Four or five bowlers in Tests?

(Since Gordon has been around ...)

FWIW, my views.

1. You should not be dogmatic.

It depends on pitch and other (weather) conditions, state and strength of your main bowlers, merit of your back-up bowlers, strength and resolve of your batting, closeness of matches to each other (e.g. back-to-back) ... and to an extent the series situation, and the batting ability of your keeper.

Many variables there. ...


2. Five bowlers - including one all-rounder and at least one other bowler who can use a bat and another who can hold one - should to my mind be the norm, rather than the exception.

In other words, I think I believe the reverse of Gordon (rule v exception).


3. This is more likely to be true on hard and unremitting pitches for bowlers. (See present Test)

However, if the pitch gives the bowlers a lot of encouragement (bouncy, uneven, grassy ...) and batting difficult, four bowlers might be considered. Since you may well need to beef up the batting in that case, and leave the party to four happy bowlers and one or two decent relief bowlers as and when.


4. Any hint of physical unfitness - known in advance or emerging in the Test match - leaves four (or rather three) bowlers as a potentially suicidal policy.



In a specific case, Vaughan's retirement from bowling leaves England shorter than it would have in back-up bowling. Kev is not much more than an occasional bowler, until and unless he practises again. Bell serves them up a bit.

Not as a kneejerk reflex, but as a tendency, I would look to play Fred for an out-of-sorts Colly (yes, I know he can sort of bowl) and try out SiJo if SiBo is even slightly crocked.

I would give Ambrose one more Test to produce something with the bat. At 6.

Colly might have to replace Mick soon, however. ...

My rule on this is you only pick 5 bowlers if they are good enough.

No point in picking some random like we did down under just to fill the '5 bowler' quota...

If 4 bowlers can't bowl out the opposition then the 5th as Joe Ordinary isn't going to either IMO

Giles as the 5th bowler was there to rest the 4 seamers in 2005 whilst the 5th bowler was a seamer in 2006/7 and barely bowled.

As for your Ambrose at 6 idea, you are clearly on drugs...

Insanity. The obvious thing to do would be going back to iron gloves. Fred at 7 and Broad at 8.

Brass Monkey wrote:Insanity. The obvious thing to do would be going back to iron gloves. Fred at 7 and Broad at 8.

Yeah. Starting to think that's the only way to make it work.

The only way it can work is id Flintoff is good enough to bat at 6.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Insanity. The obvious thing to do would be going back to iron gloves. Fred at 7 and Broad at 8.

Yeah. Starting to think that's the only way to make it work.

Aye, and with Fred amongst the runs again ... it could work.
So ... have 4 quicks and a tweaker.
Plenty of permutation.

I think you should definitely pick five bowlers if you can.

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Prior
Broad
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

Being the obvious side as suggested throughout this thread. I don't agree that Flintoff should bat at 7, as you can see, but it doesn't really matter in the grand scale of things whether he bats 7 or 8; he'll still make jack.

Prior isn't good enough to bat at 6.

He is with Broad & Flintoff behind him.

Where he's not good enough is in actually catching the farking thing.

taipan wrote:Prior isn't good enough to bat at 6.

Much better.

JKLever wrote:He is with Broad & Flintoff behind him.

Where he's not good enough is in actually catching the farking thing.

One word.

BS

JKLever wrote:He is with Broad & Flintoff behind him.

Where he's not good enough is in actually catching the farking thing.

If so, am I the one on drugs?

A batsman who needs two supports doesn't sound like a batsman worth playing on the basis of his crap keeping. Or am I missing something?

taipan wrote:

JKLever wrote:He is with Broad & Flintoff behind him.

Where he's not good enough is in actually catching the farking thing.

One word.

BS

S'my opinion - clearly he's the best batsman out of all the wk candidates. And the worst keeper too...

taipan wrote:

JKLever wrote:He is with Broad & Flintoff behind him.

Where he's not good enough is in actually catching the farking thing.

One word.

BS

That's two capital letters ... but get the drift.

Prior is sh!te ... Hove and Sussex are much better suited to his finer ways.

PeterCS wrote:

JKLever wrote:He is with Broad & Flintoff behind him.

Where he's not good enough is in actually catching the farking thing.

If so, am I the one on drugs?

A batsman who needs two supports doesn't sound like a batsman worth playing on the basis of his crap keeping. Or am I missing something?

That's my point, if he cannot hold down a place in the top 6 on his batting alone, it is not a good idea.

Neither can Flintoff as of now. IMO prior can do as good a job as Collingwood has at number 6 for the past year.

And Pete - you suggested Ambrose at 6 FFS!

His Test average is 40. He was one of our top three/four best batsman whilst he was in the team. It hardly speaks of a guy who's totally out of his depth. I personally think he's good enough to bat at 6, it's purely a keeping problem.

Augustus wrote:His Test average is 40.

Charlie, you want to take this one?

taipan wrote:

Augustus wrote:His Test average is 40.

Charlie, you want to take this one?

Aye, means jack really..... However to be fair to Prior, he was only dropped because of his Iron hands, and not because of his batting, which in S/L was pretty good!!!

If Flintoff plays in a 5 bowler strategy, then Prior IMO has to be our keeper, as Ambrose is never a number 6 and in poor form, whilst Prior is capable of averaging 40 in tests, which although below par these days is good enough with Flints and braod at 7 and 8.

*again I feel dirty*

Give Terror the gloves

holcs wrote:

taipan wrote:

Augustus wrote:His Test average is 40.

Charlie, you want to take this one?

If Flintoff plays in a 5 bowler strategy, then Prior IMO has to be our keeper, as Ambrose is never a number 6 and in poor form, whilst Prior is capable of averaging 40 in tests, which although below par these days is good enough with Flints and braod at 7 and 8.

Which is all I said really

And I recognised Prior as complete dump with the mitts.

Our current number 6 has averaged 30 for over a year. An average of 40 would be a considerable improvement.

Augustus wrote:Our current number 6 has averaged 30 for over a year. An average of 40 would be a considerable improvement.

Yup, yup and yup again!!!!

JKLever wrote:

holcs wrote:

taipan wrote:

Augustus wrote:His Test average is 40.

Charlie, you want to take this one?

If Flintoff plays in a 5 bowler strategy, then Prior IMO has to be our keeper, as Ambrose is never a number 6 and in poor form, whilst Prior is capable of averaging 40 in tests, which although below par these days is good enough with Flints and braod at 7 and 8.

Which is all I said really

And I recognised Prior as complete dump with the mitts.

Steve Snell should be England's new keeper.