Would the West Indies have been so effective in the 1980s if their attack had consisted of four Joel Garners? I think not. Their attack was so much better for having the skiddy Malcolm Marshall at one end, with his ability to swing the ball around corners. Yet England went into this game with three seamers who were all exactly the same height, within an inch, and who all bowled at exactly the same pace. Once Dilshan had mastered one, he’d basically mastered them all. Variety is the spice of life – and a lack of it has rendered England’s attack as bland and predictable as a bowl of lentils.
If Tremlett, Broad and Finn were as good as Joel Garner, and the next best bowler was Chris Lewis (i.e. someone a little different, but nowhere near as good as Marshall) then Flower and Strauss would have been right to pick the three tall men. There is, after all, legs to the theory that you should pick your best bowlers, irrespective of type.
However, this philosophy really wasn’t applicable in this case. Broad and Finn have a tendency to be erratic – and their records suggest they’re no better than Onions, Shahzad and Dernbach. Picking them together was a huge risk. It’s all very well picking the next cab off the rank, but if the next cab is a Robin Reliant, is it any surprise when the plan backfires and the wheels come off?
Perhaps this summation is harsh on Finn – who is a fine young bowler. But on current form should he and Broad really be in the side? Broad has had a poor season for England and Notts, whereas Finn still looks too raw. He’s got the talent, but he needs a season or two in county cricket to refine his game.
Finn doesn’t look in control of his action to me, and the result is often a succession of full tosses and leg-side wides. It’s enough to make anyone cringe with embarrassment. In fact, it’s probably the first time I’ve hidden behind the sofa watching an England bowler since Steve Harmison in the winter of 2007 (I forget who we were playing, or what the score was).
When thick cloud cover descended over Lords yesterday, conditions were crying out for a swing bowler. It was a crying shame that England didn’t have one; if only Jimmy Anderson had been fit; if only Matthew Hoggard was five years younger. Watching our three beanpoles repeatedly banging the ball into an unresponsive surface was tortuous. You knew they were wasting their time.
It’s not often that Flower and Strauss get things wrong, but this time they made a total hash of selection. They even ignored local knowledge. Who is often Middlesex’s most productive bowler at Lord’s? It’s Tim Murtagh, that’s who. He’s five inches shorter than Finn/Broad and he bowls medium pace swingers. I rest my case.
James Morgan
Well – the comments on the previous Finn vs Dernbach thread show that most of us favoured Dernbach – for just the reasons you state above.
Why won’t they listen!
I think it’s a little harsh to say it’s cringeworthy and embarrassing watching Finn bowl, but I know where you’re coming from. It’s a mixed bag with Finn at the moment; you don’t know what you’ll get, which could be a reason for why he takes so many wickets. The bad balls are very bad, and the good balls are very good.
As you saw in my Dernbach v Finn post, I was in favour of the skiddier pitch-up option of Dernbach, and the first innings at Lord’s seems to have backed me up. Nevertheless, the only way Finn is going to develop as a Test match bowler is by playing Test matches. As for Broad, I’m not too sure how his place in the side can be justified. I hope the England selectors don’t rue their decision to make him Twenty20 captain. His poor form could hinder England in the future if it continues.
It’s the bad bad balls that are embarrassing! International bowlers should not give away four wides with such alarming regularity. Finn’s problem is that he makes it almost impossible for the captain to sustain a plan. One of the key factors in England’s recent success has been the ability of the 4 man attack to keep control and stem the flow of runs – thus building up pressure. This is why Finn was dropped in the Ashes, despite being the leading wicket taker. His wicket taking is valuable, and I’d earmark him as the ideal guy you’d want as the 5th bowler in a 5 man attack, but a loose cannon in a three man pace attack makes life difficult for the captain. The best place for him to develop is in county cricket
If England are committed to picking Broad (which is a problem I agree) I don’t think there is room in the team for Finn too. It will be interesting to see who they drop when Jimmy is fit again.Botham had me in stitches earlier – he said that Finn should remain in the side and take the new ball at the Rose Bowl. This despite praising Broad and Tremlett on numerous occasions, and, in a huge U-turn, saying the picking four bowlers is the best strategy for Eng at the current time. So then, Sir Ian, who are you going to drop. Maybe try and get away with fielding 12 players no doubt ;-)
personally i think shazhad should have been picked instead of Finn.Why has dernbach been preferred to him?
and i agree with you completely.i was thinking about englands attack of 2005 with jones(skiddy reverse swing),hoggard(conventional swing),Harmison(beanpole) and Flintoff…
Bang on, Sam. To be fair though, Finn was a lot better yesterday (day 4). At one point I thought he might take a 5-for and make a mockery of this entire thread! However, in a way, his wickets illustrate the point. He bowled dross on day 3, but decent stuff on day 4. Can a four man attack afford to carry a 50% guy??? That’s the dilemma. Broad’s runs will complicate selection when it comes to the Rose Bowl (if Anderson is fit), but in a strange way, Finn’s wickets also complicate matters (I appreciate how bizarre this might sound!). It was the same during the Ashes, when the selectors felt forced to drop our leading wicket-taker because he was too erratic – much to the annoyance of Botham & Co. They might have to make exactly the same call again. This England side are quite a conservative lot, and they usually like to bowl to a specific plan, which usually involves keeping the runs down and building pressure. I worry that Finn is currently unable to produce what the management presumably want. We’ll see.
It’s a bit of a Mitchell Johnson dilemma in a way. He takes wickets, but often looks awful and sprays the ball around. Would this current England managment team pick Johnson if he was English????? I have my doubts.
your right morgsy.its inconceivable that broad will be dropped-we all know how the england brains trust think.But i will say this- finn may have taken wickets but when has he produced a spell like broad did against australia at the oval?5-100 maybe gives you an average of 20 but it wont win you games.
Anyway its fun saying ‘this is what id do if i was chairman of selectors’ (and thats obviously what the full toss is about) but thank heaven im not!