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?

Ha ha but picked for his bowling!

Five bowlers has worked before and can again. Not sure we should though.

Harper didnt bowl a lot of overs but he was certainly more of a bowler than a batsman and averaged under 30. Looking at the windies is a bit misleading though, they were playing out and out express bowlers who couldnt bowl long spells and really needed 4 to execute their aggressive gameplan. England when they had the crock Flintoff, the flakey Harmisson and Mr Fitness Jones on the go it was the weak aspect of those bowlers that required a 5 man unit. Now England are playing 3 seamers who dont rely on pushing their pace and more on line length and technique, and who have good endurance. Add to that they have a genuine attacking spinner, rather than the king of Spain who was largely used in a defensive manner. I guess a better question would be name a succesfull test side that had a bowler with a test average of 212 as its preffered 5th option ... Im guessing youd only come up with England and Bopara. What does that say about this current England team thats still winning most games and almost always bowls the opposition out for under 350 regardless of conditions? Well to me it says the front 4 are more than adequate and the 5th bowling option is pretty irrelevant.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Harper didnt bowl a lot of overs but he was certainly more of a bowler than a batsman and averaged under 30. Looking at the windies is a bit misleading though, they were playing out and out express bowlers who couldnt bowl long spells and really needed 4 to execute their aggressive gameplan. England when they had the crock Flintoff, the flakey Harmisson and Mr Fitness Jones on the go it was the weak aspect of those bowlers that required a 5 man unit. Now England are playing 3 seamers who dont rely on pushing their pace and more on line length and technique, and who have good endurance. Add to that they have a genuine attacking spinner, rather than the king of Spain who was largely used in a defensive manner. I guess a better question would be name a succesfull test side that had a bowler with a test average of 212 as its preffered 5th option ... Im guessing youd only come up with England and Bopara. What does that say about this current England team thats still winning most games and almost always bowls the opposition out for under 350 regardless of conditions? Well to me it says the front 4 are more than adequate and the 5th bowling option is pretty irrelevant.

But I have a feeling that when we play SA, a specialist 5th bowler will be needed as SA have a very strong batting lineup.

Trouble is they have a strong bowling line up too!

Id support a fifth bowler if they were going to bring genuine variety to the England attack, which Finn doesnt really do. If England had a left arm spinner with his kind of stats (like a slightly better Panessar) then id be beating a drum for his inclusion and the doctoring of turning pitches.
Picking Finn ahead of a batsman would mean we are looking at fast bouncy pitches...playing to SAs bowling strengths.

Whatever England pick SA are a strong side.

Harper was indeed picked as a bowler for West Indies . However he only played twenty five Tests , in some of which he was actually part of a four man attack.

West Indies ruled for a long time , so I would still hold that he does not invalidate the point that they generally played with 6/1/4.

alfie wrote:Harper was indeed picked as a bowler for West Indies . However he only played twenty five Tests , in some of which he was actually part of a four man attack.

West Indies ruled for a long time , so I would still hold that he does not invalidate the point that they generally played with 6/1/4.

He was part of a 5 man attack in 1984 when they beat us 5-0. Anyway, I was just pointing out to Mike that five has been used by a successful team.

Four may be better but you should not abide by that rule only.

well I seem to recall Australia playing five bowlers on at least one occasion (I think on a very flat wicket either in WI or BD they went in with Gilchrist at 6, and MacGill as a fifth bowler). Can anyone confirm this?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well I seem to recall Australia playing five bowlers on at least one occasion (I think on a very flat wicket either in WI or BD they went in with Gilchrist at 6, and MacGill as a fifth bowler). Can anyone confirm this?

They might have but it was very, very rare. The fifth bowler, as I have said before, doesn't actually serve that much purpose if you manage your bowlers correctly.

It did for us in 2005

yes but again then we had Jones (injury prone), Harmison (could go around the park), Flintoff (better in short bursts) and Giles (could be hit out of the attack). Hoggard was the only one you really wanted bowling long spells but in effect he was under-used throughout the series. Anderson, Broad and Bresnan can (and indeed have) all bowl long spells, and Swann is far superior to Giles, both in keeping it tight and in taking wickets.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:well I seem to recall Australia playing five bowlers on at least one occasion (I think on a very flat wicket either in WI or BD they went in with Gilchrist at 6, and MacGill as a fifth bowler). Can anyone confirm this?

Think you are referring to 2003 , when Warne wasn't available in West Indies , Australia fielded McGill alongside four quicks.
This was , though , very unusual for them. I am unsure whether Warne ever played in a true five man attack , though it may possibly have happened once or twice in the sub continent?

Which is why I always emphasize Usually in these discussions : no rule of selection should be totally inflexible. But there is a reason why things are , ahem , "usually" done a certain way : it works.

Stella wrote:It did for us in 2005

But you were never going to bat Flintoff lower than 6 or 7, so it was a no-brainer then, as it has been for SA with Kallis for all these years. In fact, on his form that year Flintoff would have been one of the best six batsmen in the selectors view. If he had been injured, I would imagine Collingwood, and not Anderson, would have replaced him.

Shelsey93 wrote:

Stella wrote:It did for us in 2005

But you were never going to bat Flintoff lower than 6 or 7, so it was a no-brainer then, as it has been for SA with Kallis for all these years. In fact, on his form that year Flintoff would have been one of the best six batsmen in the selectors view. If he had been injured, I would imagine Collingwood, and not Anderson, would have replaced him.

But 5 still worked.

We also had an inferior keeper/bat back then and we do have a long tail now. It does sound like I'm a five man believer and I'm not. My points are, don't rule it out just because team A and team B never done it.

I'm not ruling it out because team A and team B didn't do it (though historically there are a LOT of arguments for playing 4 bowlers and not 5 - unless you have a genuine all-rounder), I'm ruling it out because it's not what's worked for England over the last few years, and because to me England's team looks much more balanced with Bairstow at 6 than with five bowlers.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I'm not ruling it out because team A and team B didn't do it (though historically there are a LOT of arguments for playing 4 bowlers and not 5 - unless you have a genuine all-rounder), I'm ruling it out because it's not what's worked for England over the last few years, and because to me England's team looks much more balanced with Bairstow at 6 than with five bowlers.

I agree that a sixth batsmen would be better. But have we got a good enough number six? Bairstow imo has one more game. If he doesn't produce then Bops will come back.

Not ideal. If we had a young Graham Thorpe then this conversation would be moot, which says to me six batters is the way forward but we don't have a young Thorpe, so Bresnan at seven with Finn coming in may give us a better looking team.

I don't think it does Stella. Others may disagree but to me England look a better team with 6 batsmen, Prior, Swann and three seamers than they would with 5 batsmen, Prior, Bresnan, Broad, Swann and two others.

Well, I'm not convinced if four or five is better, as we are lacking a good number six.

Let's hope Bairstow scores runs and continues to. If he does then we will have to debate something else.

Tendulkar vs Lara?

Tendulkar

I always have him in my world XI, don't always have Lara...

I take the point on Harper for the West Indies. I don't take the point on England in '05 because
1) Flintoff was a genuine number 6
2) with Flintoff, Harmison and Jones not to be relied on for long spells and Giles potentially a weak link (although he very rarely proved to be) the needs were completely different.

In any case, it is a fairly accademic discussion - the current England management has shown it is very keen on 6 batsmen.

And please can people stop writing Bairstow off after (essentially) one poor innings? This is what England did in the 90s...

Mike Selig wrote:I take the point on Harper for the West Indies. I don't take the point on England in '05 because
1) Flintoff was a genuine number 6
2) with Flintoff, Harmison and Jones not to be relied on for long spells and Giles potentially a weak link (although he very rarely proved to be) the needs were completely different.

In any case, it is a fairly accademic discussion - the current England management has shown it is very keen on 6 batsmen.

And please can people stop writing Bairstow off after (essentially) one poor innings? This is what England did in the 90s...

I referred to 05 in reply to a poster who said 5 doesn't work and not to your point of 'show me a team that has used five bowlers'. I did note that you mentioned 'not including genuine allrounders'.

Of course a genuine allrounder at six would solve our minor problem

Mike Selig wrote:I take the point on Harper for the West Indies. I don't take the point on England in '05 because
1) Flintoff was a genuine number 6
2) with Flintoff, Harmison and Jones not to be relied on for long spells and Giles potentially a weak link (although he very rarely proved to be) the needs were completely different.

In any case, it is a fairly accademic discussion - the current England management has shown it is very keen on 6 batsmen.

And please can people stop writing Bairstow off after (essentially) one poor innings? This is what England did in the 90s...

If people don't think JB is test material, then they are welcome to write him off, just like you are right to back your own judgement of the lad. I don't care if he plays in the next match or not, but unless he proves he is ready to face the Saffers, I'd prefer he waited. With India away, and then the Aussies on the horizon, I do appreciate we have to take the plunge sometime with him. I'm thinking the selectors thought blooding him in the 3 Windies tests would get him ready, but it has not gone to plan so far. But if he flops next week, I can't see them sticking with him for the SA series.

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:I take the point on Harper for the West Indies. I don't take the point on England in '05 because
1) Flintoff was a genuine number 6
2) with Flintoff, Harmison and Jones not to be relied on for long spells and Giles potentially a weak link (although he very rarely proved to be) the needs were completely different.

In any case, it is a fairly accademic discussion - the current England management has shown it is very keen on 6 batsmen.

And please can people stop writing Bairstow off after (essentially) one poor innings? This is what England did in the 90s...

If people don't think JB is test material, then they are welcome to write him off, just like you are right to back your own judgement of the lad. I don't care if he plays in the next match or not, but unless he proves he is ready to face the Saffers, I'd prefer he waited. With India away, and then the Aussies on the horizon, I do appreciate we have to take the plunge sometime with him. I'm thinking the selectors thought blooding him in the 3 Windies tests would get him ready, but it has not gone to plan so far. But if he flops next week, I can't see them sticking with him for the SA series.

Yes, Bops was first choice, so it makes sense that they may drop Bairstow if he fails in the third test. I hope Bairstow does score runs mind as he's young and has talent.

Remember when England toured the West Indies back in 1994 with Mike Atherton as the captain and with what was back then a youngish squad without any senior players such as Gooch, Gower and Gatting; perhaps England should consider selecting a young squad to tour whatever country they are going to this coming winter, and leave the likes of senior players particularly Pieterson, Strauss, Anderson and Swann back at home. By going for a young squad it will give the likes of Taylor, Hales, and Borthwick a chance to play at a Test level before the next ashes series.

And a year later they recalled Gooch and Gatting for the ashes tour.

Stella wrote:And a year later they recalled Gooch and Gatting for the ashes tour.

Well that is something that I just couldn't understand back then.

gboycottnut wrote:Remember when England toured the West Indies back in 1994 with Mike Atherton as the captain and with what was back then a youngish squad without any senior players such as Gooch, Gower and Gatting; perhaps England should consider selecting a young squad to tour whatever country they are going to this coming winter, and leave the likes of senior players particularly Pieterson, Strauss, Anderson and Swann back at home. By going for a young squad it will give the likes of Taylor, Hales, and Borthwick a chance to play at a Test level before the next ashes series.

And that type of policy was exactly why England kept losing in the '90s. For Test cricket you pick your best team. England's best team in English conditions, in the absence of a Kallis, Botham, Sobers or Flintoff, features six batsmen, a wicket-keeper, a spinner and three quicks. With Bopara injured, and yet to play a game since his injury, Bairstow is the man who was scoring the runs that earned him a chance. Until Bopara is fully fit he should therefore be given that chance, and backed to be the best man to bat in that position. Who the opposition are is largely irrelevant.

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Remember when England toured the West Indies back in 1994 with Mike Atherton as the captain and with what was back then a youngish squad without any senior players such as Gooch, Gower and Gatting; perhaps England should consider selecting a young squad to tour whatever country they are going to this coming winter, and leave the likes of senior players particularly Pieterson, Strauss, Anderson and Swann back at home. By going for a young squad it will give the likes of Taylor, Hales, and Borthwick a chance to play at a Test level before the next ashes series.

And that type of policy was exactly why England kept losing in the '90s. For Test cricket you pick your best team. England's best team in English conditions, in the absence of a Kallis, Botham, Sobers or Flintoff, features six batsmen, a wicket-keeper, a spinner and three quicks. With Bopara injured, and yet to play a game since his injury, Bairstow is the man who was scoring the runs that earned him a chance. Until Bopara is fully fit he should therefore be given that chance, and backed to be the best man to bat in that position. Who the opposition are is largely irrelevant.

"For Test cricket you pick your best team."
If you honestly think Bairstow makes this current England team as good as it can be, then I would respectfully disagree. If you think he should be given a chance, than I understand that. But in no way is Bairstow the ultimate uplift to this current test side.

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Remember when England toured the West Indies back in 1994 with Mike Atherton as the captain and with what was back then a youngish squad without any senior players such as Gooch, Gower and Gatting; perhaps England should consider selecting a young squad to tour whatever country they are going to this coming winter, and leave the likes of senior players particularly Pieterson, Strauss, Anderson and Swann back at home. By going for a young squad it will give the likes of Taylor, Hales, and Borthwick a chance to play at a Test level before the next ashes series.

And that type of policy was exactly why England kept losing in the '90s. For Test cricket you pick your best team. England's best team in English conditions, in the absence of a Kallis, Botham, Sobers or Flintoff, features six batsmen, a wicket-keeper, a spinner and three quicks. With Bopara injured, and yet to play a game since his injury, Bairstow is the man who was scoring the runs that earned him a chance. Until Bopara is fully fit he should therefore be given that chance, and backed to be the best man to bat in that position. Who the opposition are is largely irrelevant.

Well the problem in the 90s was Englands best team was a massive sack of poo.

England have been through the painful process of replacing their entire bowling lineup between 2007 and 2010. They are reaping the benefits of that now but they picked a few turkeys along their way and had to invest a lot of time and effort in Anderson and Broad.
Bastman wise they are still struggling to find one new guy in the last 2 and half years, god knows what will happen when KP decides hes too important, Strauss decides its time to go, and Trott realises hes older than people think. they are going to have to accelerate the grooming process at some point.
I guess with the bowlers it was forced on them a bit, through injuries and the lazy attitude of guys like Hoggard. They certainly seem happy enough to keep the status quo with the side and keep the wins coming in, rather than blooding players for the sake of it. The Lions exists for development....the first team for winning. Maybe short sighted, maybe not.

Its a bit of a surprise that Bairstow was picked a head of Taylor, although I wonder if they do see him as a possible Prior replacement for the future. Given that Prior was poorly thought of in the gloves department when he started how does Bairstow stack up in terms of potential as a keeper 2 or 3 years down the line? Could he be turned into a proper one?

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:Remember when England toured the West Indies back in 1994 with Mike Atherton as the captain and with what was back then a youngish squad without any senior players such as Gooch, Gower and Gatting; perhaps England should consider selecting a young squad to tour whatever country they are going to this coming winter, and leave the likes of senior players particularly Pieterson, Strauss, Anderson and Swann back at home. By going for a young squad it will give the likes of Taylor, Hales, and Borthwick a chance to play at a Test level before the next ashes series.

And that type of policy was exactly why England kept losing in the '90s. For Test cricket you pick your best team. England's best team in English conditions, in the absence of a Kallis, Botham, Sobers or Flintoff, features six batsmen, a wicket-keeper, a spinner and three quicks. With Bopara injured, and yet to play a game since his injury, Bairstow is the man who was scoring the runs that earned him a chance. Until Bopara is fully fit he should therefore be given that chance, and backed to be the best man to bat in that position. Who the opposition are is largely irrelevant.

"For Test cricket you pick your best team."
If you honestly think Bairstow makes this current England team as good as it can be, then I would respectfully disagree. If you think he should be given a chance, than I understand that. But in no way is Bairstow the ultimate uplift to this current test side.

And so the we return to the crux of the argument. "For test cricket you pick your best team". Not your best players. If we had 7 or 8 bowlers who were better than our batsmen we wouldn't pick them as the balance of the side would be wrong. Same if we had 8 or 9 good bats, we wouldn't play 2 bowlers. The balance would be wrong. I exaggerate, but you get my point. For me 6 + 1 + 4 is the correct balance for this England side who's batting is their weakness, and whilst Finn may be a "better" and more proven Test cricketer than a Bairstow, Bopara or Taylor he decreases from the balance if picked. As he won't bowl enough overs to have an impact, so he will effectively be in the side for his batting and in that case we are better picking a batsman, even if he is unproven or looked suspect in a few games. But I fear we will never agree on this matter. But it has been fun.

What about Nick Compton for the number 6 spot? Compton is just the type of batsman I believe that England need at number 6, i.e. a solid rather than a flashy type of player who complements the other strokemakers like Pietersen ,Bell and Prior in the middle order.

According to John Etheridge of The Sun on Twitter, Anderson is indeed rested for the 3rd Test. I don't agree, unless he is actually injured, as I have stated earlier.

I thought there was talk of Anderson having a slight niggle in the last test. Probably not something that would keep him out of a series decider say, but with England having secured the series I understand them not wanting to take any risks.

I'm also quite excited at seeing how Finn goes back in England.

Right theres a difference between being fit to play a game and being at risk of injury by playing. No need to risk Anderson by giving a heavy workload, and an excellent chance for Finn to prove a point and get more experience in a low key game.
Typical Anderson will be missing from the test where swing bowling is going to get the most assistance from conditions though

Well if Anderson is actually carrying a minor injury , that is different : the good reserve bench allows him to sit this one out.

Might possibly be Onions rather than Finn though ?

alfie wrote:Well if Anderson is actually carrying a minor injury , that is different : the good reserve bench allows him to sit this one out.

Might possibly be Onions rather than Finn though ?

Why?

I'd be very surprised if England picked Onions ahead of Finn. Finn seems to clearly have moved ahead in the pecking order over the winter (at least) and did nothing wrong in the test he played over the winter to suggest anything should have changed.

Onions is of a similar mould to Jimmy but Finn will no doubt play.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

alfie wrote:Well if Anderson is actually carrying a minor injury , that is different : the good reserve bench allows him to sit this one out.

Might possibly be Onions rather than Finn though ?

Why?

Because he is perhaps closer to Anderson in type and might be seen as a better fit with Broad and Bresnan , and also because he is apparently in excellent form at present ...

...but please note I said Possibly

I did not mean to suggest it was my preferred choice or the more likely one , merely that one should not assume Finn is the only candidate. After all , Onions has been in the squad as well as Finn for the first two Tests , so he must be in the selectors minds.

England's attack recently:

Swing Bowler can make the new ball move both ways and reverse wing the old ball (Anderson, Onions)

Tall bowler able to get bounce from a good length, can swing it a little (Broad, Finn, Tremlett)

Workhorse who comes on first change, bowls up the hill, into the wind. Bowls a decent number of wicket taking balls (Bresnan, Monty in UAE)

Finger spinner (Swan).



They do alter the formula, but the one above has worked best - provides variety and lets the unit perform well.

Finn and Bresnan both get more reverse from what I've seen than Onions. Onions is actually a very different bowler from Anderson, he is a bit more like a skiddy McGrath in that he bowls wicket-to-wicket swing (more than McGrath) and seam (more than Anderson). I think (without stats to back this up) that he gets more LBWs than Anderson would, and is effective to left-handers (so is Anderson as he can swing it both ways). The point is perhaps that he is closer to Anderson than Finn - that is of course true.

Finn moves the ball in if anything, even with the new ball, and of course has more pace than any of the others. Both Finn and Broad have improved significantly since bowling a fuller length rather than hitting back of a length. But again very different bowlers.

I think to call Bresnan a workhorse is unfair - he is a lot better than that, as has been shown by his wicket-taking bursts in Australia (on a very flat MCG pitch he got Watson, Ponting and Hussey in quick succession) and of course a few spells against India.

Bresnan is indeed better than that, but it tends to be his role in the team - bowl when the two strike bowlers need a rest with a softer ball. He is certainly not an opening bowler, but he does an unglamourous job very well - as can be seen by his wickets.

Bresnan gets the ball when it is about 8/9 overs old as Strauss rotates the fast bowlers. Usually takes off one of the opening bowlers after 4 or 5 overs who then comes back before lunch. As for bowling when the ball is old, all the bowlers do that.

Bresnan bowling into the wind. When has it been windy? As for being the workhorse Anderson 111.1 overs, Broad 102.5, Bresnan 100.0.

Don't think Onions is like Anderson at all and Broad and Finn are different.

gboycottnut wrote:Remember when England toured the West Indies back in 1994 with Mike Atherton as the captain and with what was back then a youngish squad without any senior players such as Gooch, Gower and Gatting; perhaps England should consider selecting a young squad to tour whatever country they are going to this coming winter, and leave the likes of senior players particularly Pieterson, Strauss, Anderson and Swann back at home. By going for a young squad it will give the likes of Taylor, Hales, and Borthwick a chance to play at a Test level before the next ashes series.

Let's say England beat South Africa this summer and then send a B-team away in the winter. What if the B-team come back with a series win? Do you say well done but then discard them all and revert back to your A-team? Or do you discard your A-team who have got you to number one in the world and beaten the second best team in the world on the back of one great series by the younger players?

We have a strong team, players should have to fight very hard to get into it, and then when they are in the team they need to make it count.

Personally think that Bresnan is the most dependable of our seam bowlers behind Anderson, 52 wickets in just 13 tests isn't shabby at all especially at an average of 25. A front line bowler would be proud of those statistics let alone the first change bowler, one major benefit he has is his batting which is becoming increasingly important in test cricket, not that the batting needs any strengthening with Prior and Broad at 7 and 8 with the capable Swann behind them. Seems to be in the team very much on the merit of his bowling which at this early stage of his career appears to be a better option than anyone else.