Finns a better bowler than Bresnan and gets overlooked because Bresnan can bat a bit. Andersons a swing bowler, Broads a bowler for most conditions and then theres Finn who'd fit perfectly in the bowling line-up as a hit the deck bowler with a bit of pace about him

Will likely get a run-out in the third test as Andersons likely rested.

Well heres a thing...everyone thinks that Finns a better bowler but can we argue with Breadvans record?
25 with the ball, 40 with the bat. Finns figures with the ball are slightly worse, but lets say the evidence so far puts them as equally successful test bowlers. Bresnan is the man in, and has the trump card of his batting. If those figures start to slip then yes lets look at replacing him, the knives were out after the first test no question but he answered that pretty emphatically. yes for all we know Finn may have bowled better and took even more wickets in both games, but the evidence so far is that Bresnan is more than capable of troubling and team anywhere in the world. England have never lost a game hes played in, and on a few occassions that been down to him bailing them out with the bat.
it would be a hell of thing to drop a guy with his record.
Finn a no brainer for the limited overs games though. England have long lacked a genuine strike bowler in those formats, and his record in T20s and ODIs stacks up against any bowlers.

No you can't argue with Bresnans record but lets take batting out of the way of this. Both men have similar bowling averages and for me Finn is more of a impact bowler and who I could see coming and producing a quick fiery spell especially with the new ball. Bresnan for me is a consistent bowler but not someone who will really do a lot with the ball i.e swinging the ball, bouncers.
I can easily understand why the selectors choose him over Finn, maybe in the final test play 4 seamers and boost Bresnan up to 7 and both him and Finn playing, they say don't change something that doesn't need fixed but for me after Bairstows poor start to the series things do need changed and this could be it. Plus England have one of the strongest tail in the world with Broad, Bresnan and Swann and Bresnan certainly has the technique to bat at 7.

Well if like you say England do have one of the strongest batting tails in the world, then it is a no-brainer by playing an extra specialist bowler and moving the keeper to 6, as then England have more of a chance of bowling or at least containing the opposition team to under 300-350 runs an innings whilst at the same time reducing the pressures felt on our specialist batsmen in having to make 350-400+ runs every time.

Yeah, exactly.

Couldn't really argue over if England have one of the strongest batting tails in the world, our 8, 9 and 10 all have first class centuries.

gboycottnut wrote:Well if like you say England do have one of the strongest batting tails in the world, then it is a no-brainer by playing an extra specialist bowler and moving the keeper to 6, as then England have more of a chance of bowling or at least containing the opposition team to under 300-350 runs an innings whilst at the same time reducing the pressures felt on our specialist batsmen in having to make 350-400+ runs every time.

Nonsense. Can people stop pretending 2 30s is the same as a 60. It isn't, which is why Bresnan, Broad, Swann do not equal a number 7 bat, even with 3 decent 7.5s and one 8.5. That's not how cricket works.

England hardly ever concede over 350. They have however numerous times this winter failed to take advantage of a good bowling performance by collapsing with the bat.

Adding a 5th bowler won't mean bowling sides out more cheaply on the whole - it will just mean one of the bowlers gets underworked. It is a good tactic if one of your bowlers is prone to misfiring - none of England's are (and I suspect this is partly why Bresnan is preferred to Finn still).

I don't know where all this writing off of Bairstow has come from either - the guy has had 2 test innings, in one of them looked good and got out, in the other looked at sea against sustained high quality fast bowling he'll never have faced before.

If someone points out to me a successful test side which picked 5 genuine bowlers (and not 4 bowlers and an all-rounder) I might consider an argument.

Liam_Main wrote:Yeah, exactly.

Couldn't really argue over if England have one of the strongest batting tails in the world, our 8, 9 and 10 all have first class centuries.

None of them though is a test number 7. Which is really (or should be) the point.

Mike Selig wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:Yeah, exactly.

Couldn't really argue over if England have one of the strongest batting tails in the world, our 8, 9 and 10 all have first class centuries.

None of them though is a test number 7. Which is really (or should be) the point.

I think Bresnan could be. I would back him as a better batsman than many county specialist batters. But I am still firmly in the four bowler camp.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:Yeah, exactly.

Couldn't really argue over if England have one of the strongest batting tails in the world, our 8, 9 and 10 all have first class centuries.

None of them though is a test number 7. Which is really (or should be) the point.

I think Bresnan could be. I would back him as a better batsman than many county specialist batters. But I am still firmly in the four bowler camp.

England have been lucking for a solid number 6 for a while now so why not try Prior. Tried Morgan worked for a while, Bopara still doesn't look ready and Bairstow has failed so far. I think it was Shelsey saying about our bowling all-rounders only getting 30 when they should be going on to get higher scores well that's because they've felt the need to take on big shots as they've been so far down the order. Plus if playing Bresnan at 7 doesn't work theres no harm done as the series' is already won. So why not try it?

I'd agree with what Liam has said but I do believe Bairstow deserves more chances to prove himself. Sadly I see the selectors reverting to Ravi, which would a huge step backward IMHO.

James Taylor he's not got a mention yet sadly he won't get selected in his strongest format and England will revert to playing him in the one-dayers where for me he needs to play high up the order to build a innings instead of coming in at 6 where he's less comfortable and feels he needs to play more shots.

Ravi Bopara I think is useful in ODI's and T20's but not in Test matches.

Liam_Main wrote:James Taylor he's not got a mention yet sadly he won't get selected in his strongest format and England will revert to playing him in the one-dayers where for me he needs to play high up the order to build a innings instead of coming in at 6 where he's less comfortable and feels he needs to play more shots.

Ravi Bopara I think is useful in ODI's and T20's but not in Test matches.

All right then, recall Paul Collingwood for the SA test series, even better also recall Michael Vaughan and make him the captain, moving Kevin Pietersen down the batting order to number 8 where he plays only as an off-spinner.

gboycottnut wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:James Taylor he's not got a mention yet sadly he won't get selected in his strongest format and England will revert to playing him in the one-dayers where for me he needs to play high up the order to build a innings instead of coming in at 6 where he's less comfortable and feels he needs to play more shots.

Ravi Bopara I think is useful in ODI's and T20's but not in Test matches.

All right then, recall Paul Collingwood for the SA test series, even better also recall Michael Vaughan and make him the captain, moving Kevin Pietersen down the batting order to number 8 where he plays only as an off-spinner.

Are you off your heard? You've blabbed on about something I wasn't even relating to.

Liam_Main wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:James Taylor he's not got a mention yet sadly he won't get selected in his strongest format and England will revert to playing him in the one-dayers where for me he needs to play high up the order to build a innings instead of coming in at 6 where he's less comfortable and feels he needs to play more shots.

Ravi Bopara I think is useful in ODI's and T20's but not in Test matches.

All right then, recall Paul Collingwood for the SA test series, even better also recall Michael Vaughan and make him the captain, moving Kevin Pietersen down the batting order to number 8 where he plays only as an off-spinner.

Are you off your heard? You've blabbed on about something I wasn't even relating to.

I want what he's smoking.

GG wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

Liam_Main wrote:James Taylor he's not got a mention yet sadly he won't get selected in his strongest format and England will revert to playing him in the one-dayers where for me he needs to play high up the order to build a innings instead of coming in at 6 where he's less comfortable and feels he needs to play more shots.

Ravi Bopara I think is useful in ODI's and T20's but not in Test matches.

All right then, recall Paul Collingwood for the SA test series, even better also recall Michael Vaughan and make him the captain, moving Kevin Pietersen down the batting order to number 8 where he plays only as an off-spinner.

Are you off your heard? You've blabbed on about something I wasn't even relating to.

I want what he's smoking.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I'd agree with what Liam has said but I do believe Bairstow deserves more chances to prove himself. Sadly I see the selectors reverting to Ravi, which would a huge step backward IMHO.

Its hardly unfair to give Bopara back a place he only lost through injury if Bairstow fails again in th next test. If he makes runs the decision will be a lot tougher. But the ginger knows he was only place sitting, it will hardly be a great humiliation if he doenst make the SA series....nor will being dropped be a last chance for him.

bringing back Bopara wil help England out with the 5th bowling option, hes pretty lethal averaging 212 with the ball in tests

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I'd agree with what Liam has said but I do believe Bairstow deserves more chances to prove himself. Sadly I see the selectors reverting to Ravi, which would a huge step backward IMHO.

Its hardly unfair to give Bopara back a place he only lost through injury if Bairstow fails again in th next test. If he makes runs the decision will be a lot tougher. But the ginger knows he was only place sitting, it will hardly be a great humiliation if he doenst make the SA series....nor will being dropped be a last chance for him.

bringing back Bopara wil help England out with the 5th bowling option, hes pretty lethal averaging 212 with the ball in tests

What did he do to even earn that spot in the first place?

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I'd agree with what Liam has said but I do believe Bairstow deserves more chances to prove himself. Sadly I see the selectors reverting to Ravi, which would a huge step backward IMHO.

Its hardly unfair to give Bopara back a place he only lost through injury if Bairstow fails again in th next test. If he makes runs the decision will be a lot tougher. But the ginger knows he was only place sitting, it will hardly be a great humiliation if he doenst make the SA series....nor will being dropped be a last chance for him.

bringing back Bopara wil help England out with the 5th bowling option, hes pretty lethal averaging 212 with the ball in tests

What did he do to even earn that spot in the first place?

Play in the same county team of Essex as the batting coach Graham Gooch. There is another player at Essex called Tom Westley. I remember back in 2008 when England played New Zealand at U-19 level, Westley was the star player and the captain in that England U-19 team, whilst his opposite number was Kane Williamson, who has since gone on to establish himself in New Zealand's senior test team as their best produced batsman since Ross Taylor. Anyway it is really disappointing that whilst Williamson has progressed from the Juniors to the Senior International level, Westley hasn't progressed at all as of yet.

Mike Selig wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Well if like you say England do have one of the strongest batting tails in the world, then it is a no-brainer by playing an extra specialist bowler and moving the keeper to 6, as then England have more of a chance of bowling or at least containing the opposition team to under 300-350 runs an innings whilst at the same time reducing the pressures felt on our specialist batsmen in having to make 350-400+ runs every time.

Nonsense. Can people stop pretending 2 30s is the same as a 60. It isn't, which is why Bresnan, Broad, Swann do not equal a number 7 bat, even with 3 decent 7.5s and one 8.5. That's not how cricket works.

England hardly ever concede over 350. They have however numerous times this winter failed to take advantage of a good bowling performance by collapsing with the bat.

Adding a 5th bowler won't mean bowling sides out more cheaply on the whole - it will just mean one of the bowlers gets underworked. It is a good tactic if one of your bowlers is prone to misfiring - none of England's are (and I suspect this is partly why Bresnan is preferred to Finn still).

I don't know where all this writing off of Bairstow has come from either - the guy has had 2 test innings, in one of them looked good and got out, in the other looked at sea against sustained high quality fast bowling he'll never have faced before.

If someone points out to me a successful test side which picked 5 genuine bowlers (and not 4 bowlers and an all-rounder) I might consider an argument.

The West Indies played with five at times, if they included Harper.
Harper batted at seven and was by no means an allrounder.

Harper wasn't a genuine bowler though, more of a fill-in (he averaged less than two wickets per test). Mike said "genuine bowlers"