I'm not convinced by a four man bowling attack full stop, as I've stated quite clearly on here many times. In my opinion very few 4 man bowling attacks are successful in International Cricket unless they contain quite exceptional bowlers ala Warne, ala McGrath.

Not only that, our own 4 man bowling attack doesn't even contain the right personel, so it's no wonder they're seriously struggling. Moores either needs to switch to a 5 man attack or reconsider the makeup of his 4 bowlers. A 4 man attack can succeed against weak sides, but not against strong ones.

I know why Moores is reluctant to switch to a 5 man attack - it means he has to make a decision on one of those batsmen and at the moment that isn't going to be easy. Who to drop? Strauss? Bell? Collingwood?

And that's the root of the problem, but what do you do about Broad and Anderson? In my opinion Broad has to continue playing, he needs the experience and he stiffens up that lower order batting. Anderson, I just don't know what the answer is with him.

Flintoff will make the world of difference to that side, but only if played as part of a 5 man attack, Flintoff cannot shoulder the bowling burden of a specialist bowler. You can afford to hide one bowler in a 5 man attack and that's Broad, so no place for Anderson if and when Hoggard comes back.

It only worries me in the sense of which one they'll drop to bring Flintoff back in. One of Vaughan, Strauss, Bell, Collingwood and Pietersen needs to go.

Australia against the West Indies and England in the second innings of this match, have again blown your 5 bowler theory out of the water Scott.

In fact the in side that did play 5 bowlers New Zealand, their skipper decided to bowl 38.4% of all the balls the Kiwi's bowled himself anyway. And in doing so relegated one of his strike bowlers to bowling only 90 balls for the entire match.

Gravity defying logic

Throw out a batsman from a side that struggled to score 200 runs against one of the lesser attacks in world cricket on home soil.

Hardly. West Indies' batsmen have had a collapse, and Clark bowled brilliantly. But there's no doubt in my mind that the Windies are better served by having 5 bowlers instead of four, as none of their bowlers are strong enough to fill a four-man attack. Australia don't have that problem- Lee and Clark are both very penetrative, and both Johnson and MacGill made contributions. England's greatest period of success in 20 years came when they played the five-man bowling attack including Flintoff. South Africa have played five bowlers for years (including Kallis) and have been one of the best sides in world cricket over 15 years. India have played a four-man attack for as long as I've seen them, and they've always struggled for victory away. In fact, the only Test they won, in Perth, was the first time in the series that Pathan, as a fifth bowler, was played. Sri Lanka haven't enjoyed conspicous success, and neither have the West Indies, whose four bowlers have struggled to bowl the opposition out once let alone twice. Two matches aren't going to change any of these facts.

Well it only makes sense that Vettori would bowl more overs in the second innings, given Panesar's success. New Zealand would have really struggled in this Test if O'Brien hadn't been there to make the early breakthroughs, given Mills' struggles during this Test. Would they have been better off last Test if Mills had made way for Southee? I don't think so. Teams like New Zealand or West Indies, who have thin bowling stocks, are always going to struggle to have all bowlers on top form in the same innings. Is England's four-man attack strong enough to roll over the heavyweight South African lineup? I doubt it. Is it strong enough to bowl out the superheavyweight Australian lineup? Definitely not- although funnily enough they did do the job with five bowlers the last time.

The West Indies would score less runs if they drop a recognised batsmen.
When you pick a 5th bowler for your test side, I am pressuming you are picking a bowler who is not good enough to be in your first 4 ?
The history of test cricket is littered with more cases where 5 pronged bowling attacks have failed, than 4 pronged bowling attacks.
The 4 West Indies bowlers were good enough to restrict Australia to around 600 runs and bowl them out twice in this test match.
Ponting got away from them in the 1st innings, but would a 5th bowler stopped that ?
It was day 1 and its not like the West Indies bowlers were worn out and spent.

Vettori started bowling in the second innings as a slightly under rested attacking bowling, Vettori ended up as a non attacking bowler (because he had bowled himself into the ground) who was restricting an end at best.

Not much sense in your main strike bowler over bowling himself and in the finish just end up firing run restrictive balls. When your side has allready dropped a batsmen to afford him 4 other bowlers to share the workload with.

Considering the shambles that was the New Zealand 2nd innings, they looked like they needed another batsman.

Panesar 39 overs for the match as part of a 4 prong bowling attack compared to Vettori 66 overs for the match as part of a 5 prong bowling attack looks very unbalanced. Thats why I questioned Vettori's captaincy.

At the end of the day you cant turn tin into gold no matter how you re-balance some sides.

Rachael said the West Indies should play a specialist or "genuine" batsman at 6, instead of Bravo. And I'll say again what I said then- Bravo is one of the best batsmen in the Carribean. His batting's his stronger suit IMO, and I think he has the capability of averaging over 40 by the end of his career. The Windies could add a specialist batsman into that no. 6 position, but he wouldn't do as well as Bravo, and so by not picking him you don't really miss out on anything.

In the West Indians' case, the fifth bowler is Jaggernaught, a spinner. The Windies hardly ever play a spinner, even though all of their best bowlers at regional level are spinners, and it never makes sense- ever- to go in to a Test match without a specialist spinner, unless you have a simply awesome pace attack which the Windians don't. Now, you could argue that they could drop a specialist paceman for the spinner. They tried this with Suliemann Benn in the first Sri Lankan test, and it was no more successful than anything else the West Indies have tried with their attack. Bravo had to bowl first change, and he's no kind of first-change bowler. So the five-man attack IMO suits the West Indies the best.

As to the effect that Jaggernaught had on the match- he got one wicket. Not good reading, perhaps, but that one wicket was Hussey on 56. What if Jaggernaught hadn't played? What if Hussey had got to a hundred? What if Australia had declared at 550? What if the West Indians never got close? The result would still have been the same, but the tone of the match, and of the rest of the series, would have been changed completely. The fact is, we don't know what would have happened if Jaggernaught hadn't played, therefore we can't say he didn't make a contribution as a fifth bowler.

I agree with that, in particular as an Australian supporter who thinks likewise about Symonds and the number "6" Australian spot.

Although Symonds is firstly and most importantly a batsman, and a bits and peices bowler at best. Much like Steve Waugh was except Symonds has the added dimension of spin, perhaps he is more like Mark W.

Thing about Bravo is that like Andrew Flintoff, Chris Cairns, Imran Kahn and Ian Botham he is a bowling allrounder.

But in Bravo's and the West Indies particular case I agree, he is the most talented option they have currently got batting "6"

New Zealand I disagree though, in my eyes it looks like they are just loading up with bowlers for the sake of having bowlers. And it is leading to bowlers who dont deserve to get a game being played that hardly get a bowl and offer little with the bat.
I dont understand with the limited population base that New Zealand has to work with, why Scott Styris is not in their test team.

And in England who are probably aiming for more than New Zealand's case, in my eyes it would look more like they do not have confidence in the 4 first choice bowlers they picked and require a spare.

I have a few veiws about England players currently

Sidebottom like Clark of Australia, very good but unfortunately selected to late in his career.
Anderson worth persisting with and improving, drop him and he will have the same problem as Sidebottom.
Flintoff needs to comeback solely on his bowling skills.
Panesar should be the one of the first 3-4 names picked on the England test selection sheet.
Strauss I used to be a big Bell fan for captaincy, but his tapering form has brought me back to Strauss or Pietersen as Captain, I would actualy like to see it happen in Englands upcoming series against South Africa.
Vaughan I would like to see him retained as an opener though (Strauss @ 3) but not as captain or vice captain.
Cook worth persisting with but only as an opener
Bell also worth persisting with and hopefully nail down the #5 spot
Pietersen going through a few growing pains but the current game plan does not seem to suit his more free flowing style, I think like Symonds 5-6 years ago too many people are in his ear about altering his style. Rather than helping KP it appears to be hindering him, go back to the "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle and I think the talents and game style that originally won him England selection will come back to his game. Might also be a good time to elevate him to vice-captain alongside Strauss.
Collingwood is the fire still in his belly, or has he burnt out ?
Ambrose another example of a keeper/batsmen who made his biggest impact just after joining the team, but has found it hard to produce with the bat since. I saw a discussion involving Ian Smith (ex Kiwi keeper), Michael Holding and Alec Stewart talking about England and its woe's finding the all encompasing Adam Gilchrist style keeper it was looking for the other night. What interested me the most was Stewart talking about the re-building of Prior as a keeper batsmen after his first stint in the England side, and at the rate Ambrose is slipping backwards I think that is where England will end up, rather than trying another keeper like Mustard.
Broad his current form is patchy but lets remember he is a development player. I personally would not drop him for Tremlett, Hoggard or Harmison (*in Harmisons current form, if he can recapture 2005 form thats different)
But if Flintoff or Jones hit their lofty previous peaks I would consider his spot fair game. But if it happens the good thing about him is he is young enough and hopefully hungry enough to have a brief spell in the wilderness to gather some strength, new tricks and consistency to make a better fist of his next stint in the squad. Rome was not built in a day, and as an Australian I can inform you nor was Brett Lee. Brett got sent back to the wilderness, rediscovered his desire to play at the top level and lifted his performance level's to new heights. The good thing about Broad like Lee is that they got their first taste at top level young enough, to take full advantage of being able to re-build after a set back.
But cripes sake drop Broad in the middle of Wimbledon common rather than the middle of the Sahara where you dropped Sidebottom Mark 1.

We can he got 1 wicket.

What if another West Indian batsmen played and they got another 95 runs ?

What if Hussey went on and got a slow hundred and Symonds didn't fire ?

What if one of the West Indies batsmen who could tweek the ball a bit came on instead of Jaggernaught and got 2 wickets.

At the end of the day they hardly used him. And I stand by my comments is a fifth bowler superfluous to the requirements of an international test side.

Much the same way 4 ruckmen would be superfluous to an Aussie Rules team, or 4 strikers would be superfluous to a soccer side. Add to that you are robbing midfeilders or defenders and most likely creating a deficiency somewhere else in your squad.

Well I'm not sure that Bravo is a bowling allrounder, he chips in but I think his greatest contributions to come will be with the bat. Suffice it to say, he can do both jobs pretty well.

Styris has retired, which is a pity.

I might agree if New Zealand had another batsman knocking on the door, but I'm not sure Elliot, Sinclair or Bell are any more worthy of selection as batsmen than O'Brien and Mills are as bowlers. Fortunately, Taylor and Flynn are both young, so is Ryder- and what's really fantastic is that Ryder looks like being a useful medium-pacer who could become a fifth bowler in his own right, as well as a top-notch batsman. Personally, I always thought Astle and McMillan were underbowled throughout their careers, and I hope they don't make the same mistake with Ryder.

Doubtful. It seems West Indies don't have a great deal of bench strength, so if the batsmen already in the side couldn't do the job, I fail to see how an inferior batsman could have made a contribution.

I don't think they really know how to use spinners. That's not Jaggernaught's fault.

I don't know anything about the AFL, but I played a bit of junior soccer, and I suspect you have more options with team make-up in soccer than you do in AFL. At least at our level, you could play a strong attacking line, a strong defensive line, or have more midfielders. If you're out to win games, then it strikes me that playing three forwards is a slightly riskier move, but more likely to win matches, especially if you can trust the defense, goalie and midfielders to prevent goals being scored against you. Playing three defenders, on the other hand, detracts from your chances of scoring goals, as there are less options in the opposition half when you're trying to score a goal yourself. At least, that's the way it was with us!

But in the case of the West Indies, they can play Bravo at 6 without weakening the batting lineup, and they can play the extra bowler without weakening the bowling lineup. Ultimately it's about what's successful. Four pace bowlers hasn't worked for the West Indians for years. What's wrong with trying a five-man attack, especially as the early indicators seem to be quite good?

And whatever you feel about the four-man-five-man issue, surely consistency in selection's a good thing? How are players going to develop (and I think Jaggernaught could develop into something quite good) if you play one match at a time?

I thought he had only retired from test cricket but was still available in ODI's
I know Chris Cairns had done that previously, but I thought that was a luxury with a national population smaller than Melbourne that the Kiwi's could not afford.
Allthough it must be taken into account that over the past 15 years the Kiwi's have concentrated a lot more heavilly on being succsesfull in ODI's rather than Test Cricket.
I supose you can only spread a limited amount of butter so far.

Might have been time to introduce a developing batsman

I'm a bit surprised, their team coach John Dyson was an ex N.S.W/Australian opening batsmen (*PS probably took the greatest catch ever captured on film in cricket). Considering he spent so many years on the best turning track in Australia, I would have thought he and Chanderpaul would have at least got together prior to and after play, plus during the lunch and tea breaks and discussed some tactical deployment of Jaggernaught.

The draw is not a likely option in Aussie Rules, you can win or you can lose. Test cricket with better drainage, quicker run rates, lights and adjustments of starting and finishing times. Is becoming more of a win or loss proposition and the frequency of draws is decreasing.

I know if you play 4 good tall ruckmen in Aussie Rules you more than likely increase your hit outs at stoppages and get some more marking power around the ground.
But you still can only have 18 players on the feild and 4 available to replace them (they can go on come off and go back on). Much like a cricket side can only have 11 players on the feild and one that can replace them as a feilder but cannot bat or bowl.

Thing is if I select 4 x 6-8 to 7 foot ruckmen, my opponents will probably kill me on the ground with a better balanced side with 2-3 rucks and an extra running type 6 foot midfeilder that I can not cover for speed or collecting ground balls.

Much the same as the English soccer fans would not send Peter Crouch out to shut down Christian Ronaldo in a world cup tie against Portugal.

Not much point kicking 4 goals in soccer if your opponents are going to score 6, likewise not much point loading up your bowling stocks so much that your batting is left vunerable.

In the Windies case I concede it is a definite may be. But in New Zealands case no, they just seem to be picking a low grade extra bowler for the hell of making up the numbers, and while they are proceding down this path I'm stuffed if I know why they dont at least pick a spinner. Because their spinner captain even with all these bowlers consideres he needs to bowl almost half the Kiwi balls in the match.

England also no, I think they are better than both the above. Englands biggest problem currently is with its batting, chopping a batsmen out will not enhance their results.

Bravo's initial and continuing slection to the WI was/is as a BATTING allrounder.

If you drop a bowler (who'd have gone on to have a batting average of 7-8) and play a batsman (who'd have gone on to have a batting average of 42-43) then for a weaker side like the WI (where all the frontline batsmen routinely bat twice) your side's totals will have (on average) increased by getting on for 70 runs / match.

Batting contributions will, by their very nature, be sporadic... but the odds of you posting a competitive total in any one game are quite clearly increased.

The tricky bit is not working out what you gain from the additional batsman... but working out what you lose with the bowler: that's tough, because you're in the realm of speculation and counterfactuals with the shift from a 4 man to a 5 man attack...

This is not disputing that the 5th bowler can bring a lot to the party (especially where the 5th bowler can act as a second, contrasting spinner on day 4 and 5 on pitches that favoured seamers in the first innings, or where highly variable performance levels might mean inability to "do a job" at any particular time can leave a captain in the lurch).