4 or 5 bowlers in the attack?

tac wrote: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 . . .

The advocates of a 5 man attack say it can be more balanced with all bases covered and can prevent you having to bowl someone if they're having an off day...

That's when you use your dibbly-dobblers . . . besides, bowlers should have to stand up and be counted, not hidden on an off day . . .

I can see the purpose in 5 bowlers for a long series on flat tracks, just to control workload and prevent injury, but just to cover soemone having an off day seems like accepting mediocrity . . .

tac wrote: but just to cover soemone having an off day seems like accepting mediocrity . . .

Yup, and that's the argument against 5 bowlers in a nutshell.

Yeah, the thing is it may well be covering mediocrity - but that's no bad thing. At all. People like Warne and McGrath had scant off days - this isn't the case for most other bowlers. Hence, why not cover someone who looks like he's underperforming, but may well comeback the next day/session/innings.

It also affords the more express bowlers to go all out and not have to be burdened carrying the attack.

actually, Danny, it's more like encouraging mediocrity than just covering it . . .

Lots of people said a four man attack would be good for Harmy and make him stand up and take responsility. Look where that got us.

tac wrote:actually, Danny, it's more like encouraging mediocrity than just covering it . . .

Possibly, but what could be said is that all of our 4-prong had off days yet they still all averaged sub-30, so in that regard it worked - the only difference is we had a wankarse excuse for a spinner. With a better one, who knows what they could've done - Giles couldn't be trusted for a spell full-stop and hence the rested bowlers had to shoulder the load more.

In this case, we wouldn't have to flog Jimmy like he was last year and the year before, Flintoff would hopefully be given shorter spells and so forth.

Whether or not you have four or five bowlers depends on whetjer you have five or six batsmen. If you can't scrape up six batsmen you should probably go for the extra bowler.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

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?

Actually Bob if you let me finish, I believe I was referring to the bowling, where Australia no-longer have the uses of McGrath and Warne. It might even up some areas (where neither side has any World Greats in the bowling department). The coming Ashes, potentially has 'disaster' written all over it if we make dodgy choices, i.e. selection, although it seems we've got the majority of bowling decisions sorted, for now...

What we don't want to happen is another tremendous Ashes Victory and then all our players falling like flies afterwards and this whole debacle starting again in the lead up to the return Series, where we end up taking a watered down piss-poor attack like last time. (Bar Flintoff, Hoggard and Panesar at the time).

No tangent here mate, less of the mentalist stuff aswell, its better than being normal.

Silly me - not realising you hadn't finished, Smerky.

Still a rather bizarre tangent at this particular juncture even so.

England always get accused of not focussing enough on the present, and always looking ahead to the next Ashes series. You've just taken that to its logical extreme, by ignoring the Ashes series we are currently on the cusp of commencing - and looking ahead to the next one in 18 months time!

Mentalist.

If Flintoff's in the team you have to play a fifth bowler, one to cover up for his dodgy knee if it goes under, two to cover up for his dodgy batting lower down the order.

If you don't play Flintoff, I think you can play four.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:Silly me - not realising you hadn't finished, Smerky.

Still a rather bizarre tangent at this particular juncture even so.

England always get accused of not focussing enough on the present, and always looking ahead to the next Ashes series. You've just taken that to its logical extreme, by ignoring the Ashes series we are currently on the cusp of commencing - and looking ahead to the next one in 18 months time!

Mentalist.

What you say is true and I just hope our bowlers can retain consistency with fitness and form beyond this Ashes Series (which we're cusping), unlike 2005.

I think I'm saging my way around the general feeling of all England Cricket Fans.

I'm almost entirely convinced that England should ignore Flintoff for selection for the coming series - at least in the first instance.

a) He won't be fully match fit now whatever happens.
b) He'll probably break down.
c) He unbalances the side, apart from the 4/5 man attack debate, England continue to be obsessed with batting him at least two places too high in the order.
d) We are doing - and statistically have done for some time - very nicely without him.

I'd only consider him if he proves his fitness for Lancs over at least 4-6 weeks of cricket on the County treadmill, and the starting side in the series is failing and we're in need of a desperate last throw of the dice for a bit of the old magic.

Yeah, Flintoff should do what Vaughan failed to do and regain some form in the County game.

Get him away from the limelight of Test Cricket and let him hook, carve and smash some centuries to make him believe in his own batting again.


We need him as an Allrounder more than just a great bowler and an average bat. If he doesn't come through, we've got a multitude of other players goaling for that Allrounder spot such as Bopara, Swann, Broad, Bresnan and eventually Rashid.

I think it'll only take one more bad injury for Flintoff to start to questioning his own career and whether it's appropriate to carry on or not.

The conditions wont always be so bowler friendly, and the opposition batting wont always be as brittle as the Windies lineup. Prior is good enough to bat at 6. Without doubt, imo. If his batting ability allows us the luxury of playing 5 bowlers, then we should make the most of it.

Flintoff is anyway near fit, then he plays for me.

Prior,Flintoff,Broad,Swann is a pretty strong 6-9 battingwise...

Flontoff cannot play as part of a 4 man attack though.

He wouldn't be with that batting line up.

JKLever wrote:Flintoff is anyway near fit, then he plays for me.

Prior,Flintoff,Broad,Swann is a pretty strong 6-9 battingwise...

I just don't see what he brings any more.

His bowling has been functional rather than exceptional for some years now, and his batting poor. The myth of him being an inspirational figure that somehow draws the best out of everyone else around him and the team as a whole, is not borne out by our results with him in the side - which have been quite frankly nothing short of abysmal.

Whoever comes into the side is merely seen as keeping a place warm for Fred and it is counter productive to doing what is necessary, building a new side without him.

His bowling does not win matches, and in coming in at six as we all know he still would, his batting adds a fragility and a propensity to collapse which just does not seem to happen without him.

My feeling is that the rest of the attack tend to rise to the occasion when they've not got his broad shoulders to fall back on (or does it run deeper and darker than that, and he's become a disruptive influence?), and on that basis have checked on Jimmy Anderson's stats with and without Fred in the side. No doubt, there's other mitigating factors / excuses that others will point to, but this is how they come out: -

Overall - 128 wickets @ 33.91.
With Fred - 53 wickets @ 42.92.
Without Fred - 75 wickets @ 27.50.

As I say, I wouldn't discount him from the entire series, but I see no good reason whatsoever, beyond reputation and sentiment, for him starting it.

Time to move on for me.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

JKLever wrote:Flintoff is anyway near fit, then he plays for me.

Prior,Flintoff,Broad,Swann is a pretty strong 6-9 battingwise...

I just don't see what he brings any more.

Completely forget his batting - as a bowler he is still potentially one of our better bowlers. He has better control than all the rest put together. Forget Jimmy,Broad & Onions trashing the WI - this is Aus we're talking about and he's proven he can do it. Took a 5-fer in his last ODI don't forget.

Fred or Bres - no brainer.

If he's fit to bowl he gets selected, even if he is batting at 8 below Broad.

DJ_Smerk wrote:

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:

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?

Actually Bob if you let me finish, I believe I was referring to the bowling, where Australia no-longer have the uses of McGrath and Warne. It might even up some areas (where neither side has any World Greats in the bowling department). The coming Ashes, potentially has 'disaster' written all over it if we make dodgy choices, i.e. selection, although it seems we've got the majority of bowling decisions sorted, for now...

What we don't want to happen is another tremendous Ashes Victory and then all our players falling like flies afterwards and this whole debacle starting again in the lead up to the return Series, where we end up taking a watered down piss-poor attack like last time. (Bar Flintoff, Hoggard and Panesar at the time).

No tangent here mate, less of the mentalist stuff aswell, its better than being normal.

To be honest I'd take the ashes victory with any consequences at the moment . In 2005 we looked like potential world beaters but that isn't the case this time.

JKL - If it's Fred or Bresnan, then yes, obviously - provided the former is genuinely fit.

It wouldn't be that choice for me though, and moreover it is extremely unlikely that he will have sufficiently proven his fitness.

Brass Monkey wrote:

tac wrote:actually, Danny, it's more like encouraging mediocrity than just covering it . . .

Possibly, but what could be said is that all of our 4-prong had off days yet they still all averaged sub-30, so in that regard it worked - the only difference is we had a wankarse excuse for a spinner. With a better one, who knows what they could've done - Giles couldn't be trusted for a spell full-stop and hence the rested bowlers had to shoulder the load more.

In this case, we wouldn't have to flog Jimmy like he was last year and the year before, Flintoff would hopefully be given shorter spells and so forth.

Jimmy was also ruined by overwork in his first summer series v SA in 2003, Danny. We were so trashed by injuries he was out on his feet for the last two tests when he really should have been taken out of the firing line when Smit & Co had smashed him everywhere. Injury in Bangladesh that winter meant he was thrown back into the fray in the third test in SL, then bombed out to bring SiJo back for the WIndies tests.

Also, how many series has Freddy been flogged to death because Vaughan wouldn't use one bowler or another at various stages of matches.

Can't recall Fred being flogged around too many times to be honest, even when he has been overworked he has usually retained his control which can't be said about Jimmy.

Sorry vilks, you've misread me ........ I was talking merely about Fred being bowled to a standstill simply *because* he was able to retain control. The management regularly spoke of using him in bursts - then went on to have him bowling 8-10 over spells cuz one of the others went for 25 in their first three overs of a new spell.