All Out Cricket's Discussion Of The Week - Should Steven Finn be in England's Test Team?

Today on www.alloutcricket.com New Zealand correspondent James Henderson discusses Steven Finn's month in Otago, New Zealand:

The home of cricket may always be Lords, but England’s assistance in world domination comes from a more obscure source. Cast away in New Zealand’s South Island is a safe haven for cricketers in need of some fine-tuning and match sharpness. Otago is a sanctuary of trust for the ECB – with Steven Finn the latest benefactor.

Finn’s arrival Down Under follows that of Jonathan Trott, Dimitri Mascarenhas and the recently crowned County Championship winner Kyle Hogg in recent years, demonstrating that first-class cricket in New Zealand has something to offer its Northern Hemisphere counterparts.

“Otago is trusted to provide a good service,” says Vaughn Johnson, Otago Volts coach and former specialist fast bowling coach for the Black Caps. “I think word gets around about our players, our culture and that Dunedin is a great place to get your head down and put the work in. It is a reasonably quiet place and many overseas players have done well here because of this environment – players enjoy playing here.

“The main aim of the deal is for Steven to play cricket and to get as many wickets as possible. Fortunately for Otago the time frame works well for both parties and we are looking forward to the new season with an experienced international fast bowler in our ranks.”

The Middlesex paceman will be available for a month of Plunket Shield action as he looks to gain match sharpness ahead of England’s upcoming series against Pakistan, with the contradicting seasons a major factor in the ECB looking below the equator to get their players game time in appropriate conditions.

To read more of this article visit www.alloutcricket.com

On the back of his impressive performances in India, Should Steven Finn be in the England's Test XI?

Yes

Anderson, Broad and Swann are pretty much shoe ins.

This leaves Tremlett, Bresnan and Finn contending the fourth spot and considering Bresnan has done a magnificent job thus far....no.

Yes... And I will give my reasons later when I have a bit more time, but a resounding yes from me.

I think we should rotate the 5 seamers in Tests in series played in hot climatic conditions such as UAE.

Detailed response there Shanky...

I think the stint in Otago will do wonders for Finn, as it has with several other England internationals in the past. I believe Monty Panesar is another name that the author didn't mention that has plyed his trade out in New Zealand in the hope of Test selection. Fast bowling is often about rhythm and experience, and playing regular cricket during the English off-season should do wonders for Finn. He is young enough to take such an additional workload, and it will help keep the rhythm of his bowling more so than any net sessions might.

Finn was England's standout bowler during the recent disastrous India ODI's, bowling with real pace, control and aggression in equal measures. Rather than resting on those performances, this assignment should keep him sharp, whilst giving him valuable experience of conditions in that part of the world.

I think Finn is certainly good enough to play in the England Test side, and this additional 6 to 8 mph of pace that he has found, possibly from the strength and conditioning regime that the ECB put him through last year, makes him an even more valuable asset.

The issue, however, is the performance of his contemporaries. Who would you look to drop in place of Finn from such a successful bowling unit? Anderson is the leader of the attack and England's best bowler, which rules him out. Broad has undergone a dramatic resurgence of late, and provides depth to the batting, so he stays. Swann is the solitary spinner with a very good record, and also bats, so he stays. The only option, then, is Bresnan. However, considering that big Tim has scored plenty of runs at a very healthy average (40ish, I believe?), and has averaged in the mid-20's with the ball since replacing the equally impressive, but injured Chris Tremlett, how do you even begin to think about dropping him?

Finn offers something different in his raw pace, that's for sure, but I don't think you can justify removing anyone from a bowling attack that consistently dismantled what is apparently the world's greatest batting lineup, India. Reaching 300 only once in 8 innings was a marvelous achievement by the England bowling unit.

It is unlucky for Finn, who has performed tremendously of late, and his commendable stint in New Zealand can only help his cause, but for now he is going to have to wait his turn, and then battle it out with Chris Tremlett as to who is next in line. It is a conundrum for the England selectors, for sure, but one they'll certainly be pleased to have.

Fists of Fury wrote:Detailed response there Shanky...

I think the stint in Otago will do wonders for Finn, as it has with several other England internationals in the past. I believe Monty Panesar is another name that the author didn't mention that has plyed his trade out in New Zealand in the hope of Test selection. Fast bowling is often about rhythm and experience, and playing regular cricket during the English off-season should do wonders for Finn. He is young enough to take such an additional workload, and it will help keep the rhythm of his bowling more so than any net sessions might.

Finn was England's standout bowler during the recent disastrous India ODI's, bowling with real pace, control and aggression in equal measures. Rather than resting on those performances, this assignment should keep him sharp, whilst giving him valuable experience of conditions in that part of the world.

I think Finn is certainly good enough to play in the England Test side, and this additional 6 to 8 mph of pace that he has found, possibly from the strength and conditioning regime that the ECB put him through last year, makes him an even more valuable asset.

The issue, however, is the performance of his contemporaries. Who would you look to drop in place of Finn from such a successful bowling unit? Anderson is the leader of the attack and England's best bowler, which rules him out. Broad has undergone a dramatic resurgence of late, and provides depth to the batting, so he stays. Swann is the solitary spinner with a very good record, and also bats, so he stays. The only option, then, is Bresnan. However, considering that big Tim has scored plenty of runs at a very healthy average (40ish, I believe?), and has averaged in the mid-20's with the ball since replacing the equally impressive, but injured Chris Tremlett, how do you even begin to think about dropping him?

Finn offers something different in his raw pace, that's for sure, but I don't think you can justify removing anyone from a bowling attack that consistently dismantled what is apparently the world's greatest batting lineup, India. Reaching 300 only once in 8 innings was a marvelous achievement by the England bowling unit.

It is unlucky for Finn, who has performed tremendously of late, and his commendable stint in New Zealand can only help his cause, but for now he is going to have to wait his turn, and then battle it out with Chris Tremlett as to who is next in line. It is a conundrum for the England selectors, for sure, but one they'll certainly be pleased to have.

As I said I dont think the same 3 pacers would be able to get through 3 consecutive Tests in the climatic conditions that we'll encounter in the UAE.So I would rotate the pacers over there and then assess the situation ahead of the next series.

I guess that'll depend on how quickly we roll Pakistan over

In all seriousness, I see it being a tough series for England on what are likely to be absolute roads. Rotation may be the sensible option, though going in with 5 frontline bowlers is another. The balance of our batting lineup would then become the prominent issue.

As to who would be picked out of Tremlett and Finn is an interesting debate in it's own right. Both have solid Test statistics, with Tremlett being more economical thus far. However, given the performances of Finn out in India, maybe this is something he has began to improve upon.

It might be time to look toward the future, and reluctantly discard Tremlett in order to play Finn, despite Chris' fine contributions.

i dont think we should rotate them just for the sake of it tbh

we have medical teams to make informed decisions on when people need a rest surely , apart from that pick your best team

i think finn's form has definitely meant hes put himself right back in contention, it might be said he always was but i got the feeling that he wouldn't get into a first choice XI with everyone fit. as mentioned above you would have to expect anderson, swann and broad to have three spots nailed down, having bresnan in the team gives us so much depth to the batting hes hard to ignore. scoreboard pressure can be a huge factor on batting friendly pitches so we would be silly to not take account of bresnan's batting.

finn certainly looks to have improved, last winter there were concerns about the number of loose deliveries he bowled and that he wasn't reliable in keeping the pressure on the batsman, he was alot more accurate and more consistent in the ODI series recently. should we be picking players for tests based on ODI form tho ?

tremlett seems to be a little bit of a case of "out of sight , out of mind" atm but he has been very consistent since he came back into the england team.

its a really hard call to make tbh but its also a very good position to be in.

personally i would stick with bresnan but i wouldn't worry too much if finn or tremlett got that last spot.

Spot on rich, seems you are of the same view as myself.

It should be remembered that this England side is all about consistency, too, so rotation is something that is unlikely to occur unless one of our bowlers is visibly struggling. However, these are fit, strong lads who undergo strenuous training regimes and live properly in this day and age, and as such I'd be surprised if we have such issues.

Here's a radical idea - play him or Tremlett as one of 5 bowlers (ie. play to England's strength)! If you're going to field a 6th batsman, surely he has to be able to see off the 2nd new ball (ie. Morgan is no use)? Why bother otherwise?

That is an option, amenuensis, but we do risk leaving ourselves a little light if the top order were to crumble cheaply. Bresnan is a decent bat, but is he a Test match number 7? I'm not so sure.

Fists of Fury wrote:That is an option, amenuensis, but we do risk leaving ourselves a little light if the top order were to crumble cheaply. Bresnan is a decent bat, but is he a Test match number 7? I'm not so sure.

I think we would need Morgan to counter attack Ajmal on turning pitches.

In all honesty I don't know a huge amount about the tracks in the UAE - I have heard that they're pretty flat, but not much about whether they disintegrate, is this the case then?

How effective would the pace and bounce of Finn actually be on those tracks? Pace is obviously effective in most conditions, but bounce is one of his key strengths of course.

amanuensis wrote:Here's a radical idea - play him or Tremlett as one of 5 bowlers (ie. play to England's strength)! If you're going to field a 6th batsman, surely he has to be able to see off the 2nd new ball (ie. Morgan is no use)? Why bother otherwise?

how can you say that changing our team's balance , a balance that has not lost a test series for 2.5 years, is playing to our strength ?

a 5th bowler would only be bowling a handful of overs a day and what you gain by having that option doesn't compensate for extending the tail imo. if we are 4 or 5 wickets down when the 2nd new ball is taken i would be alot more worried about already being into the tail than having a proper batsman around.

Fists of Fury wrote:In all honesty I don't know a huge amount about the tracks in the UAE - I have heard that they're pretty flat, but not much about whether they disintegrate, is this the case then?

How effective would the pace and bounce of Finn actually be on those tracks? Pace is obviously effective in most conditions, but bounce is one of his key strengths of course.

They are known to be flat but it was turning square in Dubai in the 2nd innings of the 2nd Test against SL.So if the surface is too dry it would be a risk to leave out Morgan as he is the only one apart form KP who can take the game to Ajaml and co and hit them out of the attack.
Re:Finn,well he showed in this series thaqt he can bowl well even on flat pitches

Im 99% sure that the England side you see lining up for that first Test in the UAE will be the one that played most of the home India series. I.e. Trott at 3, Morgan at 6, Bresnan at 8.

Injuries aside, that is the side that has brought us significant success recently, and this England setup isn't one to be making changes for the sake of it.

Finn can consider himself unlucky, but his exclusion will be as a result of the success of others, rather than through any fault of his own.

shankythebiggestengfan

Prior is there to do that.

Fists of Fury

As I posted above, a 6th batsman should be picked with an eye to his ability to see off the 2nd new ball - he's the most likely to face it & big team scores (his raison d'etre) require it to be seen off. That should rule out Morgan in my book, though not necessarily others.

I think Morgan is more than capable of seeing it off providing there is no huge amount of swing, which I don't think there will be out there. Also, if we are batting well, hopefully we will only be a couple down by then

sorry but this logic about who you want facing a 2nd new ball is incredibly flawed

if we are in the position of having 4 or 5 wickets down when the new ball is taken after 80 overs why on earth would we want to have a bowler at the wicket instead of a batsman ?

saying we should drop morgan coz he might not be effective against a second new ball and replacing him with a specialist bowler instead just makes no sense and screams potential collapse incoming

rich1uk wrote:sorry but this logic about who you want facing a 2nd new ball is incredibly flawed

if we are in the position of having 4 or 5 wickets down when the new ball is taken after 80 overs why on earth would we want to have a bowler at the wicket instead of a batsman ?

saying we should drop morgan coz he might not be effective against a second new ball and replacing him with a specialist bowler instead just makes no sense and screams potential collapse incoming

If Morgan is to be replaced it has to be by a batsman(Taylor ) but I do believe Morgan deeserves this winter to establish himself in the Test side.

Agreed - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Unfortunately for Finn, I can't see him getting his next chance until at least after this series. If Bresnan performs badly then he might make way for Finn for the Sri Lanka series, but Finn might need an injury to one of the frontline bowlers in order to get his chance, going by recent form in Tests.

rich1uk

Please read my last 4 words again - I'm not ruling out other batting options, just qualifying the desirable qualities. Morgan has been distinctly mediocre, partly because he hasn't been able to go on. And my logic isn't "incredibly flawed" - you only pick a 6th batsman to build scoreboard pressure. If you're worried about "flakiness" higher up the order, then you make changes there. Besides, why not pick a 7th specialist batsman, given that there's always a chance that the top 6 will fail?

because you base team selection on what has been proven to work and what is a good balance

given our record with a 6/4 split i would suggest that balance has been shown to be successful therefore you would not disrupt that balance by bringing in a 7th batsman as what you would have to give up in terms of bowling options would not compensate for the gain and would do as much harm to your chances of success as i believe a 5th bowler would

all these threads that get into discussions on team balance and support playing 5 bowlers always seem to forget things like that

rich1uk

I'm not arguing for a 7th batsman, merely highlighting the logical flaw in always calling for the "safety" of specialist batting depth. In my book the only argument in favour of a 6th batsman is the increased chance of a big team score & that requires at least 2 new balls. Morgan looks fine flogging an older ball, but next to hopeless when the new cherry is taken.

we're gonna have to disagree then

i dont think that is the only argument for a 6th batsman and given england's previous propensity for a collapse then extending the tail by playing 5 specialist bowlers is just too much of a risk , especially considering we have not really had any trouble taking 20 wickets with a 4 man attack over the last couple of years

i could understand saying we need to strengthen our bowling if it had been a problem but it hasn't

How do you think Finny will do out in New Zealand? Hopefully should be some pace and bounce for him to exploit in those pitches. Hopefully he makes a success of it, and gives the selectors even more food for thought.

IMO finny has to be in the test side. His performances in the odi side have showed that he is bowling with good pace, good rhythym, and everything seems to be working with his action at the moment as well. He looks to have matured as a bowler, even on dead indian wickets he was getting good pace and bounce, and was rattling the indian batsman

if he can do that in india, then on any other pitches he will be almost unplayable.

How can you justify dropping Bresnan though, cf? Surely that would be incredibly harsh, and go against the grain of consistency which this management team have introduced. Bresnans stats of late have been those of a world class all-rounder when you look at it.

i never said to drop bresnan. I never actually said who he would come in for.

That's the only viable option, surely, as we all know that we aren't going to play with 5 bowlers, that just hasn't been the style of this England side, and we haven't needed 5 bowlers.

In my own view, Finn is good enough and is ready to play, but is just unlucky that our bowling unit has had immense success recently, so he will in all likelihood have to wait for his opportunity, and then grab it with both hands when it comes along, much like Bresnan has done with his.

well IMO, i dont care how many times the selectors say it, on pitches in the UAE and india, we are gonna need the extra bowler and not batsman, so i would play.....

1.Strauss
2.Cook
3.Trott
4.KP
5.Bell
6.Prior
7.Bresnan
8.Swann
9.Broad.
10.Anderson
11.Finn

Bresnan is good enough to bat 7 in test cricket. Swann and broad can bat, jimmy and finny arent useless with the bat

Bresnan is not a test match number seven BUT with Broad and Swann at eight and nine, they would counter that.

Saying that, the selectors will probably go with 6-4-1.

It's a nice problem to have, isn't it?

i think the selectors will be extremely worried about how we have been batting against spin and given ajmal gave us problems last year in england on pitches not as spin friendly i would be very surprised if we weaken our batting lineup for the games against pakistan

picking finn in the XI and going with 5 bowlers to avoid a difficult decision on who should miss out would be a complete cop out by the selectors imo

stats on the number of overs a 5th specialist bowler would usually bowl dont really justify wasting a spot in the XI for those handful of overs he would be needed for

It could probably come down to performances in the warm up matches.

rich1uk wrote:i think the selectors will be extremely worried about how we have been batting against spin and given ajmal gave us problems last year in england on pitches not as spin friendly i would be very surprised if we weaken our batting lineup for the games against pakistan

picking finn in the XI and going with 5 bowlers to avoid a difficult decision on who should miss out would be a complete cop out by the selectors imo

stats on the number of overs a 5th specialist bowler would usually bowl dont really justify wasting a spot in the XI for those handful of overs he would be needed for

Agreed.We need Morgan to counter Ajmal.

hello

excellent discussion this, so here's my tuppence worth.

1) The balance. England will play the six batsmen in the first test. It's what they've done with great success ever since Flintoff retired. Yes, I know a lot of pundits reckon that with Prior Bresnan, Broad and Swann we have enough batting to cover playing five bowlers, but I can't see England doing it. As mentioned if there's a weakness in the England team it lies more in the batting than in the bowling (i.e. we nearly always bowl sides out).

2) Steven Finn. Well most people on here who were posting through the India ODIs know that I was hugely impressed by Finny in this series (as we all were). He bowled with great pace, huge heart (don't underestimate this for a fast bowler on subcontinental pitches) and got plenty of life out of pitches which don't normally favour the faster bowlers (see the T20 for example where he took 3-22, and the Indian seamers bowled 3 overs for 31 runs combined). On that basis I'd want him in the team, as he just looks a very very fine bowler.

3) We have an embarrasment of riches on the fast bowler front at the moment, but I'd go with Broad Anderson and Finn, who to me are the three best in England. Harsh on Bresnan and Tremlett? Undoubtedly, but to stay at n°1 we have to be utterly ruthless. The "depth of batting argument" doesn't really cut it for me, with Prior Broad and Swann at 7,8 and 9 I think there's plenty of depth already.

4) However, I suspect the selectors will stick with Bresnan for the first test at least though, but I'd be surprised if England went through the whole winter with the same bowling attack anyway (injuries and such).

Good points, MFC, and very much in agreement with my own, except for the fact that I'd probably stick with Bresnan for the first test at least to see how he performs in those conditions. Finny is breathing down his neck though, for sure, and especially so if he has a good stint in NZ.

Fists, to be honest I wouldn't mind them sticking with Bresnan, like you said, it's a very nice problem to have

As I said I think it could down to who performs better in the warm up matches.If Finn has a stormer in the warm ups in the UAE and if Bresnan is off colour in the warm ups then would Flower be able to ignore a bowler of Finn's ability?If both perform well,then I'd expect them to stick with Bresnan.But Bresnan is out of form atm.And he isnt playing any cricket until the UAE tour whereas Finny would be bowling in New Zealand and would most likely continue to be in rhythm.Will Bresnan be able to recover his form by taking a proper rest?It could well be that he was suffering from fatigue in this series and he is not that good an ODI bowler in any case.So it would depend on form.

First off, I don't like the 5 bowler strategy. I just think if you are in the field long enough for a fifth bowler to get through a decent workload then the opponents have obviously scored a hell of a lot of runs and having five bowlers isn't working anyway! We played five bowlers against Bangladesh in Bangladesh, and Finn being the "fifth bowler" got through little work and his overs could easily have been filled by a Bopara/Trott/KP. Admittedly this might have been because we had played 2 spinners (I think) but I just don't think a fifth bowler will bowl enough to have an impact on the game. Obviously it gives you another option, but I think we should trust our 4 bowlers to get it done.

I would strongly advocate having Finn in the Test side. He offers raw pace which can be a threat when the ball isn't moving, which the others rely on more then Finn. A trio of Anderson (swing), Broad (bounce and Movement) and Finn (Pace and bounce) has a good mix to it I think, whereas Bres is a bit too similar in style to Broad and Anderson and whilst his Test record is good at the moment he may come unstuck on the flatter pitches in India but I can fully understand the selectors going with him for the first Test against Pakistan as he is the man in possession.

1) Balance: by picking 4 bowlers, England ARE playing to their strength which is bowlers. Essentially they are saying "our bowling is good enough that we don't need a 5th bowler". I agree. Very few great sides have used a regular 5th bowler, because all the great sides were primarily great bowling attacks who didn't need one.

Think people underestimate Morgan, don't forget it took him a while to find his feet in ODIs also. I expect big things from him this tour. Also, he's England's best fielder.

2) Personnel: how far away the SL series seems, when Broad was the man under pressure! Now everyone (including me) has him in their starters 11. At the end of the day, I'm a big believer in the man in possession. If there's an injury, whoever replaces him must perform outstandingly well (and significantly better) to oust him. Tremlett was the man in possession. Bresnan replaced him, did he do outstandingly well? Yes, IMO. Has Finn done enough to replace Bresnan? Bresnan gets reverse swing (e.g. MCG) and well though Finn bowled in India, the fact that you have to think about it gives advantage to the man in possession.

Verdict: Bresnan deserves the start. Tremlett and Finn will be on hand if there are injuries or loss of form.

Good post, Mike, except for the Morgan being England's best fielder part. I'd say that is either Bell or Anderson, but I don't want to take this one off topic.

What you say with regard to the bowling is spot on.

another point on the 4 vs 5 bowlers issue is that I've never seen a massive amount of point in having 4 seamers in a side. Basically when you have four seamers and a spinner unless it's swinging round corners one of your seamers isn't going to bowl much, so there seems little point.

Two spinners and thee seamers you can make a case for, but I'm not sure England as of yet have a second spinner who's good enough anyway.

Seems mad that we are even discussing changes, considering we have just annihilated Australia in their own back yard, skittled Sri Lanka in a rain affected series and then annihilated India and their much vaunted batting lineup.

C'est la vie!

undoubtedly...Finn on talent and current form is probably the best in the world.

however england selects their bowlers on their batting strength.....these bowler's works on green tops.

When playing in Abu Dhabi England should have both Tremlett and Finn in the 11...instead they will have broad and bresnan.

and on those pitches that might mean the diffrence between a win-defeat or atleast a win-draw

Anu
Bresnan is a good exponent of reverse swing. Will that not be useful in UAE?

Finn and Tremlett? That would be a recipe for disaster.

Finn, Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Swann

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Anu
Bresnan is a good exponent of reverse swing. Will that not be useful in UAE?

when does he reverse swing?

he is a pitch assisted, very English seamer