Your point being what exactly?
England in Australia limited overs series
- Thread starter War
- Start date
Your point being what exactly?
SpitfiresKent
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Location
- England
- Profile Flag
- England
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS4
My point being that it's Bangladesh...
SpitfiresKent
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Location
- England
- Profile Flag
- England
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS4
^Perhaps I should have quoted this.
His first 4 matches were all against Bangladesh which is pretty much self explanatory.
I'm talking about the start of his career as in his career so far. When you measure that against any of our recent bowlers, over their first 20 or so Tests, he's pretty much at the top of the list.
I'm not talking about whether he played Bangladesh in his first Test or the Over 60s New Zealand team. Where he's at now is the start of his career. Or rather it was before he was dropped. That's what I'm referring too. I'm not claiming he should be in the side because he was good in his first 5 Tests or something. I'm saying he should be in the side because of his first 23 Test matches, which we should be looking back on in future years as the start of his career, because he has the talent to play a lot more Tests for England.
I'm not talking about whether he played Bangladesh in his first Test or the Over 60s New Zealand team. Where he's at now is the start of his career. Or rather it was before he was dropped. That's what I'm referring too. I'm not claiming he should be in the side because he was good in his first 5 Tests or something. I'm saying he should be in the side because of his first 23 Test matches, which we should be looking back on in future years as the start of his career, because he has the talent to play a lot more Tests for England.
blockerdave
ICC Chairman
he was also top wicket taker when dropped in the 2010/11 Ashes
SpitfiresKent
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Location
- England
- Profile Flag
- England
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS4
Oh I see now.
blockerdave
ICC Chairman
Also, if you take England bowlers who have at least 75 wickets between 2000 and now, most of whom would have included games against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe, Finn has the 3rd best average (behind Gough and Sidebottom). And since Swann's retirement is the only bowler available to England with a career test average under 30.
We have to get Saker out, fast, while Finn still has a career to salvage.
We have to get Saker out, fast, while Finn still has a career to salvage.
dancingmongoose
International Coach
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
England in Australia 2013-14 : Steven Finn returns home to work on bowling | Cricket News | Australia v England | ESPN Cricinfo
Considering he took a five-for in a warmup game too, I'm surprised he didn't play a game. Expected him to start ahead of Tremlett.
Pure abomination this. Nasser Hussain, disgustingly enough, backed Saker and co regarding not playing Finn.
----------
The Ashes 2013-14 : Finn desperate to find an answer | Cricket Features | Australia v England | ESPN Cricinfo
----------
The Ashes 2013-14 : Finn desperate to find an answer | Cricket Features | Australia v England | ESPN Cricinfo
ferg512
International Coach
Its a shame, ODIs were my favourite format a few years back when the Chappell Hadlee series were really exciting but they definitely lack something now. I too have been watching the BBL and have found it to be far more entertaining than any ODI I have watched in the past few years. I think you're spot on about the advertising, I'm sure thats why the BCCI has a love affair with ODIs these days. Really disappointed in the series just about to start here that there isn't even one T20 but theres 5 ODIs.
----------
Very surprising Saker has kept his job this long, I remember in the late 2000s England regularly went through quite a few bowling coaches and he has lasted far longer than any of them. Wouldn't be surprised if hes doing the same thing he did with Broad, almost ruined him back in 2011 before he had that great series against India.
So Finn interests me a lot...from my POV it's Cook and Flower who have to cop a lot of the blame for his demise. They never trusted him to bowl in important situations eg. 1st Test of Ashes at Trent Bridge. He bowled a nice spell mid-4th innings there and only got 2 more overs.
Big questions have to be asked of Saker right? Even with Cook/Flower's lack of confidence, surely the bowling coach should be able to keep Finn ticking along and get him fixed up and keen for another crack. If not, what the hell was Saker doing? Was Finn's run-up SO unfixable?? Saker seems a bit like Troy Cooley for Aus a few years ago. Happened to be with the team through a successful stint, but didn't actually help any of the bowlers get better. A few went backwards. Craig McDermott came along and suddenly Siddle can bowl properly, Johnson has a new run-up and confidence and young guys were coming through with talent.
The other question for Finn being that of selection - who is the one who has kept pimping Finn (and Tremlett/Rankin for that matter). Who wanted these big guys on the Aussie tour? Cook? Flower? Saker? The selectors themselves without input from the dressing room? It intrigues me!
Big questions have to be asked of Saker right? Even with Cook/Flower's lack of confidence, surely the bowling coach should be able to keep Finn ticking along and get him fixed up and keen for another crack. If not, what the hell was Saker doing? Was Finn's run-up SO unfixable?? Saker seems a bit like Troy Cooley for Aus a few years ago. Happened to be with the team through a successful stint, but didn't actually help any of the bowlers get better. A few went backwards. Craig McDermott came along and suddenly Siddle can bowl properly, Johnson has a new run-up and confidence and young guys were coming through with talent.
The other question for Finn being that of selection - who is the one who has kept pimping Finn (and Tremlett/Rankin for that matter). Who wanted these big guys on the Aussie tour? Cook? Flower? Saker? The selectors themselves without input from the dressing room? It intrigues me!
Last edited:
I think England were so focused on Finn not bowling no balls (by knocking the bails off with his hand) that he is now struggling with his run up
It must be quite a big change to change your run up, and continue bowling the same.
BBC Sport - Steven Finn to return home early from tour of Australia
He's gone home now, might as well have done so way back. Not sure how many times he would have knocked the bails off, probably disproportionate to his effectiveness. I'd rather have someone who can take his wickets as often as he does even if he concedes 5-10 runs an innings through no balls.
It isn't like he would be taken out of the bowling attack for it, needless rule change that it is in my book. You don't penalise batsmen for stepping away in the delivery stride, in one aussie's opinion deliberately.
Simplest and fairest thing is to call dead ball if the bowler knocks the bails off and the batsman isn't happy, otherwise it only adversely affects the fielding side (means you have to grab a stump to effect a run out, I believe)
Finn (23 Tests)
vs BAN : 19 wkts @ 23.42
vs NZL/PAK/WIN : 34 wkts @ 28.24
vs AUS/IND/SAF/SRL : 37 wkts @ 33.54
His highest averages with the ball against any nation are 36.33 vs West Indies and 36.31 vs Australia, next highest is Sri Lanka at 31.43. Overall his record is pretty tidy, his wickets against Australia coming every 50 balls and he had a decent series in Australia (14 wkts @ 33.14), it was just two* (key) wickets @ 58.50 that have dragged it down from the summer.
*got Watson and Cowan early in the 1st Test to leave the aussies 19/2 in their first innings in reply to England's total of 215. England got the aussies 117/9 before Agar's runs took them past England. Finn didn't take another wicket thereafter and went for a bit of stick (2/80 off 15, 0/37 off 10 in the 2nd innings)
Wickets against India (4 @ 29.50) were in India, it's ironic Bangladesh get cited as his 4 wickets in his first series in Bangladesh cost 44.25 apiece. He's played in 12 series, bizarrely he's played ONE Test in 5/12.
Stats aside, I'd have him in the side to provide a cutting edge, a bit of pace, something different to Anderson, Broad and Bresnan who can be a bit much of a muchness when bowling as a unit.
----------
I think the selection and handling of the tour bowlers has been pretty poor. I wonder if they've included him in the T20 squad out of hope (that he'll sort out issues) and maybe to limit further damage to his confidence
After two Tests England should have made changes, the bowlers got hit when it was the batsmen letting the side down so it seems a bit harsh talking about bowling in regards the series, but something wasn't right and you need to make changes before a series is completely gone.
And once the series was lost, after only THREE Tests, England kept on with their heads in the sand and then made some token gesture changes for the last Test which looked ill planned, ill conceived and really just not clever.
Should have been an unchanged side for the last two, decided who should come in for that Test and stuck with. I would have rested at least 2-3 batsmen, dumped Carberry as a non-long term solution for starters and decided who would open leaving 1-2 from the captain, Bell and Pietersen to be rested.
England were just hoping it was bad luck, that they were just off form, or that picking what they always think is the best side available would suddenly click. They didn't, it left England humiliated and few positives from the series - arguably Broad, probably Stokes and that's all folks!
It must be quite a big change to change your run up, and continue bowling the same.
BBC Sport - Steven Finn to return home early from tour of Australia
He's gone home now, might as well have done so way back. Not sure how many times he would have knocked the bails off, probably disproportionate to his effectiveness. I'd rather have someone who can take his wickets as often as he does even if he concedes 5-10 runs an innings through no balls.
It isn't like he would be taken out of the bowling attack for it, needless rule change that it is in my book. You don't penalise batsmen for stepping away in the delivery stride, in one aussie's opinion deliberately.
Simplest and fairest thing is to call dead ball if the bowler knocks the bails off and the batsman isn't happy, otherwise it only adversely affects the fielding side (means you have to grab a stump to effect a run out, I believe)
Finn (23 Tests)
vs BAN : 19 wkts @ 23.42
vs NZL/PAK/WIN : 34 wkts @ 28.24
vs AUS/IND/SAF/SRL : 37 wkts @ 33.54
His highest averages with the ball against any nation are 36.33 vs West Indies and 36.31 vs Australia, next highest is Sri Lanka at 31.43. Overall his record is pretty tidy, his wickets against Australia coming every 50 balls and he had a decent series in Australia (14 wkts @ 33.14), it was just two* (key) wickets @ 58.50 that have dragged it down from the summer.
*got Watson and Cowan early in the 1st Test to leave the aussies 19/2 in their first innings in reply to England's total of 215. England got the aussies 117/9 before Agar's runs took them past England. Finn didn't take another wicket thereafter and went for a bit of stick (2/80 off 15, 0/37 off 10 in the 2nd innings)
Wickets against India (4 @ 29.50) were in India, it's ironic Bangladesh get cited as his 4 wickets in his first series in Bangladesh cost 44.25 apiece. He's played in 12 series, bizarrely he's played ONE Test in 5/12.
Stats aside, I'd have him in the side to provide a cutting edge, a bit of pace, something different to Anderson, Broad and Bresnan who can be a bit much of a muchness when bowling as a unit.
----------
I think the selection and handling of the tour bowlers has been pretty poor. I wonder if they've included him in the T20 squad out of hope (that he'll sort out issues) and maybe to limit further damage to his confidence
After two Tests England should have made changes, the bowlers got hit when it was the batsmen letting the side down so it seems a bit harsh talking about bowling in regards the series, but something wasn't right and you need to make changes before a series is completely gone.
And once the series was lost, after only THREE Tests, England kept on with their heads in the sand and then made some token gesture changes for the last Test which looked ill planned, ill conceived and really just not clever.
Should have been an unchanged side for the last two, decided who should come in for that Test and stuck with. I would have rested at least 2-3 batsmen, dumped Carberry as a non-long term solution for starters and decided who would open leaving 1-2 from the captain, Bell and Pietersen to be rested.
England were just hoping it was bad luck, that they were just off form, or that picking what they always think is the best side available would suddenly click. They didn't, it left England humiliated and few positives from the series - arguably Broad, probably Stokes and that's all folks!
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
The real problem was that they changed Finn's run to stop him falling over so often, which might be a reasonable concern, but that created the knee into the stumps issue, which in turn became a no-ball issue.
Honestly, I'm not sure that Finn has a serious technical problem to work on, I mean who could tell if he's lost form or not in 6 weeks of nets? It's probably just that he's spent 3 months in Australia watching his team play miserably and basically from that he's got the message that he's not even good enough to improve such a woeful performance. England took four tall seamers to Australia with the intention of using pace and bounce. Broad largely delivered, but the other three between them played 2 games, one didn't have the pace and the other was barely fit to play. The Sydney Test would have been a crushing blow, if that didn't already occur when England decided to sub Bresnan into the squad.
Finn's great problem is that he's just not the hero England wants. That's why England picked Bresnan to bowl 75 mph. Finn is easily ahead of Bresnan on wicket-taking, but they want a bowler who keeps the runs down. They love accuracy and prefer skiddy seamers at home. Their whole game plan is to accumulate runs and bowl dry. Finn is tall, fast, a bit loose and probably not at his best when he pushes the ball up full. I suspect Saker knows Finn's strengths, but it is the England camp who don't.
Honestly, I'm not sure that Finn has a serious technical problem to work on, I mean who could tell if he's lost form or not in 6 weeks of nets? It's probably just that he's spent 3 months in Australia watching his team play miserably and basically from that he's got the message that he's not even good enough to improve such a woeful performance. England took four tall seamers to Australia with the intention of using pace and bounce. Broad largely delivered, but the other three between them played 2 games, one didn't have the pace and the other was barely fit to play. The Sydney Test would have been a crushing blow, if that didn't already occur when England decided to sub Bresnan into the squad.
Finn's great problem is that he's just not the hero England wants. That's why England picked Bresnan to bowl 75 mph. Finn is easily ahead of Bresnan on wicket-taking, but they want a bowler who keeps the runs down. They love accuracy and prefer skiddy seamers at home. Their whole game plan is to accumulate runs and bowl dry. Finn is tall, fast, a bit loose and probably not at his best when he pushes the ball up full. I suspect Saker knows Finn's strengths, but it is the England camp who don't.
blockerdave
ICC Chairman
interesting you mention Cooley, since he also got a lot of credit when we had Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Jones all firing and everyone forgets he all but destroyed Jimmy Anderson. When he came on the scene Anderson was a Steyn type bowler, not quite as fast but regularly high 80s and capable of breaching 90mph when everything clicked plus a lot of swing. Because he had an idiosyncratic delivery where his head wasn't looking at the pitch, Cooley decided to remodel his action and we nearly lost him altogether. For a few years he was a glorified drinks waiter, following the England team, rarely playing and having his head filled with technical rubbish.
Even since going back to something closer to his old action he has never had anything like the same pace, and for all his wickets if you look at his average it's not top class and not good enough for someone of his talent (especially who gets 7 tests a year with a Duke ball in English conditions).
Now Saker has done the same (possibly worse) with Finn.
Just imagine if Murali or Malinga had been English??? Goodness we'd have sorted their actions out all right!
Similar threads
