England v South Africa, 3rd Investec Test, Lord's, 1st day August 16, 2012

Finn shows his heart in full glare

It was a tight call over who would be England's third fast bowler at Lord's. The decision to stick with Steven Finn, despite his Headingley problems, was rewarded
  shares 15

Moments after tea, in the 59th over of the South African innings, Steven Finn's right knee hit the stumps in his delivery stride. It was the 81st ball he had bowled. Almost before the bails hit the hallowed turf, umpire Kumar Dharmasena signaled dead ball - a trend started by Steve Davis at Headingley where the first call against Finn cost England Graeme Smith's wicket.

Apparently Davis had spoken to Finn after the South African captain complained that the habit was disturbing the batsmen. Doubtless, Smith had pre-empted this having watched Finn against West Indies and timed the complaint to maximum effect, in other words once Finn had started to bowl and was in everybody's headlights. Davis then called dead ball each time Finn's knee hit the stumps and there were plenty.

As if to balance the books of fairness, some of those calls cost Smith boundaries but were well worth it, given the damaging effect it had on Finn who appeared understandably forlorn, even humiliated. How would Smith have reacted if Davis had made the first dead ball call when the ball was whistling off the middle of the bat to the boundary, rather than flying of the edge into Andrew Strauss' hands at slip? Sliding doors.

For Finn to be playing Test cricket with this problem unresolved is close to ridiculous, especially in a three-man pace attack. Both his coaches, Angus Fraser at Middlesex and David Saker with England, have worked to overcome an unusual habit which is more than just a kink, it is a malfunction.

Remarkably, Finn was somewhere near his best in the recent one-day matches against West Indies and Australia but, as Fraser pointed out, the one-day game allows him to run the ball in at the batsman from wider on the crease. In Test cricket, Finn looks to bowl from closer to the stumps and make the ball move away from the right hander. So his knee clatters into the stumps more often.

Imagine being Steven Finn for a minute, running in to bowl with the knowledge that your natural delivery stride is the subject of an umpire's scrutiny. Imagine that you know television will analyse you until words run dry; that spectators will tut-tut and ho-hum ("he's a professional for goodness sake, our chaps don't do this on the green at Upper Bottom Yately"); and that journalists will resort to cynical reflection.

Clearly enough, his action and therefore his performance is compromised. Literally, the right knee moves sideways, towards mid-on, when the leg lands on the bowling crease. Many a bowler had brushed the stumps with his hand but none that the pundits know off have had this knee jerk. It is a herculean effort to turn up. To charge in and knock over a bunch of South Africans tells us much about the man. No quitter. Truth be told he did not bowl particularly well but he has a knack, the very best knack for a man in his profession, of taking wickets. Thus England picked him, risks and jerks galore, and the reward was a trifecta in the match that matters most.

Whether he is a better option than Graham Onions is a moot point. Unbelievably, Onions left Lord's at about 10.30am and drove two and a half hours north to Trent Bridge, to play for Durham against Nottinghamshire, where he took nine wickets and effected the tenth with a run out all within a couple of crazy hours. Onions is hamstrung by James Anderson, who is a similar build and height, and is a certain selection.

England like the variety of attack provided by Finn's height and extra bounce at a good, strong pace. This weapon accounted for Alviro Petersen and Jacques Kallis, who both gloved high bouncing balls down the leg-side. As Chris Tremlett has shown previously, six foot and eight inches is the way to go. Batsmen a) find length difficult to pick and b) become cramped in response to short balls that do not have to be especially short to threaten their throat.

Not that either Petersen or Kallis were the pick of Finn's scalps. That victim was Hashim Amla, trapped on the crease and utterly beaten by one that ripped back of the seam and down the famous Lord's slope to flatten the KwaZulu castle. Selection justified: Petersen, Amla, Kallis - all makers of monster hundreds and more in the past weeks.

Finn is a man of talent and courage. This is his time so he steps to the line with commitment absolute and unwavering. He is a rock for England to carry forth, a cricketer for all seasons in all places. But he has got to stop that knee knocking. He will feel ten foot tall when he does. Not far to go then.

Mark Nicholas, the former Hampshire captain, presents the cricket on Channel 9 in Australia and Channel 5 in the UK

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on August 17, 2012, 17:49 GMT

    Finn's pretty much the quickest bowler in the world, and would walk into any side in the world. The amount of envy England stir up from those they have beaten and vanquished has always famously been a good barometer as to their success or an individual's achievement. Judging by how much jealousy Steven Finn creates in fans of teams whitewashed and humiliated by England, he's doing exceptionally well.

  • bestbuddy on August 17, 2012, 11:12 GMT

    Well he hardly bowled well, went at over 4 runs to the over, and didn't deserve 3 of his 4 wickets. Kallis and Petersen weren't out, and Morkel fell to a rank long hop. And yet he gets this sort of prise; bizarre. If they had picked Onions SA might have been out for less than 250...oh well, too late now

  • t20-2007 on August 17, 2012, 9:36 GMT

    Not able to re-call the bowler's name...i guess he did some decent job rather than rattling the wickets of non-striker's end

  • no.1_multicultural_team on August 17, 2012, 9:14 GMT

    What purpose does it serves to the English people,when their media glorifies mediocre performances and players? I fail to understand what benefit it has on the team? They get humiliated in next match and get under more pressure.Why O Why? What is the point ? Do they still believe that in this day and age of internet, people would just blindly believe what they write? If only English media becomes humble and realistic,people would respect English cricket.They are a not a bad cricket team,especially at home,but thats it,really.

  • JG2704 on August 17, 2012, 9:07 GMT

    @SurlyCynic on (August 16 2012, 21:16 PM GMT) I agree that our journalists do go overboard at times. Having said that I'm guessing you never really watched the game properly. Yes 2 of the wickets were lucky but by the same token there were other occasions where he bowled extremely well with no reward. He had AB at sixes and sevens before Jimmy took the wicket. Sometimes it's the poor balls which reap the biggest rewards

  • DustyBin on August 17, 2012, 8:52 GMT

    to all Australia fans who say that England are a poor side/unworthy of a no. 1 ranking : I agree. However we whipped you in the last 2 Ashes & shall repeat that next year, so how bad are you? Perhaps, change your name to "Drosstralia?"

  • venkatesh018 on August 17, 2012, 5:55 GMT

    Mr.Nicholas, Onions doesn't suffer from Anderson being a similar type bowler. He suffers because of a lack of wisdom and appreciation of his considerable skills by the so-called "expert pundits" and the selectors. Graham Onions is clearly the best bowler in England and he doesn't need swinging conditions to take wickets like your "irreplaceable" Mr.Anderson. His swing and seam in any conditions will be a handful to both right and left handers. Add to that, he doesn't rattle the stumps at the umpire's end.

  • Cool_Jeeves on August 17, 2012, 3:27 GMT

    thebrotherswaugh - what world do you live in? There is no side in world cricket about whom such tall predictions can be given today, except when Sri Lanka plays bangladesh in Sri Lanka.

  • Greatest_Game on August 17, 2012, 3:25 GMT

    Randy, Matty, Surly…I think he is like KP - oblivious and immune to criticism. I believe that it is condition known as IEO - immense ego oblivion. The major difference is that KP is actually a really good cricket player. KP can write well too!

  • StealthCrawler on August 17, 2012, 3:20 GMT

    You Brits sure like to salivate on your players' performances. One average 3 wicket spell from a bowler who can't bowl without ramming into the stumps, and you decided it's time to dedicate an entire article on him. And as other people have pointed out, Kallis wasn't even out. Till before this series, they were supposedly world beaters according to you and the Switch Hit Show (which I may add, is another saliva fest), based on HOME performances and the Ashes ofcourse. Losing in the middle east was an "off" performance as per you guys. Win in SA and win in the subcontinent...then you earn the right to behave like little girls do when they talk about Bieber. Australia was the one TRUE champion team of this generation. You aren't even close...not by a long long way...and by the looks of things, you aren't getting any closer. Try to be moderate and patient in your praise.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on August 17, 2012, 17:49 GMT

    Finn's pretty much the quickest bowler in the world, and would walk into any side in the world. The amount of envy England stir up from those they have beaten and vanquished has always famously been a good barometer as to their success or an individual's achievement. Judging by how much jealousy Steven Finn creates in fans of teams whitewashed and humiliated by England, he's doing exceptionally well.

  • bestbuddy on August 17, 2012, 11:12 GMT

    Well he hardly bowled well, went at over 4 runs to the over, and didn't deserve 3 of his 4 wickets. Kallis and Petersen weren't out, and Morkel fell to a rank long hop. And yet he gets this sort of prise; bizarre. If they had picked Onions SA might have been out for less than 250...oh well, too late now

  • t20-2007 on August 17, 2012, 9:36 GMT

    Not able to re-call the bowler's name...i guess he did some decent job rather than rattling the wickets of non-striker's end

  • no.1_multicultural_team on August 17, 2012, 9:14 GMT

    What purpose does it serves to the English people,when their media glorifies mediocre performances and players? I fail to understand what benefit it has on the team? They get humiliated in next match and get under more pressure.Why O Why? What is the point ? Do they still believe that in this day and age of internet, people would just blindly believe what they write? If only English media becomes humble and realistic,people would respect English cricket.They are a not a bad cricket team,especially at home,but thats it,really.

  • JG2704 on August 17, 2012, 9:07 GMT

    @SurlyCynic on (August 16 2012, 21:16 PM GMT) I agree that our journalists do go overboard at times. Having said that I'm guessing you never really watched the game properly. Yes 2 of the wickets were lucky but by the same token there were other occasions where he bowled extremely well with no reward. He had AB at sixes and sevens before Jimmy took the wicket. Sometimes it's the poor balls which reap the biggest rewards

  • DustyBin on August 17, 2012, 8:52 GMT

    to all Australia fans who say that England are a poor side/unworthy of a no. 1 ranking : I agree. However we whipped you in the last 2 Ashes & shall repeat that next year, so how bad are you? Perhaps, change your name to "Drosstralia?"

  • venkatesh018 on August 17, 2012, 5:55 GMT

    Mr.Nicholas, Onions doesn't suffer from Anderson being a similar type bowler. He suffers because of a lack of wisdom and appreciation of his considerable skills by the so-called "expert pundits" and the selectors. Graham Onions is clearly the best bowler in England and he doesn't need swinging conditions to take wickets like your "irreplaceable" Mr.Anderson. His swing and seam in any conditions will be a handful to both right and left handers. Add to that, he doesn't rattle the stumps at the umpire's end.

  • Cool_Jeeves on August 17, 2012, 3:27 GMT

    thebrotherswaugh - what world do you live in? There is no side in world cricket about whom such tall predictions can be given today, except when Sri Lanka plays bangladesh in Sri Lanka.

  • Greatest_Game on August 17, 2012, 3:25 GMT

    Randy, Matty, Surly…I think he is like KP - oblivious and immune to criticism. I believe that it is condition known as IEO - immense ego oblivion. The major difference is that KP is actually a really good cricket player. KP can write well too!

  • StealthCrawler on August 17, 2012, 3:20 GMT

    You Brits sure like to salivate on your players' performances. One average 3 wicket spell from a bowler who can't bowl without ramming into the stumps, and you decided it's time to dedicate an entire article on him. And as other people have pointed out, Kallis wasn't even out. Till before this series, they were supposedly world beaters according to you and the Switch Hit Show (which I may add, is another saliva fest), based on HOME performances and the Ashes ofcourse. Losing in the middle east was an "off" performance as per you guys. Win in SA and win in the subcontinent...then you earn the right to behave like little girls do when they talk about Bieber. Australia was the one TRUE champion team of this generation. You aren't even close...not by a long long way...and by the looks of things, you aren't getting any closer. Try to be moderate and patient in your praise.

  • RandyOZ on August 17, 2012, 2:30 GMT

    First 'Fortress England' and now this. Surely Mark has learnt by now that all this hyperbole will only lead to more egg on his face. I guess not though.

  • MattyP1979 on August 17, 2012, 1:28 GMT

    Actually have to agree with Surly. This guy changes his opinion with every delivery. Finn is class. Would like to see how he does in the sub (Bresnan was the pick last time round). I dont think Finn is the finished article yet either, and whats scary his pace seems to be climbing all the time.

  • Greatest_Game on August 17, 2012, 1:15 GMT

    Mark. You wrote that "England like the variety of attack provided by Finn's height and extra bounce at a good, strong pace. This weapon accounted for Alviro Petersen and Jacques Kallis, who both gloved high bouncing balls down the leg-side." Did it escape you that in BOTH cases the batsman should NOT have been given out, as neither had their glove on the bat? Rod Tucker's decision to overturn the on field umpire's not-out decision has been condemned by every commentator and writer. David Hopps' match report clearly states that both Petersen and Kallis should not have been given out. The weapon that accounted for Kallis and Petersen was BAD UMPIRING, not Finn's height and bounce. Is it your intention to claim these examples of bad umpiring are evidence of Finn's cricketing abilities, and is this how you believe bowlers should be judged in "Fortress England?"

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 17, 2012, 1:05 GMT

    @SurlyCynic. Yep, more of the same from these Pommy journalists. They've had their 'day in the sunshine', one of the most embarrassing tenures of a #1 ranked side ever (in any sport), but SA is about to wrest that 'burden' away from them (wrest may be too strong a word, more like submissively offered up by a limp-wristed ENG unit with a strong case of Stockholm Syndrome). If Finn keeps bowling that garbage line, imagine what'll happen in IND....but then again, the rest of that hapless popgun attack will fare no better. Can't wait until the next Ashes, when AUS show them what a real pace attack looks like, and how it should perform. Talk about mental scarring - the fragile Pommy batsmen will need straight-jackets by the end of that massively one-sided contest (at least 3-0 to AUS, could be another 5-0). But wait, at least they'll have ODI's, it seems like the only format they can scrape together a win in (unless it happen s to a World Cup, then they inevitably turn to jelly). Cheers.

  • SurlyCynic on August 16, 2012, 21:16 GMT

    "He is a rock for England to carry forth, a cricketer for all seasons in all places" - he's a decent bowler who got 3 useful wickets, two of which were actually not out, but why turn up the hype again? He's tall and has pace so will always command respect but these sorts of statements remind one of the 'Fortress England' articles.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • SurlyCynic on August 16, 2012, 21:16 GMT

    "He is a rock for England to carry forth, a cricketer for all seasons in all places" - he's a decent bowler who got 3 useful wickets, two of which were actually not out, but why turn up the hype again? He's tall and has pace so will always command respect but these sorts of statements remind one of the 'Fortress England' articles.

  • thebrotherswaugh on August 17, 2012, 1:05 GMT

    @SurlyCynic. Yep, more of the same from these Pommy journalists. They've had their 'day in the sunshine', one of the most embarrassing tenures of a #1 ranked side ever (in any sport), but SA is about to wrest that 'burden' away from them (wrest may be too strong a word, more like submissively offered up by a limp-wristed ENG unit with a strong case of Stockholm Syndrome). If Finn keeps bowling that garbage line, imagine what'll happen in IND....but then again, the rest of that hapless popgun attack will fare no better. Can't wait until the next Ashes, when AUS show them what a real pace attack looks like, and how it should perform. Talk about mental scarring - the fragile Pommy batsmen will need straight-jackets by the end of that massively one-sided contest (at least 3-0 to AUS, could be another 5-0). But wait, at least they'll have ODI's, it seems like the only format they can scrape together a win in (unless it happen s to a World Cup, then they inevitably turn to jelly). Cheers.

  • Greatest_Game on August 17, 2012, 1:15 GMT

    Mark. You wrote that "England like the variety of attack provided by Finn's height and extra bounce at a good, strong pace. This weapon accounted for Alviro Petersen and Jacques Kallis, who both gloved high bouncing balls down the leg-side." Did it escape you that in BOTH cases the batsman should NOT have been given out, as neither had their glove on the bat? Rod Tucker's decision to overturn the on field umpire's not-out decision has been condemned by every commentator and writer. David Hopps' match report clearly states that both Petersen and Kallis should not have been given out. The weapon that accounted for Kallis and Petersen was BAD UMPIRING, not Finn's height and bounce. Is it your intention to claim these examples of bad umpiring are evidence of Finn's cricketing abilities, and is this how you believe bowlers should be judged in "Fortress England?"

  • MattyP1979 on August 17, 2012, 1:28 GMT

    Actually have to agree with Surly. This guy changes his opinion with every delivery. Finn is class. Would like to see how he does in the sub (Bresnan was the pick last time round). I dont think Finn is the finished article yet either, and whats scary his pace seems to be climbing all the time.

  • RandyOZ on August 17, 2012, 2:30 GMT

    First 'Fortress England' and now this. Surely Mark has learnt by now that all this hyperbole will only lead to more egg on his face. I guess not though.

  • StealthCrawler on August 17, 2012, 3:20 GMT

    You Brits sure like to salivate on your players' performances. One average 3 wicket spell from a bowler who can't bowl without ramming into the stumps, and you decided it's time to dedicate an entire article on him. And as other people have pointed out, Kallis wasn't even out. Till before this series, they were supposedly world beaters according to you and the Switch Hit Show (which I may add, is another saliva fest), based on HOME performances and the Ashes ofcourse. Losing in the middle east was an "off" performance as per you guys. Win in SA and win in the subcontinent...then you earn the right to behave like little girls do when they talk about Bieber. Australia was the one TRUE champion team of this generation. You aren't even close...not by a long long way...and by the looks of things, you aren't getting any closer. Try to be moderate and patient in your praise.

  • Greatest_Game on August 17, 2012, 3:25 GMT

    Randy, Matty, Surly…I think he is like KP - oblivious and immune to criticism. I believe that it is condition known as IEO - immense ego oblivion. The major difference is that KP is actually a really good cricket player. KP can write well too!

  • Cool_Jeeves on August 17, 2012, 3:27 GMT

    thebrotherswaugh - what world do you live in? There is no side in world cricket about whom such tall predictions can be given today, except when Sri Lanka plays bangladesh in Sri Lanka.

  • venkatesh018 on August 17, 2012, 5:55 GMT

    Mr.Nicholas, Onions doesn't suffer from Anderson being a similar type bowler. He suffers because of a lack of wisdom and appreciation of his considerable skills by the so-called "expert pundits" and the selectors. Graham Onions is clearly the best bowler in England and he doesn't need swinging conditions to take wickets like your "irreplaceable" Mr.Anderson. His swing and seam in any conditions will be a handful to both right and left handers. Add to that, he doesn't rattle the stumps at the umpire's end.

  • DustyBin on August 17, 2012, 8:52 GMT

    to all Australia fans who say that England are a poor side/unworthy of a no. 1 ranking : I agree. However we whipped you in the last 2 Ashes & shall repeat that next year, so how bad are you? Perhaps, change your name to "Drosstralia?"