If this attack is struggling against Bangladesh, How are they going to take wickets in Australia?
Five bowlers to play in the next game.
That is never too far away from being trotted out every time England aren't running through batting sides.
It's about QUALITY not quantity. I know TMS and C5 subscribe to the five bowler theory as being that extra option, but why would that FIFTH CHOICE bowler being any more likely to take wickets if he couldn't even make a first choice set of four?!?!?!?!? Who would this magic bowler be? If he were a Warne, McGrath or chucker then surely he'd be in the side already and we wouldn't be debating five bowlers (again).
And for the record, for the people who never take much notice, this is what happened when we played five bowlers down under in 06/07 - and that included Flintoff as the number six batsman.
England innings Ashes 06/07 (five bowlers)
1st Test : 157 & 370
2nd Test : 551/6d & 129
2rd Test : 215 & 350
4th Test : 159 & 161
5th Test : 291 & 147
Yup, the bowlers, all five of them, never really had much chance because the aussies knocked the batting over cheaply too often and they never had any runs to bowl at. FIVE times that batting side failed to reach 200, in fact once in every Test they were bowled out for 215 or less at least once. England wickets cost the aussies 26.35 apiece, pretty ordinary for pretty good surfaces (the aussies averaged double that per wicket.
Of course the one Test we did score more than 370 (551/6d in the 2nd Test) we backed it up by dropping a catch, conceding near 200 for the fourth wicket that would have fallen much earlier to that dropped catch. But it wasn't the declaration that cost us, it was scoring only 129 2nd innings which took a strong position, we still had a 1st innings lead, into a losing one. Even had England batted on, they would have declared 50 runs later with only four wickets left, and the aussies would still have knocked those runs off to win. The declaration was correct, unfortunately the drop and the batting 2nd innings left the declaration open to criticism.
Anyone thinking this side is much different should consider the batsmen were Strauss, Cook, Bell, Collingwood and Pietersen - sound familiar....................?
Aussie innings Ashes 06/07 (five England bowlers)
1st Test : 602/9d & 202/1d
2nd Test : 513 & 168/4
2rd Test : 244 & 572/5d
4th Test : 419
5th Test : 393 & 46/0
Three totals over 500, only ONCE did England bowl the aussies out for less than 350, in fact England only bowled the aussies out four times. Wickets cost England 53.54 apiece, while you can debate whether a current quintet would be better than the 06/07 version, I can assure you if it were good enough then it wouldn't need five of them
What people lose track of is the fact that we scored 500 which gave us a chance of winning, drop a batsman to accommodate a bowler and you have no guarantees of 500 and no guarantee that the extra bowler will make any difference either..
We aren't home and hosed already because the bowlers simply aren't good enough, perhaps Swann excepted because this isn't really his kind of wicket. I've said before, Anderson is not consistent and unless the ball is swinging he is not very effective. Sure his five wickets in this match are costing him 28.8 so far, not too shabby if you ignore the opposition being Bangladesh. Bresnan has impressed some, but 1/76 and 1/88 against the lowest ranked (active) Test nation is not great on anything but the flattest pitch and a good enough bowler for Test cricket would have more in his locker than double-o-zero has.
Perhaps the pick of the England bowlers has been Finn, although his wickets aren't coming much cheaper than Anderson's. Maybe he does deserve a place in the side when Pakistan come to town, see if he can cause a more experienced and theoretically stronger set of batsmen difficulties and pick up wickets. He now has 10 wickets against Bangladesh at 34.30 and an SR of 55.20. Not a bad SR but bowlers would be aiming to have averages in the low 20s against Bangladesh, not mid-30s. Surprising the batsman with some steep lift, extra bounce or pace is all well and good, but you need to do it a bit more consistently. I did love the "plan" England were going to try before tea I think it was, why did they wait until the batsmen were set and the score around 200 before trying it?!?!?!
As much as I like Strauss as captain, I think he like Michael Yawn misses too many tricks and when they pull one off they get way too much credit. The coach and captain, maybe even the players, should have checked out all batsman weaknesses and tendancies, know what their own bowler strengths are and have plans A-Z set up to try. I know the aussies wouldn't be shy to use bounce as a weapon, have close catchers and pepper a young batsman. Problem with England is when they do the short ball, they overdo it. I sympathise with anyone bowling at Tamim, but he surely should have been hit three or four times on his way to his hundred, maybe even gotten out to one. Entertaining player he may be, a fine judge of the leave and not playing at every ball he is not.
Anyway, England should still win, weather permitting. The nightwatchman was such a stupid move on the part of Bangladesh, it should be banned from Tests. Maybe conditions will give England a bit of help early on, England should be able to chase down anything up to or just over 200 without too much problem, but time will become a factor if Bangladesh are still batting by lunch.
After putting so much efforts, Bangladesh deserves a draw today.
