Personally I'd always pick Finn because he has that wicket taking ability. Sure he goes for a few runs, but we were saying similar things about Broad a few years back. He needs to be given the show of faith to let him really settle into his career.
I agree, he is expensive but the game is about taking wickets and I'd rather bowl a side out for 250 off 50 overs than 300 off 100.
I wonder how much of an influence the stumps thing was in his exclusion for a while.
Tremlett is shocking and should be nowhere near the Test team. Such a negative move to pick him rather than Finn.
he wasn't having a great season which annoyed me. I think he must have pulled it back a bit, but 33.03 in LVCC1 and 40.20 in YB40 are not great bowling averages, his wickets coming about every 10 overs in the LVCC
----------
The fact that many times ENG selectors tended to prefer Bresnan (although he bowled well) over Finn is why people like Shane Warne has somewhat rightfully referred to ENG as a boring/conservative team, even though its very solid and close to being the best test team in the world.
Broad, Bresnan, Swann, they can all bat. I fear England will lean towards having that second come third string more and ignore the fact that we bat deep enough with six batsmen and a keeper anyway so our bowlers should be picked on that discipline first and foremost.
If Bresnan and Finn are both bowling well then you pick Bresnan, but also Finn offers something different to some of the others so you need to mix it up. I trust England won't try to play five bowlers in the daft belief that more bowlers = more wickets or more chances of taking wickets.
Last time we played five bowler theory down under we limped back having been whitewashed 5-0 and I think didn't make 200 in FIVE innings (I think it was 200, definitely did not make enough runs)
