Why England are not wrong to consider resting their 'Fab Four'

Imagine the situation: England, 1-1 going into the final test match against South Africa this summer, lose one of Jimmy Anderson or Stuart Broad to injury. Debate rages – should they replace them with the in-form Graham Onions, or the heir-apparent Steven Finn, who has been patiently (or increasingly impatiently) waiting in the wings for the last 18 months. Neither has played test cricket for some time, and both have had their involvement in county cricket curtailed by being a non-playing part of the test squad for much of the summer. Several commentators suggest both may have to be accommodated, with Matthew Prior moving up to number 6. However this option only gains validity because of fears of the reliability of the bowling replacement. Perhaps England thus need an additional, fifth, bowler to account for the net loss of one of their opening duo?

The above is not an overtly unlikely situation either. Broad has suffered a number of injury problems over his short career, most significantly missing the final three tests of the last Ashes series with a stomach strain, while Anderson has had his niggles in the past too.

One of Anderson (L) or Broad (R) may be rested at Edgbaston Photo: M. Hutchings.

A number of journalists – predominantly ex-players – have suggested it would be wrong for England to rest players for the third test against West Indies next week. First, because it disrespects the opposition and test cricket. Second, because they should be playing to win every test match. There is truth in what they say – too many international test-match teams have been decimated by the IPL recently for example. But they take a short-sighted view. England are not planning to rest players because they have played too much IPL cricket; neither has played it. They are considering resting Broad or Anderson because both play a major role for England in all three formats of the game. By resting them, they are not lessening the importance of the third test, but merely recognising its relative importance compared to the first test against South Africa. Let us be honest, we would rather have both fit and firing for South Africa than risk overworking them in a redundant test against the West Indies now, especially with a full and competitive one day series to follow. England are still very much playing to win every test match; they are just taking a long-term view to it – in effect saying that in order to win test matches later in the summer, they might have to rest one or two players now.

Bob Willis was astonished that Broad or Anderson might need resting in his review of the test on Monday. He is correct to point out that England have a nine-day break before the next test (they need it – the pair got through 214 overs between them over the last 10 days of cricket), and that should provide some recovery time. But international cricket has changed since the 1970s and 80s; England’s schedule is hectic over the next six months. They follow the third test with three ODIs and one T20 against the West Indies, a further 5 ODIs against Australia, finish the summer with 3 test matches, 5 ODIs and 3 T20’s against South Africa and then fly immediately to Sri Lanka to defend the T20 World Cup. This is then followed by a tough tour of India between November and January. That is a potential of 77 days of international cricket by mid January alone. The demands of the fast bowler are also different. International cricket is dominated by hard, covered wickets, while fast outfields, big bats and shorter boundaries have weighted the game in the batsman’s favour. Aside from that, neither Broad nor Anderson can be considered typical fast bowlers; both are exceptional fielders, Anderson particularly so, but both regularly throw themselves to the ground in pursuit of saving runs. The workload on these fast bowlers is thus harsher; the days of languishing down at long leg are gone – Jonathan Trott fields there for England!

It is right to question whether resting England’s fast bowlers is the best course of action. Both Broad and Anderson will be anxious to play at Edgbaston, a ground which is renowned for helping swing bowling. Yet it is for the long-term aim of winning test matches that a change may be the best option. It is pointed that Keymar Roach has recently gone home, not because he was unfit to bowl, but because he had a niggling injury and, in the words of physio CJ Clark, the management were anxious to “prevent the onset of more serious injury”.

The decision to rest skipper Andrew Strauss from England’s tour of Bangladesh a few years back was derided and criticised for similar reasons. Hindsight proved the England management correct. If England succeed later in the summer, and manage to take an in-form and healthy squad to the sub-continent in the winter, they will be proven correct once again.