"Four or Five Bowlers" (Revisited) - just thought I'd ask.

Backinthadeeeey, on C4ums Cricket, Gordon in Portsmouth used to be an ardent and regular champion of the view "four bowlers should always be enough - if they are not, those bowlers are not good enough". Some agreed, some partly agreed.

I was one of those who regularly didn't agree, on the grounds that: a. it depends on the conditions of the ground, track and the weather - sometimes in very bat-friendly conditions you need the variety and relief of a good fifth bowler, and b. it's not actually about "five bowlers" (hence the inverted commas in thread title), with a crocodile tail of rabbits - it's about having five players on your team who can bowl well, of a Test standard, all of whom (but perhaps one, max 2) should also be able to use a bat reasonably well. Also c. if the opposition batting ever gets its teeth in, any injury developing among your only four bowlers, and you may be utterly buggered for 600+ runs and a declaration.


Gordon's mantra arose at a time when Flintoff was regularly either injured or regularly making low scores with the bat, after England had tried loads of hoped-for "new Bothams" in the decade or so before him .... whereas Oz had more or less given up trying to find an all-rounder at 6, but were still lording it at the top of the international tree, essentially with six batsmen and a keeper-bat, and only four bowlers. It was this latter situation which provided Gordon with his strongest evidence that this was ALWAYS the way to go. (Although IN FACT, first the Waughs, then Katich and Clarke could all turn their arms over very competently and wicket-takingly if required, so it wasn't ever entirely just four bowlers.)


Since then, that situation has turned on its head. Australia have had Shane Watson. And England, since Flower's tenure at the latest, but even toawards the end of Fletch's reign, have ditched the all-rounder idea and put an out-and-out batsman at 6 (Bairstow most recently - before that Bell, who else? Shah, I think, and others. Bopara was an anomaly - though I am not sure he was bowled much when he was played in Tests (?).)

As Basil (I think it was) wittily noted the other night, Flower would now come out in a rash at the suggestion of playing five bowlers.


So, is the debate resolved - in favour of ONLY EVER FOUR BOWLERS (three quicks and spinner in most cases) ?

You could say the frequent knocks to Flintoff and Watson are proof that the all-rounder position almost never works in Test cricket - especially if that intended all-rounder is a quick. (I would suggest it's rather that Watson spent too long in the gym, and Flintoff too little there in the early years of his Test career: a point which Fred now concedes. Also that you tempt injury if you expect your all-rounder to be your leading strike bowler.)


The other new factor in England's case, I think, is Root. Yes, Root.

I like the way Root bowls, though he is a fledgeling spinner in international cricket terms. He gives it a proper flinging loop.

But best of all, if he keeps developing, England finally have their fully competent fifth bowler among the batsmen (I'd still prefer him at 6 ... ). And at that point Trott can trundle his dobbers as a change-ends bowler, relief bowler or hoped-for stand-breaker in wobbly conditions, without England relying on him, and Kev can be stood down as an emergency second spinner - though a further option if really required.

Australia have had a lot of back-up bowlers, though Clarke has bowled less and less (they even tout Warner ....) - I think above all, they hope STARC might make it as a #7 bat and bowler.


So. ONLY FOUR BOWLERS IN TESTS? What are anyone else's thoughts on or around this subject, as of now?

Never say never. I used to be an enthusiastic supporter of five bowlers, but that was when Freddie was in his pomp. His successor maybe in sight (Ben Stokes) but he's not performing well enough in both disciplines at the same time to come within a bull's roar of selection as a number six batsman/fourth change seamer.

So that's it - five bowlers on the back burner for the foreseeable future. Four plus Root and maybe Trott depending on the conditions. It's a pity that Bell gave up bowling - as he was handy at one time.

With what Bairstow's contributing we might as well replace him with a bowler who can bat.

My take on it nowadays would be perhaps when you have a genuine wicket-taking spinner like Swann, rather than the defensive mediocrity we had for most of the previous 25 years, there's less need for a fifth bowler. But in situations where the spinner is largely playing a holding role the fourth seamer can be useful. You could also ask the question of whether a specialist batsman at 6 is necessary if the top 5 and a quality keeper-batsman do their job properly...

beamer wrote:With what Bairstow's contributing we might as well replace him with a bowler who can bat.

My take on it nowadays would be perhaps when you have a genuine wicket-taking spinner like Swann, rather than the defensive mediocrity we had for most of the previous 25 years, there's less need for a fifth bowler. But in situations where the spinner is largely playing a holding role the fourth seamer can be useful. You could also ask the question of whether a specialist batsman at 6 is necessary if the top 5 and a quality keeper-batsman do their job properly...

I'll turn that around and say if four frontline bowlers do their job properly etc, etc...........

Basil wrote:

beamer wrote:With what Bairstow's contributing we might as well replace him with a bowler who can bat.

My take on it nowadays would be perhaps when you have a genuine wicket-taking spinner like Swann, rather than the defensive mediocrity we had for most of the previous 25 years, there's less need for a fifth bowler. But in situations where the spinner is largely playing a holding role the fourth seamer can be useful. You could also ask the question of whether a specialist batsman at 6 is necessary if the top 5 and a quality keeper-batsman do their job properly...

I'll turn that around and say if four frontline bowlers do their job properly etc, etc...........

Yeah, well I was turning it round from the usual argument which is the one you replied with...

It's all down to the individuals in any case and shouldn't be a pre-set formula. You don't pick bowlers for their batting, but then again you can't get away with a Caddick-Mullally-Giddins-Tufnell type tail. You don't pick batsmen for their bowling, but you need one of your top six at least to be able to turn his arm over from time to time. And if there's someone out there who can average low 30s with both bat and ball he's worth having.

Remember when Saj was plonked in at 8?

Not because he'd scored big in the CC mind - just because they had three bigger rabbits in the side.

Four should really be enough if they're all good enough. If the fifth specialist bowler is a valuable batsman, then why not.

In this series, with both teams' batting looking soft, as is the case with most other teams, it would be a luxury to have a fifth bowler (not considering a decent part timer as a fifth).

I suppose Oz are also hoping, if Starc doesn't cut it at 7, Smith can develop his batting AND bowling sufficiently to be an all-rounder (second spinner) at 6.

Just as long as they don't expect him to catch too many as well.

tricycle wrote:Four should really be enough if they're all good enough. If the fifth specialist bowler is a valuable batsman, then why not.

In this series, with both teams' batting looking soft, as is the case with most other teams, it would be a luxury to have a fifth bowler (not considering a decent part timer as a fifth).

The obverse of that argument (or irony) is that, given the way much of the batting at 6 has gone in this series, a good bowler with reasonable batting skills can't have done very much worse there. And in the rare case of a big innings total (Innings 1 at Manchester), might have cut the opposition total back a bit.

(Spesh seeing as they didn't use Root very much )

Yeah, but then England could've gone in with 8 bowlers and it wouldn't have changed the runs situation a great deal

beamer wrote:
My take on it nowadays would be perhaps when you have a genuine wicket-taking spinner like Swann, rather than the defensive mediocrity we had for most of the previous 25 years, there's less need for a fifth bowler. But in situations where the spinner is largely playing a holding role the fourth seamer can be useful. You could also ask the question of whether a specialist batsman at 6 is necessary if the top 5 and a quality keeper-batsman do their job properly...

This pretty much nails it. If you had a quality spinner who can attack and defend then 4 bowlers is best. It wouldn't work with Gilo though.

I suppose we're lucky that (with Bresnan fit) we have an 8, 9 and 10 capable of getting test match 50s and we have a more than useful offie in Joe Root, so the allrounder argument is largely academic.

Basil wrote:I suppose we're lucky that (with Bresnan fit) we have an 8, 9 and 10 capable of getting test match 50s and we have a more than useful offie in Joe Root, so the allrounder argument is largely academic.

Yeah, we'd all like a multi-skilled cartoon superhero who can turn the match with bat or ball in a session, but with the players we have who can contribute outside of their main discipline we don't need to desperately chase such a player as we have done at times in the past.

beamer wrote:

Basil wrote:I suppose we're lucky that (with Bresnan fit) we have an 8, 9 and 10 capable of getting test match 50s and we have a more than useful offie in Joe Root, so the allrounder argument is largely academic.

Yeah, we'd all like a multi-skilled cartoon superhero who can turn the match with bat or ball in a session, but with the players we have who can contribute outside of their main discipline we don't need to desperately chase such a player as we have done at times in the past.

Seeing as we have 2 wicketkeepers in the team, would it be worth rotating them too? Prior is the better keeper, but what about Bairstow taking one session, or one hour in the field to give Prior a rest now and again?

Well I've never seen a keeper rotation system within a match, other than the very rare occasion where a keeper has a bowl (Dhoni and Taibu are the two that come to mind).

I guess it's a concentration thing, you have to "get your eye in" as a keeper and if you chop and change it's the equivalent of having new batsmen in rather than established partnerships, so more likelihood of chances going down and byes being conceded.

Gary 111 wrote:

beamer wrote:

Basil wrote:I suppose we're lucky that (with Bresnan fit) we have an 8, 9 and 10 capable of getting test match 50s and we have a more than useful offie in Joe Root, so the allrounder argument is largely academic.

Yeah, we'd all like a multi-skilled cartoon superhero who can turn the match with bat or ball in a session, but with the players we have who can contribute outside of their main discipline we don't need to desperately chase such a player as we have done at times in the past.

Seeing as we have 2 wicketkeepers in the team, would it be worth rotating them too? Prior is the better keeper, but what about Bairstow taking one session, or one hour in the field to give Prior a rest now and again?

Not sure that would work, I think it would disrupt the concentration to keep switching roles. As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Prior is rested for The Oval as I have a gut feeling that he's not fit.

If Prior's not fit, would they give Jonny B the gloves, or call up Beddy or Interesting or someone else?

beamer wrote:If Prior's not fit, would they give Jonny B the gloves, or call up Beddy or Interesting or someone else?

I honestly don't know - are the keeping skills for Buttler, Bairstow or Kieswetter up to it yet?

Can't imagine a Read, Foster or Ambrose recall. It's been so long it's hard to know who really is next in line.

If it's just a one-off replacement, they may opt for an experienced player rather than 'the next cab off the rank'. Foster or Read? Ambrose seems to have disappeared.

Yes, Chris Read. Well overdue a recall.

But sadly there's no chance. If Prior was injured then it would be valuable experience for some young buck. Davies quite probably, or Ickle Jimmy with Jonny Knicks keeping.

Yeah, as the series isn't in the balance there's no reason to call up a veteran as a one-off. If it was a decider, it might have made sense.

Should have mentioned the South African angle.

Despite the occasional injury niggle (whether related to being asked to bowl more than a couple of overs, I don't know), J Kallis is of course an outstanding case in point of one of the "batsmen" also being an admirably skilled "fifth bowler" (/"fourth seamer").

Smith used to turn his arm over with a few offbreaks, but not that often, and - presumably because of injuries and injury concerns - hasn't really done the sixth bowler bit for some time. Duminy on the other hand, when considered good enough to bat, has often done more than fill in.

So SAf have been well-served in the all-rounder spot, provided Kallis has not had to bowl too often, too many overs.

It's quite simple - if you can't cobble together four bowlers that can be relied upon, you go to five bowlers.

The sixth batsman and fifth bowler are both a luxury, really - you go with which you need most, bearing in mind the quality of your specialists and what you can get out of your non-specialists. If you can find a player capable of filling both roles, so much the better...