Flintoff returns for Lanashire against Surrey:16-19 April.

[darksideofthemoon]

Originally Posted by Rachael

On the form of the NZ tour then yes... but Hoggard in form is now the finished article in a way that Broad is not: he's an excellent new ball bowler who can make every delivery count, his mastery of swing (at least in one direction) is now exemplary, his cutters are in a different class to most in Test cricket and he can shoulder a huge workload.

I've no problem with Broad as an alternative to Hoggard, to Sidebottom or to Flintoff, as I agree about the bounce he can get... but what I cannot see ANY case for is playing all four: none should need protecting... and Panesar's more than capable of holding his own... so why bother?

I think you have to think of the longer term. You would want your bowlers to stay fit. 13 Tests in a year plus ODI's and 20/20s. Then there are back to back Tests. Imagine bowling 45 overs on the last day of one Test and having to bowl again in the first innings of the next Test a few days later. Five bowlers means they are all fresher and the captain has a choice if a bowler isn't bowling well or has a niggle or even an injury.

Hoggard has shouldered a huge workload and has lasted longer than most bowlers would but the effects are now starting to show with trouble with his groin and then with his back. I don't think he will be able to bowl as much as he did in the past.

[south beds mikey]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

I think you have to think of the longer term. You would want your bowlers to stay fit. 13 Tests in a year plus ODI's and 20/20s. Then there are back to back Tests. Imagine bowling 45 overs on the last day of one Test and having to bowl again in the first innings of the next Test a few days later.

45 overs for one bowler in one day!! Surely not. Even if they did two days work in the same week unthinkable!!

How terrible for them. 13 tests, say 20 ODIs and 4 20/20? thats about 3 months work in a year and only for about 250,000 sterling!! Even if we double it to count practice days its still not bad is it?

Bless 'em.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Aurelius

Simply taking the average wickets per match for Hoggard, Sidebottom, Flintoff and Panesar, you get 3.7, 4.1, 2.9 and 3.5 wickets per match respectively. This equals up to 14.1 wickets per match .... Having another bowler- say Harmison at 3.7, takes the sum WPM to 17.8, which takes an awful ot of pressure off the bowlers.

You have shown there one of the reasons why have suffered under Moores playing 4 bowlers. You need to take 20 wickets to win games and on decent pitches against any opposition better than poor, 4 bowlers wont do!

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

Then there are back to back Tests. Imagine bowling 45 overs on the last day of one Test and having to bowl again in the first innings of the next Test a few days later. Five bowlers means they are all fresher and the captain has a choice if a bowler isn't bowling well or has a niggle or even an injury.

Thats the second reason to have 5 bowlers. We can all harp on about workload but with today's back to back matches you cant expect bowlers to shoulder a massive workload and stay fit for long. Its not like the olden days where you had a good break between tests (and had a rest day!)

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

You need to take 20 wickets to win games and on decent pitches against any opposition better than poor, 4 bowlers wont do!

Few Aussies seemed to worry when McGrath, Gillespie and Warne were backed up by Lee and no other. I'd guess that almost all the most successful WI attacks of the past were also 4-man attacks (even when Walsh and Ambrose had to carry pretty ordinary support bowlers).

The argument based on wickets per match is also completely spurious. Aside from anything else, wickets per match is dependent on overs bowled, who they are bowled to and the like... but more importantly, you have to take someone off in order to put another bowler on... so adding a bowler with strike rate x to a side that already has bowlers with strike rates a, b, c and d is rarely going to make a major difference.

These bowlers cannot bowl simultaneously, and few sides can manage even 90 overs in a day: what matters is that in those periods of the day where bowlers are dominating, a high-ish strike rate option exists... and in those periods of the day where the batsmen would be favourites with almost ANYONE bowling, the bowlers can build pressure and take control in ways that tend to be reflected in averages and economy rates.

A side will probably need to take 20 wickets in at least one match of a series to emerge victorious (though declarations might lead to success with fewer wickets). In most games (and most conditions), no bowler (or collection of bowlers) is going to run through any decent top order: what matters is simply capitalising when an opportunity arises - with the new ball, when overcast conditions allow swing, when the ball is reversing or when cracks / rough allow exploitation of the pitch.

Most matches against GOOD opposition should be drawn: for either side to lose should require a pretty abject performance with both bat (giving wickets away) AND ball (leaking runs). What matters is being able to capitalise in those few matches where a result can be forced.

The attack needs to be able to both ensure the bowling doesn't contribute to a loss in the games that cannot be won and also shift the odds in the direction of a win where the pitch / conditions / opposition present an opportunity. For that, you need 3 good (dependable) bowlers and someone else who can offer something a bit different - but for the reasons I gave earlier, adding a further option is not really shifting the odds in most situations.

I also find the workload arguments spurious: bowlers are only overbowled when a bowler breaks down and the occasional bowling sucks... and that's rare. For England it's just not going to happen: the occasional bowling could cope with a far greater workload in the unlikely eventuality of a leading bowler being removed from the options list.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Few Aussies seemed to worry when McGrath, Gillespie and Warne were backed up by Lee and no other. I'd guess that almost all the most successful WI attacks of the past were also 4-man attacks...

When you have an attack of McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne then yes, 4 bowlers will do especially when you have 7 top class batman constantly posting 450 scores on the board. So its not really relevant to compare this to England. England have no bowlers in that class and our batting is far weaker.

Originally Posted by Rachael

The argument based on wickets per match is also completely spurious.

No stats are perfect but it gives you a rough indication on how effective an attack would be. If you look at the Aussie attack above that equates to about 17 ish wpm which shows it will be effective. The great WI attacks of the early 80's averages even higher which back up the known fact that they were the greatest attack of all time.

Originally Posted by Rachael

A side will probably need to take 20 wickets in at least one match of a series to emerge victorious (though declarations might lead to success with fewer wickets).

I'd love to know where you get this from. It makes no sense to say that. Look at most recent series and quite often 20 wickets fall to one side in nearly every match.

Originally Posted by Rachael

In most games (and most conditions), no bowler (or collection of bowlers) is going to run through any decent top order: what matters is simply capitalising when an opportunity arises - with the new ball, when overcast conditions allow swing, when the ball is reversing or when cracks / rough allow exploitation of the pitch.

But then you have to have bowlers who are good enough and have enough variation to bowl sides out. Our 5 man attack consistently bowled all sides out. Moores 4 man attack has failed to do that.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Most matches against GOOD opposition should be drawn: for either side to lose should require a pretty abject performance with both bat (giving wickets away) AND ball (leaking runs). What matters is being able to capitalise in those few matches where a result can be forced.

But the fact is unless the pitch is an absolute joke (as per one of the ones in the India v SA series) then most matches do have a good chance of ending in results. The fact of the matter is cricket is played by humans not automatons and bowlers bowl frequent bad balls and batsmen get out . I dont want to sound melodramatic but if bowlers didnt bowl bad balls and batsmen just blocked, test cricket would be a terrible spectacle. At the end of 5 days play the team batting first would be 100/1.The would be no point in playing as there would be no challenge or chance of a result

Originally Posted by Rachael

I also find the workload arguments spurious: bowlers are only overbowled when a bowler breaks down and the occasional bowling sucks... and that's rare.

If you look at the number of bowlers suffering injuries you will see its more than rare. Granted bowlers don't break down often in matches but they miss a lot of games due to injury. Back to back matches and the current scheduling of series isn't good for a bowlers health!

Just look at recent England bowlers for the past few years:

Jones - crocked
Flintoff - crocked
Anderson - missed summer due to injury
Mahmood - as above
Hoggard - Hardly played in the last 18 months due to injury
and i could go on....

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by darksideofthemoon

Hoggard has shouldered a huge workload and has lasted longer than most bowlers would[...] but the effects are now starting to show with trouble with his groin and then with his back.[..] I don't think he will be able to bowl as much as he did in the past.

Spot on - that's why England need 5 bowlers until they have 4 bowlers like the great West Indian sides had.

With only 4 bowlers and one not fireing, they the workload on the other 3 is just to much.

Hoggard looks jaded at best, and is probably bowled out past his best.

[Rachael]

The Aussie batting of the last few years has routinely been grossly over-rated: Ponting's a bit special... as is Clarke... and Langer was damn good as well.... but I've no problem with the likes of Cook, Vaughan, Bell and Pietersen at the top of the order - England have a stronger top 4 than any in world cricket right now.

As for the bowling... I've no worries about Sidebottom / Hoggard / Flintoff /Panesar lining up: sure, the world of cricket has seen stronger attacks... but not MUCH stronger attacks - that quartet (assuming all were fit and had bowled enough to find some form) should ensure that no opposition is able to bat itself into an impregnable position with any regularity.

I do find your view of pitches curious though: since when have most Test pitches been anything OTHER than a joke? Can you recall a Lords or Oval pitch that warranted anything other than a draw? Or an Old Trafford or Edgbaston pitch for that matter? The only test pitch in Australia that's occasionally capable of hosting a genuinely sporting contest is the SCG. Most sub-continental pitches and WI pitches have draw written all over them.

One Test ground in the recent NZ series warranted a result. That's actually an improvement on what's served up in most tours.

Sadly, when England lose the England batsmen tend to get the blame for not ensuring games are at least drawn: I'll concede that it's sometimes been at least in part down to the batsmen... but it's mostly (in recent years) been down to England's bowlers getting carted, which leaves the opposition enough time to get 20 wickets.

England needs to get back to a core trio of dependable bowlers capable of sustaining a Test economy rate of between 2.5 and 2.8 throughout long spells over long days. With that in place, getting batted out of a game takes so long that a result becomes impossible. THEN the pressure is on the opposition - and I wouldn't rate any current side as clear favourite over England in that situation.

This obsession with "taking" wickets on modern (covered) pitches strikes me as lunacy: wickets are (these days) more commonly gifted than taken... and what matters is simply ensuring that the damage done between gifted wickets is either so little, or done over such a long timespan, that the game is not swung decisively by the opposition's batting.

Sustaining quality through time and awaiting opposition implosion is, unfortunately, the only way to go on covered wickets and with batsmen armed with modern bats: I'd rather bowlers started each spell anticipating a susptain period of bowler-domination but that just doesn't seem to be an option these days.

[greg]

I see his fine batting form continues,out for a duck today.

At least his bowling seems ok,just wonder if he will stay fit enough long enough to find some batting form and deserve his place back in the test side?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by greg

I see his fine batting form continues,out for a duck today.

Well yeah greg - this is his second outing in yonks.

At least his bowling seems ok,just wonder if he will stay fit enough long enough to find some batting form and deserve his place back in the test side?

Link: BBC SPORT | Cricket Scorecard

Well if you are going down the narrow path of this match/innings greg.

Flintoff will walk in the side over Hoggard, as will Mahmood, as will Anderson, or for that matter Chapple.

[Navdeep]

Originally Posted by Ernest

Well yeah greg - this is his second outing in yonks.



Link: BBC SPORT | Cricket Scorecard

Well if you are going down the narrow path of this match/innings greg.

Flintoff will walk in the side over Hoggard, as will Mahmood, as will Anderson, or for that matter Chapple.

Hoggy looks like hes hit some form, ripped through the top order of Hamps to take 4-33 from 10 overs.

Least all his critics can stay quiet for a day or so, perhaps

EDIT: Make that 5, 15 over, and in front of a watching England selector, would take some almighty shocking decisions to leave him out for Anderson or somebody now, c'mon Miller, you know it makes sense!