Collingwood50
Club Cricketer
Do we not class Colly's bowling as effective then?
South Africa in England
- Thread starter Sureshot
- Start date
venom2011
Club Cricketer
I don't see the need for 5 bowlers at all to be honest. It's not like they each offer something different. 3 seamers is more than enough, especially for Edgbaston.
Kallis will have to bowl at first change in the next test, because now with Steyn injured, he's the only swing-bowler in the team. And as irrotev said, he's just one knock away from being in form.
Kallis will have to bowl at first change in the next test, because now with Steyn injured, he's the only swing-bowler in the team. And as irrotev said, he's just one knock away from being in form.
Brady
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I can't see anything but anoter SA win in this test!
Vaughan is awful and the rest of the batting order can collpase in a heartbeat!
It's not that SA are that good, it's just that we are that shite!
When broad comes in a smahes 60 with ease, you know you have a problem!
Vaughan is awful and the rest of the batting order can collpase in a heartbeat!
It's not that SA are that good, it's just that we are that shite!
When broad comes in a smahes 60 with ease, you know you have a problem!
Valaskjalf
Club Captain
Yeah I dont think we're extraorinary, however England has probably had this problem for quite some time, just didnt play against any teams who could exploid their weaknesses. NZ are horrible and when England beat them they probably got a wrong impression as to how good they are. Then you play against SA who actually know which side of the bat you're suppose hold and it puts England's lack of quality into perspective i think.
Imagine Pietersen didnt throw his toys out of the cot and hung on for a while like most South Africans do and he ended up playing for us lol Then you couldnt even bank on your favourite import to get you some runs, at least you have him.
You don't need five bowlers, West Indies didn't, Australia haven't for a couple of decades and frankly it is illogical. To bowl a side out for less than say 250 you're likely to be bowling around 90 overs which four can manage quite easily. Quite often England's spinner/fifth bowler doesn't bowl (much) in the 1st innings so it is effectively four bowlers anyway. What we're really doing is playing a split bowling attack, four seamers for the 1st innings and the spinner coming into play in the 2nd - doesn't always work like that.
If the pitch is going to turn, play a spinner. If not, don't. If the pitch is ideal for spinners then play two, but then you'd be ok with two seamers and a Collingwood type bowler. In fact Collingwood is more than capable of bowling fifth bowler, I believe England are negative and carry the fifth bowler as a "spare" in case of injury or bad form. If your bowlers don't bowl well then that's life, you turn to your batsmen to perform. You can't win every Test, England have applied five bowler theory too much and it isn't a proven success as our current ranking and lack of beating decent sides shows.
Strauss is my favourite.
venom2011
Club Cricketer
No. Not with a bowling average of 50.
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
In Test matches his bowling just doesn't cut it. I think we should start using Bell again.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Well that's very easy to say, unfortunately teams that bank on the pitch doing exactly what they predict inevitably find too many that don't. Just as we don't see rampant changes in the batting lineup based on who can play spin or pace best, a flexible and settled bowling attack is the best.
venom2011
Club Cricketer
The Aussies have never needed a decent 5th bowler in recent years, because of the strength and variety of their 4 frontliners. Most teams (possibly even the current Aus team) are not as fortunate though.
Collingwood50
Club Cricketer
ahem..... do you think bell is a better bowler than colly?
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
No.
Simbazz
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Bell does have a decent right arm on him. He finds an ackward bit of outswing, not enough to pick off, and not too little to smash away. Just the right amount at times in the right conditions. He'd have to be used sparingly, rather like KP but he can do the job!
Every TEST team should have a frontline spinner, regardless of the pitch and overhead conditions. If he bowls 100 overs in the match, or 2, he has to be there as an option.
Collys bowling, and similarly Broads batting, can't keep them in the team!
Every TEST team should have a frontline spinner, regardless of the pitch and overhead conditions. If he bowls 100 overs in the match, or 2, he has to be there as an option.
Collys bowling, and similarly Broads batting, can't keep them in the team!
In first class cricket Bell has a better average then colly's wobblers by 7
Colly has bowled over 3 times as many overs as Bell, though.
I will be intrigued as to what the side will be. I don't see why Colly was picked for the 13, what has he done to prove he is out of the rut? Nothing.
Sidebottom in for Pattinson. I'm not to sure I'd replace Broad. But I think he will be dropped. Then again, if he is dropped our batting looks even shorter unless it is for Collingwood. The groundsman at Edgbaston thinks it will favour kiss the deck bowlers. Sidebum and Jimmy should be effective. If South Africa play Ntini, Nel and Morkel. I think we could benefit. Kallis could be the more effective.
I'm not convinced by Harmison tbh. I'd rather just make the one change of Sidebottom in for Pattinson.
