Bressie back in the swing

Tim Bresnan

After a week of tedious debate about sledging (and the potential merits of punching George Bailey in the face) we can finally concentrate on the actual cricket again. Phew! Thanks heavens we can all move on. Anyone would’ve though that sledging is a new phenomenon.

Let’s just say that Warner crossed a line when he called Trott ‘weak’ during his press conference, and Mitchell Johnson made us laugh when he claimed his sledging rattled England.

Mitch, we don’t want to be too harsh, but if Sylvester Clarke calls a batsman a sissy (or similar!) and says he’s going to kill him, it’s fair to say that anyone, including Chuck Norris or Jean Claude Van Damme, might be a scared.

However, when it’s the least masculine man on the planet doing the snarling – a man with more feminine tattoos than Cheryl Cole – I can’t see the likes of Matt Prior and Kevin Pietersen quaking in their boots. Get over yourself mate.

After that final little jab (sorry, we couldn’t resist) it’s time to focus on playing matters. The good news for England is that Tim Bresnan has proved his fitness and looks set to replace Chris Tremlett in the second test.

Although many fans will be rejoicing at this news – as if Bressie is going to singlehandedly rescue the side in the same way Graeme Hick was our alleged saviour in the early 1990s – I’m a little indifferent.

I can’t escape the feeling that, like many sportsmen, Bresnan’s stock has risen since he’s been out of the side. People only seem to remember the ball that snared David Warner at Durham – the one that moved off the seam and bounced at little more than normal.

Whilst this was unquestionably a good delivery, people have completely forgotten about the other balls Bresnan bowled: accurate, but little over medium pace, and about as penetrative as Chris Tremlett at the Gabba. Sylvester Clarke he is not.

The bottom line is that Bresnan is a wholehearted cricketer, but he won’t exactly send shivers down Aussie spines. His return should help us, but it won’t change the overall balance of power. The cricket betting reflects this.

The other big talking point is obviously the number three position: rumour has it that Joe Root is set to take Trott’s place.

Personally, I think this would be a mistake. Root is a fine young batsman, but have we all forgotten what happened in the English summer? Root looked hesitant against the new ball. Moving him up the order, where he could potentially face the second ball of the match, would be like feeding him to the Lions all over again.

In my opinion, Bell should bat three because he is the senior batsman. He should take the responsibility. What’s more, he actually has the knowhow to bat three.

I can understand the argument that Bell should stay at five – we all know he’s had success there – but this logic stems from a negative mindset.

Did Brian Lara, Sachin Tendulkar, or even Jonathan Trott stay in the middle order because they had success there? Of course not. At some point, your best batsman has to front up.

Bell is probably our best player. He should go in early and take the sting out of the attack. Australia will already have their tails up if we’re 50-3 when Bell arrives at the crease.

England should be positive and our back our key man to succeed. I admit moving Bell isn’t an ideal solution, but it’s the best solution we have. What’s more, Root’s record at five is excellent.

As for the sixth batting spot, it looks like Ballance will get the nod. Again I disagree with this. I would promote Prior to six (he’s scoring no runs at seven anyway) and bring in Stokes to bat immediately below him.

The counter argument, of course, is that Stokes has had little cricket. But neither has Ballance. What’s more, when Ballance is out, that’s his contribution over. If Stokes falls cheaply, at least he can contribute with the ball.

People forget that Mitchell Johnson probably wouldn’t be playing for Australia if Shane Watson’s bowling didn’t give Michael Clarke a security blanket. With their five man attack, Australia can afford a luxury like Mitch. So what if he has an off day? There’s plenty of cover available.

In many ways, the pressure is off Johnson. He can bowl short sharp spells knowing that (a) a breather is around the corner, and (b) if he leaks runs his captain can regain control by bringing on another bowler.  It would be interesting to see Finn bowl for England in similar circumstances.

Because England don’t have an all-rounder in the side, our bowlers are always under pressure. If any one of our four man attack struggles, control is lost. What’s more, Australia are probably counting on the fact that Anderson will be exhausted by the time the Melbourne test comes around; he hardly took a wicket in the second half of the summer. Picking Stokes would increase Anderson’s longevity.

England need to win at Adelaide. If they fail to do so, it’s likely we’ll be heading to the MCG 0-2 down (as we all know we’ll lose at Perth). Therefore, if I was Andy Flower I’d fight fire with fire. I don’t have faith in any of our options at number six, so let’s strengthen the bowling and bowl Australia out for less. Thoughts?

James Morgan

Written in collaboration with Bet 365

11 comments

  • I see the logic of bringing Stokes in but I would go with a genuine batsman at 6, probably Bairstow. Prior looked terrible in the 1st test and we need 6 specialists IMO. If you were to go with a genuine all rounder then Bresnan surely gets the nod over Stokes if he is fit?

  • I personally don’t see Bresnan as a genuine all rounder. I reckon he’s a bowler who bats a bit. Stokes isn’t quite the finished article in either suit yet, but he has potential to be a proper all rounder. At this stage, it’s actually quite difficult to determine what his strongest suit is. I think his bodes well in terms of the balance of the side. Point taken re: bairstow, but I still can’t see him making big runs. Maybe a 30 or 40, but I think Stokes is capable of cameos like that, plus he bowls of course. If this was fantasy cricket, I’d wager Stoked would score more points over the course of the match (if you get my meaning).

    • Whatever Ben Stokes’ potential is, I suspect throwing him in to this environment has disaster written all over it. Bairstow, at least, is Test-hardened. He didn’t do much last summer but his innings against SA proved he is at least capable of brilliance against the very best pace attacks. I suspect Bresnan is undercooked but, again, he is likely to thrive in the heat of an Ashes Test rather than wilt. Stokes getting his medium-pacers thrashed around on a flat deck could be soul destroying.

      If the Aussies have got their tails up, the inside of a debutante’s head is going to be like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan.

      • Bairstow is test tried, but failed. Unknown quantity is better than a known failed quantity. And stokes is considerably more than medium pace. Debutants do occasionally do well. Ashton Agar anyone?!! Trescothick advocated Stokes by the way, so not such a leftfield choice.

        • There’s Agar, but there’s also Kerrigan and Woakes. Agar was picked as a bowler, at which he failed.

          In fairness to Bairstow, a lot of Test players have a slow start. I’m not sure if he’s the real deal, but I certainly don’t want to start blooding kids in these circumstances, not more than we have to, anyway. None of this is ideal. It’s about the least worst option.

          • I agree it’s all about finding the least worst option! In a way, I think it helps if a cricketer has two strings to his bow. If Stokes picks up a couple of wickets it should take the pressure off when he bats. Would Mitch have bowled so well if he had made a golden duck at the Gabba? I reckon his partnership with Haddin probably helped when it came to his bowling. When Bairstow / Ballance walk to the crease, it will be all or nothing for them.

          • Spoken with the optimism of a real English cricket fan… it’s just in our psyche isn’t it!

            This test will probably (hopefully!) just show how much we all know. Ballance and Tremlett will play, we’ll crush them by an innings and the aussies will be exposed for the frail team they are ;) 3 cheers for Andy Flower!

            The reality is that the key personnel are Cook, KP, Bell, Prior, Broad, Swann and Jimmy. And maybe Root too. If they all have a good test match we will win. Priors form is a genuine worry to me.

  • Agree on Prior. But I’d play Monty. No England bowler gives a smuch control.
    Prior, Bres, Broad, Swann should be able to get enough lower order runs

    • There’s a rumour we might pick 2 spinners. Depends on the drop in pitch, but surely Australia won’t be foolish enough to prepare a drop-in slow low surface? I like Monty, just for the record.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting