Two years ago with a series to draw level the Aussies made their final error of tour riddled with them. Going into a must win Test match they played four bowlers. One who had just come back from injury ( Mcgrath). Once England had won the toss on a batting strip like this one the task was near impossible.
England have repeated the error. Taken no risks played the same side no extra bowler and have payed the price. More than likely by lunch on the 2nd day the series will be India's.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

In fairness... even a 10 man attack would face a near-impossible task on days one and two of this Oval pitch: the only thing that EVER redeems the Oval is dampness and a cloudy sky... and the moment that is absent the very notion of a contest between bat and ball is gone - and the Surrey Loam ensures the surface remains bland for the full 5 days!

Any competent batting side ought to be batting for 5-6 sessions with ease!

With that said... it is always a two spinner pitch... and so long as England are going to persist with picking a batsman to wear the gloves they might as well go for someone like Rashid at 7 in this situation. It's not as if weakening the batting should matter on such a bland pitch... and the experience would do him good!

ps. I don't think picking Rashid would significantly change the odds on another bore-draw game or massively increase the contest between bat and ball... but games where a draw is pretty much inevitable are ideal opportunities to blood academy players... and an opportunity has been missed.

I think the only reason for playing four bowlers is if you know who is going to win the toss or if the groundsmen leaves a covering of grass on the pitch.
So one you don't know who is going to win the toss. The groundsmen has not left grass on the pitch. So you need to win the match is it not logical to play a fifth bowler?

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

All depends on the quality of the 5th bowler. If the all rounder in question is not remotely up to test standard (which the aforementioned Rashid currently isn't) then there is absolutely no point in dropping a frontline batsmen for someone who's not going to be good enough to make an impact in either department. Remember the good old days from the 90's when we were 1-0 down and used to drop the blameless Russell hand Stewart the gloves and pick the extra bowler (usually Chris Lewis ) who could bat a bit. Never once worked.

Play Broad drop Bell.
I am not saying this is a good idea in general it is just the circumstances that you need to win.
If a football side are 2-0 down from the 1st leg you don't play your normal options. If things aren't going well you bring on more attacking options.
Now in cricket you don't have subs so you start with attacking options. And at the Oval in this context you need 5 bowlers.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction

What an amusing little thread

It's England's batting which has been poor in this series (and going back to the Ashes), been brittle for a while now. The last thing we should be doing is going back to five specialist batsman currently. As for Rashid, well that's rapidly becoming a forum joke. Keep repeating it to yourself - "he's not ready!". Take him as a 3rd spinner to Sri Lanka - yes. Make his debut against a highly verbally competitive Indian side boasting Tendulkar, Laxman and Dravid in a season where he goes for 4 an hour regularly - no.

It did work occasionally to drop Russell and bring in Stewart in the 90's, but it smacked of desperation. We did it against the Windies at the Oval in 1991, so desperate we brought back Botham as well It worked in a test in Australia as well I seem to recall. Anyway, it is desperate and we can't afford to lose the runs a front line batsman would bring on top of the runs Indian's front line batsman make after Prior has inevitably dropped them.

__________________
Freddie Flintoff=God

The bowlers really did well.
I thought of this one about taking a front line batsmen. Of course you are right but you have got to weigh that up against the history of the Oval a graveyard for bowlers. And you needed to win.
Once I heard who won the toss and that there were four bowlers well you had to back the Indian's. Its only the Genius of Warne who as a spinner can be near effective as a spinner on the first day. So Panesar is irrelevent for the first day ( Indian's play spinner well). That leaves it to three seamers and you have to win?
Wouldn't it be better had Vaughan been able to turn to Broad?
The cupboard was bear by 5:00 PM yesterday.

__________________
"Checkout the big brain on Brett" Pulp Fiction