Whither James Tredwell?

Posted by
2 minute read


Asked which of his team-mates he least enjoyed facing in the nets recently, Moeen Ali said:

“James Tredwell. Annoying. You just try and smack him and you can’t hit him anywhere.”

It’s one of the mysteries of the age how Tredders doesn’t go for seven an over, but it’s a fact that he doesn’t. His economy rate in one-day internationals is 4.77 an over and he averages 27.81. He’s also England’s second highest ranked bowler (he’s 12th with Jimmy Anderson sixth).

So why isn’t he playing? You can say that England are experimenting, but Peter Moores did say he was looking to settle on a first choice XI by the first match against Australia, and today, Tredwell wasn’t in it.

You could argue that conditions played a part, but they actually seemed quite spin-friendly and why would conditions ever dictate the omission of one of your top two bowlers anyway?

This happens a lot. It seems England omit Tredwell on the basis of how they perceive him rather than what he actually tends to do. Maybe his figures wouldn’t be quite as good if he played every match, but on the basis of what he’s done so far, that theory demands testing.

But no. We’ll have a fourth right-arm fast-medium seamer please – that famously effective genre of one-day bowler. Six foot, slim, cool haircut, arm muscles straining the sleeves of the laser blue shirt – they look so much better in slow-mo reaction shots when the batsman’s just pinged a six back over their head.

James Tredwell. Annoying. Quite often in one-day cricket, that’s more than enough.


Mike Gatting wasn't receiving the King Cricket email when he dropped that ludicrously easy chance against India in 1993.


Why risk it when it's so easy to sign up?


  1. Annoying is good. In this match, frankly, it’s all we’ve got left. When you’re 0 for 2 after three balls, then 11 for 3 and 36 for 4, I think the very least you ought to do is make sure your opponents aren’t enjoying themselves. I’m thinking of things like walking round the field saying “Dibble dibble dibble” to every Aussie player after every ball, and then saying “Under a fish” if they ask you to stop. It doesn’t have to be exactly those things that they say, of course, they could work on a few other options in the nets.

  2. I have a theory it’s about batting….I think there’s a perception by the England selectors that spinners have to be able to get runs whereas at least one (at a stretch two) fast-medium bowlers who aren’t able to bat are tolerated. I get the feeling there’s a view that ‘pace’ bowlers are intrinsically more valuable and therefore spinners have to compensate in other areas.

    1. We’d agree with that. Makes more sense in Tests where the spinner might not really come into the game too much until later on, but even then it’s a wonky view.

  3. Anyone ever get the impression that spinners are judged by who they aren’t rather than who they are?

    Just as Australia seem to judge every bowler against the unholy freak of nature that is Shane Warne, so now must every English spinner be compared to Graeme Swann and/or Jim Laker.

  4. it seems Bell was very much due a 1st ball duck.

    I think main concern in this match was England’s soft underbelly (Root/Bopara) rather than Bell/Taylor’s 1st over failures.

    Australia had only 2 decent bowlers 1st up and no decent bowler during death overs. All Morgan needed was wickets in hand to go ballistic in the end. But I dont think this issue(Root/Bopara failing under pressure) has received as-much-attention as it deserved.

    Full credit to Morgan though for promoting himself up the order after Root’s failure.

    1. Not sure it’s fair to brand Root soft. The guy averages 40, made three ODI hundreds last year and has picked up the pieces before now. It’s also a common criticism of Ravi, but down the order the guy’s inherited with more than his fair share of unwinnable positions.

    2. 2 bowlers has usually been enough against England in the past. It’s just that previously the 2 bowlers were Warne and McGrath.

  5. Ok. I didnt mean this to be an attack on Root/Bopara. But it seems AUS bluffed ENG with just 2 good bowlers upfront.

    Shouldn’t the coach / senior players have seen thru this bluff and survived to the death with wickets in hand and exposed AUS lack of good decent bowlers at the death? and they also have only middling bowlers in the middle? Not that IND/ENG bowling is better, but I think Australia just gambled on going hard at ENG in the beginning, and the gamble seems to have paid off.

    England just could have been more wiser…

  6. In other news, the best punchline ever in the Cricket Badger “Cricketer Spotted!!” section this week.

    Well done the man who provided that anecdote, whatever his name might be.

    1. It really was. We absolutely loved it and we’re allowed to say that because all we did was copy and paste it.

    2. While I did like that, my favourite part was the subtitle “X-waiter”. I’m easily pleased by puns based on stupid terminology.

    3. The one we were most proud of was struck out by the editor’s merciless red pen.

      Offensive charm “They like it when I go out there and I get a bit annoyed with the opposition.” Virat Kohli

      You know, like charm offensive, but not…

    4. Wait, there’s an editor? I thought Badger was your personal thing – is that not true?

  7. The ICC ratings give a decent overall view of things, they are slow to reflect dips or surges in form and newcomers don’t get much of a look in.

    The England batters are ranked as follows :_

    12 Root
    26 Buttler
    35 Cook
    36 Bell
    37 Morgan
    66 Bopara
    83 Ali
    131 Ballance
    141 Taylor
    222 Hales

    I share your view that Tredwell should go for a lot but he doesn’t for some reason.

    1. Eight major teams, seven batsmen in each, 56 batting places overall. I think that provides some context to England’s chances.

Comments are closed.