Finn or Broad- Who should play in the 3rd test?

Alot of talk going around about who should play in the 3rd test,so I wanna hear you view on it. Who should play,Broad or Finn?

I personally would pick Broad,yes he hasn't bowled at his best but he's one of Englands senior bowlers and should be given more time to prove himself after a long injury. Finn for still seems inconsistent while taking 4 wickets didn't bowl brilliantly and can bowl the odd wild delivery which he needs to cut out of his game. I do think if Broad doesn't improve him bowling in the next test than his place will come under series threat with Bresnan,Dernbach and Finn not to far behind him. If Broad plays it will be a vital test for him he needs to just focus on his bowling and not anything else.

For wicket taking alone I've said Finn but regret it already. Broad maybe should just be kept in for the length he adds to the batting order but must be told he has to start taking wickets and that his test spot is in jeopardy. On his day, however as he has proved, he can be quite the handful.

Broad, just. Finn hasn't really done enough to displace him in the test they've played together.

Broad did just enough in the second innings to get the nod, although Finn has been the more effective of the two over the test.

I suspect that England would have stuck with Broad regardless of how badly he'd bowled though.

Mike Selig wrote:Broad, just. Finn hasn't really done enough to displace him in the test they've played together.

There's no point discussing it now as I believe Flower has already confirmed that Broad will play at the Rosebowl. However, I'm not quite sure on what grounds Finn has not done enough. In the Lord's test he took 5 wickets for 39, including in the first innings 4 batsmen in the top six. Broad's figures for the match are 2/154. In the previous matches they have played together - in Bangladesh and v. Pakistan in England - Finn has a better average and strike rate than Broad, although Broad took 3 more wickets overall.

The obsession with Broad is perplexing and infuriating. Atherton says he has a lot to prove to keep his place v. India. What will happen is that as usual he will take wickets in the last match of the series and the rest will be forgotten, as happened in the Ashes 2009. He has not taken a five wicket haul since then, nor has he delivered more than 4 wickets in a match. Finn is raw but his strike rate is amazing. England should be giving him every chance rather than hoping against hope that Broad comes good.

Although Finn often offers no control to Strauss, I'd keep the Finster.

Broad is a buffet bowler and doesn't look capable of taking wickets.

Finn, whilst expensive, can take wickets.

sonic_boom10 wrote:Although Finn often offers no control to Strauss, I'd keep the Finster.

Broad is a buffet bowler and doesn't look capable of taking wickets.

Finn, whilst expensive, can take wickets.

Finn was less expensive than Broad in the last test. He is expensive generally but isn't it more important that he takes a wicket every 6 or 7 overs as opposed to Broad's every 11? Control will come with experience. Wicket taking is a bowler's raison d'être and England should harness Finn's talent and give him a run in the side.

Sainty wrote:For wicket taking alone I've said Finn but regret it already. Broad maybe should just be kept in for the length he adds to the batting order but must be told he has to start taking wickets and that his test spot is in jeopardy. On his day, however as he has proved, he can be quite the handful.

Can anyone remember when that day was?

Good point. I was thinking back to the 2009 Ashes. Now you've spelt it out, maybe Finn should be persevered with purely for his wicket taking ability, I just can't see them dropping Broad as they see him as the next all rounder.

Voted for Broad but can't for the life of me remember why? Think Finn is by far the bigger threat at the moment. Must have had my selectors hat on again...

I think that's the issue, we're trying to convince ourselves he'll come good.