Leaving no scope is where you'd be with two seamers and a spinner. In truth, when McGrath, Gillespie and Warne were at their peak, that could have worked, as McGrath and Gillespie were good for 30+ overs a day and Warne would have been Ok to pretty much bowl unchanged for most of every session... but I'd not suggest any side actually attempt that strategy.

The fourth bowler is the one who introduces the flexibility. A third seamer opens up the possibility of barely using the spinner (especially in the first two sessions). Recall the Aussie attack when Lee was also involved? He'd open (maybe for 4-5 overs) with McGrath. Gillespie would take over, and Lee would rest. McGrath would bowl through a much longer spell, and then Lee would come back fresh for another stint before lunch (having changed ends).

Sacrificing a batsman for the 4th specialist bowler makes lots of sense: it means that a captain can resort to more continuous seam-up bowling when conditions mean this is desirable... and creates the flexibility of dropping a less effective bowler down to a paltry 20 overs a day instead of asking each bowler to shoulder a full workload.

As for the strategy thing... it boils down to a pretty straighforward matter of odds: once you've given yourself the flexibility that comes with a fourth specialist bowler (as all sides do), the law of diminishing returns starts setting in with respect to bowling options - put simply... increasing the quantity of bowlers does not increase the amount of bowling that can be done, and as your best options were already available, you ain't making 20 wickets significantly more likely.

I don't see anything negative about playing a proper top 6: that's about giving the top order the license to play freely. If you just play 5 you'd better back the reliability of players in the mould of Boycott, Richardson, Dravid, Kallis and Steve Waugh (who thrived in situations where losing one wicket might mean exposing a long tail).

If you want to see attractive cricket and pick players in the mould of Barry Richards, Slater, Gower, Mark Waugh, Jayawardene and Laxman (giving them license to play shots) then depth helps... not least because there's no law of diminishing returns on additional batsmen.

You've overlooked the most important thing here. Its difficult bowling spin with a hard shiny ball. Unless the wicket is completely dead the seamers shouldn't be in the team if a spinner is coming on that quick!


You are only likely to get these condition in India/Pakistan. Anywhere else in the world taking 20 wickets should be possible provided your bowlers are good enough. To win a game you do have to take 20 wickets and if you dont go onto the field of play looking to win a game what's the point??. England have also gone down the route of picking 7 specialist batsmen in the early 90's and guess what - It didn't work. The extra batsman nearly always failed and we ended up facing mammoth totals and lost.

Well said.

__________________
Mark.

You're not taking any notice at all of anything anyone else is saying are you? Two people on here have already told you, that the reason Australia were successful with a 4 bowler lineup was soley because of the quality of the bowlers. Yet you still twitter on about the number of overs they could get through.

The reason they were successful is because of their ability with the ball - not the number of overs they could get through!

I know when I'm wasting my time, let's agree to differ.

The proof of the pudding is always in the eating so they say and England are not being particularly successful with a 4 bowler format, let's see how long they can go being unsucessful playing that format before something changes.

I never fail to be amazed at the number of cricket followers who write this. It's not true. Any match in which a team declares one of its innings and loses will show that.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Any four Test quality bowlers would do: sure, some greats would help... but the point is quality relative to the alternatives available.

If you've put out your best 4 bowlers for the expected pitch and conditions and the quality ain't good enough for 20 wickets... then piling the heap deaper (by adding in someone you expect to be an even less competent bowler: someone who's not even in your best quartet) ain't going to hugely improve your odds of 20 wickets.

Does adding or removing Collingwood to an attack of Sidebottom, Broad, Flintoff and Panesar make much difference to the likelihood of taking 20 wickets? Not massively, because if one was having a really bad day... you'd rather increase the work of the others than look to the (comparratively) less able Collingwood for a lot of overs.

At least Collingwood can merit a place in the side with his batting alone... which makes having his bowling available an option. If you add a lesser 5th bowler who CANNOT merit a place with the bat (say Anderson)... then the only thing you are changing is the likelihood of defending a low total.

How often would taking overs off Sidebottom, Broad, Flintoff and Panesar and giving them to Anderson really increase the odds of taking wickets?

Unlike Collingwood, Anderson would need to be contributing hugely with the ball in order to justify his place... but you'd hardly ever gain anything from bowling Anderson than you would not already get from bowling the others.

Sure... the four man attack might not be good enough... but in that situation the 5 man is unlikely to be much better...

But of course... with Anderson in to replace Strauss, the totals to be defended should, over a 5 test series, be consistently lower (as Strauss should be expected to add at least 300 more personal runs than Anderson, and to build partnerships with others in a way that Anderson never could).

Yippee... a marginal increase in the likelihood of getting 20 wickets in any one game... but increased pressure to get the wickets cheaply, and on the top 5 batsmen to deliver miracles, as the oppositions chances of getting 20 wickets have just been hugely boosted

But this is a rare occurance!

I'm not saying you have to take 20 wickets to win EVERY game, but you have to take 20 wickets to win nearly every game.

In the past 5 years how many teams have won matches following the opposition declaring their first innings closed??

__________________
Mark.

True, but that still misses the point: teams aim to win series. Sure, they aim to win each game as a way of winning the series, but the series is the goal.

The aim is to take twenty wickets in the series more often than the other side: that might mean just once in a three test series, or twice in five Tests.

Sure, against a much weaker side, that's not the case (witness Australia's two long runs of victories against lesser sides)... but if you are concerned with what happens when the going gets tough (which is surely why folk over here obsess about playing Australia) then no matter how good your attack is,

1. The other side should be expected control / dominate SOME games (which doesn't mean they should win them).

2. Opportunities should arise to control / dominate SOME games (and a good side should convert such control / domination into a win in SOME instances).

Crucially, the five man attack means (1) is more likely and does little to change (2)!

True, but that basically assumes that the opposition will do everything you wan them to do- in fact, you're leaving it up to the opposition to give you a decent shot at winning! Taking 20 wickets is the most surefire, and the most positive, way to ensure victory.

Well, you never know, do you? One wicket is all it takes to induce a collapse. Any bowler at any time is capable of bowling the perfect ball, which one of the other bowlers simply hasn't done in that particular innings. Having a fifth bowler who's capable of delivering that unplayable ball gives your side the greater chance of maintaining pressure throughout the innings than a batting allrounder like Collingwood.

I notice all the discussion has been centred around the need of a fifth bowler for England, and not about the merits of a fifth bowler generally. Look at the West Indies. For the past year they've gone in with an attack of Taylor, Powell, Edwards and Bravo. In this situation, having a specialist spinner spinner would be invaluable to the Windies attack. But they've gone in with the 6 specialist batsman, and look where that's got them? And do you think New Zealand would be a better team if they only went in with Martin, Mills, Vettori and Oram? Would adding Matthew Sinclair, for example, increase their batting firepower by enough to compensate for the lacking bowling option of Southee or Patel? I hardly think so.

Come now! When was the last time a batsman at no. 6 really made that much of a difference for England? In fact, who was the last successful specialist no. 6 England had? I know having Blewett or Bevan down there for Australia didn't make that much of a difference. The only recent exception I can think of is Laxman for India, but even then India don't have a good away record. If the top 5 batsmen aren't able to deal with the bowling, then generally the sixth won't do much either.

And another thing. This automatic time-out rule is really starting to be a pain in the neck.

Of course it's about quality Rachael, as I keep on telling you. Do you honestly beleive me foolish enough to shove any old bowler in there simply to make up a 5 bowler format? As you keep on saying and have laboured the point, if the 5th bowler isn't up to it then it's a waste of time playing him, and I'd agree.

But that's not what I'm saying.

What I am saying is that 5 Test quality bowlers, all performing to their peak level, will do a lot more damage than 4 test quality bowlers doing the same thing. This is the point, you either don't appear to understand or prefer to ignore.

I, I think like you, would nearly always play a spinner and I think we'd both also agree on Panesar, so lets take Panesar out of the equation.

That leaves your preference with 2 seamers + an allrounder, probably Flintoff. That leaves my preference with 3 seamers + an allrounder, probably Flintoff. We'd both play Flintoff, so let's take him out of the equation.

That leaves me with 3 seamers and you with 2. I'm willing to bet, probably a lot of money, that my 3 seamers of probably Broad, Hoggard and Sidebottom, combined would do more damage and take more wickets in a test series than your two of probably Broad and Sidebottom combined.

And I'll give you four reasons why -

1) All of my seamers including Flintoff get more rest breaks between bowling spells and as their overall workloads are lower they can put more effort and energy into each spell they bowl. This isn't just important within games themselves, but particularly important when playing back to back tests. I want my bowlers fully fit bowling at full pace in short spells, particularly Flintoff, putting all their effort into each spell they bowl.

2) I have twice as many options (6) in shuffling my 4 seamers around in terms of bowling partnerships than you do having only 3. That means I'm much more likely to find the right combination of bowlers for that wicket and those conditions with one creating pressure whilst one takes wickets at the other end.

3) I have a second change seam bowling partnership, which you do not have.

4) I'm not having to rely on part time bowlers making up the overs and offering easy runs, I can sustain full pressure with my 4 seamers all day long you cannot acheive with your 3.

Finally, the Ashes in 2005 proved categorically that a 5 bowler combination when firing on all four cylinders is effective against the best side in the world. It's been done and proven.

Aurelius - I've picked this point up in the Help & Feedback forum here. I'm not sure of the answer, but maybe the admins can look into this for you. I wanted to separate this technical point so that we can keep this thread for cricketing matters.

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan