Only if you judge the merits of both formats independently of what personel and strengths they possess, which I'm sure you'd agree would be rather daft.

I said before the tour started that England should beat NZ fairly comfortably, even playing a 4 bowler format, because the England side is generally much stronger than NZ. The only doubt to that is the level England play at because they play well in spasms and you saw two of those spasms in this game - Panesars bowling in the second innings and Strauss's batting in the second innings. They only won because of two outstanding performances and a bit of help from the pitch and a heavy roller, but you put that all down to the 4 bowler format if it makes you happy, but it doesn't prove your point I'm afraid.

Neither the Aus v WI game, because regardless of what you might think, Australia are playing a 5 bowler format and are generally a far stronger side than WI, who also happen to play a 5 bowler format.

I know you like to argue, as Rachael does, that Symonds adds little with his bowling and a lot more with the bat. The fact remains that he's a bowling resource there if needed, just because Australia usually find at least one outstanding bowling performance, Clark in this last game, does does not change that.

The fact that it was a 'close game' probably reflects the fact that Australia no longer possess a lethal bowling attack. Mitchell Johnson bowled up dross in that game and MacGill has nothing on Shane Warne and was largely ineffective. The only two effective bowlers were Clark and Lee.

Can you see now why Australia want those backup bowling resources? Clark and Lee won't always hold those 'get out of jail' cards.

New Zealand are suddenly the 'in' side are they? News to me.

Why is it surprising that Vettori virtually bowled the equivalent share of two bowlers, when the others were proving so innefective? Add in that they were without their other economic bowler that caused England problems in the previous game, Jacob Oram, also add in that Vettori is probably the most effective SLA spinner in world cricket playing on a turning bouncy pitch and why are you surprised?

You bowl the bowler who is going to get you wickets.

That Englands batting lineup is prone to collapse is well known by everyone, taking one batsman out of that isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to the other batsmens potential. England scored some of their highest totals in recent times playing in the 5 bowler format with much of the same personel in place. Are you now saying that those same batsmen aren't good enough to do that again? Or is your solution to the problem of batting collapses to simply keep playing more and more batsmen until you still collapse but get a few more runs?

If England play the same way against SA with a 4 bowler format they'll lose. SA are much stronger than NZ in all departments except possibly fielding and Englands only hope of beating them is to put huge scores on the board and grind their batsmen down, but even if Englands batsmen could bat so well I have big doubts if the England bowling lineup is good enough to consistently bowl SA out for lower totals.

If Englands batsmen can fire, there could be a few draws, if they don't, they'll lose heavily.

"Scott" I am sure you could probably sprint 100 metres in a time quicker than a sectional of an Olympic marathon winners time.

But I doubt you would be able to keep up that pace for 42 kilometers.

I'm saying that even with another 4 bowlers at his disposal, Vettori bowled himself so much that he got totally shagged.

Having 5 bowlers in that New Zealand squad was a total waste of time because what ever advantages it may have made were not utilised by its captain.

Yet in the 2nd New Zealand innings the shortened batting line-up fell to bits against a 4 prong England attack.

I don't see your point compared to Scott's?

After watching the whole match (pretty much), and watching both times that NZ bowled completely,

Mills was in dire form, partly due to his struggle into the wind.
Martin was ok, bowled well with the breeze behind him, getting up pace and finding some swing.
Oram as economical as ever, but had neck and shoulder problems in the 2nd innings.
O'Brien bowled far more than the other guys as he took wickets, and was very tight, causing lots of problems for the England batsmen.

Then Vettori, pitch that aids spin, has variable bounce and well, hes their best bowler, plain and simple.

To put it simply, the overall circumstances of the game as it unfolded made him probably bowl slightly more than he wanted to, but definitely made him bowl some seamers over others. But surely you would want those who look like getting break throughs with the ball in their hands anyway?

EDIT - The 5 man attack you suggest can be disputed surely...

Vettori's average as a batsmen over the past 3 years is increasing all the time, he had a poor test this time around but is developing as the best no.8 in the world, using his strengths well when he bats.

Oram is an all rounder, his 100 in the 1st test proved his batting capabilities, and his general control over the ball and overs he can bowl consistently prove his work with the ball.

Add to the fact Mills hit a 50 with the bat in the 1st innings and Southee (when fit) hit that breezy 77, it shows their tail on some days can be solely the rabbit that is Chris Martin.

__________________
Hoggy Hoggy Hoggy...OI OI OI!!!

navsites.co.uk <<< Join, post and have fun

He bowled himself so much that his attacking ball's became ineffectual. You might be able to sprint for a few hundred yards, but you will not be able to keep that pace up over a greater distance.

Vettori's arm and wrist would have been getting tired leter in the game, as would the amount of spin he was putting on the ball.

There is no way he was getting as much spin on the ball consistantly in his 50th over and beyond as he was from overs 5-15.

If he had have shared the workload a bit better he probably would have got a few wickets in the second innings rather than 1-100 in the last innings at Old Trafford, generally the best time for a spinner to bowl. He would have been less fatigued.

Handy runs from tail are just that handy runs. These guys are primarilly in the side as bowlers and if they fail as bowlers they should be dropped.

And I'm saying, your assumption, because that's all it is, in my opinion is incorrect. For these reasons -

In the first innings Vettori bowled 31 overs out of 83.3 total overs over two days and took 5-66.

In the second innings Vettori bowled 35 overs out of 88 total overs over two days and took 1-111.

Firstly, the key here is that those 31 overs and 35 overs were bowled over two days. Even still 30-35 overs per day is not excessive for a spin bowler, Warne and Muralitharan frequently bowl(ed) those kind of overs in Test Matches. Secondly, Rachael has even stated on here that she does not consider 30-35 overs in one day to be excessive for one bowler and even advocates that very thing for seamers in her 4 man attack.

So, we have conflicting views, Rachael thinks 30-35 overs per day is fine, you think it will knacker a spin bowler out!

Your assumption that Vettori knackered himself out bowling so many overs is wrong. Just because he proved ineffective in the second innings, does not automatically mean he was too tired to bowl, there were other factors you're ignoring.

The first factor is one we've discussed on here at length, but you it seems were fast asleep when this was being discussed. Vettori is more effective than Panesar on pitches that are not responsive to spin, this is because Vettori does not rely on huge turn but on subtle pace and flight variations combined with his arm ball. Panesar on the other hand thrives on pitches with turn and bounce because he rips the ball more than Vettori does and will always outbowl Vettori on those kinds of pitches.

The second factor is Vaughans application of the 'heavy roller' as opposed to the 'light roller' in consultation with the head groundsman, he quietened the pitch down. So that pitch was not turning as much as the pitch Panesar bowled on, now that you'd think should also assist Vettori, but the third factor is that England changed their batting method against him in the second innings.

Instead of allowing Vettori to bowl at them on his terms, they looked to be more positive generally and particularly against him, taking quick singles and rotating the strike regularly. This allowed those batsmen to escape to the safe end and stopped Vettori trapping them at one end and bowling at them ball after ball until he finally got them out. Add in that most of the damage was done at the top of the order and particularly when Strauss was at the crease - Vettori does not like bowling at LHB's or LHB/RHB combinations and having Strauss there with a RHB allowed them to keep taking those singles forcing Vettori to have to continually change his line.

Ever wondered why Martin has increased his effectiveness against left handers? Because Vettori doesn't like bowling at them and is less effective to LHB's than RHB's. So Martin's job is to get rid of LHB's.

I know all this is quite subtle, but these are the reasons Vettori was far less effective in the second innings than in the first. Englands key to winning that Test was to negate Vettori's effectiveness, as he is by far their most dangerous bowler.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with him being to 'knackered' or bowling with less spin, god only knows where you got that one from.

They wern't utilised because they were proving ineffective - just like Vettori was in the second innings. So to take that to it's logical conclusion, if no bowlers are proving effective - don't play any right? I'm sure you can see, that's a bit daft isn't it?

Correction. Their shortened batting lineup collapsed against 1 bowler - Monty Panesar, as England did to Vettori in the first innings. I watched Panesar bowling that afternoon and I can tell you - he was unplayable.

The problem was, England figured out a plan against Vettori in the last innings, but the Kiwi's didn't against Panesar in their second.

Absolutely right.Nice retort... but there's no way around the fact that with a 5 man attack it is technically impossible for all 5 to justify their place in every innings: the case (and I'll gladly concede that there can be one) rests entirely on players justifying their place by huge variations in effectiveness, either due to the vagaries of finding rhythm and form or the vagaries of a game that is quite clearly a totally different prospect with a new ball that swinging, with an old ball that's soft and doing nothing and with the ball on a wearing track that's spitting out off a wearing pitch.

Bottom line: if a 5 man attack is any good... the 5th bowler is generally going to struggle to justify his place (or even get the ball)... and that if the 5 man attack sucks... the way the batting has been compromised is just going to pile additional pressure onto all concerned, give the captain fewer runs to play with and reduce the chances of a side saving a game in a situation where the only realistic options might be lose/draw.

Fact : The New Zealand 2nd Inning's lasted under 3 hours.
Fact : Vettori was was back out their bowling in the 2nd innings the same day he had been bowling in the 1st Innings.
Fact : You can only bowl every second over under the laws of cricket, he bowled 31 out of a possible 42 in the first innings and 35 out of 44 in the second innings.
Fact : All bowlers generally get a bat in cricket, we have 10 wickets an innings. That does not make all bowlers batting allrounders, nor does a batsmen occasionally getting a bowl become a bowling allrounder.
Fact : Less than 3 hours recovery time, is less than perfect for a bowler coming off 31 overs in one innings.
Fact : Other bowlers were under utilised
Fact : Another batsman would probably have been of more use to New Zealand in this match.
Fact : Scott's 5 bowler/allrounder conspiricy theories are spreading through the threads on this site like chicken-pox spreads through out a school.

I'm sure England and Vaughan had revised their game plan as well.

But like Vettori's decline as an attacking bowling force, they were contributing factors in Englands victory.

I can't really think of anything I've read that could be characterised as a conspiracy theory.

Here's another fact- there will never be a theory that will be supported by a 100% success rate. There never has been, never will be. And so just because in this instance England won with four bowlers and New Zealand lost with five, doesn't mean that four bowlers is necessarily better than five. It depends on the circumstances of each match, and not least the respective strengths of the opposition. Four bowlers may work for Australia, and in this case England, but five bowlers works better for West Indies and South Africa. As I said before, you have to go with what works for you. England have enjoyed plenty of success by playing five bowlers (success against strong nations) and if they are in that position again, then I think they should do it; hopefully Flintoff would be back to top batting form again.

I'm just thankfull we have great bowling reserves like Simon Katich to call on in times of need if we get in a spot of bother against the Windies in the test about to start.

And we have gone extra defensive with bowlers 6,7& 8 in the form of Hodge, Symonds and the recently rested Michael Clarke.

Lets not forget Punter Ponting thats bowler #9 he has 5 test scalps at 46

And I think Hussey, Jaques & Haddin got a couple of kids out in primary school if all else fails.

I'm more thankful that we have Andrew Symonds at 6, who's a proven wicket-taker at Test level.

I think there are very few instances nowadays where playing an all-rounder in a five-man attack weakens the batting significantly. It doesn't with West Indies and Dwayne Bravo, it doesn't with Kallis for South Africa. Irfan Pathan looks the goods as a genuine allrounder, and I think when Laxman goes he'll be his natural successor at no. 6. Pakistan have Shoiab Malik at another spinning option batting at the top of the order, and Shihid Afridi and Abdul Razzaq are more successful than plenty of specialists who've filled the no. 6 position in recent years. New Zealand's attack isn't particularly strong, but I can't see it getting stronger by dropping one of their pace bowlers, or even Oram who doesn't have a great bowling record overseas. Flintoff at his peak averaged about 40 for a couple of years, and it looks like Adil Rashid is being groomed as his long-term successor. It looks like plenty of teams around the world recognise the need of at least having a reliable fifth-bowling option, even if under certain circumstances they haven't been used to a great extent.

And I still haven't come across any conspiracy theories.

And I won't hear anything against Hussey's bowling- does anyone else remember that yorker to Simon Jones?