Through thick and Finn

Let’s be honest, this test match Steven Finn bowled an absolute load of dross. The two-in-two with the new ball on Day One aside, he was a bystander as Anderson tore through the Aussies, and when called up to bowl, helped push the game Australia’s way with two horrendously bad momentum swinging horror spells as firstly Agar in the first dig, then Haddin in the second cashed in. After dropping a tricky but makeable catch, the lanky paceman looked bereft of confidence and for all the world like he’s getting the heave-ho for Lord’s next week. The only saving grace was at least that someone else called Finn had an even worse day than he did (too soon?)

But I feel sorry for Finn. Things weren’t made easy for him. First up, the pitch did him no favours. Comfortably England’s quickest speedster (sometimes touching 90mph – at least if you believe the speedgun), Finn turned up at Trent Bridge hoping for a quick, bouncy deck and was faced with a slow, low graveyard. England have obviously decided that preparing pitches for spin and seam will give them the best chance of winning this series, which while it brings Anderson and Swann to the fore, pushes Finn right to the periphery. This obviously played into captain Cook’s mind when waiting until the 29^th over of the second innings to give Finn the ball – by which time the rock hard new ball that Finn would clearly favour had been reduced to putty, hardly giving Finn the best chance to show off his skills. Add to that the noticeable lack of confidence in Finn from Cook (that spell only lasted three uneventful overs), and with his tail down on a slow pitch with a soft ball, it’s no wonder that Finn disappointed.

One area that Finn can’t excuse however is his use of the short ball. While Ashton Agar played what could well be the innings of his life, Finn helped get him on his merry way by feeding him a variety of long hops and other freebies, giving Agar time and room to swing hard and dispatch the ball with ease. As previously said, the pitch was far too slow for Finn’s “natural” game of banging it in short (note – Finn is far better when he bowls back of a length rather than trying to bounce every ball) which meant that he had very little chance of taking the wicket that would have spoiled everyone’s fun, and was only giving Australia vital runs at a crucial time in the game. While it must be tempting as a six foot plenty giant to try and hit the pitch as hard as he can, it clearly was not the way forward, and Finn needs to be a lot quicker to move to a plan B – or indeed go to a plan B at all.

Despite having a poor test match, Steven Finn is undoubtedly a fine bowler, and has the ability to get some of the world’s best batsmen out. He’s quick, he’s tall and he bowls from very tight to the stumps meaning that any test batsmen should be on their guard when facing him. What is a real shame though is that England aren’t really backing him at the moment. They fiddled around with his run-up to make him bowl right over the stumps, and when he started kicking them over, they fiddled around with it again, which has only served to take a touch of pace away from him. They ask him to continually bowl short in the “enforcer” role that isn’t really his natural game, and they provide him with pitches that clearly don’t suit. The captain doesn’t even give him a bowl until his main asset of the  new ball has been softened, giving him next to no chance to succeed - and even if he does start taking wickets, he’s moaned at for not ‘bowling dry’. Finally, it’s clear that England would prefer the runs of a batting-bowler such as Bresnan over Finn’s scratchy defence, even though Finn’s worked so hard at his batting that he even has a test fifty to his name. Finn almost certainly won’t play in the next test given the question marks over his selection coming into Trent Bridge have only got larger, and given likely conditions for the rest of this series, it may be until the Ashes roadshow jumps on a plane in November to Brisbane when he’s considered again. Despite not having a good game here, Steven Finn remains a very good bowler who could easily break all kinds of bowling records for England in test cricket. The only hope is that the odds are a little more in his favour next time.

Bowl dry or roll the dice?

England, it seems, are a team blessed with a veritable battalion of fast bowlers, all good enough to step straight into the test side. This means that while Bresnan, and seemingly Tremlett (according to reports) will miss the second test, England still have the luxury of choice, this time between Steven Finn and Graham Onions.

So with Tremlett looking like he's going to drop out of the team, who should come in? Well, the "let's play two spinners" argument has muted since last week because according to reports, Abu Dhabi is a spinner's graveyard. This, and Team England's stringent determination to never change a winning formula means that Monty's going to spend the next five days mixing up Maximuscle for Stuart Broad.

So it's between Steven Finn and Graham Onions. Leaving aside the sentimentality of Onions, who could play his first test in two years after a career threatening injury, and the next-cab-off-the-rankness of Finn, on a purely cricketing level, who should play?

Both offer very different things as bowlers - Onions is much more of a full-length swing bowler who's fast medium at absolute most, whereas Finn is easily England's quickest, and much more of a bang-it-in bowler. Finn has so much to offer an England test team - he's an aggressive, wicket-taking bowler who can genuinely frighten batsmen with his speed, but he has one obvious Achilles heel. His control. Simply put, Finn does have an annoying habit of gifting runs to the opposition through one or two rank balls per over, which really does count against him.

A lot of England's bowling game-plan is to dry up the runs and utilise the pressure that it creates to take wickets. This was seen only last week, when England dragged Pakistan back (sort of) with the ball by keeping the run rate low and the pressure constantly on - leading to a late flurry of wickets. Unfortunately for the bowlers, who all performed admirably, the batsmen hadn't put anywhere near enough runs on the board, so that will be the priority for Andy Flower, but would England have had the same late-day success had Finn been going at 4 or 5 an over?

Finn's control has improved since his last test outing, and he's developed markedly since he was dropped at Melbourne last winter, but the doubts do still linger. This England set-up don't much like gambling, and they'll see Finn as quite a punt. Onions is the safe choice, but do safe choices win test matches? England are one-nil down, and they'll need to win both of the remaining test matches if they're to come away from the UAE with a series win. It might be harsh to call Onions nothing more than a "steady bowler", but his reliability is what's got him this far - solid if not spectacular. Finn is far more mercurial, and while on a bad day he could go for a few, he'll more often than not chip in with some big wickets while he does so. It goes against England's play it safe attitude, but sometimes it's worth taking a punt, as the rewards could be spectacular.

Bresnan v Broad

As expected, the 12 man England squad for the first test only has one issue up for debate - whether it's Stuart Broad or Tim Bresnan who gets the chance to take on the Indians.

Broad's had a pretty woeful summer. After picking up two rather untimely injuries over the winter, Broad was rushed back for the first test against Sri Lanka and looked horribly short of match fitness and sharpness. He lacked a bit of pace, and struggled to work batsmen over. As the wickets didn't come, Broad looked increasingly more bereft in confidence, and slowly settled into a repetitive pattern of banging the ball in halfway under the misguided opinion that he was England's "enforcer". This lack of confidence spilled out into the ODI series - historically Broad's strong suit, where he was wicketless until the third game, and hardly set the world alight after that.

Tim Bresnan on the other hand has seen his star rise while Broad's has fallen. After gaining a lot of experience and respect for his One Day performances over the past 18 months, Bresnan came into the team for the fourth Ashes test and was a revelation. He certainly proved he was a test bowler, and only injury to Bresnan stopped this debate happening ahead of the Sri Lanka series. However, he's now back, and after again impressing during the ODI series (and for Yorkshire in the County Championship), Bresnan is certainly the form horse.

Something that counts massively in Stuart Broad's favour is that he is Stuart Broad - England captain. It would be easy to say that the England powers that be made a rod for their own backs by appointing Broad, and as such are unable to drop him, the issue isn't that superficial. Stuart Broad is an England test regular, and has been for the last three and a half years. It's been a long time since an England test regular has been dropped. The last "big names" to be dropped from an England test team were Matthew Hoggard and Steve Harmison back in New Zealand 2008 - incidentally making space for a young Stuart Broad in the team. Since then, many out of form players have been allowed time to regain their confidence and eventually their form. The names Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Bell, and even Anderson are testament to England's policy of backing their top players through thick and thin. Having all suffered lean spells, they've all recovered their form and helped England to a lofty position in the world rankings.

At the moment, Stuart Broad is in a hideous run of form. His confidence, often so evident, appears shot to pieces - almost to the extent that he's unable to backchat to umpires for fear of retribution (although we know that's never going to happen). And if England want to pick the best three seamers in the country for the first test against India, it's plainly clear that Tim Bresnan is amongst them, whilst Stuart Broad isn't. However. England have nursed their premier players through poor form before, and it would be an about-turn in policy for a management that believes in backing their players to eventually come good. I'm not saying that I want Stuart Broad in this England team (because I don't), but more that you shouldn't be surprised if come Thursday morning it's Broad bowling to Tendulkar et al, while Tim Bresnan's just mixing him up another Maximuscle.

Mitch Gives The BBL A Wide Berth

For many, the news that Mitchell Johnson is to sit out the inaugral Big Bash League Down Under next January seems an odd one. For starters, just think of the money he'd be able to earn. While it shouldn't be a motivating factor, the life of a cricketer is a short one, and nobody can begrudge a player getting the most out of being around at this priviledged time. And the even more cyncial amongst the cricketing fraternity have pointed out that T20 should be Mitch's specialist format, as going at 7 an over there isn't that bad.

However, Mitch has been given a contract from the Perth Scorchers, and turned it down. This isn't a Cricket Australia decision - far from it. Whereas in the past CA would dissuade it's stars (if you can call Mitch that) from taking part in IPLs and other similiar overseas T20 extravaganzas, this time for their own big project, they want as many big players as possible to help shift some tickets. And say what you like about Mitch, but plenty of people would come down to watch him bowl to the left, and the right.

So why has Mitch turned down the gold, girls and glory of the BBL? Even despite pressure from his national board to sign up? Well, as well as he's hidden it over the past few years, Mitchell Johnson wants to play test cricket for Australia. He knows he lacks consistency (by which I mean keeping it on the cut strip for consecutive balls) so wants to go and work on that. He wants to lead Australia's attack. And he wants to focus on that.

For most players T20 can be a distraction, but for bowlers it must be a nightmare. Test match bowling of keeping it on a consistent line and length (which, admittedly, Mitch is far from mastering) is thrown out of the window as bowlers have to mix it up and do different things each delivery in order to outfox the batsmen. Add into this the fact that Mitch is clearly a confidence player, and it becomes clear that seeing the ball fly over his head each delivery probably wouldn't put him in a good state mentally ahead of the test matches against India and New Zealand.

On top of that is the simple issue of fatigue - Mitch will be playing tests, ODIs and T20s away against Sri Lanka and South Africa (on two particularly tough tours) before doing the same against New Zealand and India. With so much cricket to be played, the last thing his body is going to want is to drag himself over to Perth to turn out for a franchise he doesn't care about in a format he's not too bothered about. Instead, he says he'll either go and rest up between the tests, or even go and play some grade cricket in order to get into a bit of rhythm ahead of the India series.

Mitchell Johnson does come in for a lot of stick, most of it justified, but here he's looked seriously at his career and decided that missing out on the big pay day will serve him far better than grabbing some quick cash. So I say good on'ya Mitch - it's great to see a player prioritising test cricket ahead of some pointless whack-it. And just make sure you're still wearing the Baggy Green for the England tour in 2013.

Dernbach's Dilemma

Jade Dernbach was picked for this limited over series against Sri Lanka after coming on leaps and bounds for Surrey over the past couple of years. A skiddy-ish swing bowler who can move it either way, much of Jade's trumpeting has been due to his slower ball. Coming from the back of the hand, it reduces Jade's regular high 80's to a deceptive low 60 mph, and has been a big part of getting him a lot of county wickets over the past couple of years, which has been instrumental in his rise to the full England squad.

But.

But Dernbach is using it far too often. It's clear he knows just what a good slower ball he has, and is deploying it far more readily than he should. Whether it's a question of him not having the experience to know exactly when it should come or whether it's him showing the selectors that he has a good slower ball is beside the point. In his first six international balls he bowled three slower balls, and has been going at that sort of rate ever since. The Sri Lankan batsmen, knowing a slower ball is likely almost every ball, are hanging back in their creases and waiting for it - massively negating any effect that the slower ball could have.

It's been long complained that England don't have enough One Day variation, and Jade's slower ball can be exactly that. However, it will only be effective if used properly. An "X Factor" ball should not be the stock ball - it should be used as a surprise tactic. Batsmen should always have the possibility of a slower ball in the back of their minds, but it should only be used when they've been lulled into a false sense of security after being worn down by 'regular' bowling. At the moment, the Sri Lankan batsmen are readying themselves each ball expecting it to be slower, which means that when it inevitably comes every couple of balls, the main bonus of a 'surprise ball' of it being a suprise is lost. Hence Jade not being hugely effective so far in his three international outings.

Jade's slower ball can in time become lethal. But first he should look over to the other dressing room to see how an "X Factor" ball is deployed properly. Malinga's yorkers are world reknowned as the best in the business, and is pretty much a wicket taking ball every time (just like Steven Crook's). But Malinga's effectiveness is enhanced because he doesn't use the yorker every ball (only towards the end of the innings does he revert to the toe-crushers). Batsmen know the ball could come at any time, but unable to confidently predict it, they over-compensate and end up working themselves into a lot of bother. Part of the reason Malinga is so successful is because batsmen ready themselves for a yorker that doesn't come, and are unable to adjust for anything different.

Jade Dernbach is only new to international cricket, and can become an important part of England's ODI attack. However, he first needs to realise that the shock ball isn't much of a shock when he bowls it more often than his stock ball.

Time to Banish Broad?

England have a dilemma, and his name is Stuart Broad. 37 tests into his test career, and Broad is averaging a very average 36 with the ball. Given leeway in terms of his average and fairly poor return with the ball for the early part of his test career due to his young age, England will have wanted Broad to have kicked on by now to become one of the world's best. Put simply, he hasn't done that.

Three and a half years in test cricket (and almost five years in international cricket) should mean he's able to adapt to conditions and consistently take wickets. Yet still he belies his 142 international appearances by mindlessly banging the ball in short irregardless of match conditions, pitch conditions, or batsman weaknesses.

Broad was preferred in this game to Steven Finn - a bowler who does have a wonky radar, but bowls a hell of a lot of wicket taking balls. This afternoon (Day 2) at the Rose Bowl, Broad bowled nigh on every ball short of a length, and didn't even look close to taking a wicket. Broad isn't at all threatening with the short ball, which makes his tactics seem all the more odd. Broad appears to believe that just because he is a tall man, he has to bowl at the batsman's head and stare him down each time the batsman dare swipe at one. It's all becoming rather tedious.

If Broad wants a lesson on how a tall player can take test wickets, he should look down at the other end to see Chris Tremlett. Tremlett is a full two inches taller than the dwarf sized Broad, yet doesn't resort to attempting to break the batsman's face every ball. Instead, Tremlett bowls a full length in order to get the batsman coming forward, and takes wickets because he naturally gets extra bounce which is often all too good for the batsmen. Tremlett has only played 8 tests. It should be Broad who is showing Tremlett how it's done, not the other way around.

For three years, there wasn't a hint of Broad being dropped at all. However, if England are aiming for number one, they have to recognise when player's aren't pulling their weight, and act. That means that batsmen have to score runs, and bowlers have to take wickets. Broad just isn't taking enough wickets - he hasn't taken more than two in an innings since the tour of South Africa over 18 months ago - which quite simply is nowhere near good enough. There's no doubt that he can do it - the Ashes winning spell at the Oval in 2009 is testament to that. But those sorts of performances are becoming increasingly distant, and can England afford to have someone who isn't performing to the required level anywhere regularly enough? The key at the Oval was that Broad bowled full and attacked the stumps, with four of the five victims either being bowled or trapped lbw. If Broad returns to bowling that sort of length, he can be a very potent bowler, but he hasn't really done that since that heady day back in 2009.

Dropping Broad from the test team may seem odd when he starts his stint as an England captain next week, but it's not as if there's a shortage of test quality replacements available to come in. Finn, Bresnan, Shahzad, Onions and even Dernbach are all more than good enough and at the moment only loyalty is keeping Broad ahead of them. Broad's injury during the Ashes was unfortunate, but the fact that England won two games by an innings after he went home has proved that he is indeed a dispensible player. If England really do want to become the number one team in the world, they have to start by putting out a team of their best players. That means the batsmen who are to score the most runs, and bowlers who are going to take the most wickets. Quite simply, Stuart Broad does not take enough wickets to justify his place in the test team, and as harsh or ruthless as it may be, shouldn't be in the England test team



And if you head over to The Short Midwicket Facebook page, you can vote on who should replace Broad (if anyone) - and while you're there you could 'like' us too!