How viable a prospect is Steven Finn?

Everyone agrees we need a tall and fast bowler for Australia this winter. Someone who can provide a cutting edge, or at least augment the steadier, skiddier fare of Anderson and Onions.

The selectors have decreed, probably correctly, that Steven Finn is the cricketer most likely to fulfil these criteria, the best we have available. He certainly looks the part, physically, and ticks a lot of boxes.

This raises the risk, however, of Mark Ealham Syndrome. In other words, the tendency of selectors to pick a specific type of player, and then look around someone – anyone – who can perform that role, even if there’s no-one really good enough. The syndrome is named for Ray Illingworth’s mid 1990s obsession with picking a quality all-rounder, whether we had one available or not. Unfortunately, there wasn’t,  so they played Mark Ealham instead.

We dread the thought that Steven Finn may ultimately fall into this category. But early signs are promising. He certainly has the kind of trajectory we currently so badly lack, and he reminds me slightly of Andy Caddick – albeit his natural (slightly full) length is very different. Finn is not express pace; he’s only 21 of course, but is unlikely to get much quicker by the time we go to Australia. Several commentators have remarked on his rather affable, unthreatening body language, reminiscent of Mitchell Johnson. He is clearly no reincarnation of Dennis Lillee, but realistically, how much visible aggression do you expect from such a young and inexperienced cricketer playing against Bangladesh?

So what do you think of Finn so far? We’d be very interested to hear your thoughts.

Maxie Allen

3 comments

  • A few commentators noted that when Finn pitches the ball fuller from his natural length, he lost a bit of pace and seemed to float the ball up to the batsmen and therefore was reminiscent of Andy Caddick. He offers a different variation from the other England bowlers due to his bounce and complements the other attributes of Swing (Anderson, Bresnan and Shahzad), wicket to wicket (Onions), left arm (Sidebottom) and seam / swing / cutters (Broad).

  • I think Finn is a very good prospect. However, I think he is naturally quicker than we give him credit for. I have seen him hit 90mph on a few occasions, and of course, he will get quicker as he fills out. The problem at Lords was that he was absolutely knackered. He had to bowl long spells, and the situation only got worse after we enforced the follow on. Finn and Broad are both tall enough and quick enough to trouble Australia (at 88mph), but only if we play 5 bowlers …. would Simon Jones have bowled 90mph in 2005 if he had been operating as one of only 3 seamers?

    We have to remember that Steve Harmison was never lightening fast. He was approx 88mph at his peak, but his extra height made him nasty to face. Broad and Finn are similar in height to Harmy. I know many people disagree with me, but no attack will be bowling at full pace if there is only 3 seamers. They have to conserve energy. Scyld Berry was making this very point in the broadsheets this weekend. We got away with it in South Africa because Swann basically bowled unchanged from one end for the entire series. But what if it isn’t spinning? And even then it could be argued that South Africa dominated 3 of the 4 tests.

  • Finn is definitely worth persisting with, especially as the selectors seem to have finally put Harmy out to the Riverside pasture. Even if he doesn’t bowl over 90mph, our pace attack needs variety rather than putting all our eggs in the swing bowling basket. I agree he should play as one of 5 bowlers, though perhaps not so convinced that Bresnan (however well he played in the World T20) should be one of the others: he’s not quick enough for Test cricket and looks cannon fodder when the ball isn’t swinging.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting