Test team selection for SA

[Goatman]

Just a thought.

Glancing at the PwC ratings, I noted that for the first time since - what? - about 1950! ENG have the highest rated bowling attack in the world. ENG, unusually, play 5 bowlers. Though Jones and Anderson are hardly setting the world alight this still leaves them more highly placed than the 5th bowler of all other nations, such as Lehmann or Clarke for AUS or Styris for NZ. So we can compare top 4s - if ENG are equal, or outrank, thier opponents, they can be considered as having the better (read - more successful in the recent past in terms of cheap wickets against decent opposition, which is how the ratings work) attack. Looking at the top 4 bowlers of each nation compared to ENG's 4 of Harmison (1), Giles (13), Flintoff (15) and Hoggard (16) I can see no nation that is our equal:-

Number of bowlers out-ranking Hoggard (to equal/exceed ENG, you would need 4).

AUS - 3
SL, SA, PAK, IND - 2
ZIM - 1
Others - 0

Now, I'm not going to get into any silly "this means we're best / better than X or Y" here, but would merely like to point out that this leaves a bit of an oddity. On purely statistical terms, we have the best bowling attack in the world even if we used our top 4 only. This may be a distortion, but it would be simply wrong to suggest that our top 4 are not highly competative against any opposition.

So - why play a 5th bowler?

Given the fact that ENG's top 5 remain a little brittle, would it not be reasonable to include another specialist bat for the SA series? After all, SA, SL, PAK, AUS and IND all believe that thier top 4 bowlers can do the job and act accordingly, dispite the fact that they are not seemingly as good as ENG's. In the case of IND this is even more stark as thier top 5 bats are at far more accomplished than ENG's, and don't exactly need padding! Other teams, such as SA and SL, are blessed with more than 1 genuine allrounder, and so have more stable batting than ENG as an XI - yet they also include and extra specialist compared to ENG.

Do we risk failing to capitalise on our strengths here? Are we likely to blow our chance of genuine, total domination against a respected opponent (SA) out of timidity and nervousness?

Your comments, please.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Goatman

Now, I'm not going to get into any silly "this means we're best / better than X or Y" here, but would merely like to point out that this leaves a bit of an oddity. On purely statistical terms, we have the best bowling attack in the world even if we used our top 4 only. This may be a distortion, but it would be simply wrong to suggest that our top 4 are not highly competative against any opposition.

So - why play a 5th bowler?

Well the strange thing here Goatman, is really we dont play 5 specialist bowlers, because in Rachaels law, and others, Flintoff is considered a batting all-rounder.
Yet his ratings as a bowler is considerably higher as a bowler than a batsman.
He is no 15 as a specialist bowler, but he is an all-rounder.

But in any case, what if we get caught on a really flat track, a 5th bowler is needed, and even if the track is full of pace and bounce, a 5th bowler can still be a better option, with Flintoffs batting we should get away with having a 5th bowler, a lot depends on the much vaunted G O Jones, is he any good as a batsan?.

[Glamorgan Wanderer]

You need to take 20 wickets to win Test matches and I think playing a 5th bowler is a good sign of our aggressive intent in this respect. In any event, we are really playing 4 specialist bowlers and 1 genuine all-rounder who merits inclusion in the top 6 as a batsman on his recent performances and not 5 out-and-out bowlers.

It should also be remembered that our keeper has been selected mainly on the strength of his batting (and already has a test 100 to his name) and that the bowlers have shown much more application in their batting in recent times.

The balance of the side seems right to me, and if the top 5 aren't performing the remedy should be to replace the under-performers with players who can consistently score the runs required rather than paper over the cracks by including an extra batsman. Furthermore, when England has played the extra batsman in the past this hasn't provided the security that everyone expected (that is to say, he hasn't actually made many runs!).

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Ernest

But in any case, what if we get caught on a really flat track, a 5th bowler is needed, and even if the track is full of pace and bounce, a 5th bowler can still be a better option, with Flintoffs batting we should get away with having a 5th bowler, a lot depends on the much vaunted G O Jones, is he any good as a batsan?.

This is very much my point Ern. The truth in what you say in undeniable:-

A 5th bowler is sometimes handy.

We can probably get away with playing 5 bowlers, due to Flintoffs batting.

The question we need to consider relates to the italics in the above statements, however.

Would a decision to go with 5 bowlers come from due and proper caution, or from timidity?

Do we gain as much by playing a 5th bowler who will sometimes be handy as we would by reducing the risk of a batting collapse?

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Glamorgan Wanderer

The balance of the side seems right to me, and if the top 5 aren't performing the remedy should be to replace the under-performers with players who can consistently score the runs required rather than paper over the cracks by including an extra batsman.

A firm case for the defense. However, I would like to point out that there is no point replacing an "under-performer" with a half-arsed nobody simply out fo the hope that they MIGHT score runs.

There is not a Sachin Tendulkar lurking in county cricket. Neither is there a Rahul Dravid. Some of the youngesters that are coming through may emulate Michael Clarke, but if we had someone of that calibre I would hope they would force thier way into the team even if everyone was performing.

You can't pick players that don't exist.

We may need to lengthen the batting in order to strengthen the order.

Also your case can be made in reverse: very often ENG have played a 5th bowler who has returned match figures like 20-0-100-0. Any argument against the "extra-man" in the batting sense can equally be made against the "extra-man" in the bolwing sense.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Goatman 25646

Would a decision to go with 5 bowlers come from due and proper caution, or from timidity?

I think If we where not playing Flintoff, I think I would go for 5 bowlers, out of due and proper caution, 80%, timidity 20% remembering the one dayers against the Windies this summer, and how they had to call Flintoff up to shore up the batting, which included Vaughan, Trescothick, and GO jones, truth is I dont 100% trust out batting, and I am of the opinion, bowlers win matches, batsmen lose or save matches.

Originally Posted by Goatman

Do we gain as much by playing a 5th bowler who will sometimes be handy as we would by reducing the risk of a batting collapse?

It depends I think, batting collapses are strange things, they happen, and playing one extra batsman in this event, would be just one more batsmen to collapse.
I think a 5th bowler, if you can trust your batsmen, adds a lot more variety, games seem to drift at times, take that ICCC final England Vs West Indies, looked like we were winning, then it looked a little unsure, then you could tell, with the bowleres being used, we where going to lose that game, which we did.
Had vaughan used Giles, then maybe we might have won that game.
So if you can play 5 bowlers so much the better, and England are fortunate in having Flintoff, who although being an all rounder, is a specialist bowler.

[Goatman]

Originally Posted by Ernest

I think If we where not playing Flintoff, I think I would go for 5 bowlers,

The whole point is that our main 4 bowlers are good enough to compete. Take one out and they are not. I would make no case for playing 4 bwolers in the event of injury to any of Harmison, Hoggard, Giles or Flintoff.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

This is where i feel there is a case for Bell who can turn is arm over, maybe collingwood, maybe peitersen. We've won most of our macthes recently with the big contributions coming from harmo, giles, freddie and hoggard. Jones I believe got a 5fer in the WI but otherwise aint done alot, niether hasnt anderson, neither has saggers. So a bat who can turn his arm over is the way to go certainly as the likes of key and strauss offer nothing in that dept. With collngwood you also have one of the best fielders in the world.

Option two is to persist with anderson (whovaughan doesnt like) or jones.

Or caddick, who if and its a big IF can get his form and get his attitude right would complement our current bowlers superbly. OK its a step back age wise but who is really knocking on the door ?

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Richie Benauds Love Child

Or caddick, who if and its a big IF can get his form and get his attitude right would complement our current bowlers superbly. OK its a step back age wise but who is really knocking on the door ?

At least with Caddick we could look forward to another Goweresque 'Tiger Moth' escapade as he is a qualified helicopter pilot!

[Goatman]

Without a whiff of implicit criticism of my illegitimate friend Richie (partly, as I assume he would agree with me), I'd like to point out that I can see no case whatever for selecting a player who the selectors belive cannot demand inclusion purely on the basis of thier ability with the bat, or with the ball, alone. I am not a fan of the "all-rounder".

If a bat can bowl then great! Make use of it! Throw him the ball! But don't bank on it, and don't select for it.

It is nice that Tres, Butcher - and Bell and Collingwood - are (I would say) as accomplished as many a player who takes the ball for other nations, such as Styris or Ganguly.

It is nice that Vaughan is able to turn his arm over. I would argue that he is the match of a number of batters who bowl (spin) on a fairly regular basis, such as Sehwag or Sarwan.

But I would never recommend selecting batsman A over batsman B on the basis that one is a part-time bowler, and one is not.