Onions/Finn/Bresnan

Interesting selection choice for England going into the first test with the WI. With no injuries, I suspect the team that play's the Windies will almost certainly play in the SA series. So who do you go for:

Bresnan:

More than handy with the bat, adding to the lower order batting with Swann and Broad also. Handy in english conditions and has never let England down in the past.

Finn:

The future of the bowling attack for many years to come. Has improved superbly after being dropped during the ashes, he's gone away, taken wickets in county cricket and in ODI's in batter friendly wickets in the sub continent. One of the few in England who can consistently bowl 90mph.

Onions:

Star of the England bowling line up against Australia at home and SA away, he's back from injury and taking wickets again. A personal favourite of mine, will be very dangerous with his seam bowling when the cloud comes over, and is also deceptively quick.

So who would you pick. Personally, I'd go Finn. He deserves his chance and should be playing test cricket consistently imo. He's gone away, improved his game and will bring a different dimension to the pace attack.

I'd go Bresnan. Don't ask why. My justification would be continuity, and that Finn hasn't (quite) dominated county cricket as he might have. Batting and fielding not a requirement for selection, but I suppose its better to have them than not. Not that Finn is bad in the field.

I'm a big fan of Onions, because with his wicket to wicket slightly skiddy style I think he complements Broad and Anderson very well. I also think he's the more suited to English conditions. Just.

On this occasion though I'd go with Finn; he looks a bit special to me, and will end up the better bowler of the 3. Given there's little to choose between them now, I'd opt for the future.

Bresnan has done little, if anything, wrong, and seems to be England's lucky charm. He also adds more with the bat than either of his rivals (although Finn is the more athletic fielder).

Having said that, I don't see his selection as continuity; he may have been the man in posession in Australia, and then for the home tests, but that's a long time ago now. Finn played as much as he did in the winter in tests, and significantly more in ODIs.

Finn, at home we should go for bowling power as our batsmen are usually competent at home and pir bowlers generally deadly. Finn has something about him which sees him take wickets, the addition of his pace and height adds another dimension to his bowling, also as highlighted Finn has a future in the english bowling department so should be given chances against teams likes the Windies to develop.

Tricky.

I am a big fan of Onions. The perfect line and length bowler and un-luckily has been hit by injuries. I think he is a horses for courses type bowler.

Finn is a brilliant bowler. I think because England have Anderson for swing and Broad for line and length, it seems the logical idea to have Finn who adds pace and bounce. Variation is key.

Bresnan has certainly performed well when brought into the side. Adds a bit of batting depth. I think because Broad ticks those boxes too it is a good back up to have.

Finn for me.

I think this discussion just highlights how strong our seam bowling ranks our. Remember that Tremlett is also a great bowler, though currently injured. The tour match showed that the third string attack of Brooks, Meaker and Dernbach is also very capable of competing with Test teams. I would argue that that third string line-up is a better overall seam attack than India's, Sri Lanka's and New Zealand's first string.

Very true Shelsey.

Dernbach I admit excites me as a bowler. Love watching him in the 20/20's.

I would hate to make the decision on the bowling attack. Any one of the 3 could easily play and take a hatful of wickets.

I agree with the 3rd string being stronger than the India, Sri Lanka and New Zealand first string.

Oooh a horrible choice.

I lean ever so slightly toward Finn, though Bresnan could count himself incredibly unlucky (and would have given us valuable additional batting against a very strong South African attack), but we need to be looking at bowling South Africa out and backing ourselves to get runs - that is what the #1 side in Test cricket should be doing.

Go with Finn, and stick it up 'em.

Finn for me. Send Bresnan back to Yorkshire to help us back into Division 1.

Finn will start the first test I reckon, but I expect to see some rotation during the summer.

Any of the three would do a god job. My preference would be Bresnan but like LondonTiger I expect to see two or three different combinations used at some time during the summer.
Would be a bit cautious on this "our third string is better than so and so's first choice " thing - sounds a bit like some Australian fans and media during their reign : when McGrath and Warne eventually retired and Lee started getting injured they found out it wasn't quite so ...
Big difference between performing in tour matches/limited over games etc and bowling out opponents in Test Matches.
I think potential is what we are really talking about.

alfie wrote:Any of the three would do a god job. My preference would be Bresnan but like LondonTiger I expect to see two or three different combinations used at some time during the summer.
Would be a bit cautious on this "our third string is better than so and so's first choice " thing - sounds a bit like some Australian fans and media during their reign : when McGrath and Warne eventually retired and Lee started getting injured they found out it wasn't quite so ...
Big difference between performing in tour matches/limited over games etc and bowling out opponents in Test Matches.
I think potential is what we are really talking about.

Perhaps, although the Aussies (mostly in batting) certainly had a second string that would have surely been a superb Test side. In circa 1999 (before Taylor and Healy retired and Slater drifted away) Hayden, Langer, Blewett, Lehmann, Law, Bevan and Gilchrist were a reserve top 7. By the mid-2000s this could have been M. Hussey, Jaques, Rogers, Katich, D. Hussey, Hodge, Haddin and I'm sure I've forgetten a few.

Didn't Australia A once play in a tri-series and reach the final.

The issue was that all of the players were of similar age, so the likes of Blewett, Lehmann, Law, Bevan (in Tests), D. Hussey and Hodge have all effectively been lost to Test cricket. And by the time Hayden went in January 2009 the selectors were making some haphazard selections. In my view Dave Hussey should certainly have got a go at that point.

Shelsey93 wrote:

alfie wrote:Any of the three would do a god job. My preference would be Bresnan but like LondonTiger I expect to see two or three different combinations used at some time during the summer.
Would be a bit cautious on this "our third string is better than so and so's first choice " thing - sounds a bit like some Australian fans and media during their reign : when McGrath and Warne eventually retired and Lee started getting injured they found out it wasn't quite so ...
Big difference between performing in tour matches/limited over games etc and bowling out opponents in Test Matches.
I think potential is what we are really talking about.

Perhaps, although the Aussies (mostly in batting) certainly had a second string that would have surely been a superb Test side. In circa 1999 (before Taylor and Healy retired and Slater drifted away) Hayden, Langer, Blewett, Lehmann, Law, Bevan and Gilchrist were a reserve top 7. By the mid-2000s this could have been M. Hussey, Jaques, Rogers, Katich, D. Hussey, Hodge, Haddin and I'm sure I've forgetten a few.

Didn't Australia A once play in a tri-series and reach the final.

The issue was that all of the players were of similar age, so the likes of Blewett, Lehmann, Law, Bevan (in Tests), D. Hussey and Hodge have all effectively been lost to Test cricket. And by the time Hayden went in January 2009 the selectors were making some haphazard selections. In my view Dave Hussey should certainly have got a go at that point.

Martyn Love, Jamie Cox.

Bowling wise they had Kasperwicz, Bichel and of course MacGill who were world class on the sidelines for much of the early to mid 00s. As things went, they did indeed lose a lot of players around the same time, including the reserves.

I agree with alfie to a point, potential doesn't always translate into performances, and it sometimes takes a while to, but England do have at least 6 seamers who are proven international quality. That in itself is fairly remarcable.

Finn for me though I wouldnt go crazy if Bres got the nod. However picking Onions would go against the principle of continuity.