• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

England test team: the five bowler theory

Salamuddin

International Debutant
SImple questions people: SHould England continue with five bowlers for their test team or go to 4 ?

SO

OPtion a)
Flintoff
Keeper
Hoggard
Mudhsudhan SIngh
Jones
Harmison

or Option b)
Flintoff
Keeper
Hoggard
Mudhsudhan SIngh
Jones
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Four bowlers

At the moment, I'd pick Flintoff-Read-Panesar-Anderson-Hoggard

If Jones was fit he'd come in for Anderson. Despite his obvious number elevenness, I'd actually bat him at 9 in that line-up! I can live with that though if we bat up to #8
 

a massive zebra

International Captain
Going into a match with four bowlers is always slightly dangerous as, should one get injured, the team is left with just three bowlers who will inevitably get overworked and risk injury themselves, besides the fact that three bowlers cannot realistically expect to take 20 wickets. Five bowlers is only really an option if at least one of them can bat pretty well, because any team with five players averaging under twenty will of course suffer regular lower order collapses.

I think, as England have Mr Flintoff, they should stick with five bowlers as it provides more variety and gives the captain extra options if several bowlers have an off-day.
 
Last edited:

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
TBF, the "a bowler might get injured" theory is not one I think you should base selection on.

Well, yes, he might, but equally you might lose both your openers cheaply. Does that mean three and four should be openers too to cover that?

Sometimes you have more batsmen demanding selection than bowlers. Sometimes the other way around. 2000 was one such time (Atherton, Trescothick, Hussain, Vaughan, Stewart, Thorpe, Hick). At the current time I do indeed feel that we've come to such a time again, and that the best line-up, if Simon Jones is fit, would be Hoggard-SP-Flintoff-MSP. Please don't pick Read, though. :wallbash:
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Here are two solutions. If you're playing four bowlers, then one batsman (especially Collingwood) has to contribute regularly in every innings. Not two or three, but as many as twenty or more, or even as much as Giles or Panesar would end up bowling. Even with four fully-fit bowlers, taking twenty wickets would be next to impossible with this bowling unit, and even a sixth batsman wouldn't make up for that.

If having five bowlers is the choice made, the fifth bowler should be someone like Chapple or Bicknell, or especially Giles. Not so much any of these players themselves, but you know what the idea is. That player is a little too hard to find, unless you expect Sajid Mahmood to improve drastically, since he's the only one of England's top bowling options who can fit that. Or have Dalrymple as a full-fledged, frontline spinner.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Here are two solutions. If you're playing four bowlers, then one batsman (especially Collingwood) has to contribute regularly in every innings. Not two or three, but as many as twenty or more, or even as much as Giles or Panesar would end up bowling. Even with four fully-fit bowlers, taking twenty wickets would be next to impossible with this bowling unit, and even a sixth batsman wouldn't make up for that.

If having five bowlers is the choice made, the fifth bowler should be someone like Chapple or Bicknell, or especially Giles. Not so much any of these players themselves, but you know what the idea is. That player is a little too hard to find, unless you expect Sajid Mahmood to improve drastically, since he's the only one of England's top bowling options who can fit that. Or have Dalrymple as a full-fledged, frontline spinner.
I hope you don't mean be Bicknell, since he's retired! :laugh:

Nor can I honestly say I ever want to see James Dalrymple picked for a Test with bowling in mind.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
TBF, the "a bowler might get injured" theory is not one I think you should base selection on.

Well, yes, he might, but equally you might lose both your openers cheaply. Does that mean three and four should be openers too to cover that?

Sometimes you have more batsmen demanding selection than bowlers. Sometimes the other way around. 2000 was one such time (Atherton, Trescothick, Hussain, Vaughan, Stewart, Thorpe, Hick). At the current time I do indeed feel that we've come to such a time again, and that the best line-up, if Simon Jones is fit, would be Hoggard-SP-Flintoff-MSP. Please don't pick Read, though. :wallbash:
Who would you have keep wicket, Richard?

Goughy had a good post linked in Matt79's sig on five bowlers.
This is it
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Who would you have keep wicket, Richard?
James Savin Foster.

He's earned his 2nd chance far more than Read earned his 2nd (Geraint should have been 1st in line to replace Stewart).

Not his 3rd, mind, but IMO he's blown his 3rd by now, too.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
TBF, the "a bowler might get injured" theory is not one I think you should base selection on.
Couldnt agree more. You have to enter a game with the best team possible to achieve victory. If misfortune comes down on your team in the form of an injury then deal with it.

Do teams carry extra opening batsmen to cover eventualities like Langer getting sconed by Ntini?
 

FRAZ

International Captain
For what I believe is that play 5 bowlers , 5 batsmen and a wicket keeper . I know that Eng is losing one extra batsman but if your top 5 batsmen don't score properly then the 6th one has also got some what "flop" chances (If you are not Michael Bevan).
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Richard said:
Nor can I honestly say I ever want to see James Dalrymple picked for a Test with bowling in mind.
If the stereotype is to be believed, you can't pick any English spin option as a frontline bowler. At least Dalrymple scores runs as well.
 

Matt79

Global Moderator
Going into a match with four bowlers is always slightly dangerous as, should one get injured, the team is left with just three bowlers who will inevitably get overworked and risk injury themselves, besides the fact that three bowlers cannot realistically expect to take 20 wickets. Five bowlers is only really an option if at least one of them can bat pretty well, because any team with five players averaging under twenty will of course suffer regular lower order collapses.

I think, as England have Mr Flintoff, they should stick with five bowlers as it provides more variety and gives the captain extra options if several bowlers have an off-day.
Four bowlers - going into the match contemplating scenarios about "what if one gets injured" is inviting defeat. If there's any doubt about a player's fitness, they shouldn't be named, and the rest of the time, the number of matches you'll lose because a bowler got injured is quite small compared to the number of matches you'll lose because your tail starts at 7 (or 6! :p).
 

adharcric

International Coach
Flintoff is a borderline 6/7 but the real problem for England is the keeper's contribution at 7 - once you combine Flintoff at 6, Read/Jones/Nixon at 7 and an ordinary tail that's a very weak lower-order. Of course, it doesn't help that the top-order isn't rock-solid either. In short, go with four bowlers and get relief from Pietersen, Bell and Collingwood.
 

Craig

World Traveller
If the stereotype is to be believed, you can't pick any English spin option as a frontline bowler. At least Dalrymple scores runs as well.
Why would you take Dalrymple when you have Monty who is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dalrymple?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Couldnt agree more. You have to enter a game with the best team possible to achieve victory. If misfortune comes down on your team in the form of an injury then deal with it.

Do teams carry extra opening batsmen to cover eventualities like Langer getting sconed by Ntini?
TBF that isn't an analogy that really holds water, because a number 3 is always potentially only 1 ball from "opening" the batting if one of the actual designated openers gets a golden blob. Bowlers are expected to contribute throughout the innings.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
TBF that isn't an analogy that really holds water, because a number 3 is always potentially only 1 ball from "opening" the batting if one of the actual designated openers gets a golden blob. Bowlers are expected to contribute throughout the innings.
If you enter a game with 5 batsmen then you are suddenly left with 4 if one gets injured. The analogy holds true.

If you are carrying an extra bowler in case of injury (folly IMO) then logic would dictate that you need extra batsmen as you can't win games with 4 batsmen (if one gets injured)

Anything like this is an ultra-conservative strategy.

Playing 5 bowlers (with the idea to provide cover for potential injury) is the cricketing equivelent of-

 
Last edited:

BoyBrumby

Englishman
If you enter a game with 5 batsmen then you are suddenly left with 4 if one gets injured. The analogy holds true.

If you are carrying an extra bowler in case of injury (folly IMO) then logic would dictate that you need extra batsmen as you can't win games with 4 batsmen (if one gets injured)

Anything like this is an ultra-conservative strategy.

Playing 5 bowlers (with the idea to provide cover for potential injury) is the cricketing equivelent of-

No it doesn't because of the different nature of batting & bowling. At their worst a batsman's input can amount to no more than two balls regardless of physical fitness. Unless a bowler is injured he'll bowl more than that.

Moreover I haven't suggested going in with five batsmen; the key to balance in any cricket side is all-rounders who give that balance. I see no merit in selecting all-rounders who're that in name only, which is where England's problems have come from of late. Chris Read isn't a test 7's arse, frankly & Fred is probably a position too high as well.
 

Top