Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 110

Thread: England test team: the five bowler theory

  1. #1
    International Debutant Salamuddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Lakemba, Sydney
    Posts
    2,138

    England test team: the five bowler theory

    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
    Zinedine Zidane is the greatest footballer ever !

    Richard Dickinson - you little beauty !!!!

  2. #2
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,060
    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
    "It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
    Jason Koumas

    SWA

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  3. #3
    International Debutant a massive zebra's Avatar
    Eggs Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my ass @ the PC
    Posts
    2,802
    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 by a massive zebra; 03-03-2007 at 04:51 AM.
    THE ULTIMATE CRICKET WEB ARCADE EGGS CHAMPION

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1990-2006
    RIP Craig Walsh (AKA "Craig"), 1985-2012

  4. #4
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006


  5. #5
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,342
    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.
    "Talent is nothing without opportunity"
    "You're not remembered for aiming at the target, but hitting it"

    Twenty20 used to be boring.

    Sponsored...by...nothing!!!

  6. #6
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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!

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

  7. #7
    RTDAS pasag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Looking for milksteak
    Posts
    31,678
    Goughy had a good post linked in Matt79's sig on five bowlers.
    Rest In Peace Craigos
    2003-2012

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Still does, UIMM.

  9. #9
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.
    Who would you have keep wicket, Richard?

    Quote Originally Posted by pasag View Post
    Goughy had a good post linked in Matt79's sig on five bowlers.
    This is it

  10. #10
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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?
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  12. #12
    International Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,171
    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).
    Proud member of Twenty20-Is-Boring Society.
    T2IBS Media relations officer
    T2IBS official face
    R.I..P ........ Fardin Qayuumi
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Good luck at the hospital.
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    Fraz is always the best option IMO
    frazbest@hotmail.com

  13. #13
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    All Over
    Posts
    15,071
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    Top post

  14. #14
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard
    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.

  15. #15
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,426
    Quote Originally Posted by a massive zebra View Post
    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! ).
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Battle of the Hottest Women
    By Buddhmaster in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 2406
    Last Post: 24-06-2008, 08:34 AM
  2. Fm 2007
    By bugssy in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 01-12-2006, 02:41 AM
  3. Relegation/promotion release
    By NZTailender in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 30-11-2006, 10:33 PM
  4. Team 1st XI help
    By maxmartin in forum Battrick
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 03:45 PM
  5. Indian Cricket Team Meeting
    By NikhilN in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30-10-2004, 03:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •