4 or 5 bowlers in the attack?

Now if Gordon was forumming at the moment he'd recall long discussions we had about the make up of Englands attack in 2005 but I thought i'd start another as i've seen it mentioned on here and in the lunch interval today Athers was discussing it with Langer & Tres in an Ashes preview.

Langer basically saying England should play their best 4 bowlers with Flintoff at 8 - and that Australia would not consider playing 5 bowlers even without Warne & McGrath.

I'm very flexible in my opinion on this as in my view it very much depends on the quality of bowlers you have - in 2005 we had 4 seamers all of whom were averaging below 29 in the previous 2 years of test cricket and Gilo as a holding bowler and I was fully behind the 5 man attack. I wanted however 4 bowlers in 2006/7 as we were simply picking Mahmood to make up the numbers rather than because he was good enough.

In 2009 ALL of our bowlers are pretty much averaging over 30 heading into this series, but will a 5 man attack succeed where a 4 man attack doesn't? Bresnan for instance hasn't exactly been overworked has he?

I'm still undecided on the way to go tbh.

My worry is that if we go with four bowlers, Bell starts.

Personally, I think our strongest team would probably be the one that's playing now, with Sidebottom (if fit) for Bresnan. That's a balanced attack, right and left arm swing from Jimmy and Sibo, Nip and Movement from Onions and Broad the enforcer.

Also, I think we're going to struggle more getting their batsmen out than playing their bowlers, so an extra wicket taking option will probably be mroe useful.

Sidders for Bres would leave a long tail though.

I think the only change will be Fred for Bres.

Flintoff,Anderson,Broad,Onions & Swann is not a bad attack at all - probably not an Ashes winning one but better than having the likes of Harmy stinking the place out.

Sidders isn't a bad number nine at all, averages close to twenty I think. I don't think Fred's batting is going to be all that reliable to be honest, either. I'll go with your team bearing in mind Freddie's Freddie and it's the ashes, but when he needs cutting open again Sidebottom should come in.

Onions has to be pole sitter right now I'd have thought - I'd be planning for life without Flintoff myself.

Six batsmen, one of them not being Bell, a proper wicket-keeper, not being the Gimpster, three seamers plus a spinner.

Five batsmen, two of the seamers and the spinner now already write their own name on to the teamsheet: -

Chef
Johann
Bops
KP
Colly
Broad
Swaaaaany
Jimmykins

That leaves three spots to fill.

England will probably pick a keeper who can't keep, and two bowlers, one of whom isn't required to bowl.

I'd pick one from the following for those three places: -

Shah or Patel
Ambrose, Foster or Read
Onions, Flintoff or Sid - the latter two having to prove both form and fitness before all reasonable doubt before even considering them for selection.

In the unlikely event of them seeing sense and picking six batsmen, unfortunately it will of course be farkin' Bell who gets the nod.

Crap selection will cost us the remote chance we hold of winning back the urn.

The perceived wisdom is "play two spiners" If that's the case, it has to be a five man attcak, otherwise, it's Colly coming on first change. No Brainer anyone?

Statisticians are adamant that historically teams with only four specialist bowlers have been just as effective as those with five.

Most critics seem to suggest that if four bowlers can't make effective inroads five won't.

Another way of looking at it is the question of whether or not the fifth bowler is at the expense of a specialist batsman, i.e. Flintoff batting at #6. Obviously this can work if he is in his career best form and his capable of playing matchturning innings such as in 2005. Too often though, the 'all-rounder' can turn out to be a nothing sort of player and affect the balance of the team, diluting the batting without strengthening the bowling. Read a player such as Ronald McDonald. It probably said more about how poorly SA played, rather than how strong overall we were that we were not compromised by his inclusion, despite the fact that another specialist bowler or batsman instead of him would have seemingly improved our team.

Red wrote:Statisticians are adamant that historically teams with only four specialist bowlers have been just as effective as those with five.

Most critics seem to suggest that if four bowlers can't make effective inroads five won't.

Apparently

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:Statisticians are adamant that historically teams with only four specialist bowlers have been just as effective as those with five.

Most critics seem to suggest that if four bowlers can't make effective inroads five won't.

Apparently

Profound.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:Statisticians are adamant that historically teams with only four specialist bowlers have been just as effective as those with five.

Most critics seem to suggest that if four bowlers can't make effective inroads five won't.

Apparently

Profound.

Extract from forum glossary.

Apparently (adv) A word used in net-forum-land by habitual bull-artists to cover the fact that they have no evidence to support whatever piece of low-rent gossip they're spreading, because they most likely just made it up.

Whatever the mix, England don't have the calibre of an Hawaii or Warne ... so stick with what's tried and tested.
ie., 4 quicks and a spinner.

Flintoff for Bresnam, 4 quicks plus Swann for the Ashes ...
Forget about Siders ... if (as expected) it's hot and sunny, he isn't going to swing the ball (his main attribute), and at 80mph will be a luxury IMO.

Johann
Chef
Bops
KP
Colly
Prior
Frederick
Swanny
Broadly
Onion rings
Jimmykins


On standy : Bresnan (not convinced); Rashid; Patel; Key; Read; Bell.

Here's a thought - if Patel's reckoned as being "fat" ... WTF does that make Bresnan ?

Merlin wrote:Whatever the mix, England don't have the calibre of an Hawaii or Warne ...

Nor do Aus, yet they only play 4 bowlers.

But we tend to ask for a few more overs from our trundlers like Pup, Roy or Ollie then you poms do, JKL, I'd say . . .

My response (per tac's) as well ... Oz turn to their second and third bowling choices for a decent spell (10 to 15 overs) far more often than England do with theirs. It's the different mentality IMO. Can't see England bowling either Colly or Bops or KP 15 to 20 overs each in a match!

Also, why compare to Oz ...why not set out our own stall rather than follow the Oz way?

Winning the match only happens by taking 20 wickets (generally)... in 4 quicks and a spinner I think England could dominate ... and in Onions specifically, I believe ,we could just have a SiJo replacement - both in ability and attitude - I can see him right in the Aussies faces 24/7.

Always been a 4 man bowling attack man (apart from 2005)

We certainly don't have their batting quality, so feel we need to bat deeper still.

We'll go with a 5 man attack whatever I think though...

We've done well with a four-man attack in the past - helped to have good bowlers such as Fraser, Caddy, Gough and Cork on form, though.

Go with three seamers and Swaaaaaany and a few overs from Bops / Wobbles / KP.

JKLever wrote:Always been a 4 man bowling attack man (apart from 2005) ..when England reclaimed the Ashes.
We certainly don't have their batting quality, so feel we need to bat deeper still.

We'll go with a 5 man attack whatever I think though...

Which explains the selectors mind-set.

Rob I wrote:We've done well with a four-man attack in the past - helped to have good bowlers such as Fraser, Caddy, Gough and Cork on form, though.

Go with three seamers and Swaaaaaany and a few overs from Bops / Wobbles / KP.

But when you have 4 of those who can bat a bit ... viz., Fred, Broad, Swann and Onions ... (good chance of 100/120 between them) ... why go for the extra batsman ?

Merlin wrote:

JKLever wrote:Always been a 4 man bowling attack man (apart from 2005) ..when England reclaimed the Ashes.
We certainly don't have their batting quality, so feel we need to bat deeper still.

We'll go with a 5 man attack whatever I think though...

Which explains the selectors mind-set.

Yet it was the quality of the bowler and their form at the time that reclaimed the Ashes. Not the fact it was a 5 man attack, clearly they forgot 2006/7!!

At the end of the day - it's what the selectors, the captain and the team have felt most comfortable with.

That happens to be a 5 man bowling attack - 4 quicks and a spinner - or, 3 quicks and 2 spinners, depending on the wicket.

Can't see that changing for the foreseeable ...... so best live with it!

As I say i'm undecided, let's see how happy they are with Prior at 6 after a few collapses in t'Ashes

Yeeouch mate ... and just when I was starting to like the Sussex gimp!

I'm more concerned about our bowling attack when we return to Oz. Maybe things will even up a bit from the last series.

DJ_Smerk wrote:I'm more concerned about our bowling attack when we return to Oz. Maybe things will even up a bit from the last series.

What tangent has the mentalist careered off on to this time?

Thing with 5 bowlers is that when things go well, you don't need the 5th one and if things are going badly then the 5th one is having little impact . . . I would think there are very few occasions on which the 5th selected bowler is the one to come on when the team is struggling and rip through the oppo batting . . .