Pakistan v England 2011-12, 2nd Test, Abu Dhabi January 24, 2012

Tremlett doubtful for second Test

22

Chris Tremlett, the England fast bowler, is likely to be omitted from the second Test against Pakistan in Abu Dhabi because of a recurrence of the back and side problems that plagued him for much of last summer.

"He had a sore back and side yesterday," said England captain, Andrew Strauss. "He's going to have to bowl today before we know whether he's fit or not." Tremlett then spent England's final net session sitting on a box of drinks, suggesting that his omission was inevitable.

The same injury kept him out of England contention for nearly six months after his back problem first materialised before last summer's Trent Bridge Test against India.

Strauss said there was no cause to send Tremlett for a scan. "There is just some general stiffness and soreness there."

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • me54321 on January 25, 2012, 3:32 GMT

    I really hope we go for 5 bowlers. Our 6th batsman never performs when he's really needed, so we may as well go with the bowler.

  • dsig3 on January 24, 2012, 23:52 GMT

    England always been hunted? Dont think so mate. People felt sorry for you and treated you as a joke for a very long time. Now you have a very good team, and everyone will want to tear you down. Including me. You will find no friends in the media or rival nations. As long as you win you will be ok, but as soon as you fall you will cop it. Its different when you are expected to win as opposed to being a punchline.

  • JG2704 on January 24, 2012, 22:19 GMT

    I have given many arguments as to why we need to go for a 5 man bowling attack. My latest concerns are time factor (see my comms on "Foundations remain solid for England" thread) , but can anyone give any reasons why we should play 6 batsmen apart from "It's what has worked for us in the past" ? In the past 3 years we haven't been away from home and a test down on pitches where even when our 4 bowlers are bowling well we only reduce the opposition to 330. Geoff Miller said pre series that he'd consider playing 5 bowlers if he felt that formation would suit the conditions etc. Surely if ever there's a time to change it it's now. The horse may have already bolted from the shed. Why wait until it's out of sight?

  • Harry_Kool on January 24, 2012, 21:45 GMT

    @dsig3. You could say a lot of things about the English attack, but I wouldn't include "pie chuckers" as one. The bowlers performed admirably on a wicket that didn't really suit them. The Poms have always been the hunted, even when down, certainly by the Aussies. I probably would wait until after the series before beating your chest. Humble pie tastes awful.

  • on January 24, 2012, 20:16 GMT

    I think it is testament to England's sheer strength in the bowling department that the loss of Quality seamers Bresnan and Tremlett does not severely affect our attack as there is plenty of back up. I think it was on the cards that England were gonna drop him for Panesar anyway but hopefully this will push them to make that decision. Whilst Finn is certainly an accomplished bowler, it would be disappointing if they picked him as a second spinner would be much more beneficial to the attack in these conditions.

  • cricket_fan_1980 on January 24, 2012, 17:21 GMT

    Honest advice from a Pakistani fan to English selectors and anybody with influence in team selection. Broad and Anderson are very good seamers. They are also reasonably fit (well, Anderson for sure) to survive longish spells of 8 to 10 overs. England does NOT need a 3rd seamer in these conditions. Finn is OK, but in bouncier tracks. England should definitely be playing Monty, he is a classy off-spinner and the left+right will trouble Pak. Sticking with 3 seamers just seems so archaic, not what I would expect from the otherwise "dynamic" flowers/strauss duo.

  • aahahaa on January 24, 2012, 16:57 GMT

    blessing in disguise , may be. but then I wouldn't want them to play Monty, any street asian cricketer can tame him. Finn if he is there, I would play him, that boy is an impact bowler and on his day can rattle a few.

  • spence1324 on January 24, 2012, 15:56 GMT

    And the special award goes to @dsig3 for stating the the ministry of the bleeding obvious!(because they have not been bowling for months).

  • demon_bowler on January 24, 2012, 15:44 GMT

    @dsig3. You clearly did not watch the match; the England bowlers performed quite creditably. Tremlett's continual injuries are a problem, though. For him, I mean. The replacements are very strong and could keep him out of the team indefinitely. I think that Panesar is in any case the best attacking option now that England need to chase the game. He has a good record against Pakistan, who have a chronic weakness against slow left arm. Even Giles did well against them.

  • on January 24, 2012, 15:25 GMT

    He was already going to be dropped from palying 11 so now this general soreness has made the choice easier and it will be interesting if Eng play 2 spinners because Pak play spin lot better den rest of the World in asia .Eng shud stick to 3 seamers policy if they want any improvement from last test humiliation.

  • me54321 on January 25, 2012, 3:32 GMT

    I really hope we go for 5 bowlers. Our 6th batsman never performs when he's really needed, so we may as well go with the bowler.

  • dsig3 on January 24, 2012, 23:52 GMT

    England always been hunted? Dont think so mate. People felt sorry for you and treated you as a joke for a very long time. Now you have a very good team, and everyone will want to tear you down. Including me. You will find no friends in the media or rival nations. As long as you win you will be ok, but as soon as you fall you will cop it. Its different when you are expected to win as opposed to being a punchline.

  • JG2704 on January 24, 2012, 22:19 GMT

    I have given many arguments as to why we need to go for a 5 man bowling attack. My latest concerns are time factor (see my comms on "Foundations remain solid for England" thread) , but can anyone give any reasons why we should play 6 batsmen apart from "It's what has worked for us in the past" ? In the past 3 years we haven't been away from home and a test down on pitches where even when our 4 bowlers are bowling well we only reduce the opposition to 330. Geoff Miller said pre series that he'd consider playing 5 bowlers if he felt that formation would suit the conditions etc. Surely if ever there's a time to change it it's now. The horse may have already bolted from the shed. Why wait until it's out of sight?

  • Harry_Kool on January 24, 2012, 21:45 GMT

    @dsig3. You could say a lot of things about the English attack, but I wouldn't include "pie chuckers" as one. The bowlers performed admirably on a wicket that didn't really suit them. The Poms have always been the hunted, even when down, certainly by the Aussies. I probably would wait until after the series before beating your chest. Humble pie tastes awful.

  • on January 24, 2012, 20:16 GMT

    I think it is testament to England's sheer strength in the bowling department that the loss of Quality seamers Bresnan and Tremlett does not severely affect our attack as there is plenty of back up. I think it was on the cards that England were gonna drop him for Panesar anyway but hopefully this will push them to make that decision. Whilst Finn is certainly an accomplished bowler, it would be disappointing if they picked him as a second spinner would be much more beneficial to the attack in these conditions.

  • cricket_fan_1980 on January 24, 2012, 17:21 GMT

    Honest advice from a Pakistani fan to English selectors and anybody with influence in team selection. Broad and Anderson are very good seamers. They are also reasonably fit (well, Anderson for sure) to survive longish spells of 8 to 10 overs. England does NOT need a 3rd seamer in these conditions. Finn is OK, but in bouncier tracks. England should definitely be playing Monty, he is a classy off-spinner and the left+right will trouble Pak. Sticking with 3 seamers just seems so archaic, not what I would expect from the otherwise "dynamic" flowers/strauss duo.

  • aahahaa on January 24, 2012, 16:57 GMT

    blessing in disguise , may be. but then I wouldn't want them to play Monty, any street asian cricketer can tame him. Finn if he is there, I would play him, that boy is an impact bowler and on his day can rattle a few.

  • spence1324 on January 24, 2012, 15:56 GMT

    And the special award goes to @dsig3 for stating the the ministry of the bleeding obvious!(because they have not been bowling for months).

  • demon_bowler on January 24, 2012, 15:44 GMT

    @dsig3. You clearly did not watch the match; the England bowlers performed quite creditably. Tremlett's continual injuries are a problem, though. For him, I mean. The replacements are very strong and could keep him out of the team indefinitely. I think that Panesar is in any case the best attacking option now that England need to chase the game. He has a good record against Pakistan, who have a chronic weakness against slow left arm. Even Giles did well against them.

  • on January 24, 2012, 15:25 GMT

    He was already going to be dropped from palying 11 so now this general soreness has made the choice easier and it will be interesting if Eng play 2 spinners because Pak play spin lot better den rest of the World in asia .Eng shud stick to 3 seamers policy if they want any improvement from last test humiliation.

  • dsig3 on January 24, 2012, 14:13 GMT

    General soreness and stiffness. I think England are being coy. That English attack was bowling pies the whole test. They looked like they had not bowled a ball for months. No-one bowled over 140 km/h. Its good to see the English have been resting on their laurels again after a few good series. How does it feel to be the hunted?

  • on January 24, 2012, 13:53 GMT

    I'm hearing that Finn and Onions are facing off for the '3rd seamer slot', but still not quite sure why, unless the Abu Dhabi groundsman has defied conditions to produce a greentop, this position isn't a '2nd spinners slot'! We can certainly play with 2 adaptable seamers in Broad and Jimmy (as Pakistan do in this region), use Trott earlier if needed for a few slow swingers and have the option of Swann and Panesar throughout the innings! Senseless stubborness from England in only picking 1 spinner...

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on January 24, 2012, 13:47 GMT

    Of course Eng are missing linchpin Bresnan, butt as long as they don't play for spin this time and realises that the ball goes straight on and they hot straight and stop fancying around trying to up the run-rate when it isn't required then they should be fine.

  • jonesy2 on January 24, 2012, 13:30 GMT

    big loss, not. although they dont really have a decent replacement

  • D.S.A on January 24, 2012, 13:18 GMT

    What a coincidence. Now he can be dropped for Monty, without looking like the weak link.

  • on January 24, 2012, 13:11 GMT

    A great shame that a guy with such obvious natural attributes to be a great fast bowler is so injury prone. However in this case, I think it's likely that he would have been dropped anyway.

  • on January 24, 2012, 13:03 GMT

    i think if tremleet will not play means there is a option of Monty panesar England must give a chance to Monty

  • mikeyp147 on January 24, 2012, 12:35 GMT

    Perfect opportunity to play Monty in the second Test then. But sadly I bet they don't. Finn will get the nod.

  • on January 24, 2012, 12:25 GMT

    Blessing in disguise for England ! :)

  • jmcilhinney on January 24, 2012, 12:21 GMT

    This is another blow for Tremlett, who may never have been left out of the team in the first place if not for the injury. Just as then though, it may be the best thing for the England team. Bresnan came in and did a great job then and I feel that England will actually be better off with Finn or Panesar in this series (sorry Chris). There's talk about the fact that England batted poorly and yet the most likely change is in the bowling. I think that's because if a batsman gets out he has made once mistake on one ball, whereas if a bowler performs poorly he has likely done so for an extended portion of the innings. Tremlett wasn't bad in Dubai but he was ineffective compared to the other bowlers. Finn or Panesar both have a better chance of being effective. I think that most people probably want the more "radical" choice of Panesar but the conservative selectors may still go with Finn to keep the 3 seamers and 1 spinner makeup.

  • faranian882 on January 24, 2012, 12:18 GMT

    Apart from injury he was always going to be dropped.

  • on January 24, 2012, 12:18 GMT

    Let's hope they bring in Panasar and use two spinners like they should have done for first test!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on January 24, 2012, 12:18 GMT

    Let's hope they bring in Panasar and use two spinners like they should have done for first test!

  • faranian882 on January 24, 2012, 12:18 GMT

    Apart from injury he was always going to be dropped.

  • jmcilhinney on January 24, 2012, 12:21 GMT

    This is another blow for Tremlett, who may never have been left out of the team in the first place if not for the injury. Just as then though, it may be the best thing for the England team. Bresnan came in and did a great job then and I feel that England will actually be better off with Finn or Panesar in this series (sorry Chris). There's talk about the fact that England batted poorly and yet the most likely change is in the bowling. I think that's because if a batsman gets out he has made once mistake on one ball, whereas if a bowler performs poorly he has likely done so for an extended portion of the innings. Tremlett wasn't bad in Dubai but he was ineffective compared to the other bowlers. Finn or Panesar both have a better chance of being effective. I think that most people probably want the more "radical" choice of Panesar but the conservative selectors may still go with Finn to keep the 3 seamers and 1 spinner makeup.

  • on January 24, 2012, 12:25 GMT

    Blessing in disguise for England ! :)

  • mikeyp147 on January 24, 2012, 12:35 GMT

    Perfect opportunity to play Monty in the second Test then. But sadly I bet they don't. Finn will get the nod.

  • on January 24, 2012, 13:03 GMT

    i think if tremleet will not play means there is a option of Monty panesar England must give a chance to Monty

  • on January 24, 2012, 13:11 GMT

    A great shame that a guy with such obvious natural attributes to be a great fast bowler is so injury prone. However in this case, I think it's likely that he would have been dropped anyway.

  • D.S.A on January 24, 2012, 13:18 GMT

    What a coincidence. Now he can be dropped for Monty, without looking like the weak link.

  • jonesy2 on January 24, 2012, 13:30 GMT

    big loss, not. although they dont really have a decent replacement

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on January 24, 2012, 13:47 GMT

    Of course Eng are missing linchpin Bresnan, butt as long as they don't play for spin this time and realises that the ball goes straight on and they hot straight and stop fancying around trying to up the run-rate when it isn't required then they should be fine.