selection issues for england

now the performances in this game have posed a dilemma for the selectors in the next test.

JImmy anderson is expected to be fit and will take his place in the side, but who does he come in for.

Broad, senior bowler in this game, but struggling

Tremlett, not at his best but been in good form recnetly

Finn, 4 wickets, only came in for jimmy, and refound some form

who would you leave out, its a tough decision

For me,Finn. Broads just came back from his injury so deserves at least a test or two to prove himself to the selectors and would be harsh to leave him out. Tremlett despite being poor in this game had a brilliant Ashes and deserves his place in the side. Finn still a little bit too consistent for me and seems to have one good game than the next play poor.

Broad could come under threat if he doesn't deliver in the next test though. Finn,Dernbach and Bresnan when he comes back could find themselves on the verge of a test place if Broad doesn't deliver soon.

I really, really want to say Broad should be left out but if Jimmy comes in for him then that is a very long tail with Anderson, Tremlett and Finn 9, 10, 11. However, if Broad doesn't pick him form up in this last match then he should definitely be cast aside for the Indian series. However, at this moment in time I would go with Jimmy, Broad and Tremlett.

maybe leave Anderson out to ensure he is able to play the india series at 100%

hodge wrote:maybe leave Anderson out to ensure he is able to play the india series at 100%

England looked like they have missed Jimmy in this test also England haven't won the series yet they'll want to play there best bowler.

i suppose but if there even is a slight risk of him suffering a reccourance would you play him and have him potentially miss the india series?

also you could then tell the remaining bowlers, Anderson has his place and they need to perform to secure their place in the team with 2 spots available and none of them are guaranteed a place

hodge wrote:i suppose but if there even is a slight risk of him suffering a reccourance would you play him and have him potentially miss the india series?

If theres a risk yes I would agree but if he's fully fit then he should play.

Finn should be dropped. He offers on control for Strauss

He bowled like a mug and only saved his figures with a few flukey wickets.

What England need is a left arm bowler like Allan Mullally. Unfortunately there just aren't any obvious choices available at present.

gboycottnut wrote:What England need is a left arm bowler like Allan Mullally. Unfortunately there just aren't any obvious choices available at present
.

We did have Sidebottom but he's now retired from international cricket.

Broad is a senior bowler and is coming back from injury but in all honesty, he hasnt bowled very well. Finn may be eratic but he does bowl wicket taking deliveries and is the youngest player to take 50 test wickets for England so he has to stay.

For the third test, i would bring Jimmy in (if fit) for Broad and swap KP for Taylor. If Strauss was'nt a very sucessfull captain, his place would also be under threat.

The only selection issue for the next test really is Broad for Finn.
They wont rush to ditch Strauss (note Boycotts comments on how comforting it is to be Captian when you get out for a duck!) even if his form gets as bad as Cooks was last year. Its not the first time hes ben through this in his career, although dropping him did work last time Im certain they wouldnt want to go into the India series with a new Capatin and an opener with at best one cap. Theres zero chance of Trott moving from 3.
Same goes for KP really. It usually takes batsmen a series to bed in, and starting someone like Taylor in what will probably be a series decider followed by Englands biggest home series since the 2005 Ashes isnt exactly ideal.
Its not like KP and Strauss are bad players, they are good players going through a bad patch.

Cook, Prior, Trott, Swann, Anderson are untouchable. Morgan has done enough to warrant staying in for the start of the India series at least, he did his job in the first innings.

Tremlett just eeds to keep doing what hes done. Any bowler will have an off day but his freakish height and bounce seems able to trouble batsmen in any conditions. For now he stays. With Anderson back Englands seam bowling will seem less one dimensional.

The issue with Broad is that he has only been a genuinly good bowler for a short period of his career, and has been a poor one for longer parts. When they were looking to play 5 bowlers having guys who could regularly get 50's with teh bat was pretty vital, but with a 4 man attack there isnt the luxury to look at anything othe rthan bowling. Finn is a more effective bowler.
Broad really needs to step up again to justify his continued selection ahead of Finn IMO.
I suspect they will stick with him regardless however.


Theres still a problem in the side with a lack of a batsman who gives a fifth bowling option, but Id much rather have Englands batting power and four quality bowlers than Sri Lanka's Maharoof ( I mean seriosuly what is this guy doing in test cricket? hes like the anti-Kallis)

Anderson for Finn , no question. (Unless he takes 6/21 in the second innings maybe)
As Liam pointed out , Broad is only just back in Tests after his injury , had been performing well prior to that , and gets a game or two to prove he is worth his spot.
Plus he bats. Swann , who would have to move to 8 , has not been making runs lately , so the team balance thing works for Broad.
As indeed it does with bowling types - I rather feel the ideal England attack has one of Tremlett or Finn , not both , and Tremlett is clearly first choice there.
When Bresnan is fit again , Broad will need to be firing...

But Finn is getting wickets alfie. He is the quickest England bowler to 50 test wickets beating Botham. He can be wayward (like Broad) but he does bowl wicket taking deliveries.

Eire
Finn only took 4 for over 100 in the first innings. OK, better than Broad's figures, but hardly world beating.
Also, I don't think he's the quickest to 50 wickets, but the youngest - hardly a surprise given how young he was on debut and the amount of cricket played now by comparison with in Botham's early career.

Broad was one of the three man attack that skittled SL for 82 in the first Test, and is starting to find some rhythm again after a relatively long injury absence. Add to that the improved balance of having Broad's batting ability coming in at 8.

In an ideal world, England would have the options of picking both a really good left arm seamer and someone with express pace in addition to the Anderson as a swing bowler and the Tremlett-Broad-Finn triumvirate of tall hit-the-deck bowlers.

Youngest was it? Thanks for the correction, I knew he held some English record for 50 test wickets.

I really rate Broad and think that he is a good bowler but even before his injury his sucess' were sporadic. Right now Finn is taking wickets at a very good average. Its a fantastic dilema to have in all honesty .

It's true Finn takes wickets , even on days when he isn't bowling very well , a very useful knack - reminds me in that way of I T Botham - but his figures of 4/100 odd are not that special. And some other hauls of his - eg the six wickets he took at Brisbane - are in a similar "a bit too late to matter" category in my view.

I hasten to add that I don't mean to be too critical , there is a lot to like about his bowling and I see him as a future star , but I do not think he is yet consistent enough to oust one of the leading bowlers (Anderson, Tremlett, Bresnan, Broad , and probably Onions are the first choice group in my opinion)

"Finn only took 4 for over 100 in the first innings"

Thats still averaging well under 30. Broads career average is over 30. So it was only considerbaly better than Broads average career pefomance and only a hell of a lot better than his peformance a 1 for 125.
Finn is incosistent within an over and through a game, so is Broad. The diference is that Finn has always taken wickets.

Broad should be under pressure to justoify his continued selection. Batting isnt a consideration in a 4 man attack.

Averages aren't everything. Broad won two Tests for England with the ball in 2009/10 (against Australia and South Africa) , and he can be a game changer.

I admit he hasn't been good in these two games but I reckon he has another one to show what he can do.

And I wouldn't agree batting isn't a consideration - perhaps not as big a one as it might be with less top order batting , but it still counts.

How about considering Graham Napier as England's number 6 bowling all-rounder?

GB
I think you'd be lucky if Napier is the 6th best bowling all rounder in County Cricket. OK, with his hitting power you can make a case for him playing T20 and maybe even ODIs, but for Tests, he'd be another in our long line of supposed all rounders who were neither good enough batsmen nor bowlers to justify their inclusion in the side.

I think the balance of the batting line-up is very good at the moment (and disagree with PSWs comment that batting is irrelevant to a 4 man bowling attack - I still want one competent batsman for 8 and a good hitter in the Warne, Harmison mould for 9), its just an issue that the 3 seamers are a bit samey in the absence of Jimmy A. At the moment I'd say Jimmy comes back if fit, and that Tremlett and Finn are playing for one place (Tremlett's Cardiff heroics putting him ahead at present) and Broad will come under pressure once Bresnan is fit.

I would select Anderson for Broad for the reason it would give some variety into the attack and definitely more penetration from our #1 bowler.

If Broad was in better form I'd say Anderson for Finn but Finn's taking wickets even though he is lacking the control from last season.

I suspect the panel will choose Broad over Finn :-/

I think we should stick with Broad for now, and whilst Finn has contributed well in terms of wicket returns, he does take away the ability of the bowling attack as a unit to dry up runs and apply pressure from both ends. His economy rate will of course improve with time as he matures as a bowler, but right now I think that a combination of Broad's useful lower order runs and his proven success against the likes of Australia should afford him the luxury of staying in the team.

He is only just back from a pretty bad injury, so therefore deserves time to find his feet again.

Good to know that we have tried and tested backup options though. Finn has a big future for England, and a spell out of the side now shouldn't do him any harm. The key for him is to get a lot of overs under his belt for Middlesex (something I believe the ECB prevent our younger players from doing at the moment) in order to work on his lines and lengths.

Napier, ridiculous.

Broad in answering the selection question now anyway, he looks a lot better in this innings than the previous three. Id be amazed if they change the side other than bringing Anderson backfor the next test.

gboycottnut wrote:How about considering Graham Napier as England's number 6 bowling all-rounder?

I'd rather have Luke Wright at 6 and thats saying something.

Napier isnt as bad as you all think but he is not really in line to play for England to be honest, far better players ahead of him.

dummy_half wrote:GB
I think you'd be lucky if Napier is the 6th best bowling all rounder in County Cricket. OK, with his hitting power you can make a case for him playing T20 and maybe even ODIs, but for Tests, he'd be another in our long line of supposed all rounders who were neither good enough batsmen nor bowlers to justify their inclusion in the side.

Power hitting? He's only passed 50 once in T20s, although that was the famous 150+ knock. Averages under 20 in List A cricket. He's a bowler who can bat a bit. He's not an all-rounder in any form of the game.

eirebilly wrote:Napier isnt as bad as you all think but he is not really in line to play for England to be honest, far better players ahead of him.

Agree that someone not being as bad as you think isn't exactly a vote winner!

If you have a genuinely high calibre all rounder like Flintoff, Botham and ,perhaps just, Greig at number 6 you get somewhere near to the tremendously advantageous position of having the so called 'extra man' in your test team.

However, too often over the years we have tried to replace the talents of the above with vastly inferior individuals such as David Capel, Ronnie Irani and Rikki Clarke. The consequences have been embarrassingly predictable and, in total contrast to the position above, made us appear at times actually a man short.

If a genuine test class all rounder doesn't exist and he probably only comes around every twenty yearsi, it is mighty dangerous to try and manufacture one.

I know which category I would put Graham Napier in. His big scores are few and far between. When he does make them, they comprise a lot of fours and sixes, normally at provincial county grounds with small outfields. He rarely bats as high as number 6 for Essex in the CC. His bowling is certainly useful but I doubt if his back would allow him to regularly bowl in five day matches. A decent and, on his day, very watchable county pro but, in my view, a non starter in test terms.

How about Yardy then?

*ducks for cover*

Leaving Yardy's health issues (which have rather dominated recent discussions about him) aside, purely as a test cricketer he is 'not fit for purpose'.

Guildford
Add to your list names like Derek Pringle (only slightly more the new Botham than I was, and I can't bowl), Adam Hollioake, Gavin Hamilton, Craig White etc.
Also there's the over-hyping of the batting ability of guys who were legitimately in the line-up as bowlers - Dominic Cork being one, also Chris Lewis (although he was more a case of lack of application rather than ability).

I think there is more of a space for the better 'bits and pieces' players in ODI cricket (Irani and Hollioake both had decent ODI careers) and T20 is almost tailor-made for guys who can bowl a bit and can come in with the bat, hit 3 boundaries then hole out to mid wicket. Don't want any of them even remotely close to the Test match side though.

Dummy - I very much agree with the names you give and the points you make. Your comments in brackets are all particularly apt.

As I think you appreciate, my list wasn't intended to be comprehensive and I thought it kinder to leave some, like Hamilton, as almost forgotten footnotes in history.

I also entirely take your point about the better 'bits and pieces' players having a place in ODI cricket. Two past players that immediately come to mind are Adam Hollioake and Dermot Reeve. Both were better than 'better' and also possessed captaincy skills ideally suited to ODIs.

My original comments were very much geared towards the 'asking for trouble' approach of calling up someone for a test match just because they have taken a couple of wickets and whacked a century in double quick time at a small (albeit delightful) county ground.

I now have to go and put in a shift down the salt mines of Woking. Hope to chat again, Dummy.

Salt mines in Woking? Don't remember those from the year I lived there

Good point about Dermot Reeve - was a very good one day player given his level of talent. Inventive as both a batsman and bowler, and I remember was one of the best bowlers of a slower ball.

guildfordbat wrote:If you have a genuinely high calibre all rounder like Flintoff, Botham and ,perhaps just, Greig at number 6 .

What do you mean 'perhaps just, Greig'?
Greig hasd a better test bowling average than Flintoff and was a better batsman than either Flintoff or Botham.
He was one of Englands top all-rounders of all-time.

Hoggy

I think there are a few issues with Greig's place in the hierarchy of England players:
1 - He was before most of our times
2 - He's one of the least English England players ever
3 - Giving the Windies their team talk. Only one side grovelled that series.

Not convinced he was a better batsman than Botham was in his prime (until the back injury in 84) - I think after than Both lost the ability to concentrate and build innings.

Flintoff's place in the pantheon of great all rounders is probably over-stated. For me, other than for about 18 months, he was little more than a bowler who batted - had the batting technique, but lacked application at times and got out slogging too often. As a bowler, he was good but was the opposite of Botham - Both took so many wickets bowling dross, while Freddie sometimes would bowl over after over that beat the batsman, but just never got a nick.

dummy_half

Agree that there are reasons as to why Greig is underrated, but I feel that it's a shame that he is.
If I was chosing an England team from players I'd seen play (I'm quite old ) , I'd pick Greig every time. I probably wouldn't pick Flintoff.

Hoggy
Would that be Greig at 6 (as a batting all-rounder), Botham at 7 (as a bowling all-rounder), or would you put Greig in ahead of Botham?

I'm old enough to remember Botham in his prime, but Greig pre-dates me by a few years, so it's a genuine question.

dummy_half wrote:Hoggy
Would that be Greig at 6 (as a batting all-rounder), Botham at 7 (as a bowling all-rounder), or would you put Greig in ahead of Botham?

I'm old enough to remember Botham in his prime, but Greig pre-dates me by a few years, so it's a genuine question.

Yep, I'd probably go with Greig at 6 and Botham at 7.
Agree that, at his best, Botham was a very good batsman, but I'd still rate Greig slightly higher with the willow.
Botham was, of course, much better with the ball, although Greig's bowling is underrated IMO, and his record is actually quite good.

Just looked up Greig's record on Wikipedia - Averaged 40 with the bat and 32.5 with the ball over a roughly 6 year test career. A best Test bowling of 8 for 86 does show that he could be effective in the right conditions.

I'm pretty sure that if you took Botham's career from the start to the number of matches Greig played, Ian would have a much better record (I think his batting average up to the mid 80s was well above 40, but that this declined later in his career).

Agree though that as an all rounder, Greig was statistically more successful that Flintoff, who was as much a media creation as a top class player.

[quote="dummy_half"]Just looked up Greig's record on Wikipedia - Averaged 40 with the bat and 32.5 with the ball over a roughly 6 year test career. A best Test bowling of 8 for 86 does show that he could be effective in the right conditions.

I'm pretty sure that if you took Botham's career from the start to the number of matches Greig played, Ian would have a much better record (I think his batting average up to the mid 80s was well above 40, but that this declined later in his career).

Agree though that as an all rounder, Greig was statistically more successful that Flintoff, who was as much a media creation as a top class player.[/quote

After 58 matches (same as Greig) Botham had scored 3229 runas at an average of 37.11 compared to Greig's 3599 at 40.43. Botham had scored 3 more centuries than Greig, but 7 less 50s.

Hoggy
Interesting that Both got more 100s (and a double) but substantially fewer 50s and that the overall numbers are in the same league (Greig a bit ahead on both runs and average). Suggests that once Both got in he did better, but that he perhaps got fewer starts - maybe not surprising for a guy who often went out with the intention to hit the ball from the off (also slightly surprised that Greig's career was that many matches - was expecting it to me more like 40 Tests).

An aside - if you knocked off the performances against the West Indies, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Botham close the gap - after all, Greig's career was at the start of the Windies dominance, whereas Botham faced them at their best. I know all that really shows is that Botham wasn't the greatest against pure fast bowlers.

Dummy and Hoggy - just back from the salt mines of Woking.

Dummy - even though you lived in that town for a year, I am not surprised you had not heard of their mines. They appear on no maps of the area and are known only to those sad few individuals such as myself sentenced to serve a lifetime working there plus certain of the regulars who tread the boards on the Surrey threads and try to provide some comforting words from time to time.

Now, Hoggy, I owe you as Founder Member of the Tony Geig 606v2 Appreciation Society and, even more, Mr Greig himself a considerable apology. A batting average of 40 and a bowling average of 32 over almost 60 tests certainly show him to be a genuine test class all rounder.

I have no excuse for doubting his ability. Being incredibly old, I was a teenager around a lot of the time he was playing and should have remembered matters far better. Unlike current matters today, I can normally recall 1970s cricket so well. Mrs Bat will vouch for me being able to remember Mike Denness taking a catch as a sustitute fielder for (yes, for) the Rest of the World against England in that glorious 1970 series. She is less supportive about my being unable to find the car keys most evenings.

It is an overstatement to say Greig is a forgotten cricketer but he is certainly often overlooked. He rarely got a mention on the old 606,even with all the looking back most of us there liked to do. As well as the reasons highlighted by Dummy, I suspect that at his all round peak he was not quite as good as Botham and Flintoff at theirs. That is just a suspicion; I have no stats to back it up and may be wrong. I do acknowledge that Greig was the more consistent performer over a longer period of time than probably Botham and definitely Flintoff.

As well, some of Greig's best test performances were overseas with no tv coverage being shown here which would have made a lasting impact and could have been endlessly repeated to make an impression a la Botham's Ashes.

Going back to my original point about the dubious tactic of trying to contrive a test place at number 6 for bits and pieces county players, cricinfo reminded me of another; namely, Ian Greig, Tony's brother. Cricinfo refer to him as being 'probably lucky to be picked by England' and 'a scaled down version of his brother ... not as big, not as loud, not as good'. I'm sure the three of us can agree on that!

guildford
I and, I'm sure, Mr Greig, wholeheartedly accept you're apology.
As you say there are a number of reasons as to why Greig is not given the credit he deserves.
And yes, I'd agree with Wisden's description of his brother.

Guildford - strange what the memory does. Can I remember where I put my glasses? Nope. But I distinctly remember where I was on holiday in western Scotland when ALAN Butcher was caught at short leg just before lunch on the first day of a test match when the spinner came on to turn his arm over. Likewise I can remember Graham Roope being bowled (by Lillee I think) for quite a decent score when on Lindisfarne (me, that is not Roope).

Corporal - I see nothing strange about that at all. I would like to reminisce further about cricketing holiday memories but Mrs Bat is demanding to know the whereabouts of the car keys ....

guildford

Once you found the keys, were you able to remember where you'd parked the car?

Dummy,

The car - hmmm, yes, now let me think ....