Five Bowlers

[John]

It seems to me five bowlers in these circumstances is necessary.
I would pick
1.Langer
2.Katich
3.Ponting
4.Marytn
5.Clarke
6.Glichrist
7.Warne
8.Lee
9.Tait
10 McGill
11.Mcgrath/ Clarke

[Rob.]

Originally Posted by John

It seems to me five bowlers in these circumstances is necessary.
I would pick
1.Langer
2.Katich
3.Ponting
4.Marytn
5.Clarke
6.Glichrist
7.Warne
8.Lee
9.Tait
10 McGill
11.Mcgrath/ Clarke

I would fancy bowling that side out to be honest. I think Australia should just stick to the 4 man attack formula. The only reason England have a 5 man attack is because they are fortunate enough to have a world class allrounder.

[John]

Originally Posted by The Legendary RB

I would fancy bowling that side out to be honest. I think Australia should just stick to the 4 man attack formula. The only reason England have a 5 man attack is because they are fortunate enough to have a world class allrounder.

Yeah but England's batsmen have had it far to easy.
Last match
Lee okay
Tait newcomer
Kaspa nebulous
Warne World class
England got a long batting lineup put it under pressure.
Without Jones 6 batsmen is enough in a game you have to win.
Flintoff gets hundreds against weakish attacks so there is answer it wasn't strong enough.

[Rob.]

Originally Posted by John

Yeah but England's batsmen have had it far to easy.
Last match
Lee okay
Tait newcomer
Kaspa nebulous
Warne World class
England got a long batting lineup put it under pressure.
Without Jones 6 batsmen is enough in a game you have to win.
Flintoff gets hundreds against weakish attacks so there is answer it wasn't strong enough.

Erm.... don't understand the last three lines of your post!

Please, there better not be talk about Flintoff being a minnow basher. That is an utterly false statement.

[John]

Originally Posted by The Legendary RB

Erm.... don't understand the last three lines of your post!

Please, there better not be talk about Flintoff being a minnow basher. That is an utterly false statement.

No Flintoff is not a minnow basher. It's just he has batted at 6 or 7 and no futher up.
What I am saying is the following
1. The attack Flintoff and in England faced in the last Test was a reasonable one. Nothing more nothing less. I believe a better bowling attack would never allowed such a big score.( G. Jones and Flintoff would of struggled.)
I am sure Seamer and Beny would agree with me the attack at Trent Bridge is a step down from what Australian's have come to expect over the last decade.
I hope you are following so far.
2. So keeping in mind what I said above it is obvious that England batting can cope with a reasonable bowling attack (and Australia can't cope with a good bowling attack). So in order to strengthen the bowling I would play five bowlers otherwise England's batsmen will get on top of the bowling.
3.Added to this most importantly Australia have to win.
4. Australia's batsmen have had long enough with 7 batsmen and they have failed Shane Warne has played as the 8th batsmen. They don't face S. Jones arguably England's most important bowler.
I hope thats clear. Five bowlers to stop the batsmen.
I will refrain from a stream of concsiousness in future.

[Rob.]

Understand now. Thanks

I get your point, I just think that Australias batting looks a bit feeble with Warne at number 7, that along with Hayden, Martyn and Gilchrist not really making runs at the moment.

[cantplaycantalk]

Well if Collingwood plays he has 6 centuries this year in the CC, with a 100% conversion rate 50's to 100's and he has been taking wickets at a decent rate in the CC as well.
The England batting line up would be down to 8 with specialists and a 4 man attack (not including Colly & Vaughan as v.good part timers) will improve the fielding as well.
If the Aussies bring in a 5th bowler they would be down to 6 specialist batsmen (with Gilchrist looking very vulnerable as the no 6 at the moment as well, and Warne at 7!)

What a turn around that would be!

[Zainub]

Mathew Hayden has been getting runs against county teams all summer...it hasn't translated into test form for him. I don't want to discredit Collingwood for all the runs he's been getting in the County Championships, it's a fact that he's had a wonderful season but we can't be 100% sure that form of his will continue in the test match arena, and not just in any test, probaly the most important test England have played in a decade! But in saying that if you play James Anderson instead you can't be sure either that his county form will translate into test form...you can't be sure about anything.

Let's just say losing Jones is a big blow for England, and what ever replacement they will come up with, will be a gamble.

.

[John]

Originally Posted by The Legendary RB

Understand now. Thanks

I get your point, I just think that Australias batting looks a bit feeble with Warne at number 7, that along with Hayden, Martyn and Gilchrist not really making runs at the moment.

Yes Warne at 7 is a big risk. But I think four bowlers is a bigger risk as far as win is concerned.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by John

Yes Warne at 7 is a big risk. But I think four bowlers is a bigger risk as far as win is concerned.

Lee at 8 is OK though... better than Ok, really. If the three that followed were headed by Gillespie and Mcgrath then you'd say the tail was OK.... but Tait, Kasprowicz and MacGill is a bit questionable - maybe not as bad as Tuffers, Malcolm and Mullally but in serious need of McGrath's batting!!!

The tale I read from the county game was that Kasprowicz outbowled Tait: I'd not bet against Kasprowicz and Tait both lining up at the Oval.