All Out Cricket's discussion of the week - Should Steven Finn be in England's Test team?

In the latest issue of All Out Cricket, we were delighted to unveil Steven Finn as our latest (and lankiest) England diarist. His first effort was a cracker, and you can read a few snippets on the website:

http://www.alloutcricket.com/blogs/international/steven-finns-diary-debut-cricket

Now Finny's fulfilled his media ambitions (well, sort of), we want to know whether you think he'll be in the Test team too soon.

Should be but probably won't be, not the quickest englishman(?) to 50 test wickets for nothing, has something about him where he just picks up wickets.

yes. Keep Bresnan in also as the all rounder, Finn, Broad, Anderson and Swann the genuine wicket takers. Seams around in Sri Lanka also.

i said before the tests started that i would want him in the team

he lost his place because of concerns over his control and the number of "four" balls he bowled. however over the last year he seems to have sorted that problem, is bowling a much more consistent line and length now, and as an added bonus he has got faster

the issue is how do you fit him into the team

swann, broad and anderson are certainties for the first three bowling spots.

you then have a number of players, including finn vying for the other spot, or two spots maybe away to sri lanka. if we play 5 bowlers in sri lanka then we have to play bresnan imo or the tail starts to get a bit long, so that means no room for panesar and would we want a 5 man attack with only one spinner?

its going to be a very hard call to make, and will get even harder when we play at home when i cant see us not playing 6 batsmen.

a good problem to have tho.

There will always be injuries to the fast bowlers so Finn will get his turn and I feel he has gone ahead of Tremlett and Bresnan in the pecking order. Bresnan will be going to Sri Lanka with no bowling for 4 months. Tremlett won't be going.

England have 5 seamers worth a spot. Finns probelm will be his endurance and lack of batting. In the balance of things is he a risk worth taking in a 4 man attack? Id say only where conditions suit. Same goes for panessar, noone would expect him to be in the home test side if swanns fit even though he did great out here.
Finn will get chances with injuries and rotation amongst the 5. If england get some fast bouncy wickets he should be a serious option. But unless england shift to a 5 man atttacki cant see him being shoehorned in as an automatic starter just yet.

As PSW points out, Engalnd currently have 5 seamers competing for at most 3 spots. Add to that the fact that at least one of Broad and Bresnan are likely to be picked because of their batting ability, so there will not be more than 2 non-batting seamers selected (and in many cases only one, most probably Anderson, either to allow for Panesar to play on tour or to extend the batting further). Finn is clearly a good enough bowler to perform in the Test side, but his opportunities are a bit limited at the moment by the selection policy. He's just going to have to wait for his opportunity, and take it when its there - I doubt it will be on the next tour, but he may get a game or two this summer.

Think you guys have pretty much nailed this one. He has the attributes, without a doubt, and that genuine express pace will be very handy at times, but at the moment it is difficult to even begin to envisage dislodging one of the current lot. In Sri Lanka England will go with the same bowling attack that was a success in the UAE: Anderson, Broad, Swann, Panesar in all likelihood, only changing it if we require a win or if we labour in the first Test.

In England, you have to imagine that Bresnan replaces Panesar, given that he adds batting depth and is the 'man in possession' as the third seamer.

Finn will have to wait his turn, whilst continuing to impress in ODI's, but it is fantastic to know that we have such an ace up our sleeve should he be required.

Don’t think so whilst England play on the flatter pitches of the sub continent but prefer it when either him or Tremlett (when fit) play on the harder wickets. Think it is good to have a taller bowler who can get the ball to rise off a fuller length to add some variety into the pace attack, as opposed to 3 quicks who have to pitch the ball further back to get any decent lift. Plus in the past when we have gone in with all swing / seam type quicks Broad thinks he must become the aggressive hit the bat bowler and becomes about half as effective as normal.

In Sri Lanka I would go with
Broad, Anderson, Swann & Panesar or Bressnan (depending on the wicket).

On firmer pitches I would go with
2 of Broad, Anderson & Bressnan and 1 of Tremlett or Finn along with Swann. However Finn or Tremlett must be in form to be considered, I wouldn't want a tall quick in for the sake of it like what happened towards the end of Harmison's test career.

It’s a shame neither Broad nor Bressnan’s batting is good enough to regularly bat at 7. I'm stuck in a 2005 time warp when it comes to a 4 seamers and 1 spinner attack!

Finn will be a good Test bowler and Monday, more than the series in India, to me proved that he is making great progress.

I also believe in consistency of selection, however, and so he should wait his turn. Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Tremlett (sliding due to injuries), Finn, Onions is a reasonable pecking order. Injuries always happen to pacemen so he will get a chance to challenge Bresnan and Tremlett at some point in the not-to-distant future.

B91219 wrote:It’s a shame neither Broad nor Bressnan’s batting is good enough to regularly bat at 7

Bresnan is definitely good enough and Broad debatably. However, I'm not sure 4 quicks are really that necessary with this quality of attack and so would rather have the longer batting line-up and have tight competition amongst the seamers.

It depends who against, with regard to Bresnan batting 7. West Indies yes, by all means, but I wouldn't feel comfortable against South Africa with that tail, for example. Steyn is a master of demolishing the tail.

Finn is as good as ready, it is just a case of him getting that opportunity and taking it, now. He may have to wait a while, but that shouldn't discourage him in the slightest.

I would pick Finn over Bresnan.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I would pick Finn over Bresnan.

England have won every Test in which Bresnan has played. It is too easy to under-estimate his contribution to this.

Shelsey93 wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:I would pick Finn over Bresnan.

England have won every Test in which Bresnan has played. It is too easy to under-rate his contribution to this.

Well,I dont think too many batsmen will fancy facing a 6 ft 7 inch tall bowler steaming in at 90 mph.Bresnan has done well,no doubt.But if there is a better player then I'd pick him.I think most batsmen would face Bresnan rather than Finn.But I dont have a problem with Bres being selected.Just think that Finn is better.Provides more variety to the attack whereas Bres IMO is similar to Jimmy and Broad i.e. a swing bowler.Finn can swing the ball both ways and can also make a batsman hop on the backfoot.

I think in terms of his bowling he would give us a nice edge, i.e. express pace and bounce, whereas Bresnan is more similar to our other bowlers. I think Finn may be in with a shout in Sri Lanka if he keeps this current form up, given that the pitches aren't assisting him a great deal but he is still causing batsmen plenty of problems.

We have a big problem, but of the very best kind. Completely agree with you both, and wouldn't argue with the selection of either.

Fists of Fury wrote:We have a big problem, but of the very best kind. Completely agree with you both, and wouldn't argue with the selection of either.

I think he will be one that comes through later in his career. Take Jimmy. He didn't really start to feature regularly until 2007 when Harmison and Hoggard had gone off the boil. Given the fact that Jimmy has done well on this tour to take wickets when the pitches haven't offered much in the way of swing. Finn has peformed well in the ODI's. When he was part of the Ashes squad he started well and then looked flat come the 2nd Test. Might have been a different story had he been fitter. I think he just needs a bit of authority and aggression something that Jimmy and Broad have when opening the bowling at Test level.

Fists of Fury wrote:We have a big problem, but of the very best kind. Completely agree with you both, and wouldn't argue with the selection of either.

Only if we had a similar problem in the batting department

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:We have a big problem, but of the very best kind. Completely agree with you both, and wouldn't argue with the selection of either.

Only if we had a similar problem in the batting department

England batsmen have largely performed as a unit and almost injury free. England bowlers who have lost their places have done so through injury and can't get back in the team because their replacement is producing the goods.