I couldn't disagree more. As a rule I believe a side is as good as its two frontline new-ball bowlers (usually seamers who can swing the ball and make inroads whilst the odds favour the bowler) and its frontline old-ball bowler (ideally a spinner who can ensure pressure is sustained from at least one end when the odds are far more heavily skewed towards the not out batsman).

Additional bowling is all very nice... but as Australia have showed time and again... the three best bowlers will take almost all of the bowling in a day no matter HOW many alternatives exist... and you can get away with pretty much anyone as a fourth bowler if the others are top notch.

If England have Sidebottom, Hoggard and Panesar fit, in form and ready to shoulder a full workload (24+ overs a day for the seamers, plus up to 30-40 a day from the spinner)... then a fourth bowler (say Broad) sharing the load and giving one of the bowlers somewhere to hide on an "off" day... the side has more than enough bowling (especially in the event of Collingwood being available).

In principle, I think the no 6 batsman should be exactly that: a specialist batsman. Laxman's been my favourite of recent years. He played 41 Tests and racked up 2220 runs at 47.23 whilst batting in that position!

With that in mind... I'd like to think England's bowling will not need to go beyond Sidebottom, Hoggard, Panesar and either Broad/Tremlett... but if Rashid could come through as a genuine batsman and credible leg-spin option I would consider relaxing that stance: I'm uncomfortable with it, as the pressure on the top order from a bits-n-pieces player at 6 can be huge on a sporting wicket... but if the tail includes Broad at 8, Sidebottom at 9 and Hoggard at 10 then on a typical Test wicket (such as the Oval).... the lower order is going to be ridiculously strong.

It's the exemplary lower-middle order batting of Broad, Sidebottom and Hoggard that prompted me to put Rashid in at six in my list, not some facination with offering five bowlers.

Funnily enough, the greatest team ever to play cricket broke that rule and played 4 out and out fast bowlers and made inroads in all conditions and rarely bothered with a spinner. The only reason they didnt need 5 bowlers was the quality (and effectiveness) of the 4 main bowlers.

Do you honestly believe that that attack would be capable of taking 20 wickets against Aus/SL/SA? An attack of Sidebottom, Panesar and Tremlett/Broad has already been tried and found to be innefective, even on helpful wickets.

__________________
Mark.

Yep Harmison was scarred on the 2004(?) tour of South Africa. I have never seen a worse selection that picking a vastly homesick Harmison to stay Behind after the Test's had finished - to play a long pointless one day series he had no interest in.

He must have been sickened watching the other specialist Test players retyring home, Vaugham did not seen to care about one of his key players, nor did Fletcher.

__________________
Ern

I don't expect ANY attack to make serious inroads into a top batting line up without something favouring the bowlers: that might be the new ball (bounce, seam movement, mild swing), overhead conditions and breeze (extreme swing with the new ball, mild swing with almost any ball), the state of the pitch (uneven bounce, movement off the cracks, turn out of the rough) or the match situation (new batsman at the crease, the pressure that comes from having been batted out of the game, the need to force a result to keep the series alive, etc).

No side is (or ever has been) guaranteed 20 wickets. All you can do is try and capitalise when the odds are more in your favour and try and and ensure the game isn't taken away from you when the odds favour the opposition. The keyto succeeding is having two first rate new ball bowlers (like Sidebottom and Hoggard) and a top old ball bowler (as Panesar ought to be by 2009).

None of the above guarantees anything... but on the whole, if your three main bowlers are any good then increasing the number of bowling options you have available to five or more doesn't substantially increase your odds at ANY stage of the game unless they offer something VERY different - say the possibility of spinners in tandem, or leg spin, or a callibre of reverse swing the main seamers cannot match.

We've all seen England captains struggle with lack of options when half the attack is sub-standard... and the sight is not pretty... but if Sidebottom, Hoggard and Panesar are on form, that's not going to be the case - and barring a VERY special knock, no batting line up is going to really thrive on days where that trio (on form) are shouldering almost all of the overs.

Would Flintoff (on form) be the ideal 3rd seamer? Yes, quite probably: he'd extract some bounce and provide contrast more than anything else... but he'd offer some control with the old ball and he'd be able to offer reverse swing support for Sidebottom's reverse swing - but I don't have a problem with the idea of Broad or Tremlett being the contrast-bowler.

What I hope we do NOT see is Flintoff EVER return at 6 with 3 other specialist seamers in the attack: if he's back at six, he should be opening up the option of two spinners... and if the side wants just one spinner then he should be one of three specialist seamers with Collingwood (or some such player) being the fourth seamer.

I have included the warm up match before the two matches in the Duleep Trophy -

Rashid - 166 runs - 55.33
Carberry - 282 runs - 47.00
Yardy - 235 runs - 39.16
Trott - 193 runs - 38.60
Joyce - 202 runs - 33.66
Denly - 77 runs - 15.40
Foster - 65 runs - 10.83
Kirby - 19 runs - 9.50
Plunkett - 34 runs - 8.50
Onions - 32 runs - 8.00
Hildreth - 8 runs - 4.00
Panesar - 5 runs - 2.50
Richardson - 4 runs - 2.00
Shreck - 0

59.0-25-121-8 ~ Richardson - (15.12 econ 2.05 s/r 44.25)
24.0-2-83-4 ~ Shreck - (20.75 econ 3.45 s/r 36.00)
59.5-9-175-8 ~ Kirby- (21.87 econ 2.92 s/r 44.87)
68.5-11-232-10 ~ Panesar - (23.20 econ 3.37 s/r 41.30)
44.4-6- 172-7 ~ Rashid - (24.57 econ 3.85 s/r 38.28)
79.2-19-264-10 ~ Onions - (26.40 econ 3.32 s/r 47.60)
44.0-5- 191-3 ~ Plunkett - (63.66 econ 4.34 s/r 88.00)
27.0-6-70-1 ~ Trott (average 70.00 econ 2.59 s/r 162.00)
3.0-0-12-0 ~ Yardy (econ 4.00)

I think Rashid should have improved in 18 months.

This is the team I would like to see but it can't see it happening.
1 Cook
2 Key
3 Shah
4 Vaughan
5 Pietersen
6 Flintoff
7 Rashid
8 Read
9 Broad
10 Tremlett
11 Hoggard

Problem with Bracken is that he has great economy but lacks the wicket taking penetration of Johnson.

We simply MUST get Flintoff fit and bowling at top form for not just the Ashes but international cricket. He was our best bowler for two years before his injuries (and England ridiculous selection of an injured man). McGrath was able to make a comeback at an older age. Flintoff MUST be our first change bowler, who can bat at 6 or 7 depending on the rest of the team.

If Harmison isn't good/reliable enough to open the bowling, then he shouldn't be playing!

I agree with all that Milo - he was a dependable bowler and that's what England are missing. He was overused when injured and that IMO aggravated his injury - bad management.
Funny one this Milo, Harmison had a spell when he was taking few wickets, but his pace made him hard to get away - so he did a job. Also if he performs well this summer, then he must be worth keeping as a specialist (play in England) bowler, I say that looking at what's on offer in his place.
At the moment he has lost it, but then again look how poor Hayded played in England in 2005, he soon got over that and played better than ever.

__________________
Ern

The moon would turn blue.

The pigs would fly to that moon.