Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak  Your assumption that Vettori knackered himself out bowling so many overs is wrong. Just because he proved ineffective in the second innings, does not automatically mean he was too tired to bowl [..] Englands key to winning that Test was to negate Vettori's effectiveness, as he is by far their most dangerous bowler [...] It had nothing whatsoever to do with him being to 'knackered' or bowling with less spin |
Absolutely right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acker Having 5 bowlers in that New Zealand squad was a total waste of time because what ever advantages it may have made were not utilised by its captain. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak They wern't utilised because they were proving ineffective - just like Vettori was in the second innings. So to take that to it's logical conclusion, if no bowlers are proving effective - don't play any right? I'm sure you can see, that's a bit daft isn't it? |
Nice retort... but there's no way around the fact that with a 5 man attack it is technically impossible for all 5 to justify their place in every innings: the case (and I'll gladly concede that there can be one) rests entirely on players justifying their place by huge variations in effectiveness, either due to the vagaries of finding rhythm and form or the vagaries of a game that is quite clearly a totally different prospect with a new ball that swinging, with an old ball that's soft and doing nothing and with the ball on a wearing track that's spitting out off a wearing pitch.
Bottom line: if a 5 man attack is any good... the 5th bowler is generally going to struggle to justify his place (or even get the ball)... and that if the 5 man attack sucks... the way the batting has been compromised is just going to pile additional pressure onto all concerned, give the captain fewer runs to play with and reduce the chances of a side saving a game in a situation where the only realistic options might be lose/draw.