Looking at just the averages like that makes it easier to argue for favouritism. If you look at a bigger, more in depth picture it's a much closer decision, close enough that both look reasonable.
For a start the quality of opposition in those 10 tests (actually i'm not entirely sure if it's tests, or test innings, but this point stands for both anyway) is tilted in Finn's favour a bit. Although I'd even question why last 10 is the measured volume when they have 19 and 23 tests. May as well just look at their whole records imo.
Noone is "looking at just the averages" and the reason for picking the last 10 innings is simply that is
recent form, looking for reasons why Finn might have been dropped.
Over the whole records finn has a bowling average about 2 runs better. Bresnan has scored ~3x the amount of runs at ~3x finn's average. I understand bowling stats should be more important, but you can't just discount the differing contributions with the bat because of that.
When you have a scenario of Swann batting 11 as came up in the last Test, there isn't a huge amount of gain to runs down the order. Four bowlers in the side, priority has to be wicket taking. You don't pick four bowlers and then base one or more's inclusion on batting. If they have that string to their bow as well then fair enough, but if we're picking four it should be on bowling primarily.
Bresnan has a much better economy rate is much better (2.95 v 3.65), as bowlers they have different roles, Finn is a strike bowler (and has a lead of 48 v 63.5 here) but this is where the context of a bowling unit is needed. With Anderson being the leading bowler who takes most of the wickets he is our primary strike bowler. Finn would be secondary to that, and broad takes almost as many wickets as Finn, which diminishes the value of Finn as a wicket taker.
ER is fairly irrelevant in Tests, it is wicket taking that is the key. You may even find there's a link between ER, SR and Average anyway
In the last test Finn played he bowled some terrible spells. With one absolutely terrible one in the second innings where he came in when the aussies were under a lot of pressure and he bowled tripe and got smacked around relieving the pressure which is not a quantifiable measure checked out on stats guru,
Now that's more like it. All bowlers can have terrible spells, but to drop him after one Test and for his home Test is where we're at, not so much if he bowled badly at times during one Test.
And of course this is about his exclusion from the squad as much as from the team, he goes from in the team, to in the squad, to out of the squad in three Tests..................
With Anderson, Broad and swann taking wickets against australia the selectors are looking at what role they want the 4th bowler to fulfill. And it appears that bresnan is better suited to that.
I'd argue Finn is better opening the bowling than Bresnan or Broad, both can fill the role but I'd say it's not their best role. So I'd look at it from that perspective, not lump them in as 4th bowler.
Personally i'd have stuck with Finn for the 2nd test, he's overall a better bowler than Bresnan (although weaker in some aspects/roles) and with a 4 man attack if one of the 3 other bowlers has an off day the lesser wicket taking prowess of bresnan makes the attack look very light. But I can see it's not such a clear cut decision that if the selectors don't share my view i will start moaning about favouritism and a boys club.
Also the element of suspicion over a "boy's club" is bringing in Tremlett who has done the square root of FA. I suspect they like what Tremlett offers in terms of height etc, but the selection policy is inconsistent to say the least.
As we won the 1st Test I would have expected the side to remain unchanged, then if Finn sprayed the ball all over the shop in spells you could make a case for leaving him out. Bell and others in the past have all survived very poor spells, Bell has scored runs this series but went a long spell (19 Tests) with only one Test hundred.
I've never suggested he be permadropped, but some have one ordinary or weak match and are dropped, he had a substantial period of ordinary form averaging not a lot over 30 and yet was a permanent fixture. Some might suggest "he's come good", he may well have come good quicker with a break and time at his county.
I remember looking at the low scores by England, like the 81 against Sri Lanka and 51 against West Indies, it was the same players in the XI time and again - six of the players in the 'side of 51' against West Indies are in the squad for Old Trafford.
It may just be a perception, but I don't think the handling of Finn and other players is always the best. Ironically when Compton scored just 54 runs in six innings some were suggesting he was unlucky, Finn has an ordinary game against Australia and is dropped. So to go back to the original question of why include recent form, wouldn't you be p1ssed off if you took 20 wickets in your last five Tests and was left out of the team then squad...............?!?!?
----------
I'm confused has Finn really been that below par to be dropped?. This is very harsh.
I agree it is, at the very least, harsh. Out of the team I could understand, but to drop him for Tremlett who is in no real form himself just beggars belief
Otherwise happy to Tremlett back. At his best, he is probably the most difficult England bowler to negotiate still.
Has to be a theory about height and type or something, I mean I've always thought of Finn as liable to be expensive, but picks up wickets and offers something different to the other three seamers who did play in the 2nd Test.
Or maybe as Cricinfo suggests, it is to do with Finn and his run up, and of course the knocking the stumps off at the bowler's end - a joke of a situation which brought about changes to rules
This kinda makes me laugh, they change the rules to accommodate Murali's throwing style while they change the rules to make life tough for Finn.
Different aspects of delivery I know, but I've seen so many round arm, horizontal and other actions that I find it ironic that Finn just knocks off the bail which barely impacts the batsman and others whose delivery actions are questionable get support. I mean would you not find it distracting/hard with the actions like those of Paul Adams, and Lasith Malinga?!?!? And the ICC/MCC worry about knocking bails off as a distraction!
)
I guess Warner's got a better chance than most of getting a big score - why not give him a shot in a lineup where no one else is doing much.
