Bresnan vs Finn

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?

I expected to see Finn start the last test ahead of TimTom, but to see rotation of the seamers throughout the series depending on conditions and to allow decent rest.

The reason they gave for Finn missing out - slow pitch, suit Bresnan more etc, suggests they will do a horses for courses policy.

Next match is Trent Bridge on Friday? If so a pitch that recently has been good for people who reverse swing the ball (which Bressie does). So Bresnan to play the next match, but finn and possibly also Onions to come in for the 3rd would be my guess.

Finn for me, Holding made the point in commentary, bowlers are in the team to take wickets simple as, Finn will take more wickets than Bresnan

Finn 53 wickets from 13 matches - often as opening bowler.

Bresnan 44 wickets from 12 matches as first/second change.


Not as much in it as you would think. Finn is much more of a strike bowler, I agree, but then that is also Anderson and Broads job. Bresnan gets thrown the softer ball and "does a job". Finn prefers to have a harder ball.

Finn would give us more variety, which is something I think we lack.

When we were struggling yesterday I bet Strauss would have given anything to have a real speedster to bring in to the attack, which is what Finn is. It is something different, and is the kind of pace that could hurry the likes of Chanderpaul.

Fists of Fury wrote:Finn would give us more variety, which is something I think we lack.

When we were struggling yesterday I bet Strauss would have given anything to have a real speedster to bring in to the attack, which is what Finn is. It is something different, and is the kind of pace that could hurry the likes of Chanderpaul.

Does he really offer that much other than hooning it down at 90mph? Is a softer ball going to move for him? With Broad and Anderson in good form it seems a waste to take Finn.

At least with Bresnan you have the potential of a few extra runs, and someone who can soak up overs in the dull patches of the game?

Finn may open the bowling if he plays?
Broad is usually better with the old one and Finn the new, so makes sense.

I think Finn hooning it down at more than 90mph is more than enough reason to pick him! Look at the great Aussie side which had McGrath and Gillespie whom could be relied upon to keep the run rate down, then they had the wildcard of Brett Lee who might go for a few more runs but would take wickets. The gamble on Finn is worth it. If, maybe this won't happen at Trent Bridge, the ball isn't moving and the pitch is flaccid then we need someone who can do something different. Wanging it down there at 90 plus mph and getting steepling bounce will pressure any batsman.

I do wonder if Onions will come into consideration for TB? Horses for courses, this would suit him down to the ground.

JD answered for me. Hooning it down at 90mph is exactly what we need. You don't need too much movement to be a danger at those speeds.

Let's get some stats out there:

Batting Average - TB 35.88/ SF 9.25
Bowling Average - TB 26.88/ SF 26.92

I'd probably take Finn over Bresnan. Having said that, there is competition from Monty P, Tremlett, Onions and possibly Woakes and Dernbach in the near future.

It's not only the pace, but the bounce and he gets natural movement into the bat with an old ball (not talking about swing, more angle/shape) whereas Broad and Anderson naturally move it away.

Bresnan has done a good job, but I think Finn is simply a better bowler.

i would have played Finn at lords and bres at trent bridge.

I'm sure you all know my views on Steven Finn now, been championing him for a Test place since he went back to Middlesex to work on his game. I think people are making the mistake of talking about the Steven Finn of last year when referring to him now. Those are two completely different bowlers in my opinion.

The Finn of old was raw, a little wayward but when he got it right he was superb. That Finn however, was not bowling 90mph for a start. He was bowling average 84-86 with an effort ball of around 88mph. Still a decent pace but not what we are seeing now. I would say he averages 86-88 with an effort ball of 90+. That is some serious pace, from a man verging on 6ft 8 I believe. That's where his bounce comes in. Any batsmen knows the worst form of bowling is from a fast tall bowler, just ask anyone who faced the legendary WI team.

There is also the misconception that Finn sprays it around a bit, and although he takes wickets, he goes for too many runs. Tru of the Finn from last year. If you watched his bowling in the Indian Test series, he was one of the few bowlers who were able to go at just over 4.5 runs an over, on pitches that offered nothing to the england bowlers. That there tells me he is a different bowler. We saw it in the Test series against Sri Lanka, his game is all about accuracy, line and length bowling added with the pace and bounce he possesses.

For me, we need to make use of a talent such as his, he is the most exiting bowler to come through the ranks in the England team for a while, with so much potential, and taking 50 wickets in his first 10 test matches says it all really. Bresnan is a fine cricketer, does a good job, but he's not going to win you a test match. That is why I'd rather Finn get a good run in the side, because with SA coming up we need to be bowling them out relatively cheaply to give us a chance against their bowling attack. Finn, Broad, Anderson and Swann for me is the best bowling attack in world cricket, and would give SA far more problems than if Bresnan were in the side. Bresnan is someone who I would be quite happy coming in if there was injury, because he is mr.consistent and would 'do a job'. For the future as well as the present, Finn is the man to go to.

I agree 100% with Martyr's post. I would also ask the question: who would the opposition batsmen least like to face? I reckon most would fancy their chances against Bresnan a fair amount more...

None of this is in any kind of way meant to be a criticism of Bresnan: he is a very very fine cricketer.

Spot on Mike, I always try and put myself in the batsmen's shoes, but like you said, this isn't a Bresnan bashing thread, because I have allot of respect for the man and the effort and commitment he puts into every test, as shown in the Ashes.

Just to throw one further consideration into the discussion - Bresnan has now played 12 Tests for England and we have won all 12 matches.

Don't get me wrong, I think Finn is the more dangerous bowler, and that we are probably over-egging the lower middle order batting by having Bresnan-Broad-Swann as 8, 9 and 10, but there's also the maxim that you don't change a winning team.

Time for five bowlers?

Stella wrote:Time for five bowlers?

Four bowlers are enough in English conditions. Even in this match Swann wasn't used that much, and the three seamers weren't over-bowled.

Finn for Trent Bridge. Horses for courses and that. Bresnan has done really well and consider himself a tad unlucky to be in an era of Anderson and Broad. That said as highlighted on another thread shows the depth the England Squad has.

What a wonderful dilemma to have for the England team management.
On the one hand you have a bowling all-rounder who complements the 3 other attacking bowlers in fine style keeping a good control over the flow of runs, would be ready to run in hard in the last over of the day as he would do in his first over of the spel, a decent fielder, one of the better number 8 batters, and oh, besides all that he happens to be the sides lucky charm as well!!.
On the other hand, you have a bright young fast bowler who bowls at over 90 MPH, has gained far more control over his line and length, gets so much of bounce even on flat sub-continent tracks, and having seen him in India, also moves the ball a bit at that pace.
Ideally they both should play, particularly considering Graeme Swann would be coming down at 9, that is a pretty long batting lineup.
But Since Fred Flintoff's retirement, England hasn't really traveled much in that direction. England's batting lineup has shown some inconsistencies, particularly when confronted with spin bowling. Otherwise, English conditions generally tend to offer a bit more to the ball, so it is better to secure the batting lineup with 6 batters + a wicket keeper who can bat well.
So England will have to make a hard choice. After much thought, I think they have to go for Finn. He is a greater wicket taking threat, and he's a bit different from the 2 other lead seamers, Jimmy Anderson and Stuart Broad. And I think the new and improved Steve Finn can also bowl long spels, and find lots of energy later in the day, an admirable quality that Tim B has shown in the past.
Bresnan will always be my first choice replacement, but I think I'll vote for Finn to be the 3rd component of that strong pace unit to start with.
But there is nothing much to complain if the team management goes with Bresnan, as he is a mighty fine cricketer any day!, and Finn's days will certainly come in the not too long future.

Better to be in a position where we have to make the choice between at least 3 genuine Test class bowlers (to include Onions as well), all of who have somewhat different styles and strengths to their game, than to be in the position of picking Jimmy Ormond (although his response to Mark Waugh's sledge is the stuff of legend, up there with Peter Crouch's response when asked what he would be if he wasn't a footballer, to which he replied 'a virgin').

I would have been tempted to stick Finn in for the first test at Lords, but now we've picked Bresnan I'd stick with him. He's coming back from an injury lay-off and things didn't quite go for him in the third test, but he should get more from the pitch at Trent Bridge, and it would be great to see him pick up 5 or 6 wickets up there and show that he's back approaching his best. Dropping him now could harm his confidence and we might well need him on form and confident later on against South Africa.

A few people have said "who would batsman least like to face?", but I think a question we also have to ask is who would Anderson, Broad or Swann like to bowl with? Bowling is done in partnerships just as batting is, and Bresnan's economy creates pressure even if he isn't taking wickets for other bowlers to cash in on. I'd be very interested to see how many wickets have fallen while Bresnan has been bowling at the other end.

I'm not saying Bresnan is definitely a better pick than Finn, after all I was 50/50 before the Lords test, but there is a lot of merit in selecting Bresnan and there is a lot to be said for sticking with a winning team. Should he play I would be highly surprised if Bresnan's figures were anything as close to as bad again at Trent Bridge (and if they were then I would say send him back to county cricket to get his form back).

With West Indies weak in the bowling department where there it seems there is only Kemar Roach who posesses a genuine consistent threat to England's batsmen, England could try out 5 specialist batters, the keeper at 6 and then 5 specialist bowlers which includes both Bresnan and Finn in order to get a look at how well Finn does compared to Bresnan in the same match.

I think England need to explore the 5 bowler option at some point. I know how comfortable Flower and Strauss are with their formula, and it has been exceptionally successful, but it could possibly be the next stage in their development as a squad. I am not saying it must be 5 bowlers all the time, but it should be a system in which the players are comfortable with if the situation dictates.

What I would like to see is almost a 'first 12' situation in which the sixth specialist batman and all 4 quicks are always involved in the match squad, and the makeup of the final 11 would be flexible. Using the incumbents as examples, Bairstow would play when we are on a bowler friendly wicket and feel it necessary to have 7 proper batsman, and 1 of the 4 seamers would not feature in that match, whoever needs a rest. Then when we arrive at a flat track, Bairstow (or another batsman if form dictates) makes way and all 5 bowlers play and Bresnan bats at 7. The culture should be more that players are selected for their attributes in each independent situation, not that players are 'dropped'.

The batting capabilities of the bowlers allow this flexibility. Bresnan is not a test match number 7, but between Bresnan, Broad and Swann we have 3 decent number 8s. Bresnan and Broad could almost be classed as '7 and a halfs' given their test batting records.

There is already rotation with the quick bowlers, so why not include the batsmen in this too? Like I say, players shouldn't think they've been dropped, just that they're getting a rest and it's someone else's turn. It would also promote healthy competition as the players would undoubtedly want to play in every game and no one would want to be the bowler/batsman sacrificed when the pitch/opposition dictates.

I don't think there is an issue with Bresnan batting 7, but that isn't really the point. The point is that England have won lots of Tests with 4 bowlers, and that a 5th would mean that one or two of them would have very little bowling to do, particularly in England. A 6th batter has the potential to bail you out if the top-order get knocked over, and can accelerate the scoring ahead of a declaration too.

For West Indies, five bowlers would be the ideal way to go. But they don't have a good enough 'keeper-batsman, or a top six batsman that you could class as a serious bowling option.

For West Indies, five bowlers would be the ideal way to go. But they don't have a good enough 'keeper-batsman, or a top six batsman that you could class as a serious bowling option.

-------------------------------

Not without Bravo they haven't.

Stella wrote:For West Indies, five bowlers would be the ideal way to go. But they don't have a good enough 'keeper-batsman, or a top six batsman that you could class as a serious bowling option.

-------------------------------

Not without Bravo they haven't.

Perhaps. Although I question Bravo the top six batsman in Test cricket - Average of 32 (worse than Bresnan), and unable to dig in as the WI middle order often have to. I would honestly favour a Samuels or Deonarine for that reason. His bowling is a step down from Sammy really (similar pace but less swing) in the longer form of the game, so he isn't worth being picked as a bowler either.

As I have said with Sarwan, and to some extent Gayle in the past, it is odd how people become better players when they are not in the team.

I always thought Bravo was a decent number six considering the team he plays in. Beggars can't be choosers. plus Bresnan's batting average will I'm sure go down given time.

I'd have him in the English team if he were English.

Stella wrote:I always thought Bravo was a decent number six considering the team he plays in. Beggars can't be choosers. plus Bresnan's batting average will I'm sure go down given time.

I'd have him in the English team if he were English.

If he was English he would probably have been dispatched to county cricket, or perhaps the fringes of the one-day team long ago.

Well, he's better than Patel

Dwayne Bravo in the current England test team? Sorry but I can't see it.

It's a horrible term I know, but he would have to fit in the 'bits-and-pieces' player category. Okay batsman, but nowhere near a test quality top 6. Decent enough bowler but not very threatening. England had an obsession with these type of players a few years ago, especially in ODIs (where admittedly they can be useful players) and I didn't like it. I'd rather see 6 proper batsmen, a solid wicket keeper and 4 proper bowlers. Then if bowlers can bat it's a bonus, as with Broad and Bresnan, and this allows flexibility in the lineup as I mentioned above.

A guy picked as a bowler has to be one of the best available bowlers, and a guy picked to bat must be one of the best available batsmen. Bravo does not fall into either category in respect to the current England side (nor does Sammy).

Would you say Morgan is a much better bat than Bravo? I wouldn't. Yes, he has the edge but Bravo would be more than a handy fourth seamer as well.

Not really worth debating I suppose but we do seem to be lacking a good number six. Maybe Bairstow will be the man?

I would say Morgan has the potential to be a far better batsman that Bravo. Bravo has 40 tests and still an average only just above 30. Like you say it isn't really a debate worth having, but it's interesting to see other opinions.

I think Bairstow can be the man. He looked good for his 16 in the first innings and he has more county pedigree than Morgan had when he came into the side. I hope he is given the same chances as others have been in the past and I hope he turns out more like Ian Bell than Ravi Bopara, and I see no reason this can't be the case. He looks a very solid batsman. We have seen in ODIs he has big game temperament, we have seen in this test he is a sharp fielder and it would be nice to have someone else in the side who could don the gloves if needs be. But it's the batting that is his primary concern and hopefully he will flourish.

I don't see any need for England to go into matches in this country with 4 seamers plus a spinner - if a seam bowling attack of Broad, Anderson and one of Finn or Bresnan, with Swann providing the spin option, is not good enough to dismiss the opposition, an attack of Broad, Anderson, Finn and Bresnan is not likely to do any better.

If and when we do go for a five man attack, it should be in matches where we are looking to play two spinners and three seamers. This is the situation where we could do to find a true all-rounder either as the third seamer or second spinner - Woakes might turn out to be the man for the job, but I don't think Samit is quite good enough as either a batsman or bowler to fill that role.

dummy_half wrote:

If and when we do go for a five man attack, it should be in matches where we are looking to play two spinners and three seamers.

Or when we are reduced to carrying liabilities like Harmisson and Flintoff who couldnt be relied upon to stay in one piece ( mentally or phyically in the others case) again.

It would be handy for England to have a Collingwood in the side rather than a Bairstow though, a batsman who justifies his place on batting alone but can regulalry bowl 10 overs of variety and take the odd wicket., ideally of course youd like mid career Kallis or Chuck Norris but lets not get unrealistic. Its from that point of view I can understand their obsession with Bopara...failing that though its the ginger kid with promise if not results so far in his international career with Trott and KP pretending to be support bowlers.
Genuine batsmen who can bowl reasonably well is the one area England are lacking in that all the other top sides have. Well that and the ability to play on slow pitches.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

dummy_half wrote:

If and when we do go for a five man attack, it should be in matches where we are looking to play two spinners and three seamers.

Or when we are reduced to carrying liabilities like Harmisson and Flintoff who couldnt be relied upon to stay in one piece ( mentally or phyically in the others case) again.

It would be handy for England to have a Collingwood in the side rather than a Bairstow though, a batsman who justifies his place on batting alone but can regulalry bowl 10 overs of variety and take the odd wicket., ideally of course youd like mid career Kallis or Chuck Norris but lets not get unrealistic. Its from that point of view I can understand their obsession with Bopara...failing that though its the ginger kid with promise if not results so far in his international career with Trott and KP pretending to be support bowlers.
Genuine batsmen who can bowl reasonably well is the one area England are lacking in that all the other top sides have. Well that and the ability to play on slow pitches.

To be honest, I wouldn't class Trott as that much worse a bowler than Collingwood... and Collingwood hardly bowled in Tests.

Collingwood averaged in the mid 30's at his best , and wouldve bowled a lot more if he hadnt largely played in 5 bowlers sides. But yes he was much more a limited overs bowler than a test one, especially toward the end. But the point is England dont even have a bowler like him there to do a job anymore, other top sides have one or two at least as good as him.
Its not a primary concern, its just one of those oddities in the England side that if you were trying to create a perfect balance in a fantasy world youd fix.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Collingwood averaged in the mid 30's at his best , and wouldve bowled a lot more if he hadnt largely played in 5 bowlers sides. But yes he was much more a limited overs bowler than a test one, especially toward the end. But the point is England dont even have a bowler like him there to do a job anymore, other top sides have one or two at least as good as him.
Its not a primary concern, its just one of those oddities in the England side that if you were trying to create a perfect balance in a fantasy world youd fix.

Ravi Bopara is the same type of bowler as Paul Collingwood and was supposed to fill Collingwood's role as the fifth choice support bowler.

Finn should have played at lords..

however bresnan is the person to play at TB, he will swing it round corners there.

I don't think he has ever 'swung it round corners', but he may gain a little swing, yes.

Well, he is playing by the looks of things.

The pitch is quicker at TB, so Finn may have prospered from that.

I like Bresnan, I really do, but England need to ditch this conservative approach and play our best bowlers. Finn is a better bowler, and certainly more threatening to the better batsmen, that is for sure.

He needs to be playing against South Africa otherwise our attack is just too one paced. This would have been good practice for him, but no doubt England will once again be conservative and opt for the longer batting lineup ahead of the more dangerous bowling attack.

Might seem harsh, but it is what we need I think.

i rate finn highly i really do, im one of his biggest fans..

but TB suits bresnan better IMO..

and lords suits finn better IMO.

Bresnan does have a better bowling average than Finn, Broad and Anderson and whilst we're still winning, Bresnan will keep playing.

I do agree that Finn is the better bowler though.

2 points from my side,
Would England side have place for a Dwayne Bravo?
If ever they think of playing a 5th bowler, I think then there is a chance. Bravo is a decent baat, decent bowl, superb fielder. Surely would walking into the England ODI side, and should be somehere close to be considered in certain circumstnces for the test. Don't think he can be a lot less than Ravi Bopara or even Eoin Morgan, considering the all-round package.
Now for the West Indies, now that is not a fantacy question, but much of reality. Marlon Samuels doesn't didn't average even up to 30 before the HQ test. Deonarine again is a very inconsistent batter who's record isn't the finest. Captain Sammy is not evn there to bat or bowl for the side, all that is just a bonus, he's there to do some unknown super-human stuff, and anyways he averages just around 20. Andrew Russell is a very sharp bowler, an ok at, who's time should come in the future, don't think he's ready. Lendl Simmons, Kieran Powell, Adrian Barath, Devin Smith, Dwayne Smith, Brendan Nash, all have had their chances, and all of them were found to be inconsistent or mediocre.
So the elder Bravo certainly would make the WI side as a handy number 6 batsman, although his team would need him to convert more 50s into hundreds, and all those 40s and 30s to half-centuries. Now that he's a fairly decent bowler and a great fielder, he would walk into the WI side with eas.
Alas, only if the powers that be in WI cricket would have been a touch sensible.

Interesting question msp. If there were a place for Bravo in the England side I'd fancy it's as a n°6 (if they wish to go with five bowlers, Bresnan at 7 seems a better option - he's a much better bowler than Bravo and probably not far off being as good a batsman). Not sure he's really a good enough batsman to be a test n°6, but he wouldn't be too far off. He'd probably make the ODI side though (instead of Patel I'd think, certainly in non sub-continent conditions).

The real question though, is he good enough for the WI side? While I still think you're very harsh on Sammy (he's there as a bowler who bats a bit - not "not even there to bat or bowl"), there's no doubt he's not an ideal third seamer (in a similar way I didn't like England's team in the first test in SL as the balance seemed off without a proper third seamer), and picking Bravo and Sammy together doesn't look right.

Samuels? Had a good test at Lords but ordinary record (Bravo's is marginally superior with the bat, far superior with the ball). So yes, in answer to your question, I do think the WI would look a better side with Bravo at 6, Russell or Taylor at 8, Rampaul/Edwards and Roach and a spinner (Narine probably, if not Bishoo or Shillingford).

However, while you're always happy to lay into Sammy, I'd ask you the question: what should he do about it? Should he say "I don't want to captain the country because I don't feel I'm good enough to make the side"? Would you? I wouldn't...

Ultimately Bresnan brings balance to the side. Runs down the order and gives you control with the ball. Good, not great, but every team needs an honest trier.

MFC,
my issues with Sammy are not limited to his ordinariness and mediocrity as a player alone. There are larger reasons. Sammy's appointment is a political one and not a cricketing one, as he isn't good enough to make the side either as a bowler, or as a batsman, or even an all-rounder.
So while your point of his passivity in his selection as a player and captain is valid, the way he has played the WICB card to the detriment of the side, by actively supporting the lackadaisical and insulting treatment of their better players in favor of a bunch of mediocre ones is counter to the spirit of responsibility as captain of the side.
I guess as a political appointee, he has to answer to his political masters, and therefore can't be expected to act in lines of people such as Mike Denness for the better interests of the team.
But at least as captain, he could try and get the team united, not by taking the head of anyone who questions the WICB or culling anyone who think a bit different.
As a political appointee on a cricket Sammy will have to face all the duely deserved criticism that comes his way, unless he could justify first of all his position in the side. Getting selected on political grounds is one thing, not to expect others not to take note and keep quiet on that is very different.

The captaincy and selection of Sammy itself is the price for his willingness to play along in the nefarious plans of the WICB, who's role in running West Indies cricket to ground is more than that of anyone else.
Ernest Helaire acts as if West Indies cricket is his family property, and Sammy acts as his watchman.

msp83 wrote:The captaincy and selection of Sammy itself is the price for his willingness to play along in the nefarious plans of the WICB, who's role in running West Indies cricket to ground is more than that of anyone else.
Ernest Helaire acts as if West Indies cricket is his family property, and Sammy acts as his watchman.

Well said and the West Indies fans on some of the other forums have the same opinion. They realise the situation the WI players are facing and understand why they are going to the IPL.