England v West Indies, 2nd Test - Trent Bridge

First topic message reminder :

England unchanged. Rampaul and Shillingford in for the Windies.

Windies win the toss and will bat. A great toss to win - runs galore today.

Well not sure if id go that far- because bres was possibly our best player this test- therefore if he was our no.4 bowling option he may not have had the chance..

However i think england would win plenty of games with only 10 players- that extra spot isnt really needed.. We should just field a smaller side and stick it to the rest of the world

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:On the 5th bowler thing England have only conceeded 600 runs in a match once in nearly 3 years now (606 vs Sri lanka) on a flat lords picth last summer....almost all of those games they played 4 bowlers.

The last time they consistently selected a 5 man attack (and collingwood as 6th) was the Aus series in 2009...where they gave away over 600 runs in 3 matches. Aus scored 674 batting second in Cardiff.


5 bowlers is not a magic bullet.

Do you have any stats on when 5 bowlers worked well? That could set forth a decent debate. Just cherry picking stats to suit one pov is not very useful really....

I don't think 5 bowlers is a silver bullet, it's just better than watching Trott and Pietersen try and give the 3 seamers a break.....for (on average) an increase of about 10 more runs! In fact, I'd reckon if we have FINN as the 3rd choice seamer, putting Bresnan in at 7 (Prior at 6) rather than Morgan or Bopara or Bairstow etc would give us MORE runs....

I don't have stats on when 5 bowlers have worked well, but historically England have done well in the ashes when they have used 5 specialist bowlers. 1985 when we used 3 seamers and 2 spinners, 2005 when we used 4 seamers and a spinner and in 2009 when we used a 5 man attack again.

2011?

mystiroakey wrote:Well not sure if id go that far- because bres was possibly our best player this test- therefore if he was our no.4 bowling option he may not have had the chance..

However i think england would win plenty of games with only 10 players- that extra spot isnt really needed.. We should just field a smaller side and stick it to the rest of the world

West Indies are already leading the way in this area by only picking 5 competitive players.

mystiroakey wrote:2011?

That was a one off.

to lead in the way- you need to win boycotdude.

a one of but the most recent series

mystiroakey wrote:to lead in the way- you need to win boycotdude.

a one of but the most recent series

It may have been the most recent series but it was still a one-off.

yeps you is correct on that

gboycottnut wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:On the 5th bowler thing England have only conceeded 600 runs in a match once in nearly 3 years now (606 vs Sri lanka) on a flat lords picth last summer....almost all of those games they played 4 bowlers.

The last time they consistently selected a 5 man attack (and collingwood as 6th) was the Aus series in 2009...where they gave away over 600 runs in 3 matches. Aus scored 674 batting second in Cardiff.


5 bowlers is not a magic bullet.

Do you have any stats on when 5 bowlers worked well? That could set forth a decent debate. Just cherry picking stats to suit one pov is not very useful really....

I don't think 5 bowlers is a silver bullet, it's just better than watching Trott and Pietersen try and give the 3 seamers a break.....for (on average) an increase of about 10 more runs! In fact, I'd reckon if we have FINN as the 3rd choice seamer, putting Bresnan in at 7 (Prior at 6) rather than Morgan or Bopara or Bairstow etc would give us MORE runs....

I don't have stats on when 5 bowlers have worked well, but historically England have done well in the ashes when they have used 5 specialist bowlers. 1985 when we used 3 seamers and 2 spinners, 2005 when we used 4 seamers and a spinner and in 2009 when we used a 5 man attack again.

The difference then of course was England had a bowler who would get picked on his bowling alone who they swore blind was a test 6. No-ones going to try and pretend that of Woakes on either count.
Their effectiveness of their and results have been better playing a 4 man attack than a 5 man one during the last 3 years, which is also their best run ever. The 5 man attack really can down to not trusting certain players to be able to bowl long spells and stay fit/mentally switched for a whole game, and Vaughns preference.
Most test sides in history have only had 4 proper bowlers. England are perhaps a bit odd in only having someone of Trotts ability as their main option bowler, but as was shown in this test its rarely been a serious problem for them to take wickets with the 4 man unit.
The seamers now are fitter, less injury prone, less reliant on pace, mentally tougher, and have a greater range of balls and ability to change style than the Flintoff gang had. In Swann they have a spinner whos proven he can take wickets anywhere.
Playing 5 bowlers would most likely be done to get a second (left arm) spinner in.

at home playing 5 bowlers is pointless, however playing on sub-contient i feel 5 bowlers are needed.

The common point that the 1985, 2005 and 2009 Ashes teams had was an all rounder. England don't have an all rounder worthy of batting 6 at the moment, and I don't think Bresnan and Prior at 6 and 7 is good enough to get enough runs consistently. Prior is a good 7, leave him there. He won't get the same freedom at 6 as he does at 7, leave him there. And Bres is fine as an 8, don't give him the added responsibility of batting at 7.

What is the English obsession with 5 bowlers? We are number 1 in the world, and are playing really well! Just leave it. The only place we struggled was in the UAE and that wasn't because we didn't play 5 bowlers.

JDizzle wrote:The common point that the 1985, 2005 and 2009 Ashes teams had was an all rounder. England don't have an all rounder worthy of batting 6 at the moment, and I don't think Bresnan and Prior at 6 and 7 is good enough to get enough runs consistently. Prior is a good 7, leave him there. He won't get the same freedom at 6 as he does at 7, leave him there. And Bres is fine as an 8, don't give him the added responsibility of batting at 7.

What is the English obsession with 5 bowlers? We are number 1 in the world, and are playing really well! Just leave it. The only place we struggled was in the UAE and that wasn't because we didn't play 5 bowlers.

What is the obsession with playing a below average batsman just because we've won in the past with 3 seamers? Works both ways Dizzle...

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:

JDizzle wrote:The common point that the 1985, 2005 and 2009 Ashes teams had was an all rounder. England don't have an all rounder worthy of batting 6 at the moment, and I don't think Bresnan and Prior at 6 and 7 is good enough to get enough runs consistently. Prior is a good 7, leave him there. He won't get the same freedom at 6 as he does at 7, leave him there. And Bres is fine as an 8, don't give him the added responsibility of batting at 7.

What is the English obsession with 5 bowlers? We are number 1 in the world, and are playing really well! Just leave it. The only place we struggled was in the UAE and that wasn't because we didn't play 5 bowlers.

What is the obsession with playing a below average batsman just because we've won in the past with 3 seamers? Works both ways Dizzle...

And that is the crucial point. Can England afford to give a place to a player who bats at number 6 who isn't scoring many runs and doesn't do any bowling.

I'm not saying stick with Bairstow if he doesn't score runs, but he deserves at least the next Test to stay in the side. And five bowlers, it hasn't worked for England in recent years. I don't agree with it unless you have a genuine batsmen who can bat in the top 6 and bowl like a 2005 Freddie or Kallis. I remember when England played 5 bowlers in Bangladesh when they lost toured there and the 5th bowler didn't bowl enough overs to justify his inclusion, the overs he bowled could have easily been covered by Trott and/or KP.

And the obsession with playing 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers is that this England sides biggest weakness is their batting, not their bowling. So if you have 5 batsmen, 4 bowlers and 1 keeper, for me you should pick a player who will help you improve on your biggest weakness, which for England is their batting so they should pick a batsman rather than a 5th bowler.

JDizzle wrote:I'm not saying stick with Bairstow if he doesn't score runs, but he deserves at least the next Test to stay in the side. And five bowlers, it hasn't worked for England in recent years. I don't agree with it unless you have a genuine batsmen who can bat in the top 6 and bowl like a 2005 Freddie or Kallis. I remember when England played 5 bowlers in Bangladesh when they lost toured there and the 5th bowler didn't bowl enough overs to justify his inclusion, the overs he bowled could have easily been covered by Trott and/or KP.

And the obsession with playing 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers is that this England sides biggest weakness is their batting, not their bowling. So if you have 5 batsmen, 4 bowlers and 1 keeper, for me you should pick a player who will help you improve on your biggest weakness, which for England is their batting so they should pick a batsman rather than a 5th bowler.

Good points, but let me use an NFL phrase. In the draft they talk about taking the BPA. Best Player Available. This is why I'd have Finn, especially for the South African series. If we had a stand-out, no brainer batsman / all rounder for # 6, then fair enough, we go with your theory. But we don't, so let's not waste the spot. Use the best man who is sitting chomping at the bit.....

Come in Mr Finn....

bresnan plus broad is like two very good bolwers(one top 5 in the world , one top 15 in the world) plus toghether the equivelant of a good allrounder with the bat- so its like we are not down by playing finn anyway- add swann who can also bat and we have a long tail even with 5 bowlers.

gone are the days when england bowlers cant bat and everything is about botham or flinty

Tim Bresnan (I think) has a better batting and bowling average than Sir Fred of Lancashire so let's move Prior up to 6, Bresnan up to 7, put Finn in the team and be reassured that we have the best bowling depth in the World. Looking at the team, it's most likely that Strauss will be the next to retire so let's look at developing a new opener.

2 decent tail-enders does not equal a batsman, in the same way that in a match 2 50s is not the same as a hundred. You can argue all you like that Prior is a 6 and a half, Bresnan and Broad are 7 and a halves so together it's like playing a 6, 7, 8, it isn't.

All of the most successful sides in the history of the game have been built around 4 excellent world class bowlers.

I'm like JD, I don't get this (purely English) obsession with playing 5 bowlers. I also agree entirely with JD in that Prior would have less freedom and hence probably play less well at 6 than at 7. Australia understood this with Gilchrist.

England have been a much better side since Flintoff retired - part of that is because the bowlers have improved, part of that is because Flintoff for all his talent dragged the team in the wrong direction too often, but part of it is because the balance of the side is a lot better. Apart from 3 years in his career Flintoff was for the most part not fit enough to bowl as part of a 4 man attack or good enough to bat at 6.

And finally I'm also with JD and I think PSW: the 5th bowler if picked won't bowl much unless things go badly. It was one thing when you had Flintoff, Harmison, Jones, Hoggard and Giles - the first 3 couldn't be relied on to bowl long spells and the latter was nowhere near Swann's ability and if he was got after then you possibly needed the 4 others; really only Hoggard was of the workhorse variety. Anderson, Broad, Bresnan and now Finn (England have done a fantastic job with him) are all much fitter.

Duty281 wrote:Tim Bresnan (I think) has a better batting and bowling average than Sir Fred of Lancashire so let's move Prior up to 6, Bresnan up to 7, put Finn in the team and be reassured that we have the best bowling depth in the World. Looking at the team, it's most likely that Strauss will be the next to retire so let's look at developing a new opener.

Well if indeed Bresnan has a better batting average than Sir Fred of Lancashire then it is a no-brainer. Bresnan should bat at 7 with Prior moving up to bat at 6. As for developing a new specialist opener for when Strauss retires, what about trying Joe Denly?

If England (which they really need to sooner or later) want to start looking at a new opener then make him the 6th batsman, coming in at 3. Dont rest Cook and put Bresnan at 7 to put the new kid under ridiculous pressure

England wont drop Bairstow for the next game anyway. If he doesnt make runs they will probably go back to Bopara, but at least he will have had a fair run in the side...and they will know what he needs to work on.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:If England (which they really need to sooner or later) want to start looking at a new opener then make him the 6th batsman, coming in at 3. Dont rest Cook and put Bresnan at 7 to put the new kid under ridiculous pressure

England wont drop Bairstow for the next game anyway. If he doesnt make runs they will probably go back to Bopara, but at least he will have had a fair run in the side...and they will know what he needs to work on.

If England want an all-rounder to bat at 6, what about Graham Napier?

I must say I belong to the Mike and JD school of thinking here: if you need five bowlers to bowl sides out, they've probably scored too many runs for you to win the test anyway. I'm not saying there aren't cases where it's a good idea (indeed the last time England did it I thought it a good idea on the ultra-flat Bangladeshi pitches), but in general four bowlers should be enough to take 20 wickets. Indeed it has been enough for England since Flintoff's retirement. The tests they've lost have been down to the batting, not the bowling.

Trouble is, Botham was good enough to bat 6 and be a great bowler too, and England spent (too) many years after his retirement looking for a replacement. Flintoff was that man for a couple of years only really (03-05 he was good enough to bat 6), and hence why England are in fact now a better team than they were with him in it. Bresnan for all his qualities is as Mike says a 7-and-a-half, and I agree with those saying Prior is better at 7 as he can play with more freedom there. If you have a guy good enough to bat in the top 6 and be a "main" bowler as well, great! If not, don't create problems where there aren't any.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I must say I belong to the Mike and JD school of thinking here: if you need five bowlers to bowl sides out, they've probably scored too many runs for you to win the test anyway. I'm not saying there aren't cases where it's a good idea (indeed the last time England did it I thought it a good idea on the ultra-flat Bangladeshi pitches), but in general four bowlers should be enough to take 20 wickets. Indeed it has been enough for England since Flintoff's retirement. The tests they've lost have been down to the batting, not the bowling.

Trouble is, Botham was good enough to bat 6 and be a great bowler too, and England spent (too) many years after his retirement looking for a replacement. Flintoff was that man for a couple of years only really (03-05 he was good enough to bat 6), and hence why England are in fact now a better team than they were with him in it. Bresnan for all his qualities is as Mike says a 7-and-a-half, and I agree with those saying Prior is better at 7 as he can play with more freedom there. If you have a guy good enough to bat in the top 6 and be a "main" bowler as well, great! If not, don't create problems where there aren't any.

If England are looking for a player who is good enough to bat in the top 6 and also be a "main" bowler as well, England's selectors should look at Graham Napier.

can people stop assuming there is no problem- the problem is 6- bairstow isnt doing much and mogs was a complete waste of time.

We are not talking about a perfect world scenario- we are talking about the current england team.

why have a batsman just to have a batsman in the team to fullfill this ideal of only haveing 4 bowlers when the batsman cant bat??

Bairstow's had two innings, surely too early to say? Yes England have a problem with n°6 but let's not forget Morgan made runs there last summer (including 80-odd in the second test against SL which dug England out of a hole) and it was only in UAE that he failed quite so dismally. Result: England didn't score enough runs and were whallopped.

mystiroakey wrote:can people stop assuming there is no problem- the problem is 6- bairstow isnt doing much and mogs was a complete waste of time.

We are not talking about a perfect world scenario- we are talking about the current england team.

why have a batsman just to have a batsman in the team to fullfill this ideal of only haveing 4 bowlers when the batsman cant bat??

What about recalling Anthony McGrath to bat at 6?

i am happy to give bairstow more goes, i am happy to try other bats- however this is the last test before SA- that is the proper test- we could well need 11 players not 10, and we dont have any games to proove what is the best set up- so it could be better just to go with the best 11 best test players

I have just been watching the Sky Sports highlights programme this evening and at the end of the programme in which they did the Sky Sports verdict thing, the firey Bob Willis mentioned 2 key points. Firstly that it was utterly ridiculous that England are even considering resting some of their senior bowlers for the final test V West Indies. Secondly England should drop Bairstow and bring in Finn if they are wanting to look at how other bowlers will do before the South Africa test series starts.

6 is is the issue and has been for some time. As much as i really liked Mogs, he never ever convinced me that he was a test batsman, more for the shorter version of the game. I honestly think that the England management spent to much time trying to develope him into a test batsman and missed the opportunity to try someone new.

I would still give Bairstow a chance to see what he can do but right now he looks like a carbon copy of Mogs to be honest.

gboycottnut wrote:I have just been watching the Sky Sports highlights programme this evening and at the end of the programme in which they did the Sky Sports verdict thing, the firey Bob Willis mentioned 2 key points. Firstly that it was utterly ridiculous that England are even considering resting some of their senior bowlers for the final test V West Indies. Secondly England should drop Bairstow and bring in Finn if they are wanting to look at how other bowlers will do before the South Africa test series starts.

If they want to look at how Finns going thats a good idea. If they want to give Bairstow a chance because they have a 6 4 split in mind then it isnt.

Not sure I follow the reasons put forward by some to keep Prior at seven cos it gives him "more freedom". If he keeps playing cameos when runs are needed - as they were in both first innings of this series - then praps it's time to give him responsibility and bat him at six.
IMHO we're England are "getting away" with playing only four bowlers due to the general incompetence of the opposition. There is no reason why Prior should not bat at six and for England to play five bowlers.
They are certainly going to need five bowlers when they play South Africa who are bound to have a determined go at Swann to upset the balance if England go in with only four bowlers.
You're also taking a chance with injuries if you start with only four bowlers. The risk of injury is gonna be greater if there is a heavy workload as there is bound to be in the SA Tests.

sirfredperry wrote:Not sure I follow the reasons put forward by some to keep Prior at seven cos it gives him "more freedom". If he keeps playing cameos when runs are needed - as they were in both first innings of this series - then praps it's time to give him responsibility and bat him at six.
IMHO we're England are "getting away" with playing only four bowlers due to the general incompetence of the opposition. There is no reason why Prior should not bat at six and for England to play five bowlers.
They are certainly going to need five bowlers when they play South Africa who are bound to have a determined go at Swann to upset the balance if England go in with only four bowlers.
You're also taking a chance with injuries if you start with only four bowlers. The risk of injury is gonna be greater if there is a heavy workload as there is bound to be in the SA Tests.

I have to fully agree with that fact that England's 4 bowler strategy has succeeded more times than not due to the general incompetence of the opposition players to bat properly at a test match level. For example Pakistan were missing a couple of their senior players in 2010 when they batted poorly against England, and again the same thing has happened in this current test series V West Indies.

Sir Fred, I hope the Saffers do have a pop at Swann - I'll always back him, and more importantly he will always back himself, to take wickets in such circumstances.

Fists of Fury wrote:Sir Fred, I hope the Saffers do have a pop at Swann - I'll always back him, and more importantly he will always back himself, to take wickets in such circumstances.

I have a theory that Swann isn't that effective a bowler when batsmen look to go after his bowling, like what Samuels showed yesterday when he whacked Swann for over 14 odd runs in one over. It is only when batsmen played tentatively and defensively against Swann that he looks to be at his most effective.

gboycottnut wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:Sir Fred, I hope the Saffers do have a pop at Swann - I'll always back him, and more importantly he will always back himself, to take wickets in such circumstances.

I have a theory that Swann isn't that effective a bowler when batsmen look to go after his bowling, like what Samuels showed yesterday when he whacked Swann for over 14 odd runs in one over. It is only when batsmen played tentatively and defensively against Swann that he looks to be at his most effective.

There might be something in that. SA have generally had problems against him though, both in 09-10 and in last year's World Cup match.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I must say I belong to the Mike and JD school of thinking here: if you need five bowlers to bowl sides out, they've probably scored too many runs for you to win the test anyway. I'm not saying there aren't cases where it's a good idea (indeed the last time England did it I thought it a good idea on the ultra-flat Bangladeshi pitches), but in general four bowlers should be enough to take 20 wickets. Indeed it has been enough for England since Flintoff's retirement. The tests they've lost have been down to the batting, not the bowling.

Trouble is, Botham was good enough to bat 6 and be a great bowler too, and England spent (too) many years after his retirement looking for a replacement. Flintoff was that man for a couple of years only really (03-05 he was good enough to bat 6), and hence why England are in fact now a better team than they were with him in it. Bresnan for all his qualities is as Mike says a 7-and-a-half, and I agree with those saying Prior is better at 7 as he can play with more freedom there. If you have a guy good enough to bat in the top 6 and be a "main" bowler as well, great! If not, don't create problems where there aren't any.

We dont need 5 bowlers to bowl a team out. But if we had 5 top class bowlers (which we have) instead of 4 + a pretty ineffective batsman at 6, we would restrict the opposition to even less runs, which would allow Prior, Bres, Broady andn Swan to be more than a competent 'finishing' line-up.

We are just wasting a position with this #6 experiment when it's clear we have nobody ready to step in yet....

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
We dont need 5 bowlers to bowl a team out. But if we had 5 top class bowlers (which we have) instead of 4 + a pretty ineffective batsman at 6, we would restrict the opposition to even less runs

Would they? Or would one of the 5 simply bowl very little?

England's weakness is batting, why on earth would you want to strengthen the bowling?

All of the successful sides in cricket's history have gone with 6 batsmen (one of which may have been an all-rounder) - surely that says something...

What we really need for that number 6 slot is a batting all rounder. Someone like a Collingwood who would make runs consistently but could also come in and bowl some overs and maybe pick up a wicket or two with some decent stuff

Mike i dont think anyone is arguing your point in a theoritical way. but more in a practical way. the simple choice at the moment is bairstow or finn.

who do we pick?

we are playing the best side in the world soon(obviously we cant play ourselves !!) with only one test match to play before then.What do we do?. Risk wasting a spot(bairstow or someone unproved) to fulfill an ideal.

If we had stuck with mogs then maybe i would back him. but bairstow is so far off, He looks like a helpless rabbit, i just can not see him providing anything at the moment.

Mike Selig wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
We dont need 5 bowlers to bowl a team out. But if we had 5 top class bowlers (which we have) instead of 4 + a pretty ineffective batsman at 6, we would restrict the opposition to even less runs

Would they? Or would one of the 5 simply bowl very little?

England's weakness is batting, why on earth would you want to strengthen the bowling?

All of the successful sides in cricket's history have gone with 6 batsmen (one of which may have been an all-rounder) - surely that says something...

In the absence of an established or proven/experienced batsman to bat at 6, England should look at another way of helping them to win a test match and that in this case would be to look at strengthening the bowling attack if a wicket-taking bowler such as Finn can be added to the existing 4 man bowling attack. So by adding an extra bowler to give England a specialist 5 man bowling attack, this can/should improve the chances of bowling out the opposition team for not that many runs in say the first innings of a test match. Then with not that many runs in the first innings to overcome, this will have a knock-on effect of reducing the pressures on England's batting to make 350 to 400+ runs in the first innings. As for you saying that all successful sides in cricket history have always gone for a 6 batsman to a 4 bowler ratio, well that is because these 4 man attacks have contained at least 2 to 3 bowlers who are some the game's greatest ever bowlers. For instance the 1983 4 man West Indies pace attack consisted of Marshall, Garner, Holding and Roberts, whilst the 2001 Australian bowling attack consisted of McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne. Other successful teams in the history of cricket (especially England ones) have always relied on a 5 man bowling attack formula due to there being only 1 bowler who was of a true bowling great. Examples of such bowling attacks are the 1933 England team during the Bodyline test series where Larwood was the sole great bowler in that unit, the 1985 England team which had Botham as the single great bowler with support from the likes of Agnew, Allott, Emburey and Edmonds, and in 2005 when England at last won the ashes, the attack had no great bowlers but instead contained good ones in the shape of Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones and Giles.

ollyrules wrote:What we really need for that number 6 slot is a batting all rounder. Someone like a Collingwood who would make runs consistently but could also come in and bowl some overs and maybe pick up a wicket or two with some decent stuff

Agreed Olly. But as we don't have that option yet, we fill the #6 spot with the best player available, which I would say is Finn....

Fists of Fury wrote:Sir Fred, I hope the Saffers do have a pop at Swann - I'll always back him, and more importantly he will always back himself, to take wickets in such circumstances.

AB and Amla, will have no problem with that.

gboycottnut wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:

DouglasJardinesbox wrote:
We dont need 5 bowlers to bowl a team out. But if we had 5 top class bowlers (which we have) instead of 4 + a pretty ineffective batsman at 6, we would restrict the opposition to even less runs

Would they? Or would one of the 5 simply bowl very little?

England's weakness is batting, why on earth would you want to strengthen the bowling?

All of the successful sides in cricket's history have gone with 6 batsmen (one of which may have been an all-rounder) - surely that says something...

In the absence of an established or proven/experienced batsman to bat at 6, England should look at another way of helping them to win a test match and that in this case would be to look at strengthening the bowling attack if a wicket-taking bowler such as Finn can be added to the existing 4 man bowling attack. So by adding an extra bowler to give England a specialist 5 man bowling attack, this can/should improve the chances of bowling out the opposition team for not that many runs in say the first innings of a test match. Then with not that many runs in the first innings to overcome, this will have a knock-on effect of reducing the pressures on England's batting to make 350 to 400+ runs in the first innings. As for you saying that all successful sides in cricket history have always gone for a 6 batsman to a 4 bowler ratio, well that is because these 4 man attacks have contained at least 2 to 3 bowlers who are some the game's greatest ever bowlers. For instance the 1983 4 man West Indies pace attack consisted of Marshall, Garner, Holding and Roberts, whilst the 2001 Australian bowling attack consisted of McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Warne. Other successful teams in the history of cricket (especially England ones) have always relied on a 5 man bowling attack formula due to there being only 1 bowler who was of a true bowling great. Examples of such bowling attacks are the 1933 England team during the Bodyline test series where Larwood was the sole great bowler in that unit, the 1985 England team which had Botham as the single great bowler with support from the likes of Agnew, Allott, Emburey and Edmonds, and in 2005 when England at last won the ashes, the attack had no great bowlers but instead contained good ones in the shape of Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones and Giles.

First point I agree with, thats the main argument for going with 5 bowlers...we cant find a 6th batsman worth his spot.
The rest... Englands most successful side ( this one) uses 4 bowlers. They have 3 of the top 5 bowlers in the IRB rankings right now, and a back up who would be up there if he hadnt been in and out of the side. They are as capable of bowling sides out as any team I remember.. 4 or 5 bowler make up. The most runs theyve conceeded in a match since they last played 5 bowlers for a series is 606, a total they've beaten with the bat 14 times.

For a side like England the 6/7 is a luxury role whoever they pick. its either a batsman they dont really need ( or who just fills anyway) or a bowler whos only there for very specific circumstances once or twice a series. Or once a century its Ian Botham. To be honest theres as much to argue for a player like Patel who offers a genuine variation in the bowling at 7 as well as some solid batting as there is in a third tall seam bowler, the 5th bowling option is for when plan A isnt working....Im not sure how much value there is in making Plan B more of the same. I would say though I dont think Patel is really enough of a threat unless they doctor a spinning pitch, and last time they tried a two spinner/ five bowler set up at home it went horribly wrong. And I guess that comes to another point...whatever players are selected it can go very right or very wrong.

Im certainly not averse to Finn being selected. The guys record is fantastic and had he been born 3 years earlier England wouldve been all over him instead of the likes of Manhood.

SA will have similar choices to make. Theyve got Steyn and Morkel Philander who are musts. Youd think they have to play Tahir or someone else pretending to be a spinner. Then they have Marchant de Lange, Tsobe, and Parnell kicking their heels in the dressing room. Theres only ro, Kallis makes the 4 bowlers option a no brainer for them of course even if hes more of a Collingwood than a Flintoff with the ball now.

Well it's a no-brainer for me. Imran Tahir must play in first test V England as he is a quality leg-spinner, something which is rare not just in England but the two teams by the end of the test series as many of the England batsmen particularly the likes of Trott and Bell have struggled against quality spin bowling.

Seems to me people are missing a serious point here.

England can beat West Indies - in fact can beat most teams , at home at least , with either a fifth bowler like Finn , a so-far ineffective sixth batsman like Bairstow , or a compromise six/seven bit of both like Patel.

However the real test is to beat the strongest opposition (SA , India in their own country , perhaps a resurgent Australia in a year or so) and for that the team needs to be both well balanced and strong right through the order.

Argument exists about the merits of picking extra bowlers , but most would I think agree that six (good) batsmen are often , if not always , required.

England has a number of good Test bowlers to fill a team and provide reserves
for emergencies , but right now does NOT have even one outstanding batsman to fill the sixth slot , or cover for any injured players.

Surely this means that the most important task facing the selectors is to identify and settle into the team a player who can do that job effectively , whether this be Bairstow , Bopara , Taylor or some other player yet to be pushed into the forefront of speculation ?

We certainly won't find such a player by picking an extra bowler now just because we can get away with it and we happen to have more obviously worthy candidates available ...

alfie wrote:Seems to me people are missing a serious point here.

England can beat West Indies - in fact can beat most teams , at home at least , with either a fifth bowler like Finn , a so-far ineffective sixth batsman like Bairstow , or a compromise six/seven bit of both like Patel.

However the real test is to beat the strongest opposition (SA , India in their own country , perhaps a resurgent Australia in a year or so) and for that the team needs to be both well balanced and strong right through the order.

Argument exists about the merits of picking extra bowlers , but most would I think agree that six (good) batsmen are often , if not always , required.

England has a number of good Test bowlers to fill a team and provide reserves
for emergencies , but right now does NOT have even one outstanding batsman to fill the sixth slot , or cover for any injured players.

Surely this means that the most important task facing the selectors is to identify and settle into the team a player who can do that job effectively , whether this be Bairstow , Bopara , Taylor or some other player yet to be pushed into the forefront of speculation ?

We certainly won't find such a player by picking an extra bowler now just because we can get away with it and we happen to have more obviously worthy candidates available ...

Looking at this from another perspective, if England had picked Finn for the first 2 tests and played Prior at 6 with Bresnan at 7, would England have won these 2 test matches V West Indies? I believe that they would and would more to the point have won them more easily and quickly than was the case. So therefore the best England team will be one that has 5 specialist bowlers as opposed to a team that has 6 specialist batsmen, one of whom is still wet behind the ears at test match level and isn't quite really ready yet.

I second any calls for Graham Napier batting at 6. In a way I miss the 90's, such low expectations so any win felt like a miracle, and this is the kind of selection that used to be common.

do we think the problem finding a 6 is that our 7 and 8 are just better bats than any possible 6 so our standards are to high!

I actually quite like the idea of having Samit "Samosa" Patel at number 6. I reckon he's a pretty classy batsmen given the chance. Can score quickly if necessary and his bowling is more than passable on a suitable surface.

Maybe a bit of a gamble but given the alternatives it probably isn't. I'd love to see Finn in the side but the four bowlers have been doing the business comfortably and Breadbins batting more than tips the scales in his favour in my opinion.

mystiroakey wrote:do we think the problem finding a 6 is that our 7 and 8 are just better bats than any possible 6 so our standards are to high!

Morgan, Bopara and Bairstow all have the potential to be excellent number sixes. What they need is time, and not to be written off after one poor innings like Bairstow, or a poor series like Bopara and Morgan.