The Investec Ashes 2013 July 16, 2013

Tremlett trains with England

44

If Steven Finn required any reminder that his place in the England side was in jeopardy, he received it with the sight of Chris Tremlett joining the England squad for training at Lord's on Tuesday.

While Tremlett has not been called into the England squad, his appearance did underline his continuing interest to the selectors and was another step towards a potential return. Tremlett last played for England in the UAE in January 2012 but was forced home from that tour through injury. Since then he has twice undergone surgery and, after a modest start to the season with Surrey, has just started to bowl at something approaching his best form.

Finn endured a chastening final day of the Trent Bridge Test. Trusted to bowl only 10 overs in Australia's second innings - that is three fewer than James Anderson bowled in one spell on the final day - Finn was hit out of the attack in two overs on Sunday and missed a tricky, but potentially crucial, chance in the field.

Monty Panesar, the Sussex left-arm spinner, and Ben Stokes, the Durham allrounder, also trained with the England squad on Tuesday, with Tremlett bowling Jonathan Trott in the nets. The nephew of Bermuda's Dwayne Leverock, Kamau, who is currently playing with Horsham, was also involved.

It might be wrong to read too much into the appearance of any of the three players. None of them are currently required by their county sides while others jostling for England places, the likes of Warwickshire's Boyd Rankin and Kent's James Tredwell, are currently involved in games. It was also an optional net, with only Finn, of the England bowlers utilised at Trent Bridge, opting to bowl.

George Dobell is a senior correspondent at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • CapitalMarkets on July 16, 2013, 16:28 GMT

    England need to recognise they need a five man attack. The 119 overs that their two senior bowlers sent down in the first test (68% of the total bowled) meant that, even when the recognised Austrlian batsmen (1 to 7) were failing, England were overbowling Anderson and Swan. The bowlers still have 15 days of intense cricket in the next three weeks, yet they barely got England over the line. Apart from Stokes, there is no-one in the elite squad that has a bowling average lower than his batting average and thus (like Australia's Shane Watson) is a genuine all-rounder. Pietersen and Root are tidy part timers but for reasons not apparent to me, barely used. Bresnan is a fourth seamer who bats a bit and Broad is unreliable with both bat and ball. England have made it tough (particularly for new bowlers) to break into the team. At some time during this series, Australia will click and 120 overs will be needed to get them out in hot weather. JA and GS can't be expected to deliver 82 of them.

  • TrevorHickman on July 23, 2013, 11:49 GMT

    I'd love Tremlett to be given a go, but England will stick with Bresnan who had a great game at Lords.

    Can't we lend Tremlett to Australia to even things up a bit?

  • Shan156 on July 17, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    Anyway, my previous rants aside, England will continue to select 3 fast bowlers + Swann for the remaining 4 tests. I back Finn to play at Lord's. While he was clearly out of sorts after picking up the 2 first innings wickets, Lord's is his home ground and he has a good record there. It was understandable that Cook removed him from the attack on the 5th day at TB after just 2 overs and he only bowled a total of 10 overs in the 2nd innings but at Lord's, Cook should throw him the new ball and put some trust on him. He is likely to bowl more 4 balls than Bresnan but once he settles into a rhythm, he will be one of our biggest assets. Let him find that rhythm in his home ground. One more chance and if he doesn't get it, he is out.

  • Shan156 on July 17, 2013, 17:41 GMT

    @landl47, Considering that we have 9 more tests to go against the Aussies in 6 months, it is imperative that our bowlers, especially Anderson and Swann, stay fresh. If they are going to bowl the same # of overs that they did in the first test in the next test or two, then there is a high probability that both of them might be unavailable for the rest of the tests against Aus. Forget Swann, without Anderson, I don't see us taking 20 wickets, even Aussie wickets (sorry Aussie fans, cannot resist:-)). I am sure you will agree that both of them were overbowled in TB. Cook had no other choice, there was no way Eng. was going to win if he continued to bowl Finn and Broad. We have to agree that except Jimmy, the others are not consistent. So, we need to play more bowlers.

    I agree with weakening the batting part if we play an addtl bowler but our top 6 batsmen are good enough to post a score that our 5 bowlers can defend, don't you think?

  • jmcilhinney on July 17, 2013, 14:07 GMT

    @couchpundit on (July 17, 2013, 1:35 GMT), the whole "not changing a winning combination" thing is purely based on superstition. You should always choose the team that gives you the best chance of winning the game in front of you whether or not that team won you the last game. For instance, Ed Cowan's spot has been in danger for some time. If he fails again in the second Test but Australia win, does that really mean that he should keep that spot for game 3?

  • elsmallo on July 17, 2013, 12:34 GMT

    "The nephew of Bermuda's Dwayne Leverock, Kamau, who is currently playing with Horsham, was also involved." SWEET!

  • Hammond on July 17, 2013, 10:22 GMT

    Australia better hope that Tremlett doesn't play. I don't know how they would handle 3 England bowlers palpably superior to anything they have in the shed.

  • CapitalMarkets on July 17, 2013, 10:12 GMT

    6-1-4 is gradually killing Anderson and Swann. I agree that only Bresnan is close to being a genuine all-rounder if we stay with the classic "batting average is higher than the bowling average" definition. But the West Indians I saw at the Oval in 1984 didn't have an all-rounder (Sobers had retired). They played 5-1-5 ... Grenidge, Haynes, Gomes, Richards and LLoyd as the batsmen, Jeff Dujon (wicketkeeper) at six and Baptiste, Marshall, Harper, Holding and Garner as the bowlers. England had Ian Botham at six, if memory serves. Baptiste, Marshall and Harper could bat a bit but were bowlers first and foremost. The West Indies were bowled out cheaply in the first innings but still won comfortably courtesy of a patient 125 from Desmond Haynes. The point is that it was an attacking selection and that the bowlers who didn't do so well in England's first innings (Garner and Holding) came back and took nine wickets in the second. 6-1-4 stops England blooding a new bowler the way Australia did.

  • Cpt.Meanster on July 17, 2013, 8:05 GMT

    I like Tremlett. A hard working bowler with a no-nonsense attitude. I saw him in the previous Ashes. He was good. Hopefully, he gets a look-in some time during this series.

  • on July 17, 2013, 5:39 GMT

    @couchpundit - why wouldn't you consider changing a winning combination if there is room for improvement ? Cook didn't bowl Finn because he was bowling poorly. How does "spirit of cricket" come into it ?

  • CapitalMarkets on July 16, 2013, 16:28 GMT

    England need to recognise they need a five man attack. The 119 overs that their two senior bowlers sent down in the first test (68% of the total bowled) meant that, even when the recognised Austrlian batsmen (1 to 7) were failing, England were overbowling Anderson and Swan. The bowlers still have 15 days of intense cricket in the next three weeks, yet they barely got England over the line. Apart from Stokes, there is no-one in the elite squad that has a bowling average lower than his batting average and thus (like Australia's Shane Watson) is a genuine all-rounder. Pietersen and Root are tidy part timers but for reasons not apparent to me, barely used. Bresnan is a fourth seamer who bats a bit and Broad is unreliable with both bat and ball. England have made it tough (particularly for new bowlers) to break into the team. At some time during this series, Australia will click and 120 overs will be needed to get them out in hot weather. JA and GS can't be expected to deliver 82 of them.

  • TrevorHickman on July 23, 2013, 11:49 GMT

    I'd love Tremlett to be given a go, but England will stick with Bresnan who had a great game at Lords.

    Can't we lend Tremlett to Australia to even things up a bit?

  • Shan156 on July 17, 2013, 17:45 GMT

    Anyway, my previous rants aside, England will continue to select 3 fast bowlers + Swann for the remaining 4 tests. I back Finn to play at Lord's. While he was clearly out of sorts after picking up the 2 first innings wickets, Lord's is his home ground and he has a good record there. It was understandable that Cook removed him from the attack on the 5th day at TB after just 2 overs and he only bowled a total of 10 overs in the 2nd innings but at Lord's, Cook should throw him the new ball and put some trust on him. He is likely to bowl more 4 balls than Bresnan but once he settles into a rhythm, he will be one of our biggest assets. Let him find that rhythm in his home ground. One more chance and if he doesn't get it, he is out.

  • Shan156 on July 17, 2013, 17:41 GMT

    @landl47, Considering that we have 9 more tests to go against the Aussies in 6 months, it is imperative that our bowlers, especially Anderson and Swann, stay fresh. If they are going to bowl the same # of overs that they did in the first test in the next test or two, then there is a high probability that both of them might be unavailable for the rest of the tests against Aus. Forget Swann, without Anderson, I don't see us taking 20 wickets, even Aussie wickets (sorry Aussie fans, cannot resist:-)). I am sure you will agree that both of them were overbowled in TB. Cook had no other choice, there was no way Eng. was going to win if he continued to bowl Finn and Broad. We have to agree that except Jimmy, the others are not consistent. So, we need to play more bowlers.

    I agree with weakening the batting part if we play an addtl bowler but our top 6 batsmen are good enough to post a score that our 5 bowlers can defend, don't you think?

  • jmcilhinney on July 17, 2013, 14:07 GMT

    @couchpundit on (July 17, 2013, 1:35 GMT), the whole "not changing a winning combination" thing is purely based on superstition. You should always choose the team that gives you the best chance of winning the game in front of you whether or not that team won you the last game. For instance, Ed Cowan's spot has been in danger for some time. If he fails again in the second Test but Australia win, does that really mean that he should keep that spot for game 3?

  • elsmallo on July 17, 2013, 12:34 GMT

    "The nephew of Bermuda's Dwayne Leverock, Kamau, who is currently playing with Horsham, was also involved." SWEET!

  • Hammond on July 17, 2013, 10:22 GMT

    Australia better hope that Tremlett doesn't play. I don't know how they would handle 3 England bowlers palpably superior to anything they have in the shed.

  • CapitalMarkets on July 17, 2013, 10:12 GMT

    6-1-4 is gradually killing Anderson and Swann. I agree that only Bresnan is close to being a genuine all-rounder if we stay with the classic "batting average is higher than the bowling average" definition. But the West Indians I saw at the Oval in 1984 didn't have an all-rounder (Sobers had retired). They played 5-1-5 ... Grenidge, Haynes, Gomes, Richards and LLoyd as the batsmen, Jeff Dujon (wicketkeeper) at six and Baptiste, Marshall, Harper, Holding and Garner as the bowlers. England had Ian Botham at six, if memory serves. Baptiste, Marshall and Harper could bat a bit but were bowlers first and foremost. The West Indies were bowled out cheaply in the first innings but still won comfortably courtesy of a patient 125 from Desmond Haynes. The point is that it was an attacking selection and that the bowlers who didn't do so well in England's first innings (Garner and Holding) came back and took nine wickets in the second. 6-1-4 stops England blooding a new bowler the way Australia did.

  • Cpt.Meanster on July 17, 2013, 8:05 GMT

    I like Tremlett. A hard working bowler with a no-nonsense attitude. I saw him in the previous Ashes. He was good. Hopefully, he gets a look-in some time during this series.

  • on July 17, 2013, 5:39 GMT

    @couchpundit - why wouldn't you consider changing a winning combination if there is room for improvement ? Cook didn't bowl Finn because he was bowling poorly. How does "spirit of cricket" come into it ?

  • jmcilhinney on July 17, 2013, 4:58 GMT

    @SamWintson92 on (July 16, 2013, 21:42 GMT), Bresnan's stats are only that bad because he was unfit to bowl for so long due to his elbow. It's the selectors fault for sticking with him when he was clearly below par. If his latest operation has corrected the problem then he is likely to be far more effective; perhaps not as much as he was early on but certainly more than he was more recently. Finn is probably more likely to make a match-winning contribution than Bresnan but a fit Bresnan is also less likely to produce a match-losing performance like the one that Finn nearly managed at Trent Bridge. Frankly, they've both got something to prove. Finn seems to have residual issues related to his run up to sort out and Bresnan needs to be back to performing like he was before his first elbow surgery.

  • landl47 on July 17, 2013, 2:25 GMT

    @shan156: Bairstow made 37 runs in the first innings (2nd top scorer) and 15 in the second. England won by 14.

    5 bowlers only works if one of them is Andrew Flintoff (or Jacques Kallis or Ian Botham or Kapil Dev or Imran Khan or, we should be so lucky, Garry Sobers). I don't see any of them in this group. Aus's strength is its bowling; England can't weaken the batting to bring in another bowler who will only be really useful if 1. a bowler is injured or 2. Aus makes a big score, when by definition the plan has already failed.

    Ben Stokes is also there. In a few years he might be the new Flintoff or Botham, but he isn't there yet. England will be going with 4 bowlers for the rest of this series.

  • couchpundit on July 17, 2013, 1:35 GMT

    Lets remove either of the south african batters in english team and bring bresnan and anyone else except Finn....are you guys nuts???

    Why would you change a winning combination plain and simple? Instead give confidence to Finn and amke him comfirtable ...he will return with good tally. English captain wont let a player in the team bowl....Australian captain will do anything to keep a player out of the team.

    One thing they stand together is about "Spirit of Cricket"...both will condemn any such thoughts for sure.

    BTW whoever brought this Spirit of Cricket thing?.... this game used to be betting game 112 years back.....who care about Spirit of Cricket now?

  • aracer on July 16, 2013, 23:56 GMT

    All of a sudden the strength in depth doesn't look as bad as it did.

  • jmcilhinney on July 16, 2013, 23:48 GMT

    There's no doubt that England would love to see Tremlett back to his best to give themselves another option but there's also no doubt that he's not back to his best yet. It is amazing to see how many people are calling for his inclusion with basically no form this CC to warrant it. If he bowls well for Surrey for the second half of the season then he may well get a trip to Australia but it's hard to see him getting a game during this series.

    There's definitely a case for retaining Finn for game 2 but there's definitely a case for dropping him too. If he is replaced then I have no doubt that it will be by Bresnan. The surface at Lords should probably play a part in that decision but Cook's attitude to Finn may also be a significant factor.

  • Happy_hamster on July 16, 2013, 22:19 GMT

    Personally I would bring Woakes in for Bairstow for Lords, he is averaging 43 with bat and 24 with ball, he is much better with a red ball than white but only seems to get a chance in the shorter form. Keep Finn he has the ability to be our lead bowler in time and he will be on his home ground. btw JB is a long term prospect but I feel we need 5 bowlers at Lords and possibly other tests given the fair weather, if the pitches dry out Root and KP can share the spin duties with Swann; it is going to be a splendid summer of cricket.

  • SamWintson92 on July 16, 2013, 21:42 GMT

    Finn's way better than Bresnan. There's no point on playing Bresnan who averages 32 with the ball in tests. I'll go with Chris Tremlett who also has a better stats than Bresnan.

  • Juiceoftheapple on July 16, 2013, 20:30 GMT

    Tremlett, Finn, Onions and Bresnan fighting over 1 spot, and plenty of youngsters developing. It is quite satisfying isnt it. A stock of fast bowlers we could only have dreamt of for nearly 15 years. Happy days, whoever gets the nod.

  • 2.14istherunrate on July 16, 2013, 20:22 GMT

    Having noted that Tremlett does not get another 4day game till Aug 22, I looked at the fixture list and groaned. There is some 1st class cricket at the moment but precious little from now to the end of the Ashes series. Anne the loonie from Little Britain could have done a better job of it than the present crew. One does have to ask do they give a toss about f/c cricket and the Test scene? Obviously NOT. There is whole lot of t20 to fill the coffers and then its 40 over cricket. In a couple of weeks those outside the team will be getting a little ring rusty for the long game, and if there is a need for a spare to play in a test then they will not have someone in form to pick from. Quite frankly this beggars belief beyond comprehension. What is sad is that no-one apart from Michael Vaughan hs kicked up a stink about it. The ECB chiefs should be furious as should the Test management. Words fail me really! Pathetic!

  • R_U_4_REAL_NICK on July 16, 2013, 18:50 GMT

    I wouldn't be expecting any major changes to the team for second test, but it's good to see England's fringe players finally getting a look-in at least. This could indeed be the kick that Finn-knee needs to motivate him for his hunting ground that is Lords. Why on Earth are people saying Panesar should replace Swann? Based on what? Swann not running through Aus. in Trent Bridge where spinners generally don't do well anyway... Panesar picking up wickets in India... Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Panesar and would love to see them bowl in tandem in tests - but replace Swann now? Might as well replace Jimmy Anderson with Tremlett while you're at it...

  • Nutcutlet on July 16, 2013, 18:46 GMT

    @skilebow: I share your perception. Flower is loyal to players who have served the cause well & Tremlett is a known quantity when it comes to touring: low maintainance; great tourist; whole-hearted trier. In Strauss's triumphal progress round Oz in 2010-11, the unleashing of Tremlett after Broad was side-lined with injury was a major factor in tilting the series in England's favour. In Melbourne & Sydney the England seamers carried all before them. If he's getting fitter & stronger - and I believe he is having seen him twice recently - then I expect him to be on the plane. More immediately, I expect Bresnan to replace Finn at Lord's. And although it's still a long way out, I expect very few changes to the touring party for Oz compared to 2010-11. It could well be that we go with the same bowlers &, apart from Root for Strauss & Bairstow for Collingwood, the Test team could be identical. James Taylor has to come into the reckoning too, I think. He's scoring too many runs to be ignored!

  • CapitalMarkets on July 16, 2013, 18:25 GMT

    @Shan156 you are right! But 5 bowlers without any all-rounders only work if they learn to support the batsmen properly. This means eradicating the T20 attitude that seemed to assail Broad during the early part of his partnership wilth Bell. Batsmen need to be able to trust the bowlers to graft, to stick around and, however low Finn feels at the moment, he can be proud of his stint as nightwatchman during the rearguard action in the saved NZ test. At some time during the next 9 test matches England will need him, because one of the frontline bowlers is going to break down, but I'm not convinced it is now. I would like to see him revitalised both in terms of confidence and cricketing nouse first. For someone with such talent, he seems rather slow to work out what he needs to change when Plan A fails. England have the luxury of being in the lead. They need another new ball bowler with energy, verve, enthusiasm and menace right now. Does Onions or Rankin fit the bill? If not, names please?

  • glance_to_leg on July 16, 2013, 18:23 GMT

    I would love to see Tremlett back, because he is a good, honest, and intelligent bowler. Finn shares the first two qualities, but not the third. But there are plenty of other good young seamers around. My hope for a victory (rather than to indulge my purist's desire to see five bowlers) is that Bresnan is called in as a straight swap for Finn, adding strength to the lower middle order as well. Pragmatically, I'd love to see England drop Bairstow, bring in Carberry or Compton, and move Root back down the order. Neither opener will necessarily score more runs than Bairstow (although I suspect they would), but Root will score runs down the order, and he is not ready to open in tests. But it won't happen.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on July 16, 2013, 18:03 GMT

    Tremlett the destroyer (as oz fans from the last Ashes no doubt remember him) is back. A tall as a tree and with biceps the size a small horse, England fans would love to see him take apart the Australian batting line up for one more time, which is all it might possibly be given his injury-prone recent record. Steven Finn is one of the quickest in the world, but came up against a dead pitch and his own internal struggle with length in the last test, and deserves to have his place in the team questioned as a result. He could still be retained for Lords, though, a much flatter pitch than in the past but still likely to have more pace than the disappointing surface at Trent Bridge. It feels a shame to talk about the wonderful Trent Bridge ground in those terms, but they could have at least given us a surface like the one in 2005.

  • on July 16, 2013, 17:57 GMT

    England simply can't afford to play Finn at Lord's. His problem is too basic. His stock delivery is much shorter than it should be. He needs to reprogram himself to bowl a fuller length first and then of course he has other issues as well. Bresnan has to come in. He attacks the stumps and can bowl a lot of overs. If Broad is not fit then that's a bit of a problem. But I think either Tremlett (my choice) or Onions can replace him and get the job done. Even if Tremlett can only bowl short spells he'll be fine as long as he bowls them well. I'd keep Swann for now.

  • Iddo555 on July 16, 2013, 17:50 GMT

    Four bowlers is enough, the problem in this game is England didn't have four bowlers. Broad was injured and didn't bowl in the first innings and Finn was a liability who Cook didn't trust.

    If they get four bowlers who are fit and who Cook trusts to be able to throw the ball to then it isn't a problem

  • Shan156 on July 16, 2013, 17:37 GMT

    It is simple really. Drop Bairstow, draft in Tremlett or, at least, Bresnan. Give Finn another go. When are Eng. going to realize they need 5 bowlers not 4? 4 would work only if two of them are named Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne.

  • on July 16, 2013, 17:22 GMT

    Just goes to show the difference in quality among teams, here is Finn fighting over his spot with an AV, SR of 30 and 48. In india we have a guaranteed spot for I Sharma with AV, SR of 38, 63. Yes he is expensive but come'on he is a talent to be persisted with. He has shown in his spells - genuine class bowling ability. On the other hand, i have decent doubts about Cook as a captain, i think he has fixed recipe which works because of some key players. But if key players are injured or god forbid loose touch he is going to be in very tough spot.

  • CapitalMarkets on July 16, 2013, 17:21 GMT

    I have to agree with so many of you. landl47 is right about Panesar but (sad to say) Harry-S is right about Finn and Cyril_Knight is right about Tremlett. With all due respect, involving a bowler who has as many niggles as Shane Watson and whose best days are obviously behind him is not the way forward. England have allowed a situation to develop where playing 6-1-4 batsmen-keeper-bowlers makes it hard for the latter to get into the side. Does anyone seriously think Tremlett is the man to deliver around 90 hostile accurate overs during 15 long (and very likely) hot days in the next three weeks? Two of the grounds are fairly flat tracks and we need someone who is hungry, motivated, a handful and a little bit snarly to complement the probing accuracy of Anderson. 6-1-4 means I can't remember when England last bloodied a 19 year old in a test match. When Tresco says Boyd Rankin is a handful, people should listen. Doing a Pietersen to play at the highest level means the man is motivated.

  • SDHM on July 16, 2013, 17:07 GMT

    @CapitalMarkets - wouldn't read too much into that, Broad would've bowled a lot more in the first innings if he hadn't aggravated his shoulder injury while batting.

    I suspect, as people have mentioned, this has little bearing on the immediate squad. Panesar is still rightly considered Swann's deputy and will come in if England want two spinners, although now he's under a little bit of pressure from Kerrigan (took another 7-fer today). Tremlett they are desperate to get back in the fold rightly or wrongly and are just keeping tabs on his fitness I'd suggest. Stokes is the interesting one: his bowling so far this season has been excellent but he's struggled with the bat, so maybe he's sending a few down under the eye of Saker & Gooch & Flower will be working on his batting in the nets. England do do this often though: Scott Borthwick spent a lot of time bowling with Mushy last year during the SA series for example.

  • WillDuff on July 16, 2013, 17:00 GMT

    Presumably this is about giving the batsmen some Test-level bowling to keep them sharp. Tremlett may not be about to get a recall, but he's good enough in the nets for a few overs of sharp bowling to keep the batsmen leaping about.

    We have 9 Tests to go in this extended series (sort of) and England will seemingly never scrap the 4-man attack. There is surely no doubt that the current attack will not last the distance, so back-ups need to be planned. Rankin, Topley, Meaker and Tredwell could see themselves going down under in the winter.

  • Jaffa79 on July 16, 2013, 16:59 GMT

    Stokes, like Bairstow, Hughes, Smith and Warner and countless batters around the world are symptomatic of the new breed of cricketers brought up as T20 players first and first class batsmen second. They have the shots but lack application and technique against top quality quick bowling.

  • skilebow on July 16, 2013, 16:49 GMT

    I think the selectors have tremlet in mind for the second leg of this 10 match series. Keep him round the squad, get him bowling long spells for his county this summer and then unleash him in november

  • EVH316 on July 16, 2013, 16:33 GMT

    Delighted to see Tremlett called up, he`s a proper bowler, who will take wickets and never go for more than 2.5 an over. His inclusion would properly balance the seam attack - Jimmy and Broad bowl best with fuller lengths, and Tremlett will always keep batsman on the back foot.

    Maybe Monty`s been called up to talk to Finn about playing a load of Tests and not imrproving.

  • EPJFL on July 16, 2013, 16:30 GMT

    On balance Finn should have another chance . If he is dropped now he will probably not come back this series which might be a waste of resources whereas there is a chance his confidence could return with a more helpful wicket and one with which he is very familiar - with his confidence restored we know from his record he can be a penetrative bowler. His high pace also gives useful variety to the attack. Ed Lyons

  • Cyril_Knight on July 16, 2013, 16:29 GMT

    Has anyone advocating the selection of Tremlett actually seen him bowl since he last played for England?

    He is a shadow of that player. His pace is down (80-82mph), he cannot bowl long spells and he can no longer be described as accurate.

    Tremlett needs to bowl though and he won't play again for Surrey until 22nd August, so he's a good choice as a net bowler for England during this series.

  • landl47 on July 16, 2013, 16:04 GMT

    There's no way in the world Panesar should replace Swann against an Australian side with at least 6 left-handers in the line-up. England not only loses its best spinner (took 10 wickets in the test before last and even in this test, where he wasn't at his best, 4 key wickets), but also a better bat and much better fielder. Panesar will be there to give the England batters practice against SLA, since Agar's pretty sure to retain his place.

    Tremlett's another matter- if he's fit he's a genuine contender for a place. He's not as fast as Finn, but more accurate and gets even more bounce. With Finn still having consistency issues, adding Tremlett gives a real set of options to the selectors. Personally I'd still go for Onions, but Tremlett's an intriguing option.

  • Harry-S on July 16, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    Finn's shortcomings at this level were exposed during the 1st test, and his poor bowling and shocking fielding very nearly cost England the match. He is nowhere near the level of Broad and Anderson, and I'd have him 5th choice seamer behind Bresnan and Onions too. Surely he has to be dropped for the next test, even if it is on his home ground.

  • Cyril_Knight on July 16, 2013, 15:55 GMT

    Tremlett "has just started to bowl at something approaching his best form" when was this then? His three over spells with the new ball last week? He is nowhere near any sort of form, let alone his best. A spark or two maybe but nothing consistent.

    I think this training session has more to do with England keeping themselves aware of his fitness needs. He can just about manage 6 overs in a row, usually spells of 3 or 4. Perhaps England are trying to motivate him, in a last ditch hope that he could return to his devastating best. Motivation appears as big a factor in his current form as fitness.

    It looks more like Tremlett is being used as a net bowler in this case though.

  • MarkTaffin on July 16, 2013, 15:52 GMT

    Surely only the inclusion of Tremlett in the training has any significance; Stokes is way down the list of top 6 batsmen available and further down the list of bowlers, and Monty would never be picked ahead of Swann. But Manchester is a bouncing wicket, Finn is short on form and confidence (though should play on his home pitch) and Bresnan's strengths aren't suited based on bounce (and he's not really looking in any kind of form). Failure by Finn and Lords and Tremlett back for Old Trafford would be great to see.

  • Iddo555 on July 16, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    @adarsh

    When Monty can average better than 34 in first class cricket as oppose to Swann's 28 with the ball then it's time for Monty to replace Swann. The fact he can't bat or field doesn't do him any favours either.

    Tremlett's 32 yrs old now and he's injury prone, I think England need to move on from Tremlett. I'm don't know what Ben Stokes is doing there either, he's not a test player. This could just be some batting practice for the England batsman

  • RichardG on July 16, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    "It might be wrong to read too much into the appearance of any of the three players."

    Maybe, but would England bring Stokes all the way down from Durham just to give some players a net? This is going to be a long, hot couple of summers, and England may well fancy going in with something approaching a five-man attack. Stokes at six instead of Bairstow would offer that. Also, it's good to see that England are still making a point of showing Monty that he's part of things. He didn't have a great series in NZ, and has had struggles for Sussex this summer, all while Tredwell has done well for England in limited overs games and Kerrigan is picking up fans in the press. Monty should still be number two behind Swann, and hopefully this shows he is.

  • on July 16, 2013, 15:29 GMT

    It's time for Monty Panesar to return in place of Swamm.

  • on July 16, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    Goober has a decent history vs Australia. Would be happy to see him be part of the squad & team.

  • on July 16, 2013, 15:28 GMT

    Goober has a decent history vs Australia. Would be happy to see him be part of the squad & team.

  • on July 16, 2013, 15:29 GMT

    It's time for Monty Panesar to return in place of Swamm.

  • RichardG on July 16, 2013, 15:39 GMT

    "It might be wrong to read too much into the appearance of any of the three players."

    Maybe, but would England bring Stokes all the way down from Durham just to give some players a net? This is going to be a long, hot couple of summers, and England may well fancy going in with something approaching a five-man attack. Stokes at six instead of Bairstow would offer that. Also, it's good to see that England are still making a point of showing Monty that he's part of things. He didn't have a great series in NZ, and has had struggles for Sussex this summer, all while Tredwell has done well for England in limited overs games and Kerrigan is picking up fans in the press. Monty should still be number two behind Swann, and hopefully this shows he is.

  • Iddo555 on July 16, 2013, 15:50 GMT

    @adarsh

    When Monty can average better than 34 in first class cricket as oppose to Swann's 28 with the ball then it's time for Monty to replace Swann. The fact he can't bat or field doesn't do him any favours either.

    Tremlett's 32 yrs old now and he's injury prone, I think England need to move on from Tremlett. I'm don't know what Ben Stokes is doing there either, he's not a test player. This could just be some batting practice for the England batsman

  • MarkTaffin on July 16, 2013, 15:52 GMT

    Surely only the inclusion of Tremlett in the training has any significance; Stokes is way down the list of top 6 batsmen available and further down the list of bowlers, and Monty would never be picked ahead of Swann. But Manchester is a bouncing wicket, Finn is short on form and confidence (though should play on his home pitch) and Bresnan's strengths aren't suited based on bounce (and he's not really looking in any kind of form). Failure by Finn and Lords and Tremlett back for Old Trafford would be great to see.

  • Cyril_Knight on July 16, 2013, 15:55 GMT

    Tremlett "has just started to bowl at something approaching his best form" when was this then? His three over spells with the new ball last week? He is nowhere near any sort of form, let alone his best. A spark or two maybe but nothing consistent.

    I think this training session has more to do with England keeping themselves aware of his fitness needs. He can just about manage 6 overs in a row, usually spells of 3 or 4. Perhaps England are trying to motivate him, in a last ditch hope that he could return to his devastating best. Motivation appears as big a factor in his current form as fitness.

    It looks more like Tremlett is being used as a net bowler in this case though.

  • Harry-S on July 16, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    Finn's shortcomings at this level were exposed during the 1st test, and his poor bowling and shocking fielding very nearly cost England the match. He is nowhere near the level of Broad and Anderson, and I'd have him 5th choice seamer behind Bresnan and Onions too. Surely he has to be dropped for the next test, even if it is on his home ground.

  • landl47 on July 16, 2013, 16:04 GMT

    There's no way in the world Panesar should replace Swann against an Australian side with at least 6 left-handers in the line-up. England not only loses its best spinner (took 10 wickets in the test before last and even in this test, where he wasn't at his best, 4 key wickets), but also a better bat and much better fielder. Panesar will be there to give the England batters practice against SLA, since Agar's pretty sure to retain his place.

    Tremlett's another matter- if he's fit he's a genuine contender for a place. He's not as fast as Finn, but more accurate and gets even more bounce. With Finn still having consistency issues, adding Tremlett gives a real set of options to the selectors. Personally I'd still go for Onions, but Tremlett's an intriguing option.

  • Cyril_Knight on July 16, 2013, 16:29 GMT

    Has anyone advocating the selection of Tremlett actually seen him bowl since he last played for England?

    He is a shadow of that player. His pace is down (80-82mph), he cannot bowl long spells and he can no longer be described as accurate.

    Tremlett needs to bowl though and he won't play again for Surrey until 22nd August, so he's a good choice as a net bowler for England during this series.

  • EPJFL on July 16, 2013, 16:30 GMT

    On balance Finn should have another chance . If he is dropped now he will probably not come back this series which might be a waste of resources whereas there is a chance his confidence could return with a more helpful wicket and one with which he is very familiar - with his confidence restored we know from his record he can be a penetrative bowler. His high pace also gives useful variety to the attack. Ed Lyons