Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
ramone
27 Dec 09 09:05
Joined:
Date Joined: 22 May 01
| Topic/replies: 372 | Blogger: ramone's blog
Been looking at the 2009 test series across the world.

Only NZ has played 5 bowlers apart from England. We played 5 bowlers vs WI in May with Bresnan the 5th.

NZ and England have played an all rounder in Oram and Flintoff too.

Bresnan in 4 innings, bowled in only 3 and took 3-97 off 31 overs.

NZ played Southee in place of Elliott. Southee took 3-124 off 48 vs Eliott who scored 59 in 4 innings and took 2-11 off 7 overs.

I'll look at 2008 in the next session but despite the treadmill of Int'l cricket, hardly anyone picks 5 bowlers.

The odd thing was that it was in seamer friendly conditions where most of the 5 bowlers played!!
Pause Switch to Standard View 4 or 5 ? (bowlers)
Show More
Loading...
Report Innocent Bystander December 27, 2009 9:52 AM GMT
You read my mind (partly as i mentioned this to you at Centurian)

England were lucky enough to have an all rounder who could bat at 6 for a while. Safffers had similar with Kallis, although he always came across as a reluctant all rounder

As usual, the media get a bee in their bonnet and wont let go - they failed to mention in the first test Saffers had exactly the same balance as England (England probably had half a bowler more than Saffers), but because its England we must be seen to be doing different... to take the initiative.

I would say the initiative was up to the Saffers, at home, ranked 2 (Was #1 as Sky told us in their terminable ad), so surely they should expect to win 2-0 or 3-0? Maybe they will, but they arent taking the lead as they should. Englands remit is to hang tough and try to make it hard for the Saffers, taking a chance when it occurs
Report fundamentalist December 27, 2009 9:57 AM GMT
does seem to be the way most sides are going, though that doesnt necesarily make it right imo.

for me only picking 4 bowlers, is a defensive option which seems to be prevailing currently, with a dont lose attitude about most sides.

think its a balance thing, if you have 4 genuine rabbits in the tail then the extra batter is logical, when you have 2 or 3 decent tail enders the extra batter a poor option from a balance perspective.

the criticism of england, from me at least is that you have 2 very good batters in the tail, and none of the bowlers bowl a very heavy workload (although swann is now heading that way) leading to fill in overs even as early as session 2 on the first day of a test

have a look at india, their approach is draw before win, would be a far better side for me if theyd pick a 5th bowlerrather than cionstantly packing the bating side
Report fundamentalist December 27, 2009 9:58 AM GMT
also depends on what part time options you have in the batters and englands arent great
Report Innocent Bystander December 27, 2009 10:00 AM GMT
Pick 5 bowlers, the 5th one rarely bowls more than half a dozen overs

How many times does a 5th bowler win a test? It may seem an attacking option, but rarely pans out that way (last time England did the 5 bowler route we were routed)
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:05 AM GMT
How can you define the intangible of bowlers in a 5 man attack never having to drop into "stock" bowler mode?

I have always been in favour of 5 bowlers as a general policy, the argument about making one bowler "lazy" is specious, imo. That argument could be equally directed at the 6th batsman.

The demands on the modern player will be felt by bowlers more than batsman. Consistently playing with only 4 is a policy which will come back to bite.
Report fundamentalist December 27, 2009 10:05 AM GMT
and if 5 batters isnt enough 6 rarely is, can make that argument both ways IB

as for half a dozen overs, eng part timers are bowling more than that each inns in this series, with south africa having not made a big total, think a 5th bowler wouldvbe made a big difference personally, at worst would have given strauss far more options
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:07 AM GMT
Point of order gentlemen....Batter is what surrounds a fish. Batsman play cricket.

Thank you. :)
Report fundamentalist December 27, 2009 10:07 AM GMT
you'll be telling us there's no rules next grim ;)
Report Innocent Bystander December 27, 2009 10:10 AM GMT
If Englands top 5 consistently delivered, then you could fit the extra bowler. However, they dont hit the big scores that allow it, hence the reason we are ranked #5.

So its a defensive ploy, but we arent good enough to be aggressive and go for the 5 imho
Report Max and Paddy December 27, 2009 10:10 AM GMT
Innocent Bystander 27 Dec 11:00
Pick 5 bowlers, the 5th one rarely bowls more than half a dozen overs


Yes, to elaborate on a topic that has already been touched upon, having five bowlers means you can afford one bowler having a bad day.

I don't want to get into a massive argument about Bell, but I think England would be a stronger side with Sidebottom in place of Bell.
Report Innocent Bystander December 27, 2009 10:11 AM GMT
Although certain matches may dictate we can go down that route (neither of the first 2 games here fall into that category imho)
Report eye_iz_ere December 27, 2009 11:14 AM GMT
I would argue that the West Indies often play five bowlers. Bravo is certainly more of a bowler than a batsman. And much more of a bowler than say Oram.
Report Work Can Wait December 27, 2009 11:50 AM GMT
I think if the fifth bowler is something different, like an off spinner if that's just what you need if the pitch goes a certain way, then it's a good thing.
But if you are going into a test knowing full well it's a seamers wicket, then you can get away with only 4 bowlers since you'll predominantly be bowling the seam attack all game.
It's also good having a batsman who can be fifth bowler and do some part time spin for eight overs just to hurry up the run rate, something Ponting should look into.
Report fundamentalist December 27, 2009 11:52 AM GMT
WCW - surely durban isnt predominantly a spinners venue? yet Swann bowls 50% more overs than any of the seamers
Report bigjoe December 27, 2009 5:02 PM GMT
do ou pick 5 average bowlers or 4 ooduns :0

No use picking a 5th bowler for balance alone if that bowler then gives away cheap runs :0

India are no1 ranked team .. are the ONLY team to have tests in every series home or away they layed in in last couple of years.. they usually only play 4 bowlers... so must be doing something right :)
Report bigjoe December 27, 2009 5:02 PM GMT
4 good ones :)
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 9:35 PM GMT
India are at a massive advantage that 2 of there attack will the majority of the time be spinners as they play on pitches that suit that type of bowling. Might help a little bit BJ, + yuvraj and Sehwag are extremely useful part timers as was Ganguly when he was in the side so you may well be pulling the wool over a few peoples eyes there. (no change there)

The balance of a side has to come down to usefulnes and is very much a case by case consideration.

Looking at the current England team, luke wright seems a massive gamble to me, adds very very little with the ball and i'm extremely skeptical about what he adds with the bat.

Bell, if he comes in at 350/4 with prior swann and broad to come we've probably picked too many batters (batsman) if he comes in at 100/4 he isn't going to get any runs.

Sidebottam, swings it, gets wickets, adds controll, very rarely gets smashed all over the shop + he's a left arme. The 5th bowler also allows the main bowlers to have a proper rest and attack in short spells.

I'm not massively against the 6 batters including bell, but would much prefer 5 with swann and broads ability with the willow. If we do go with 6 batsman though How sidebottom doesn't get the gig ahead of broad in a 4 man attack is beyond me.
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 9:40 PM GMT
The reason Broad gets a gig ahead of Sidebottom in a four man attack is because he BATS Dougy, which is another indication of the flawed logic of the 4 bowler brigade.

All the runs in the world do not, of themselves, win test matches. 20 wickets are required to do that, barring exceptional circumstances.
Report Work Can Wait December 27, 2009 9:42 PM GMT
fundy, point taken and agreed with.
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 9:57 PM GMT
Not a regular poster on this forum and I know you are Grim but your point in your last post is not really a good one here considering the thread topic imo. Broad would surely have even more of a chance of getting a gig in a 5 man attack because he can bat.

Sidebottom (given your logic) would surely have more of a chance of being ahead of him in a head to head selection in a 4 man attack than a 5 man attack as we would want more bowlers who could bat in a 5 man attack.

Probably more evidence that England's selection is super conservative.
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 9:59 PM GMT
i think that's what he said rob
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 9:59 PM GMT
he's not saying he agrees with it i.e "it's flawed logic"
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:00 PM GMT
If you re-read my post, Rob, I think you'll find we're in agreement? Which is in a 4-man attack, surely the best bowler has to be picked, and that is Sidebottom, imo, of course :)
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:01 PM GMT
If I could do a smily face I wd Grim. We're on the same page...
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:01 PM GMT
And believe me Rob, regularity of contribution on here is no guarantee that anything worthwhile is being said! ;)
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:02 PM GMT
If you want to do smileys, pay a visit to the "Specials" section of the forum, scroll down on the left.

It's all in there.... :) B-) :( :| :_|
Report mafeking December 27, 2009 10:03 PM GMT
dougydougy hits the nail on the head. bell is the last man you'd back to get us out of the soup if the top 5 have failed.
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:04 PM GMT
Sorry, not specials, "Site Feedback" is what you want.

It's late. :|
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:05 PM GMT
Are you a 5-man fan then Maf? God knows, it feels lonely being one of the only ones. Apparently because most other teams are doing it, that makes it incontrovertibly right :|
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:08 PM GMT
(4 bowler attacks, that is)
Report mafeking December 27, 2009 10:08 PM GMT
definitely. broad and swann are very capable players. they got 500 runs between them in the ashes. don't go for all this nonsense about them changing their approach if moved to 7 and 8.
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:10 PM GMT
After getting it wrong the first time I'll try again:

I don't like the anti Bell chat being used as an argument against six batters. The selectors have deemed Bell to be in our top six batters prior to the start of the series. He has had two failures.

Any selectors who even for a second after two failures (and after he selected Ian Bell as one of our top six batters) wonders whether Bell's contribution as a sixth batter is worth putting into the mix when considering the overall balance of the team should imo be sacked on the spot.

You have selected the team and he is the sixth best batter. If we need six batters he plays. If we don't he doesn't.
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:12 PM GMT
Batters....arrrgggghhhhhhhhHhhhghghghhhh!

:|
Report mafeking December 27, 2009 10:12 PM GMT
and sidey and jimmy at 9 and 10 are no mugs. it's our best tail for decades.
Report mafeking December 27, 2009 10:13 PM GMT
large cod and *****please :^0
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:15 PM GMT
I agree Maf, Onions can hold a bat too, as he showed at Lord's with Jimmy - that contribution was very important. Showed it in Pretoria too.

Rob, my beef with the balance has little to do with the identity of the batsmen selected. It is about how I believe England will win the most test matches. Prior is fine at 6, I may be wrong but I think he averages higher than any of the 5 above him. If not, he is withing spitting distance.

Grow some balls, England, ffs.
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:18 PM GMT
* Prior averages less than Trott...froma very small sample.
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:20 PM GMT
We are agreed Grim. I am an advocate of 5 batsmen too.

My point was that I dont see Mafe's point as to Bell's capabilities at 6 as relevant in the argument made in this thread. We should be playing 5 batsmen because its the right thing to do. Arguing that we should play 5 batsmen because Bell is sh*t doesn't get us far imo.
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 10:24 PM GMT
i think capability of players has everything to do with it, you don't pick a system then fit the players into it, you pick the system around the strength of the players you have at your disposal. In Englands case I belive sidebottom in the team would lead to more success than a team with bell in it.
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:29 PM GMT
The difference between Bell at 6 and anyone else they could have brought would over a period of time surely be only a few runs on average. On the basis of two innings the selectors are suddenly to decide that Bell cannot score more than 3 and decide we must reshape our team balance? No thank you.

And as said above I wouldn't have picked Bell.
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 10:31 PM GMT
form must come into consideration at some point and therefor change the balance of the side
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:32 PM GMT
After one test?
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 10:32 PM GMT
bells form this year

check it out
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 10:33 PM GMT
i'm not actually antibell

i just think you've got to be flexible
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:33 PM GMT
The selectors picked him after his efforts this year. They decided he was in the top six. Check that out. He has played two innings since.
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:36 PM GMT
i AM anti Bell. I dont think he should be in our first 10/12 first choice batsmen. I just dont think that anyone who uses an anti Bell argument to decide the balance of the England team has much of an idea.
Report mafeking December 27, 2009 10:37 PM GMT
let's be honest whoever the 6th batsman is he's not liikely to have brilliant form. you're a marginal selection cos you haven't been in the runs. sidey would offer more. a lefty for a start. it's just poorly thought out logic from england or sheer caution.
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:37 PM GMT
agree with that mafe
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 10:39 PM GMT
My point is that with bell in the squad as the option as a 6th batsman is not forcing them to go down that route. His form isn't so outstanding they can't change the balance of the side, if he was scoring bundles of runs we wouldn't be having this argument. With 6 batters you want to put pressure on teams with weight of runs, with our 6 batsman we're not getting that advantage. With 5 bowlers you get other advantages i think these advantages would be greater with sidebottom as a 5th bowler than bell as a 6th batsman. Because of the personal.
Report mafeking December 27, 2009 10:40 PM GMT
it's like the 3 seamers picked are ultra reliable either. broad's still very hit and miss and onions has only played a handful of games.
Report mafeking December 27, 2009 10:41 PM GMT
* it's not like
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 10:41 PM GMT
the 2 are related rob it's quite clear that the players at your disposal decide the balance of your side you have not the other way round
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:44 PM GMT


dougydougy 27 Dec 23:41
the 2 are related rob it's quite clear that the players at your disposal decide the balance of your side you have not the other way round

I cant have that at this stage. You are one test match in and you took six batsmen with you and are thinking of giving up on one of them??? You should be shot for chosing him in the first place imo.
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 10:46 PM GMT
i wouldn't have played 6 in the 1st match
Report GrimReaper December 27, 2009 10:46 PM GMT
Me neither :|
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:48 PM GMT
Me neither :)
Report rob999 December 27, 2009 10:50 PM GMT
Grim, you were right, it is easy :)
Report mafeking December 27, 2009 10:52 PM GMT
you need a spare batsman which they don't have now. more to the point what are wright and adil rashid doing on the tour when clearly they have no intention of picking either.
Report Asparagus Man December 27, 2009 11:28 PM GMT
As this thread is mostly about England's selection in the current series - I'll pitch in that the main problem is that they don't have an extra batsmen in the touring squad pushing Bell / Cook for a place.

So you have bowlers on the sideline (Sidey) and two allrounders that no-one wants to pick because they aren't good enough at either discipline to warrant a place.

No reason to have Luke Wright in when you have Colly/Trott/KP to do some overs?

And then Prior/Broad/Swann as your late middle order - about as good as you get in world cricket.

So it's about underperforming batsmen really.
Report dougydougy. December 27, 2009 11:56 PM GMT
Can I just pick up on the initial post here

as i see it

SA, Australia, England, West indies, Nz and SL have all played 5 bowlers this year

alrounders being Kallis, Watson, Flintoff/broad, Bravo, Vettori and Mathews

So India haven't done it this year and nor have Pakistan from what I can Remember. How is that a trend of teams playing 4 bowlers????!!!!
Report ramone December 28, 2009 11:03 AM GMT
dougydougy

Kallis is a batsmen more than bowler but agree a genuine all rounder when fully fit to bowl and fully motivated.

Watson opens and bowls a few overs. His injuries have meant that he bowls gentle medium pace and so he's as much an all rounder as Collingwood.

Bravo has a better claim to being an all rounder

Matthews doesn't much bowl and is mainly a batter - see the Colly argument

Vettori is a bowler who is a useful late order batsmen

My point was that only England (and NZ for 1 test match) have picked 5 bowlers as opposed to 4 plus an all rounder.

I'd like 5 bowlers too but I am conscious that in most cases the 5th bowler doesn't bowl much and his main value is as insurance against injury. England when they had 5 bowlers al;ways had 1 or 2 bowlers who did not perform. Harmision got away with 2-3 years of poor performance whilst being part of a 5 man attacj that won so many games.
Report dougydougy. December 28, 2009 8:20 PM GMT
Kallis is a genuine allrounder
Bravo is a genuine allrounder
Fred was a genuine allrounder
Vettori is a genuine allrounder
Mathews will be a genuine allrounder imo
Watson is a poor batsman who's bowling is equally poor but he is played as the genuine 5th bowler option, as are the 5 above. Mathews was actually played as 1 of 2 seamers a few test matches ago.

None of the above can be bracketed with collingwood who is in no way a 5th bowler (no matter how much i'd like to class Watson with him). Whether these guys are batsman as well or not classing them therefor as allrounders, it does not take away from the fact that they are genuine bowlers in the attack. So it can't be said that there is a trend this year of teams playing 4 bowlers only, 6 of the 8 leading test nations have regularly played 5.
Report ramone December 29, 2009 8:17 AM GMT
The main point isn't whether the 6th batsmen who bowls should be called an all rounder but whether teams play 6/4 or 5/5.

The research shows that only England and NZ (often to include Jeetan Patel as a 2nd spinner) do go for 5/5.

Even in hot countries where the pitches are often very good, teams go in with 4 front line bowlers.

The more valid challenge is, so what that does not make it the best strategy.

FWIW, I think England are wanting to make sure they don't go 1-0 down too early. We may see 5 bowlers in Jo'burg if it is still 0-0. Quite how Sidebottom will get enought overs into his legs to be effective is another matter.
Report dougydougy. December 29, 2009 8:25 AM GMT
Your reasoning is based on the players being batsman 1st that is what i am disagreeing with i think they are in the team (Kallis and maybe Watson aside) because they bowl and the balance they bring to the side. You are looking at it from a batsman 1st pespective.

All the teams i listed have had 5 genuine bowling options at 1 point this year.
Report ramone December 29, 2009 1:46 PM GMT
If you say so dougydougy. It isn't the main point that I am making so we'll assume you are correct and move on.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com