1. No bowler should come back into the side until ready to bowl 25+ overs a day: they either play with the expectation of contributing fully... or they make way for someone else.

2. Guys like Broad and Tremlett are more than capable of bowling 25+ overs a day (and do so commonly enough for their counties): if they are going to get opportunities to play due to the likes of Flintoff and Hoggard missing Tests... they should be used (so they can develop) not hidden away (learning little).

3. Even if the best attack available includes second string players (say Broad and Tremlett)... the second string have presumably been brought in as better than the 3rd string (say Onions). In that case... what's the sense of depriving the 2nd string of the opportunity to warrant their place so that a jobsworth 3rd string player doesn't just loaf around the outfield like a spare dinner?

4. Taking 20 wickets needs to be done within a maximum of 90 overs a day: playing the extra bowler doesn't increase that to 120 overs a day. The extra bowler can only contribute at the expense of another. The batsman that's missing out can contribute pretty much irrespective of what his colleagues do.

I did an experiment and compared the average amount of overs bowled by England's bowlers during the 2005 Ashes with the average amount bowled by Australia's. I totalled both averages, and found that the Australian attack of McGrath, Lee, Gillespie and Warne averaged 155.6 overs between them, whereas Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff, Jones and Giles averaged 152.9 overs between them. So it's not relevant that you can only get 90 overs in a day. The English bowlers were better that series despite the fact that they bowled less overs between them, and if one of them had a bad spell, then another was ready to take their place to equally good effect. Australia didn't have that luxury. Gillespie and Kasprowitz were ineffective in every match they played, and Lee leaked runs in all games. They couldn't replace any of these bowlers, so when one of them had a bad spell, they were effectively playing with three bowlers. Generally, Australia's bowling should have been good enough to compensate, but it wasn't on this occasion, with the result that their bowling was inneffective and they lost the series. England's bowling was much better, because when one bowler finished, another could take his place, and they consistently took wickets. If they had gone in with noly four bowlers, then that option wouldn't have been available to them, and their bowling wouldn't have been any more effective, even if their bowlers did average more overs.

25 overs is about the maximum I'd want Flintoff to be bowling, preferably in 4 or 5, five over spells. Used as a shock, 90+ mph strike bowler to break partnerships and generally 'rough' up the batsmen when they get a little complacent. I'd be looking to bring Flintoff on when there's pressure being built at the other end. That leaves potentially 75 overs to be shared between Sidebottom and Broad, is that truly feasible Rachael? You cannot rely on Panesar bowling any overs at all on wickets favouring swing or seam - that's the greatest flaw in your side. You flog Flintoff and you flog Sidebottom and Broad to exhaustion, and no plan B if any of those are proving ineffective.

Is that the same Tremlett that keeps breaking down due to injury? Do you truly want someone like that as part of a 3 man seam attack, one of which is Flintoff?

Broad is still young and inexperienced, he cannot be expected to lead an attack in International Cricket, or bowl the number of overs you expect of him. And if Broad proves ineffective, where do you turn then in your 3 man seam attack, one of which includes Flintoff? In any case I beleive Broad is being groomed longer term to become Flintoff's allrounder replacement, he's already expressed his desire to become a full allrounder rather than a bowler who bats a bit.

Broads very promising as a support, second change bowler, but he's certainly not the International strike bowler you appear to want to use him as.

They are being used, at least Broad is, but he's not bowling the kind of overs you'd have him bowling and nor is he being used as a strike bowler either. Tremlett looks like he'll get a run out in the next game, but only primarily because it's likely to be a hard bouncy pitch.

Firstly, because in your setup Broad isn't a second change bowler, you're using him as a new ball bowler. Unless you intend on using Flintoff in that capacity, which would be equally foolish. Flintoff is not a new ball bowler, he works best with the older ball, because he extracts life out of the pitch with his bowling style and he can exploit any reverse swing there may be around - that means he has to bowl with the older ball.

Secondly, because you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of bowling 'variety', because in your setup, all the seam bowlers have to bowl their overs, regardless of how effective they are. Why do some bowlers get bowled more in some games than others? Because they're being more effective with the ball that the other bowlers - novel concept I know, but not that hard to understand. The more variety and options open to you, the more likely you are to find a bowling partnership that works in those conditions and on that pitch. When you have all your seam bowlers operating at or near peak capacity, you'll be far more successful with 4 of them than you will with 3, because each one poses a different problem and there's no respite. In your setup you'd have to bowl Panesar, who may or may not be effective in seam friendly conditions.

No-one said it did, but you seem to miss the point that 1) The more bowlers you have the more likely you are to find a partnership that works on that pitch and in those conditions and 2) That you ensure you always have at least one pace bowler fully rested and fresh for his spell. In your setup, all the seamers have to bowl their overs regardless of whether they're being effective or not and regardless of whether they're fully rested or recovered from their previous spells. IS that the way to take 20 wickets?

Why can't all the bowlers contribute together? Cast your mind back to the 2005 Ashes, that was all bowlers contributing together, or would you like to point out which bowler profited at the expense of another?

Unless he scores 0 Rachael, or do you not factor that possiblity into your calculations?

That was because, as Aurelius rightly pointed out, they had two of the worlds greatest bowlers bowling for them. Once you'd had enough of Warnes wizardry and McGrath's unerring accuracy you could help yourself to a dollop of Lee's 90 mph pacers. It's no wonder the 3rd seamer picked up so many wickets playing as part of that foursome.

Because their 4 man bowling attack was so effective on all surfaces and situations, they were able to bully teams with their batting - and it was highly successful and ensure Australian dominance during that period.

And how does that relate to England's situation exactly?

That's easy enough to explain. The conditions weren't spin friendly, Vettori's a better bowler in unfriendly conditions than Panesar is. Panesar doesn't have the guile or subtle variations Vettori has.

It's not a coincidence Aurelius, they're switching back to the 4 specialists + allrounder system England used to use under Fletcher. They don't have the firepower of McGrath and Warne any longer and therefore feel they need to expand their bowling options. Symonds and Watson seem the main allrounder contenders at present.

Panesar, and indeed any decent spinner, should be bowling at first change on any wicket. Depriving a frontline spinner of a hard, bouncy ball is generally criminal: spinners can profit from the hardness and bounce just as seamers can... and any decent spinner has to be worth a shot once the diet of seam-up bowling has been tried.

It's up to Panesar to make sure he can pose questions with that new ball (as Vettori does), and he's not going to develop into that complete bowler if four seamers are hogging the new ball right through to lunch in the opening session of the match!
Flog? No. If we were talking of 35+ overs in a day that would be entering the realms of "flogging"... but if a bowler is having a good day I'd expect him to be demanding extra overs from his captain and breaking the 30 overs a day mark.

As for bowlers proving ineffective:

1. This is Test cricket we're talking about, and part of that is working out a way to do a job when things aren't going as planned... and that's part of the challenge for both the bowler and the captain.

2. The selectors have presumably gone for the three bowlers they expect to be most effective on a given pitch: it's up to them to deliver... and if the captain thinks the fourth best seamer would be more effective he should take it up with the selectors who gave him the "lesser" bowler.

Bottom line: you don't have to be able to take 20 wickets in every match... and you will get matches in which not even XI bowlers would get you 20 wickets: what matters is that when YOUR side cannot get 20 wickets... the other side doesn't get 20 either - and you stack the odds in your favour by playing a top 6 of specialist batsmen!

Very good post SW.

I can't think of any team where the spinner has regularly gone on first change- except maybe India, and possibly South Africa in the days of Aubrey Faulkner.

That's right, things don't go as planned, which is why a fifth bowler comes in handy. Playing just four bowlers and planning for them to bowl 20-25 overs each per day assumes that everyhting in the bowling department will go as planned. But bowlers sutain injuries, or they just don't break through, and when that happens your bowling options are very limited.

I find that to be really bizarre, to be honest. Sure, it is theoretically possible to win without taking 20 wickets, but the only way that would happen is if the opposition declares- and basically does everything else- the way that you want him to. That's not a very sound winning strategy. Of course, you could play for the draw- but that's a surefire way to lose. It's like a Rugby team leading at half-time who doesn't try to score any tries in the second half- they just give away the momentum to the opposition, and it doesn't work anyway.

Ha! Actually, I was trying to be ironic, but it didn't really work out for me.

But after Symonds, I wonder if Hopes is the next cab off the rank. Done a sterling job so far in the ODIs, has a decent FC record. Then there's White and McDonald from Victoria, so we have a few options.

And that's the crux of the matter isn't it? Rachael's side isn't designed to 'win' it's designed not to lose. But as we all know all too well, if you go into a game with the strategy of not losing, you invariably do.

Rachael's side is designed to entertain her, and people like her, in terms of batting attritionally and in terms of the sublime glovework of a specialist keeper which her side allows her to play - because she's stuffed it full of all the batsmen she can. The thornier problem of how to take 20 wickets is of secondary importance to entertaining in the 'old style' of playing which was prevalent in the 40's 50's and 60's.

Cricket is an 'entertaining' sport, or at least one of its objectives should be to entertain the audience, but not at the expense of competitiveness. People (except Rachael) don't want to watch boring attritional cricket, they want to see aggression and success and going down the route that Rachael wants to take will be a sure fire way of not only not winning, but boring the audiences into submission.

The only way forward for this England side is to embrace the philosophy started by Duncan Fletcher - total cricket and decisive contributions from all players in at least 2 out of the 3 main disciplines. This allows the side to retain a balance between bowling, batting and fielding and equal opportunities to control the runs scored by both your own batsmen and the opposition batsmen.

It never ceases to amaze me how people cannot understand the relatively simple concept of what it takes to win a Test Match - it's very simple. Score more runs than the opposition AND take 20 opposition wickets. That does not mean you have to score huge amounts of runs - it means you have to score more than the opposition, and bowl them out. Therefore a successful and winning run total could be 100 runs or it could be 600 runs - the amount depends entirely on how successful your bowlers are in containing the opposition batsmen. Weaken your bowling attack and the oppsotion will score more runs, meaning your own batsmen will need to score more as a result.

Which is better? Constantly having to chase big totals (or being forced to set them) or setting and chasing more modest achievable totals? As it is at the moment, England can't even chase modest totals, adding another batsmen isn't going to make the slighest bit of difference to that.

So the best option by far, is to have a stronger bowling attack that restrict opposition batsmen to totals your own batsmen can not only reach but exceed.