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?

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.

Yeah but its unfair to say hes done a bad job as captain. Windies have been better under him even when missing a significant number of senior players. Its certainly more united than it was under Gayle and others. Even in its hey day the Windies were rife with political selections and division.

Hes also in the top 10 ICC all rounders, his record as a player isnt that bad.

PSW, how many matches have they on under Sammy's captaincy?
West Indies fought well and hard against Australia in Australia under Gayle with the captain leading from the front, they won a test against South Africa under him, and he led them to a win against England at home as well. In fact other than that often mentioned series against England in England, the West Indies in fact fought well in most series under gayle, and its just a myth that they have suddenly started playing like a unit. and unity has to come among the top players, keeping them out and selecting a bunch of players and saying they are a united outfit, well it doesn't make much sense, does it?

Bresnan should surely be dropped - he is rubbish

fair play to Bres, however if you're looking longer term Finn should be playing more test matches now to be getting better and gaining more experience. He could be a big factor in the South Africa series as I think they will cope with Bresnan better than Finn, so Finn should be playing test matches in preperation for that.

Personally I feel that with the bowling Flower/Saker have built up a lot of credit - and i am prepared to trust them. I fully expect to see Finn playe sevetal tests this summer.

LondonTiger wrote:Bresnan should surely be dropped - he is rubbish

Well he has scored more runs than what that overrated Yorkshireman Bairstow has contributed in 2 test innings for England this test series and crucially unlike Bairstow can contribute with the taking of wickets when England are bowling. Therefore, England should drop Bairstow, so that both Bresnan and Finn can play.

You don't need an extra bowler the way their going against the Windies, maybe when South Africa come round if the batsman are trusted and in good form it couldn't hurt for an extra bowler.

hodge wrote:You don't need an extra bowler the way their going against the Windies, maybe when South Africa come round if the batsman are trusted and in good form it couldn't hurt for an extra bowler.

Well in that case, who should bat at number 6 in the next test V West Indies? For me Bairstow just isn't ready/good enough yet to play at a test match level. The way he struggled against Kemar Roach today was like a repeat of how Graeme Hick struggled against his arch nemesis Curtley Ambrose in 1991. I would like England to try moving Prior to 6 so that we can play a 5 man bowling attack which is what we may need when we play against South Africa.

gboycottnut wrote:

hodge wrote:You don't need an extra bowler the way their going against the Windies, maybe when South Africa come round if the batsman are trusted and in good form it couldn't hurt for an extra bowler.

Well in that case, who should bat at number 6 in the next test V West Indies? For me Bairstow just isn't ready/good enough yet to play at a test match level. The way he struggled against Kemar Roach today was like a repeat of how Graeme Hick struggled against his arch nemesis Curtley Ambrose in 1991. I would like England to try moving Prior to 6 so that we can play a 5 man bowling attack which is what we may need when we play against South Africa.

I just don't get why Prior cant play at 6. His average is better than Botham or Flintoff.....Play Finn and drop Bairstow.....and do it for the 3rd test so we are set for S.A.

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

hodge wrote:You don't need an extra bowler the way their going against the Windies, maybe when South Africa come round if the batsman are trusted and in good form it couldn't hurt for an extra bowler.

Well in that case, who should bat at number 6 in the next test V West Indies? For me Bairstow just isn't ready/good enough yet to play at a test match level. The way he struggled against Kemar Roach today was like a repeat of how Graeme Hick struggled against his arch nemesis Curtley Ambrose in 1991. I would like England to try moving Prior to 6 so that we can play a 5 man bowling attack which is what we may need when we play against South Africa.

I just don't get why Prior cant play at 6. His average is better than Botham or Flintoff.....Play Finn and drop Bairstow.....and do it for the 3rd test so we are set for S.A.

That is what I have been saying England should have been doing as we have one of best batting lower order batting lineups in test cricket at present.

England need 6 batsmen a lot more than they need 5 bowlers IMO. All the best sides in cricket history have relied on 4 excellent bowlers to get 20 wickets. The 5th bowler would rarely get enough work to justify his inclusion (in the last two innings against the West Indies Swann didn't bowl all that much say).

5 bowlers only really works on very flat pitches (e.g. Australia picked 5 in the West Indies around 2003) or if you have a genuine all-rounder (Kallis, or Flintoff for a few years around 2005).

Putting Prior at 6 would also put a lot more responsibility on him than he has at the moment: he is certainly good enough to bat at 6, but like Gilchrist is more suited to the number 7 position because of the way he bats.

There is no doubt that number 6 is a problem position for England, but I don't think ignoring the problem (effectively) is going to solve it.

James Taylor would fix the problem at six.

But seriously, let's give Bairstow a chance before we all write him off. Yes, he struggled against the short ball, but Gooch will have him in the nets all week looking at it and I expect to see an improvement even before the next Test match. He has a good temperament, and that in my eyes is more important than some technical problems at test level.

And I hate this 5 bowlers argument. If the fifth bowler bowls enough overs to advocate his inclusion then they opposition have batted for too long and we won't be winning the game anyway.

JDizzle wrote:James Taylor would fix the problem at six.

But seriously, let's give Bairstow a chance before we all write him off. Yes, he struggled against the short ball, but Gooch will have him in the nets all week looking at it and I expect to see an improvement even before the next Test match. He has a good temperament, and that in my eyes is more important than some technical problems at test level.

And I hate this 5 bowlers argument. If the fifth bowler bowls enough overs to advocate his inclusion then they opposition have batted for too long and we won't be winning the game anyway.

But wouldn't it be better to leave him out of the 3rd test v West Indies to give him more time both to improve his technique against the short ball, and also to allow him to mentally get his head sorted out in dealing with the situations in which pace bowlers are giving many short balls.

JDizzle wrote:James Taylor would fix the problem at six.

But seriously, let's give Bairstow a chance before we all write him off. Yes, he struggled against the short ball, but Gooch will have him in the nets all week looking at it and I expect to see an improvement even before the next Test match. He has a good temperament, and that in my eyes is more important than some technical problems at test level.

And I hate this 5 bowlers argument. If the fifth bowler bowls enough overs to advocate his inclusion then
they opposition have batted for too long and we won't be winning the game anyway.

Taylor won't fix the problem as he is too short and is nothing more than a slogger of flat track bowling.

That was a tongue in cheek comment about Taylor from me, but I wouldn't even go into the ridiculousness of saying he won't succeed because he is too short.

And there is only so much work you can do in the nets. You need to get out there and actually face the music in the middle. Sure the Windies will pump him with some more short bowling, but imagine the confidence boost he will get if he gets through that and makes a 50 or 60 after that. It will be a major test of him and I want to see Bairstow tested. And let's be honest, he isn't going to encounter many bowlers who can test him with 90mph bouncers in Div2 of the CC any way so he won't learn much more.

JDizzle wrote:That was a tongue in cheek comment about Taylor from me, but I wouldn't even go into the ridiculousness of saying he won't succeed because he is too short.

And there is only so much work you can do in the nets. You need to get out there and actually face the music in the middle. Sure the Windies will pump him with some more short bowling, but imagine the confidence boost he will get if he gets through that and makes a 50 or 60 after that. It will be a major test of him and I want to see Bairstow tested. And let's be honest, he isn't going to encounter many bowlers who can test him with 90mph bouncers in Div2 of the CC any way so he won't learn much more.

But letting Bairstow learn about playing short bowling at 90mph out in there in the middle at a test match level just doesn't work. Just look at what happened to Graeme Hick when the West Indies fast bowlers, particularly Curtley Ambrose continually peppered him with fast, nasty short balls during the 1991 test series. When Hick went back to play at a county level for Worcestershire, he just wasn't the same player as his nerves had gone and his confidence was shot to pieces.

There is also no way that the current England selectors will treat Bairstow as badly as they treated Hick, parachuting him and out of the side so he has that advantage. But there really isn't any fast bowlers who could really test Jonny with the bouncer in Div 2. He won't learn anything there. He is better off having an intense week in the nets with Gooch and playing the third test at least to see if there is any improvement, which I think there would be.

Going by the Flower Strauss way, Bairstow will have a few more chances. The lad has got a fine temprament, and despite his obvious struggles, I think he should be given another go.
No side in the world would go for a 5th bowler generally if they don't have a quality all-rounder available in their ranks. Australia can go for 5, as Shane Watson is their 5th bowler, and he does a fairly good job at that besides being a pretty good bat.
South Africa can do that because they have one of the greatest ever all-rounders in their side, although he has cut down bowling duties as he's not getting much younger these days, but you can always be asured of Kallis bowling at furious pace, getting it up over 140 consistently in short spels.
Bangladesh could afford, as their number 1 bowler happens to be one of their top batters as well.
Other than these, no side at the moment is in a position to go with that option.
England's case isn't any different. Their batting has struggled from the 2nd half of last year, but even in real tough conditions, their bowling unit, the 4 man unit stood up and set up matches. even against the West Indies the England batting lineup has managed 2 collapses, and the bowlers had to fight hard to restore their domination.
So unless say a Woakes or a Stokes develop into a quality contributer with both bat and ball, England can't really think of a 5th bowler consistently.

Remember that Bairstow wasn't first choice. Bopara may return if he scores some runs for Essex and Bairstow continues to fail.

Fine county player he is, I am not quite convinced about Ravi Bopara though.
And interestingly enough, neither Michael Vaughan nor Andrew Strauss showed much trust in his bowling, effective at times it is in county circles. So I am not sure He would provide long term answers.
Chris Woakes averages in the midd 30s with the bat in FC cricket, and he has played well over 50 matches. He's a bowler first with more than 200 wickets. One way would be to bat him at 7, with Prior batting at 6.
Or Stokes, who's batting I didn't see as developed enough to play test cricket when he played the India ODI series should be given the go, and expect him to contribute with the ball as well, and I believe he's a better bowler than Paul Collingwood, Ravi Bopara or Jonathan Trott.

I'm not convinced by Bopara either but he was first choice, so the selectors must still rate him.

Woakes at seven wouldn't seem right when you could have Bresnan and Finn if you were going down the five bowler route.

Even though he hasn't had a great start to the season, I think James Vince for Hants has the makings of a quality Test match cricket. It may be too early but I think if Bairstow can get a go then he certainly deserves a game or two. He's such a classy player, Vaughn comparisons continue to be made, but I really think he looks the part.

I also think Taylor should have gotten in ahead of Bairstow. He's been waiting in the wings allot longer and has been in good nick for the Lions, didn't he score a hundred against the WI in the warm up game?

I'm not writing Bairstow off, he's clearly a quality player, but playing in division two and then playing test match cricket against what is a decent bowling unit is a bit of surprise imo. Although you could also look at it as a learning curve for the young man, as he will only become a better player after facing Roach's pace and bounce early in his career, it will make him mentally stronger that's for sure.

gboycottnut wrote:

JDizzle wrote:James Taylor would fix the problem at six.

But seriously, let's give Bairstow a chance before we all write him off. Yes, he struggled against the short ball, but Gooch will have him in the nets all week looking at it and I expect to see an improvement even before the next Test match. He has a good temperament, and that in my eyes is more important than some technical problems at test level.

And I hate this 5 bowlers argument. If the fifth bowler bowls enough overs to advocate his inclusion then
they opposition have batted for too long and we won't be winning the game anyway.

Taylor won't fix the problem as he is too short and is nothing more than a slogger of flat track bowling.

Do you actually know anything about cricket?

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

JDizzle wrote:James Taylor would fix the problem at six.

But seriously, let's give Bairstow a chance before we all write him off. Yes, he struggled against the short ball, but Gooch will have him in the nets all week looking at it and I expect to see an improvement even before the next Test match. He has a good temperament, and that in my eyes is more important than some technical problems at test level.

And I hate this 5 bowlers argument. If the fifth bowler bowls enough overs to advocate his inclusion then
they opposition have batted for too long and we won't be winning the game anyway.

Taylor won't fix the problem as he is too short and is nothing more than a slogger of flat track bowling.

Do you actually know anything about cricket?

You should have highlighted the too short comment as well. Bradman, Sachin and Lara are no Harlem Globetrotters!

Stella wrote:

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

JDizzle wrote:James Taylor would fix the problem at six.

But seriously, let's give Bairstow a chance before we all write him off. Yes, he struggled against the short ball, but Gooch will have him in the nets all week looking at it and I expect to see an improvement even before the next Test match. He has a good temperament, and that in my eyes is more important than some technical problems at test level.

And I hate this 5 bowlers argument. If the fifth bowler bowls enough overs to advocate his inclusion then
they opposition have batted for too long and we won't be winning the game anyway.

Taylor won't fix the problem as he is too short and is nothing more than a slogger of flat track bowling.

Do you actually know anything about cricket?

You should have highlighted the too short comment as well. Bradman, Sachin and Lara are no Harlem Globetrotters!

That would have been a bit hard to understand for GBNut

martyr_94 wrote:Even though he hasn't had a great start to the season, I think James Vince for Hants has the makings of a quality Test match cricket. It may be too early but I think if Bairstow can get a go then he certainly deserves a game or two. He's such a classy player, Vaughn comparisons continue to be made, but I really think he looks the part.

I also think Taylor should have gotten in ahead of Bairstow. He's been waiting in the wings allot longer and has been in good nick for the Lions, didn't he score a hundred against the WI in the warm up game?

I'm not writing Bairstow off, he's clearly a quality player, but playing in division two and then playing test match cricket against what is a decent bowling unit is a bit of surprise imo. Although you could also look at it as a learning curve for the young man, as he will only become a better player after facing Roach's pace and bounce early in his career, it will make him mentally stronger that's for sure.

Completely agree martyr, especially about Vincey. Seriously classy batsman.

Vince always looks a million dollars when I see him play, but he is only averaging 32 in FC cricket. I know average isn't everything, and he has more potential than that suggests but he needs to have at least one huge season in the CC before he even gets on eEngland's radar.

back to bres vs finn..

i rate finn very highly but bres is having a pretty good test here, and will most likely play against saffers..

if we wrap up this test, i would like to see finn play the 3rd test.

I agree CF, rest Anderson and bring in Finn. May be tempted to also bring in Onions for Broad.

Onions would bring the seam movement Anderson possess and is certainly no average joe himself, would probably still be in the side if it wasn't for that awful back injury he suffered.

Finn for Broad, brings his pace and bounce to the attack. Wouldn't really be too much of a shake up. You lose a bit of batting but the batters are there to get the runs and the bowlers to take wickets.

No point in resting Anderson as I doubt he will play the ODI's.

i never said rest anderson..

i meant rest bresnan and play finn.

Jimmy is hunting Sir Ian's record...no way he will be rested!

CF wrote:i never said rest anderson..

i meant rest bresnan and play finn.

Yes sorry I meant I agree bring Finn in, then my opinion of resting Anderson, sorry didn't make it clear.

Why would you rest Bresnan, He hasn't played much cricket after his injury, and has only played two test matches so I doubt he needs a rest.

Stella wrote:No point in resting Anderson as I doubt he will play the ODI's.

Yes but he's played 10 consecutive days of Test match cricket plus has played every single Test in the winter. I know he's our main bowler, but he won't be missed too much against an opposition like the WI and with the likes of Finn and Onions to deputise, we will still be in good shape heading into the third Test, with perhaps a little more variety with an attack of Finn/Onions, Broad, Bresnan and Swann.

I'm not that sold on rotation policies in test matches. I think continuity outtrumps "rest" in this case. Given what's gone on here I'd stick with Bresnan again (although I maintain Finn is the better bowler).

Bairstow should get another chance, the truth is he won't improve his technique against the short ball by playing county cricket (he may not improve it by playing test cricket either, but his temparament may see him through).

I'm interested in this Vince guy, must admit I haven't seen all that much of him. Wouldn't be too concerned about an average of 32 in first class cricket (e.g. Vaughan and Trescothick averaged fewer when they made their test debuts).

At least with Bairstow they know what they need to work on with him and Gooch can set specific targets to fix it. If hes not looking likes hes developed a way of dealing with the short ball them drop him till he has, otherwise it would be as unfair as Australia putting giving Phil Hughes the chance to prove himself against England.
Weighing against Bairstow for SA of course is Goochs long term love affair with Bopara. For the next Windies game Id be amazed if hes dropped though. It would show a remarkable lack of faith in his ability to develop and open the question of why he was picked in the first place.
England are clearly happy with Bresnan in the bowling unit too. And despite us armchair experts continuously writing him off (Aus tour!) he keeps taking wickets and contributing with the bat.
I dont see England going with a 5 man attack for any reason other than getting a second spinner in if they decide to doctor a turning pitch knowing SA only have Tahir, but that blew up in their faces when they tried it with Aus at Glamorgan.
Finn may be strong enough now to be trusted in a 4 man attack, but Bresnan is the man in possession and doing the job, and supporting the others in doing theirs. I was surprised they went with Bresnan over finn at the start of this series, but the choice appears to have been justified (or at least theres no evidence that Finn would have been even better). I cant see any convincing argument to change that for the last test in this series ( other than rest/rotation if someone has the figuires to show Broad or Anderson are at risk of fatigue) or for the first test at least against SA.

Bairstow was picked because Bops was injured. Bairstow will have one more test to prove his worth.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:At least with Bairstow they know what they need to work on with him and Gooch can set specific targets to fix it. If hes not looking likes hes developed a way of dealing with the short ball them drop him till he has, otherwise it would be as unfair as Australia putting giving Phil Hughes the chance to prove himself against England.
Weighing against Bairstow for SA of course is Goochs long term love affair with Bopara. For the next Windies game Id be amazed if hes dropped though. It would show a remarkable lack of faith in his ability to develop and open the question of why he was picked in the first place.
England are clearly happy with Bresnan in the bowling unit too. And despite us armchair experts continuously writing him off (Aus tour!) he keeps taking wickets and contributing with the bat.
I dont see England going with a 5 man attack for any reason other than getting a second spinner in if they decide to doctor a turning pitch knowing SA only have Tahir, but that blew up in their faces when they tried it with Aus at Glamorgan.
Finn may be strong enough now to be trusted in a 4 man attack, but Bresnan is the man in possession and doing the job, and supporting the others in doing theirs. I was surprised they went with Bresnan over finn at the start of this series, but the choice appears to have been justified (or at least theres no evidence that Finn would have been even better). I cant see any convincing argument to change that for the last test in this series ( other than rest/rotation if someone has the figuires to show Broad or Anderson are at risk of fatigue) or for the first test at least against SA.

The problem Bairstow has is to do with his current technique when playing fast bowling. That is not something that one can change easily in a week and then try out for the first time in the middle of a test match. He needs to go back to county cricket to try any new technique out first.

gboycottnut wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:At least with Bairstow they know what they need to work on with him and Gooch can set specific targets to fix it. If hes not looking likes hes developed a way of dealing with the short ball them drop him till he has, otherwise it would be as unfair as Australia putting giving Phil Hughes the chance to prove himself against England.
Weighing against Bairstow for SA of course is Goochs long term love affair with Bopara. For the next Windies game Id be amazed if hes dropped though. It would show a remarkable lack of faith in his ability to develop and open the question of why he was picked in the first place.
England are clearly happy with Bresnan in the bowling unit too. And despite us armchair experts continuously writing him off (Aus tour!) he keeps taking wickets and contributing with the bat.
I dont see England going with a 5 man attack for any reason other than getting a second spinner in if they decide to doctor a turning pitch knowing SA only have Tahir, but that blew up in their faces when they tried it with Aus at Glamorgan.
Finn may be strong enough now to be trusted in a 4 man attack, but Bresnan is the man in possession and doing the job, and supporting the others in doing theirs. I was surprised they went with Bresnan over finn at the start of this series, but the choice appears to have been justified (or at least theres no evidence that Finn would have been even better). I cant see any convincing argument to change that for the last test in this series ( other than rest/rotation if someone has the figuires to show Broad or Anderson are at risk of fatigue) or for the first test at least against SA.

The problem Bairstow has is to do with his current technique when playing fast bowling. That is not something that one can change easily in a week and then try out for the first time in the middle of a test match. He needs to go back to county cricket to try any new technique out first.

IMO the problem is less to do with technique than mindset. If it's technique then he needs a couple of months off the game entirely to work on it which is of course unfeasible given we're in the early stages of the English season. Going back to county cricket won't help him sort out his issues with facing quick short fast bowling in any case.

The 'send him back to county cricket' garbage really riles me.

Do you really think he can face a bowler of the pace, accuracy and skill of Kemar Roach in division 2? No, he would go back, get runs, and nothing would have changed.

The England staff will identify any issues he has and attempt to rectify them in the short time they have available to them. As Mike says, though, there can be no quick fix if there is a genuine technical problem.

Fists of Fury wrote:The 'send him back to county cricket' garbage really riles me.

Do you really think he can face a bowler of the pace, accuracy and skill of Kemar Roach in division 2? No, he would go back, get runs, and nothing would have changed.

The England staff will identify any issues he has and attempt to rectify them in the short time they have available to them. As Mike says, though, there can be no quick fix if there is a genuine technical problem.

Whilst there may be no one as quick as Kemar Roach in Division 2 of county cricket, he can still try out any new technique for playing the short ball without any of the pressures of playing in a test match for his country.

But playing a short ball at 84mph and playing one at 89mph are two different things entirely. It quite simply wouldn't be adequate. He will have already faced short balls in division 2, and has clearly done ok against them, so if there is a genuine problem then it is more than likely to be as a direct result of the additional pace.

gboycottnut wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:The 'send him back to county cricket' garbage really riles me.

Do you really think he can face a bowler of the pace, accuracy and skill of Kemar Roach in division 2? No, he would go back, get runs, and nothing would have changed.

The England staff will identify any issues he has and attempt to rectify them in the short time they have available to them. As Mike says, though, there can be no quick fix if there is a genuine technical problem.

Whilst there may be no one as quick as Kemar Roach in Division 2 of county cricket, he can still try out any new technique for playing the short ball without any of the pressures of playing in a test match for his country.

No he can't because he won't have had time to develop any new technique; he'll go back to playing how he always has. And frankly he'll be playing short balls around his chest/hip rather than armpits, at 8 mph slower and thumping them to the boundary as Fists says.

I think he'll get far more out of a week in the nets with Gooch than a month playing Div 2 bowlers. And I still think it's more a case of developing a plan (and then trusting it) than anything technical; very different from Phil Hughes...

Fists of Fury wrote:But playing a short ball at 84mph and playing one at 89mph are two different things entirely. It quite simply wouldn't be adequate. He will have already faced short balls in division 2, and has clearly done ok against them, so if there is a genuine problem then it is more than likely to be as a direct result of the additional pace.

Well does it really make that much difference if the ball comes at you from 89mph as opposed to 84mph? There must be bowlers in division 2 who are capable of sending the ball down at 88+mph.

gboycottnut wrote:
Well does it really make that much difference if the ball comes at you from 89mph as opposed to 84mph?

Yes

gboycottnut wrote:There must be bowlers in division 2 who are capable of sending the ball down at 88+mph.

Not many, and not as accurately as Roach was doing it. One thing Bairstow's troubles have highlighted is the difference in standards between test and county cricket.

5mph is a massive difference.
One of Shaun Tait's old mates at Glamorgan once said he had faced 90mph bowlers and that Tait was a completely different kettle of fish!

With this current test series now settled with England winning it, should England consider playing both Bairstow and Bopara in next week's third and final test against the West Indies in order to give the 2 players in-form Strauss and Pietersen a rest before the hard South Africa series starts. The major benefit of playing both Bairstow and Bopara is that it will allow Bairstow to try out any new technique he has come up with for dealing with the nasty fast short ball, whilst also allowing for Bopara an opportunity to ease himself back into test cricket, giving him a chance of putting his case forward for being selected for the first test against South Africa.

Batsman don't need rest, particularly form batsmen. Strauss and Pietersen just need to play, and to bat.

I'd be loathe to rest anyone, in honesty, unless the situation truly demands it.

Fists of Fury wrote:Batsman don't need rest, particularly form batsmen. Strauss and Pietersen just need to play, and to bat.

I'd be loathe to rest anyone, in honesty, unless the situation truly demands it.

Well if not to rest, but to try out other players, particularly in view of the South Africa test series in which England could do with another batsman in reserve who has already played test cricket this summer in case something happens to one of the current senior batsmen.

REST?

You're paid to play, so play (take from the film, Roadhouse )