England test team: the five bowler theory

[Goughy]

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.

Obviously we disagree. But I will still insist that 5 bowlers is negative, counter-productive, ultra-conservative and team-weakening.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Obviously we disagree. But I will still insist that 5 bowlers is negative, counter-productive, ultra-conservative and team-weakening.

Well it can be depending on who the five bowlers are. I mean five bowlers is an ideal (for me at least) but not always practical. Of the five I'd want at least one bowling all-rounder (& preferrably a genuine one, although at test-level they're like hens' teeth) & someone who's a capable number 8 too. Our problem during the Ashes was that Fred isn't (currently) a six & that none of Messers Mahmood, Harmison, Panesar, Hoggard or Anderson vaguely approximate what I'd like from an eight. Throw in keeper/batsmen who're overplaced at 7 & we have a very long tail suddenly. Where Fletcher's thinking became conservative was selecting our only bowler who is a half-decent (no more than that though) test 8 ahead of the better bowler in a vain attempt to pour a quart into a pint pot.

With the personnel available to us I can see the merit in a four man attack, that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer five bowlers were it practical.

 

[Goughy]

With the personnel available to us I can see the merit in a four man attack, that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer five bowlers were it practical.

I dont think its an England issue, but a cricket 1. I just cant see the merit of 5 bowlers. 4+ a batsman or 2 that can bowl is perfect.

Ive posted this before but I love this team composition.
Aus play 3 bowlers and win by an innings

Genius

 

[BoyBrumby]

I dont think its an England issue, but a cricket 1. I just cant see the merit of 5 bowlers. 4+ a batsman or 2 that can bowl is perfect.

Ive posted this before but I love this team composition.
Aus play 3 bowlers and win by an innings

Genius

Fair enough, but Australia did have two AT greats available to them. Not many teams have that luxury.

& given that Bevan was selected at seven I'm imagining the pitch was presumed to be taking turn beforehand!

 

[Goughy]

& given that Bevan was selected at seven I'm imagining the pitch was presumed to be taking turn beforehand!

Not just that game though.

Again, won by an innings with 3 bowlers against SA at Wanderers

This one is interesting from my POV. Batting 2nd after SA scored 302, they were 174-4 with a possible England style collapse on the cards against Pollock and Donald if they had a long tail. This shows the importance of depth in batting. They finished the innings at 628-8 and won by an innings.

Batting depth >>>>>>>Many bowling options

and there are other examples

 

[BoyBrumby]

Not just that game though.

Again, won by an innings with 3 bowlers against SA at Wanderers

This one is interesting from my POV. Batting 2nd after SA scored 302, they were 174-4 with a possible England style collapse on the cards against Pollock and Donald if they had a long tail. This shows the importance of depth in batting. They finished the innings at 628-8 and won by an innings.

Batting depth >>>>>>>Many bowling options

and there are other examples

Same point tho, eh? Warne & McGrath in situ. Would you advocate the same sort of selection with (say) Flintoff, Hoggard & Panesar with Dalrymple/Collingwood in the Bevan role?

& It's fair to say that without McWarne Australia themselves are looking towards the fifth bowler option or presence of Watson or Symonds ahead of better qualified batting options makes no sense.

 

[Goughy]

OK, let me ask a question.

What benefits of a 5 man bowling attack outweigh the extra depth of batting and ability to pressure and dominate the opponents bowling coming from playing the extra batsman?

Maybe someone can educate me, as I believe that a 5 man attack not only weakens the batting but also the bowling.

 

[BoyBrumby]

OK, let me ask a question.

What benefits of a 5 man bowling attack outweigh the extra depth of batting and ability to pressure and dominate the opponents bowling coming from playing the extra batsman?

Maybe someone can educate me, as I believe that a 5 man attack not only weakens the batting but also the bowling.

Must we do this? I know exactly what your counter argument will be before you make it.

I'll say "five bowlers increasing a team's wicket taking capacity" whrereas you'll say the fifth bowler (which you'll presume is inferior) will take overs away from the better bowlers.

It's a difference in philosphy, that's all. &, again in all fairness, extra batting depth can only really be used to exert pressure if a team bats first. I prefer to have a team to counter every eventuality whereas you seem more content to put your faith in Plan A. Richard makes a similar argument regarding spinners; I like to have one just in case but he sees no need if a team's best bowlers are all seamers.

 

[Goughy]

Just researching the effectiveness of Englands 5th bowler (or 4th in games Flintoff was not available for) and it isnt worth it at all.

Since the Ashes in England

Extra bowler a mix of Saj, Plunkett, Udal etc

• Bowls ony 13.6 overs per inning. This small workload could easily be split around the other bowlers or occasional bowlers
• Has a bowling average of 47.16
• Has an economy rate of 4 per over
• Averages 1.15 wickets per innings they bowl in (would be less than 2.3 per test)

Utterly pointless. As you mention above, it takes overs away from bowlers that are better and weakens the batting by including a player that is hardly used and when they are they are ineffective

 

[Goughy]

Must we do this? I know exactly what your counter argument will be before you make it.

I'll say "five bowlers increasing a team's wicket taking capacity"

We should do this as I dont get what you mean. Seriously, you could come up with something I have over looked.

So, regarding the above statement, How?

Taking the statement to its logical end, wouldnt 6 or even 7 bowlers further increase the wicket taking ability and give the skipper far more options and potential plans? Why 5?

 

[Goughy]

extra batting depth can only really be used to exert pressure if a team bats first

Refer you to the example of Aus versus SA at the Wanderers I posted above

 

[BoyBrumby]

We should do this as I dont get what you mean. Seriously, you could come up with something I have over looked.

So, regarding the above statement, How?

Taking the statement to its logical end, wouldnt 6 or even 7 bowlers further increase the wicket taking ability and give the skipper far more options and potential plans? Why 5?

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work in this case because I could equally say why 6 batsmen? Why not 7 or 8?

In any case clearly having 6 or 7 bowlers would give a team more wicket taking options, but at the cost of weakening the batting line-up too much. I go for five because in any given team the selectors are unlikely to have more than one serviceable all-rounder at any given time. Balance, as ever, being the key. If (by some happy alignment of the stars) a team had Miller, Botham, Sobers, Imran & Kallis available why not pick more bowlers?

The essential difference in our arguments is that mine is contingent on the players available, whereas yours is absolute. You see no merit in five bowlers ever, which is overly dogmatic thinking IMHO. Sorry, but there it is.

 

[Goughy]

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work in this case because I could equally say why 6 batsmen? Why not 7 or 8?

In any case clearly having 6 or 7 bowlers would give a team more wicket taking options, but at the cost of weakening the batting line-up too much. I go for five because in any given team the selectors are unlikely to have more than one serviceable all-rounder at any given time. Balance, as ever, being the key. If (by some happy alignment of the stars) a team had Miller, Botham, Sobers, Imran & Kallis available why not pick more bowlers?

The essential difference in our arguments is that mine is contingent on the players available, whereas yours is absolute. You see no merit in five bowlers ever, which is overly dogmatic thinking IMHO. Sorry, but there it is.

That example doesnt work. There are 10 wickets that go down in a game. All players bat. Having 8 batsmen is a huge advantage. Yes, why not. As my example of Aus showed, 7 bats and Healy.

There are only 90 overs in a day. Nowhere near enough for a lot of bowlers. If each bowler could only bowl 15 in a day then I would agree with you, but that isnt the case. There are a finite numbers of overs in a day. Lots of bowlers means that a number would be underused and a complete waste and completely inefficient. They wouldnt bowl for sessions at a time and be stood there twiddling their thumbs amongst other things.

I did ask you a question though. Why does 5 bowlers (or more) give a greater wicket taking capabilty? As yet you havent answered it, just repeated it.

Ive detailed why I think 4 is plenty, you could outline why you think you are right

 

[BoyBrumby]

That example doesnt work. There are 10 wickets that go down in a game. All players bat. Having 8 batsmen is a huge advantage. Yes, why not. As my example of Aus showed, 7 bats and Healy.

I did ask you a question though. Why does 5 bowlers (or more) give a greater wicket taking capabilty? As yet you havent answered it, just repeated it.

Ive detailed why I think 4 is plenty, you could outline why you think you are right

It's obvious, isn't it? If one or more of your bowlers is having an off day a captain has more options to pick up the slack (&, before you say it, your counter will be that it's conservative thinking, what you call conservative I call planning for more than one eventuality). If you see no merit in five bolwers, fine. Take your point up with our (& Australia's) national selectors.

&, again, you're using a specific example to prove a general point. You haven't answered my question about going into a test with Flintoff, Hoggard & Panesar rather than Gillespie, McGrath & Warne? All team selections should be contingent on the players available.

 

[pup11]

England can afford to go in with 5 bowlers because of Freddie, he adds that extra dimension to English line-up.

 

[pup11]

If England had a decent keeper-batsman then their batting depth would have increased and it would have given someone like Freddie support while batting at no.6 to show his full batting capabilities. Atm he runs out of partners which doesn't let him settle down and play a decent knock.

 

[Goughy]

The essential difference in our arguments is that mine is contingent on the players available, whereas yours is absolute. You see no merit in five bowlers ever, which is overly dogmatic thinking IMHO.

If you see no merit in five bolwers, fine. Take your point up with our (& Australia's) national selectors.

&, again, you're using a specific example to prove a general point. You haven't answered my question about going into a test with Flintoff, Hoggard & Panesar rather than Gillespie, McGrath & Warne? All team selections should be contingent on the players available.

Im happy with 5 bowlers if one of them can make the team as a batsman and one other can bat as well. To say I never see the merits of 5 bowlers is missing the point. For example South Africa. Kallis's bowling is a huge bonus. A quality specialist batsman that can bowl. Then add Pollock who can bat. That allows them to have 3 other pure and specialist bowlers ie Nel, Ntini, Harris. However, that 5 bowler philosophy is centered on having a specialist batsman as the 5th bowler.

As for your question, Ive never advocated England go into a test with 3 bowlers (mainly because the occasional bowling is so poor). Ive said 4. It gives by far the best balance given the players available. If England had a few good specialist batsmen that could bowl then I would rather 3 bowlers than 5.

As for taking it up with the Aussie selectors, they have been massively successful with 4 bowlers (also 3 as I showed) for a long time, same as the great West Indian teams. If they want to go to 5 bowlers that is their issue, it is however far from a proven formula and most unwise.

Also, there are not enough overs in a day for 5 specialist bowlers. There will always be someone barely bowling and that is a complete waste of a selection.

You seem to be basing everything on a principle and an ideal rather than real life and putting the side most capable of winning on the field.

 

[Richard]

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.

Seriously - the chances of Nixon playing a Test are impossibly slim.

 

[Richard]

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.

Dalrymple isn't even a frontline bowler domestically. He's the equivalent of a Sehwag or Yuvraj Singh.

I'm never massively in favour of any spinner at all in England (yes, including MSP), though in 2 of the last 3 seasons we've had Tests where the some of the pitches have turned (Giles took 24-448 in the middle 3 Tests in 2004; MSP took 13-174 in the Trent Bridge and Old Trafford Tests of 2006). In such eventualities, obviously, you want a spinner.

 

[Richard]

Why would you take Dalrymple when you have Monty who is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dalrymple?

Personally I'd not let Dalrymple near a Test until he makes himself into a batsman who looks Test-class; but equally I'd not pick MSP all that often in England.