Finn been left out!

How have the England selectors made this decision? Finn is an out and out wicket taker up with a SR of 41 in tests only Dale Steyn SR is currently better. Finn has faced Aus in Aus Bang in Bang (not easy for a fast bowler even if it is bang). He seems to have a nac of getting very good batsman out. With our (England) batting line up we don't need a Broad or Bresnan who can bat a bit and Finn is a better bowler than both of these.

I know I have said Bresnan should be in the side ahead of Board for the reason he can keep it tight in the bowling but i have changed my mind and decided that vs India we need a wicket taker and they don't come much better than Finn, seen him a few times on TV and he has been bowling very fast and it looks like he bowls a heavy ball. (remember him getting Watson in the ashes which out and out beat him for pace)

i think its ridiclous that he isnt even in the squad, let alone playing!

It's England's philosophy to try and pick bowlers who will keep it tight during periods were no wickets are falling. For the moment, that precludes Finn.

cricketfan90 wrote:i think its ridiclous that he isnt even in the squad, let alone playing!

No point in him being in the 12 unless he is going to play.I would much rather have him bowling some overs for Middlesex.

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:

cricketfan90 wrote:i think its ridiclous that he isnt even in the squad, let alone playing!

No point in him being in the 12 unless he is going to play.I would much rather have him bowling some overs for Middlesex.

Agree. Would like to see him bowling for England but second to that better him bowling for Middlesex than running drinks out.

On a side note both Broad and Bresnan have had injury worries recently and Finn just seems to have an action that will give him few problems.

liverbnz wrote:It's England's philosophy to try and pick bowlers who will keep it tight during periods were no wickets are falling. For the moment, that precludes Finn.

Lets not bring up his economy rate being about the same as all the other bowlers, brenan included.


Bresnan is the senior player of the two. He did well in Aus and is more of a like for like replacement in the side for Broad...not a strike bowler ( that will be Anderson and Tremlet) and can bat at 8. Hes more experienced and will be easier to give bowling plans rather than just "try not to spray it down the leg side this time Finny!".

Its a conservative but obvious choice. Assuming they dont just go with Broad anyway which is 50/50.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say Finn will become a great a decision influenced by the one and only Michael Holding's high regard of the man.

Finn has been very disappointing lately for England, despite taking wickets. His surprise ball is the straight one!

We can't afford that against India, as they have the batsmen to punish his lacklustre line and length. No, Finn is better off getting more practice and experiece with his county, for now.

Seriously, the seam bowling options are:

Broad or Bresnan (both able to contribute reasonably regularly with the bat)

Tremlett or Finn

Anderson (and we need to identify an alternative swing bowler - Onions is more a seamer).

As such, since Broad has been the guy out of form, it makes sense for Bresnan to be the other guy in the squad. Also, Bresnan is probably the second best bowler we have at getting lateral movement, which may be more appropriate to the conditions at Lords, Trent Bridge and Headingley, rather than being another bang it in and get bounce type bowler (which might be more dangerous at the Oval).

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

liverbnz wrote:It's England's philosophy to try and pick bowlers who will keep it tight during periods were no wickets are falling. For the moment, that precludes Finn.

Lets not bring up his economy rate being about the same as all the other bowlers, brenan included.

About the same? Hardly nailing you colours to the mast there are we? FYI, Bresnan and Tremlett have an economy rate lower than 3, while Anderson and Broad are in the low 3s. Finn is approaching 4 runs per over, which is a little to much a Test level.

Finn should be in the side, so he leaks 4 an over, he takes wickets, and lots of them

liverbnz wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

liverbnz wrote:It's England's philosophy to try and pick bowlers who will keep it tight during periods were no wickets are falling. For the moment, that precludes Finn.

Lets not bring up his economy rate being about the same as all the other bowlers, brenan included.

About the same? Hardly nailing you colours to the mast there are we? FYI, Bresnan and Tremlett have an economy rate lower than 3, while Anderson and Broad are in the low 3s. Finn is approaching 4 runs per over, which is a little to much a Test level.

When you have a strike rate of 41 it doesn't matter about economy rate.

its ridiclous he has been left out

Interesting one this.

His strike rate is incredible for a young bowler at test level, and being able to take wickets and lots of them is a knack most bowlers probably crave, but he is expensive and I doubt whether he has the ability to hold an end up yet. It's all very well him taking 4/5 wickets but if they come at a cost of 100 or so runs and the opposition (in this case, India) go on to build a score of 500+ , it puts unnecessary pressure on the batsman.

Leaving him out seems the most plausible option for now, it's not like Bresnan is a poor bowler, I thought he was phenomenal in the Ashes.

In all honesty I think India would punish Finn,all fine and good taking wickets but with a batting line-up like India have it would be tough for him.

That was my feeling too, Liam.

He is quite a one dimensional bowler, which is fine, but against a batting line up holding the likes of Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman et al., he'd very likely get punished.

Yeah, as I've said above I don't think he would have much success at all against India, and without being able to at least keep it tight he would quickly become a huge liability to the team.

He costs to many runs to face a side like India. Bowling straight at the stumps will be exactly where Tendulkar and Dravid will want it.

Oh and Sainty I see you've been upgraded to Glob Mod, Congrats

Cheers, mate!

I dont know, i think that Finn would be the better option than Broad to be honest. Finn leaks runs but so does Broad. Finn is taking wickets and Broad is out of form. Put that together with Broads continual petulance that i am sure the Indian batsmen will exploit.
For me it was a simple choice of Finn over Broad

Finn will become a very fine bowler , but right now he is not the best "fit" for an attack which features Anderson/Tremlett/Swann.
What is needed is someone who can bowl a good number of overs , many with an old ball , and keep it tight if wickets are not coming.
Team bowling won the Ashes , and if England are to overcome India they need the best combination to do so again.
Bresnan is the best choice in my book. Plus he can bat , and don't disregard that.

Raymond wrote:

liverbnz wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

liverbnz wrote:It's England's philosophy to try and pick bowlers who will keep it tight during periods were no wickets are falling. For the moment, that precludes Finn.

Lets not bring up his economy rate being about the same as all the other bowlers, brenan included.

About the same? Hardly nailing you colours to the mast there are we? FYI, Bresnan and Tremlett have an economy rate lower than 3, while Anderson and Broad are in the low 3s. Finn is approaching 4 runs per over, which is a little to much a Test level.

When you have a strike rate of 41 it doesn't matter about economy rate.

Tell that to the England management. They want control, Finn offers less than others.

Finn's stats are boosted by two home series against Bangladesh and Pakistan. Finn is a wicket-taker, but he needs to work on his all round game before he can play against one of the best line-ups against test cricket. In his 1 match against Sri Lanka he took just 4 wickets in 41 overs, a strike rate of over 60 at an average of almost 35.

Finn has a big future for England, and it is a testiment to our depth that Finn isn't even in the 12. But having a summer of county cricket and getting a lot of overs under his belt could do him the world of good.

i think he was pressed into international cricket too early, but now i do think he is ready to play it

Guarantee he will be playing some part in this series. Probably after India win the first test having put on 600+ against Broad's rubbish bowling.

If England had a genuine fifth bowling oiption who could be relied upon to bowl 10 tight overs in a tough days play then Id have someone like Finn whos an agressive risky bowler.
But Bresnan has a good wicket taking record in tests too. In a 4 man attack with no suupport bowling England wont risk a young kid who struggles to make it through a five day test with a heavy workload. Physicaly hes not up to it. England will have to spend long periods of time in the field in this series regardles of who they pick as bowlers.
Broad of course is still an option, and it is 50/50 between which will start between him and Bresnan.

i think india will struggle against our attack, but they will play swanny well i think

cricketfan90 wrote:i think india will struggle against our attack, but they will play swanny well i think

To be fair its hard to see a side with that much depth struggling against any attack. They dealt with Steyn and Morkel OK in Safrica, although England offers more exterme conditions.
The best hope England have is getting early wickets with in swinging conditions. The obvious weakeness India do have is their openers, and especially so if the balls swinging around, we've seen all comers struggle with that in recent years even English batsmen who are used to it when the Pakistanis were able to exploit it. India were all at sea against Somerset when the conditions helped Willoughby. Gambhir is a good player but not the best in the side, this new lad looks a bit shakey and will be on a steep learning curve, Sehwag whenever he does return will be coming in undercooked. Indis biggest thtreats are 4-7 , if England can get into them before they are set they have a decent chance of restricting India to moderate totals.
Like you say India re unlikley to fear Swann. Hes a good spinner but they are good players of spin as a team, and its unlikely that England will be preparing spinning wickets.
The pressure really is on Anderson and Tremlett to deliver and take advantage of any diffculty India have adapting their batting to English conditions. Finn wouldve been a nice luxury to add a wild card option for wicket taking, but Broad or Bresnan are obviously seen as bowlers less likely to let the game run away from England. Bresnan has a good wicket taking record too even if he doesnt have Finns SR, like Swan he looks less dangerous than he is.

But I dont think whichever of Broad, Bresnan, Finn were change that the focus will be on the conditions and the new ball pairing through the series.

anderson, and tremlett, should open with broad first change, and if broad dosent perform, in the first test, then bresnan in for 2nd test.

Reports today are reading into Strausses comments regarding Broads bouncer that its Broad who will start. So the Finn issue is null anyway.

Yeah i saw that as well Peter. Would have been nice to see Bresnan start ahead of Broad as i feel the Indians will target Broads bowling and temperament. I can see Broad seriously struggeling.

eirebilly wrote:Yeah i saw that as well Peter. Would have been nice to see Bresnan start ahead of Broad as i feel the Indians will target Broads bowling and temperament. I can see Broad seriously struggeling.

Its possible yep. But who knows, hes been here before.
Personally Id be more concerned as an Indian if the umpires choose to target Dohnis temprament


What I dont get is all this fluff coming out of the England camp about Broads bouncer. The bowling coach was in the press not so long ago waxing lyrical about it.
No in limited overs, the T20 WC in particular, I get it. He had a great variety of short pitched balls which really caused problems for batsmen.
But in tests? Does he actually take wickets with them? Hes hardly got the deadly pace of a classic West Indian intimdator or even the bounce of someone like Tremlett whos yorkers end up at throat height ( OK slight exageration). If anything Broad is often critisized by most commentators for over using inneffective short pitched deliveries.
So what is it that England love so much about his bouncers?

bresnan should have played looking at conditions

He's got a good bouncer. If he pitches up 4 or 5 deliveries an over and hits the occasional bouncer he can suprise batsman and use it as a wicket taking delivery. When every ball is back of a length, the batsman knows he can just play off the back foot.

I have never understood the adoration of Broads bouncer either. He does get the odd wicket and it is a good delivery when he gets it right but he over uses it big time and becomes far to predictable.

I was kind of hoping that he would turn into a McGrath type bowler.

Hindsight post .... Broads going great and just tooled Kumar wth ...his bouncer.

One swallow dosen't make a summer. England has to tell him we expect him to perform like this every match. No living on this performance for the next 10 matches before people start questioning his place again. Lot of people waiting to take his place, maybe thats the kick up the bum he needed.

so far appears to be a good decision, to play broad, we will see how long that lasts lol

yeah, boards bowling full.

amazing what u can do, when u pitch the ball up!!!!!!!!!!

OK that bit where I sadi batting shouldnt be considered when youre selecting only 4 bowlers, i was joking.

Obviously like everyone else I thought it was insane not to pck Broad.

broad is naturally gifted...

he can bowl a world class spell at any time, and his bowling has given his batting confidence