StinkyBoHoon said:
totally agree, I think 5 bowlers is always, always, always, a rubbish decision. it's nice if you have a guy that can do a little more than just turn his arm over to change things up but playing someone that's steadfastly rubbish at batting for their bowling is suicide.
I cannot think of a scenario where it works, it means the captain is trying to juggle five frontline bowlers and the only possible "benefit" would be if two bowlers are bowling utter rubbish by which time you're probably in trouble anyway.
Stokes has now done a very part-time bowler job of taking three wickets @ 51.00 I believe it is. Not exactly the stuff of an "all-rounder", and frankly I wonder if given Stokes' overs between them if Broad, Swann or maybe Anderson or Bresnan might have helped bowl the aussies out cheaper.
You could argue the juggling of too many bowlers helped ease the pressure of the aussies with Bresnan and Anderson not firing at their best, Stokes probably loving it but not exactly a massive threat.
We're now going to see how his batting stands up, 1 & 28 are handy but when you need hundreds with the top order not going on is Stokes likely to do something match changing with the bat? Reckon a 20, 30, maybe 40 or 50, but I think Prior on form is more likely to be a six than Stokes.
The only genuinely rubbish batsman in England's team for this match is Anderson. Stokes is unproven at test level, although his FC average isn't great. Still an average of around 30 is better than nothing and while it might not be as good as Balance's FC average of ~50, his bowling is significantly better.
It's the kind of average you want at seven, not at six. If England are into the middle/lower order at four wickets down they're in trouble.
Whether or not a tailender is or isn't a genuine rabbit is irrelevant, the runs are supposed to be scored by the top order. It is no coincidence that the top sides of the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s used four bowlers. Maybe none of England's bowlers are genuine "World Class" like Marshall et al, or indeed McGrath and Warne, but you don't compensate a lack of quality with quantity.
I get your point that unless you bowl a team out you are going to need the extra batsman. But equally if you are struggling to bowl a team out, then having an extra bowler can help shoulder the burden.
Root and Pietersen "can help shoulder the burden", the point is by the time you've finished juggling your resources if your first four choices of bowler haven't done a lot of damage, what odds the sixth?
I've found no evidence to support five bowlers, sometimes you only need three to bowl sides out and sometimes the spinner is completely redundant first innings.
It's mainly about "variety" and then England contradict themselves by including four fairly similar seamers of whom none are left-arm or particularly fast
If you included say a very fast right-arm seamer, a left-armer and another right-arm seamer, a leg-spinner and an off-spinner I could understand it, but this is just like throwing numbers at a problem hoping one will have a good day.
So yes it lightens the workload, but you get days/matches where you don't bowl sides out cheaply. But as it is only 80 overs between new balls and indeed usually 90 or less overs a day, is splitting 90 overs between four frontline bowlers (about 21 each say) and part-timers (about six overs) is that a lot to ask? And of course the spinner should be able to take more overs if needed, so a 30-18-18-18-6 split is possible.
Even if you argue the "burden split" angle, 90/5 = 18 which is only three less than if a part-timer bowls six overs or even the spinner takes those. And of course the captain will inevitably bowl the biggest threat the most/over-rely on him and as I've said many times in the past, this often leads to the underuse of other bowlers.
And there's the lame/age old argument of covering for injury, well I'm afraid it doesn't happen that often and to pick your side in case of injury is handicapping yourself through paranoia.
As for the match, well as I've been typing England have lost their fourth wicket and are still a long way behind. Stokes needs to step up, 2/3 of our supposed best batsmen are out, time to see if 6-11 support Bell, have to try and compensate for his (relative) failure, or what happens next.
England conceded a good position despite supposedly strengthening the bowling, and with Cook and Carberry both doing what is problematic for England at the moment, getting in and not going on, England simply aren't scoring the weight of runs necessary down under. In England the bowlers in suited conditions could rescue them, but when push comes to shove England don't do pressure very well - either putting it on sides or coping with it on themselves.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think England will concede a 70+ run lead and at best hang on for a draw at the death, but if the aussies work on the lower order in spite of a lack of more than one "rubbish batsman", they could prey on Stokes' lack of experience, Prior's lack of form, Broad, Bresnan and Swann being decent but sadly poor in shot selection, and then not need to worry about Anderson, Bell might again be left stranded.
