England Consider Resting Anderson

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/18309739

If we do rest Anderson on Thursday then it'll be either Finn or Onions who replaces him. Probably Finn, but Onions did have an eleven wicket match haul against Lancashire for Durham recently which pushes him into contention.

Got to be Finn for me, should be given the chance to show what he can do in comparison to the seamers who have had a chance so far.

And Anderson has been rested; Finn and Onions both in the squad.

I'd be very surprised if England went with Onions ahead of Finn. Finn is clearly seen as ahead in the pecking order at the moment, and is in pretty decent form himself (he picked up three in each innings of the last county match, and they were all good wickets IIRC).

Don't get this at all. Anderson wanted to play, said he wanted to play and said he was fine. SO WHY REST HIM? It's not as if the South Africa Tests are imminent.

Don't get me started, sir fred. It is very, very bad by the selectors. The paying public (who pay a heck of a lot, I might add) want to see the best players. Anderson is easily one of those, so to leave him out when he is fit and willing to play is an insult.

They say 'oh well our backup bowlers are very good Test bowlers in their own right'. Yes, they are, but they don't produce half the magic that Jimmy does. Horrendous decision.

Anderson may have felt he was fit. Freddie Flintoff thought he was fit for the Ashes test at headingley in 09. England say they were concerned about a couple of niggling injuries, which seems fair enough. Can you imagine the stick they'd have got if say he'd done his hamstring and missed part of the SA series as a result?

But anyone could get injured during this Test..there is always a risk.

true, but that risk is greater if you're carrying the odd niggle. There's a big difference between being fit enough to play a test (which I believe Anderson is), and free of any injuries or niggles (which he isn't). They're arguments both ways, but on this occasion I don't mind England erring on the side of caution.

The England management feel Anderson is carrying a couple of "niggles" which could worsen if he plays. Nothing shocking IMO about that. Their job is to pick the best team available taking in all relevant factors; it is certainly not to please the paying public (the ECB should of course be concerned about the paying public, but the ECB is not the England selectors, and if my board tried to influence the team I pick then they'd be looking for a new coach pretty sharpish).

It's great that Anderson wants to play. But contrary to popular belief he isn't necessarily the best judge.

Reasonable decision IMO.

I think we're all agreed that this idea of resting people is a response to the greater workload our top cricketers face these days?

Assuming that's agreed, this is a very new system. I think I'll wait and see how things are later in the year before I make a judgement. I do like the fact that the management are aware of workload and are trying to do something about it. And I'm not too sure what else the management can do about overload other than rest people.

On the value for money, well, yes, it would be good to see Anderson, but it's also interesting to see Finn (at a guess) slot in to the attack and take his chance. Or not. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that the management takes the chance offered to look at a differently balanced attack in a dead rubber game.

Right Anderson will also be under pressure to show passion and desire to play, even though he may well secretly agree that its for the best to be rested. Its all a bit of game with showing the right attitude these days ( Hi KP ).

Its not a new concept at all. England have long rotated their squads, and central contracts were bought in to help give England control over the amount of county games the players were used for...in some cases resting them. This is a dead rubber ahead of the most important series of the year, had it been the SA series decider then they probably wouldve risked him.

Resting him is the sensible option if he has a niggle considering the series score.

As for value for money. Finn for Anderson is hardly being taken for a ride. If they had rested a few like KP, Bell etc then maybe.

Anderson is 10x better to watch. He sets up batsmen with cunning and skill and makes them look foolish with it.

Finn is good in his own right, but it isn't the same (plus I'll hardly see the ball if Finny is whacking it down at 90 )

Mmm, hardly the same as Bopara for KP

Another shocker by the selectors. Totally agree with Fists. KP wants to play in T20's, the pen pushers say no. Jimmy wants to play in the 3rd test, the selectors say no. Stuff the paying public or what.

I'm seeing a trend. Oh, and they obviously want to keep Jimmy fresh for the ODI's, as KP is now gone.

If he plays in the ODI's it is a joke. The whole of England would rather see Jimmy play in this Test and then sit out the ODI's, if necessary.

I think that this is the right move. It is better to rest Anderson for a meaningless game, what with the series already won, than play him and have him break down later in the summer.

I also think that we need to give Finn or Onions as much chances on an international stage as we can. Finn has already proven his worth when played. As well as playing them when somebodys injured, we should give them opportunities when we can, and this is an ideal opportunity.

As for the paying public, I bought tickets for the ODI at Headingley well before KP said he was retireing, and expected to see him there, should i ask for some money back now he's not going to play? It's like any sport, surely you go to see the team rather than individuals. And while i agree about seeing the best team, this can't always happen.

Fists of Fury wrote:If he plays in the ODI's it is a joke. The whole of England would rather see Jimmy play in this Test and then sit out the ODI's, if necessary.

This. The ODIs this summer (especially the 5 match series against the Aussies) are very pointless and the World Cup is three years away. I would have played Jimmy tomorrow and let me sit out the one dayers before playing him again against the Saffers.

Worst series in the history of appalling series, that's how to describe the frankly ridiculous ODI schedule against Australia this summer. And to think we only have 3 Tests against the Saffers...outrageous.

tigerrobins wrote:I think that this is the right move. It is better to rest Anderson for a meaningless game, what with the series already won, than play him and have him break down later in the summer.

I also think that we need to give Finn or Onions as much chances on an international stage as we can. Finn has already proven his worth when played. As well as playing them when somebodys injured, we should give them opportunities when we can, and this is an ideal opportunity.

As for the paying public, I bought tickets for the ODI at Headingley well before KP said he was retireing, and expected to see him there, should i ask for some money back now he's not going to play? It's like any sport, surely you go to see the team rather than individuals. And while i agree about seeing the best team, this can't always happen.

It is not meaningless. Test Series 'scores' count as part of the rankings. You get more ranking points for a 3-0, than you do for a 2-0 / 2-1. And as there is no Test World Cup, this is all we have. If Finn has already proved he can play well when brought in, then your point is moot. Or play him at 6, and drop the 'project' guy. You go and support your team, but when the best players are removed for stupid reasons, and not injury of family related issues, then it is a joke.

Fists of Fury wrote:Worst series in the history of appalling series, that's how to describe the frankly ridiculous ODI schedule against Australia this summer. And to think we only have 3 Tests against the Saffers...outrageous.

This, squared....

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:Stuff the paying public or what.

Why on earth should the England selectors care about the paying public? Their job is to pick the best team given the circumstances. In their opinion it is better that Anderson not play this match. Given that he is carrying a couple of minor niggles they are IMO right.

And can someone explain why 5 ODIs against the best ODI team in the world are pointless? It is this attitude to ODIs which is one of the main reasons why England remains so firmly average at them.

Mike Selig wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:Stuff the paying public or what.

Why on earth should the England selectors care about the paying public? Their job is to pick the best team given the circumstances. In their opinion it is better that Anderson not play this match. Given that he is carrying a couple of minor niggles they are IMO right.

And can someone explain why 5 ODIs against the best ODI team in the world are pointless? It is this attitude to ODIs which is one of the main reasons why England remains so firmly average at them.

We played 5 against Australia last year and the year before that I think and we'll probably play against them in at least 10 (maybe 14!) ODIs next year home and away. We should just stick to the Windies and Saffers ODI series this year.

Duty281 wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:Stuff the paying public or what.

Why on earth should the England selectors care about the paying public? Their job is to pick the best team given the circumstances. In their opinion it is better that Anderson not play this match. Given that he is carrying a couple of minor niggles they are IMO right.

And can someone explain why 5 ODIs against the best ODI team in the world are pointless? It is this attitude to ODIs which is one of the main reasons why England remains so firmly average at them.

We played 5 against Australia last year and the year before that I think and we'll probably play against them in at least 10 (maybe 14!) ODIs next year home and away. We should just stick to the Windies and Saffers ODI series this year.

Actually that's a fair comment, I retract my question.

The more you play the better you get, plus it gives you a chance to try out players who are on the radar of future test call ups. Hope to see Taylor and maybe Vince in those ODI's against Australia.

Anderson apparently had a few niggles so why take the risk. Finn will come in and have a chance to impress, its not like we're bringing in some unproven player. I would rest Broad for the ODI's though and bring in Meaker and give him a run out.

Douglas

Whilst i agree about ranking points, i do not think that resting one player will effect the team. In a series against a side that is there to be beaten, this is a fairly good game to bring in the players that are on the fringes to see what they can do. After all the way we're going to keep at the top is compation for places. And by giving them more games will increase that compition, and give them the feeling of belonging to the test squad, rather than just being a part of it.

Also fully agree about the ODI series against Australia, absolutely pointless, and there is no reason for it.

Mike Selig wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:Stuff the paying public or what.

Why on earth should the England selectors care about the paying public? Their job is to pick the best team given the circumstances. In their opinion it is better that Anderson not play this match. Given that he is carrying a couple of minor niggles they are IMO right.

And can someone explain why 5 ODIs against the best ODI team in the world are pointless? It is this attitude to ODIs which is one of the main reasons why England remains so firmly average at them.

Because without the paying public, they don't have a job. Sure, I get what they are there for, but resting Jimmy with 7 weeks between tests? He needs rest as much as I need a reason to go to the pub. I enjoy all forms of the game, but I believe Test Cricket to be the pinacle of the game, and as such, you should put out your strongest side. But the selectors have to keep him fresh for the ODI's. Imagine Jimmy retiring 3 wickets behind Sir Ian....

It's not their career and legacy they are jeopardising.....perhaps we shoud have different selectors for each form of the game. They have different captains....

You already answered the Aussie ODI point...

tigerrobins wrote:Douglas

Whilst i agree about ranking points, i do not think that resting one player will effect the team. In a series against a side that is there to be beaten, this is a fairly good game to bring in the players that are on the fringes to see what they can do. After all the way we're going to keep at the top is compation for places. And by giving them more games will increase that compition, and give them the feeling of belonging to the test squad, rather than just being a part of it.

Also fully agree about the ODI series against Australia, absolutely pointless, and there is no reason for it.

No, I agree, it shouldn't, but what if some of the Windies top 4 actually show-up, and Finn or Onions toil. Do we drop one or two of the selectors if we lose?

There's that risk if it's Anderson, Finn or Onions, There has to be a game when one of the West Indies top 4 decides to stop leaving it to Sammy or Samuels. And Edgebastion is a venue that could suit them (providing it stops raining).
I get what you're saying, and in a way i do believe that if fully fit he should be playing, but i do feel that this is an ideal opportunity for some of the other players to have chance to shine if he's not 100%, with the series won. so in this case don't feel as bad.
Though i do feel that the real reason they're resting him is for him to be fit for the Australia ODI series.

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
Because without the paying public, they don't have a job.

That's oversimplistic. For a start most of the money involved in English cricket comes from sky, so only from the public partially and indirectly. Anyway, the fact is this is sport, not business, and the public are fans, not customers. Or at least that's how it should be. The selectors should never ever take into account views from the media, those above them in the ECB or the public. Simply put, the coach and captain (who thankfully now are also on the selection panel) know the players and the situation better than anyone else, so are the most informed and the best-placed to make the decisions.

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
but resting Jimmy with 7 weeks between tests? He needs rest as much as I need a reason to go to the pub.

That's your uninformed view. I suggest the selectors (via the management) know far more whether he needs rest than any of us commenting on here. This will be a Strauss and Flower decision, it will have been explained to Anderson behind closed doors, and no doubt he'll have understood. Sure, he'll be disappointed, but I'd expect nothing less.

Mike Selig wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
but resting Jimmy with 7 weeks between tests? He needs rest as much as I need a reason to go to the pub.

That's your uninformed view. I suggest the selectors (via the management) know far more whether he needs rest than any of us commenting on here. This will be a Strauss and Flower decision, it will have been explained to Anderson behind closed doors, and no doubt he'll have understood. Sure, he'll be disappointed, but I'd expect nothing less.

Mike - generally, I agree with that. However, I still wonder if you're being a bit overly respectful towards the England management and selectors. Call me an old cynic - I'm sure you've called me wose! - but would Anderson need a rest if we didn't have such seam strength in depth and perhaps a wish to keep Finn or Onions sweet?

guildfordbat wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
but resting Jimmy with 7 weeks between tests? He needs rest as much as I need a reason to go to the pub.

That's your uninformed view. I suggest the selectors (via the management) know far more whether he needs rest than any of us commenting on here. This will be a Strauss and Flower decision, it will have been explained to Anderson behind closed doors, and no doubt he'll have understood. Sure, he'll be disappointed, but I'd expect nothing less.

Mike - generally, I agree with that. However, I still wonder if you're being a bit overly respectful towards the England management and selectors. Call me an old cynic - I'm sure you've called me wose! - but would Anderson need a rest if we didn't have such seam strength in depth and perhaps a wish to keep Finn or Onions sweet?

If you're asking me whether with the ashes locked at 1-1, with neither Finn nor Onions available, in the final test of the summer/winter the selectors would have picked Anderson despite his niggles, I believe the answer is obviously yes, they'd have taken the risk.

But 2-0 at the start of an important summer, 2 class acts waiting in the wings for any chance to impress, and Anderson carrying some niggles which the management believe could get worse if he plays in this game? I think it's MfC who said that Anderson was probably fit enough to play, but not necessarily 100%, and that's probably spot on. Erring on the side of caution is understandable.

Have England picked their strongest available XI? No. Have they picked the best XI given the circumstances? I believe so. Even if it costs them a 3-0 scoreline (it looks like the weather is going to take care of that anyway).

I don't think your views are contradictory with Mike's though guildford. I have a feeling myself that this is more a precautionary measure due to Anderson having some niggles. If it were say the deciding test against SA England would probably risk it, but as the situation stands it would be too much risk for too little gain (I fully expect England to win without him).

is it going to rain?

Mike beat me to it with his previous comment BTW...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I don't think your views are contradictory with Mike's though guildford....

Mad and Mike - I go along with that. In my opening post, I did say I generally agreed with Mike.

I've actually no issue with Finn or Onions coming in for this Test. In many ways, a good thing to get the extra experience now than wait for, say, 'real' injury dictating it necessary for the decider in the South Africa series.

Clearly it's important how matters are explained to Anderson. The fuller and franker the explanation, the better in my view - that's the point I was really trying to convey.

With the test series already won, England could have used this rare opportunity in this final test of blooding a young swing-type of bowler who can take over when Anderson retires from England duty. For me Glamorgan's James Harris should have been given a chance to get experience of playing in a test match atmosphere.

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I don't think your views are contradictory with Mike's though guildford....

Mad and Mike - I go along with that. In my opening post, I did say I generally agreed with Mike.

I've actually no issue with Finn or Onions coming in for this Test. In many ways, a good thing to get the extra experience now than wait for, say, 'real' injury dictating it necessary for the decider in the South Africa series.

Clearly it's important how matters are explained to Anderson. The fuller and franker the explanation, the better in my view - that's the point I was really trying to convey.

Then drop Bairstow and play a 4th seamer......just chucking a new thought out there........!

With the rain ruining today's play and also likely tommorrow's play as well, it would be a bit embarassing for the England selectors and coaching staff if there was no play at all during this entire test match as they dropped Anderson in the end all for nothing really.

gboycottnut wrote:With the rain ruining today's play and also likely tommorrow's play as well, it would be a bit embarassing for the England selectors and coaching staff if there was no play at all during this entire test match as they dropped Anderson in the end all for nothing really.

You don't half post some weird stuff! I'm slightly confused by your point here. Are you saying that England mgt should have looked at the weather forecast and picked Anderson knowing he was likely not to play anyway and therefore avoid media and Botham hysteria?

England mgt wanted Anderson to rest, mentally and phyiscally. That means being away from cricket. If he was selected, he would not have been rested regardless of the weather.

And as for your suggestion of using James Harris, what sort of a message would that send to Onions and Finn nevermind others?

Lucky batsmen, no rotation for them.

liverbnz wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:With the rain ruining today's play and also likely tommorrow's play as well, it would be a bit embarassing for the England selectors and coaching staff if there was no play at all during this entire test match as they dropped Anderson in the end all for nothing really.

You don't half post some weird stuff! I'm slightly confused by your point here. Are you saying that England mgt should have looked at the weather forecast and picked Anderson knowing he was likely not to play anyway and therefore avoid media and Botham hysteria?

England mgt wanted Anderson to rest, mentally and phyiscally. That means being away from cricket. If he was selected, he would not have been rested regardless of the weather.

And as for your suggestion of using James Harris, what sort of a message would that send to Onions and Finn nevermind others?

I'm thinking 'tongue in cheek'....

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I don't think your views are contradictory with Mike's though guildford....

Mad and Mike - I go along with that. In my opening post, I did say I generally agreed with Mike.

I've actually no issue with Finn or Onions coming in for this Test. In many ways, a good thing to get the extra experience now than wait for, say, 'real' injury dictating it necessary for the decider in the South Africa series.

Clearly it's important how matters are explained to Anderson. The fuller and franker the explanation, the better in my view - that's the point I was really trying to convey.

Then drop Bairstow and play a 4th seamer......just chucking a new thought out there........!

Drop your limited overs specialist for a game you may need to score quickly in?

All looking very academic now anyway, they could pick a custard tart for all the difference it will make

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

liverbnz wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:With the rain ruining today's play and also likely tommorrow's play as well, it would be a bit embarassing for the England selectors and coaching staff if there was no play at all during this entire test match as they dropped Anderson in the end all for nothing really.

You don't half post some weird stuff! I'm slightly confused by your point here. Are you saying that England mgt should have looked at the weather forecast and picked Anderson knowing he was likely not to play anyway and therefore avoid media and Botham hysteria?

England mgt wanted Anderson to rest, mentally and phyiscally. That means being away from cricket. If he was selected, he would not have been rested regardless of the weather.

And as for your suggestion of using James Harris, what sort of a message would that send to Onions and Finn nevermind others?

I'm thinking 'tongue in cheek'....

If it was anyone else maybe.

Boycott does type the most unusual of posts but I do think he is taking the mick.