Ashes 2013 - Australia tour of England June/August 2013

[spooony]

Are the Aussies still attempting to play test cricket?

 

[aussie1st]

I agree, I think the "need" for a fifth bowler is one of a) not knowing who your best bowling quartet is, b) a paranoia/fear of something going wrong or c) not knowing how the pitch is going to play and whether you need an all seam attack, or a spinner, so picking an all seam attack and a spinner.

Spot on plus England is not the place where you need 5 bowlers anyway. These pitches aren't roads, they will be providing loads of assistance to the quicks. The only places I would even remotely consider 5 bowlers is a absolute flat deck and even then I would question the merit in it.

 

[Slowcoach]

Top 7 v Worcestershire looks like the Test lineup to me, and the 4 bowlers from the previous game are probably test certainties and are being rested from this one to be fresh (and not injured) for the 1st Test.
Rogers has been scoring loads of runs, and was picked for his "experience in England", so they have to use it in England, or it is a wasted selection, and all he is going to be doing this tour is the same as he has always done, plunder county bowling.
Smith deserves to keep his place after India, however much we may doubt him for now.
Khawaja will just have to wait, but his chance is not far away.
Cowan at 3 is ok, he has been solid enough to keep his place in the team, and he has batted there a lot, and maybe now he will be able to score a bit quicker, due to not being exhausted mentally from having to build a solid platform for the team before he can free up and play some shots. And an opener at 3 is never a bad thing.
Harris would be the only bowler from this game I would think about picking in the first test for now, ahead of Starc. If Harris is fit, and bowls ok, I would prefer him over Starc for now, due to Starc blowing hot and cold so often. Harris at his peak has probably been our best pace performer since McGrath, but has never played long enough to show it, though the numbers say so.
Wouldn't be surprised if Starc is expensive and cops Johnson comments if he does badly.
4 quicks is an option if Lyon gets injured, because no other spinners deserve selection.
Would pick Lyon in every test, because not picking a spinner backfires more often than it succeeds.

 

[War]

Spot on plus England is not the place where you need 5 bowlers anyway. These pitches aren't roads, they will be providing loads of assistance to the quicks. The only places I would even remotely consider 5 bowlers is a absolute flat deck and even then I would question the merit in it.

When England won the 2005 Ashes it was with 5 bowlers. S Africa's last two series win in Englnad (2008 & 2012) was with 5 bowlers.

----------

I agree, I think the "need" for a fifth bowler is one of a) not knowing who your best bowling quartet is, b) a paranoia/fear of something going wrong or c) not knowing how the pitch is going to play and whether you need an all seam attack, or a spinner, so picking an all seam attack and a spinner.

And don't you think AUS has much reason to fear that their batting which has been prone to collapses so much in the last 3 years, could repeat the same during the Ashes?

Thus with the batting still being very much an unknown, AUS have to make sure they don't let ENG batsmen get away to big totals, thats why the need for a variety based 5 man attack will help in limiting that.

Plus as i mentioned before, AUS possibly starting with 5 bowlers has a lot to do with the fact that with Watson now opening, his body won't be able to cope with the all-round duties effectively. AUS needs him more as a dominant opener who can blunt Anderson and co and lay a foundation, than as an all-rounder in the Ashes.

 

[aussie1st]

Key difference both had all rounders find me a Flintoff or kallis then we can talk. Faulkner is a bowler who is useful with the bat. Watson is more than capable of bowling 10 and open, he did it in the champions trophy.

 

[aussie1st]

Top 7 v Worcestershire looks like the Test lineup to me, and the 4 bowlers from the previous game are probably test certainties and are being rested from this one to be fresh (and not injured) for the 1st Test.
Rogers has been scoring loads of runs, and was picked for his "experience in England", so they have to use it in England, or it is a wasted selection, and all he is going to be doing this tour is the same as he has always done, plunder county bowling.
Smith deserves to keep his place after India, however much we may doubt him for now.
Khawaja will just have to wait, but his chance is not far away.
Cowan at 3 is ok, he has been solid enough to keep his place in the team, and he has batted there a lot, and maybe now he will be able to score a bit quicker, due to not being exhausted mentally from having to build a solid platform for the team before he can free up and play some shots. And an opener at 3 is never a bad thing.
Harris would be the only bowler from this game I would think about picking in the first test for now, ahead of Starc. If Harris is fit, and bowls ok, I would prefer him over Starc for now, due to Starc blowing hot and cold so often. Harris at his peak has probably been our best pace performer since McGrath, but has never played long enough to show it, though the numbers say so.
Wouldn't be surprised if Starc is expensive and cops Johnson comments if he does badly.
4 quicks is an option if Lyon gets injured, because no other spinners deserve selection.
Would pick Lyon in every test, because not picking a spinner backfires more often than it succeeds.

I would take this lineup swapping Faulkner for Pattinson and maybe Lyon and Khawaja for Agar and Cowan. Harris, Bird and Pattinson has always been the attack I was after, the only question mark is fitness else they would be the ideal trio.

 

[Owzat]

Spot on plus England is not the place where you need 5 bowlers anyway. These pitches aren't roads, they will be providing loads of assistance to the quicks. The only places I would even remotely consider 5 bowlers is a absolute flat deck and even then I would question the merit in it.

Even if they were "roads", would a fifth bowler suddenly mean you're bowling sides out for 250-300? Of course not. Five bowler theory works on a flawed logic.

England had five bowlers in the 2005 Ashes side, but it was Jones, Flintoff, Harmison and Hoggard that won the series, Giles took some wickets but England could as easily have won without him. England only used four bowlers in the final Test, while a lot was made of it England did manage a reasonably comfortable draw.

And don't you think AUS has much reason to fear that their batting which has been prone to collapses so much in the last 3 years, could repeat the same during the Ashes?

Thus with the batting still being very much an unknown, AUS have to make sure they don't let ENG batsmen get away to big totals, thats why the need for a variety based 5 man attack will help in limiting that.

Thank you. Why? Because you've demonstrated how logic doesn't always follow, and it's been bugging me all weekend. Australia are worried about BATTING collapses so the way to allay that fear is to play five bowlers!?!?!?!?

Was it Ozzie Ardiles who was in charge of a spudz side who played FIVE attackers and no midfield? Exactly what I was saying about bowlers, quality vs quantity. Even if you played seven bowlers it wouldn't guarantee you bowl out the opposition, if anything you usually get 1-2 bowlers in a five man attack underused and so it is an inefficient policy.

Playing five bowlers won't make the aussies a robust batting side, it just means you'll have a longer tail and put pressure on the bowlers to try and rescue you whenever you make a score of par or below.

West Indies in 2000 is a good example of where bowlers couldn't make a difference, Walsh and Ambrose battled away but the batting was too reliant on a few stars. Ambrose and Walsh took FIFTY-ONE wickets between them in five Tests, the rest took 25 between them and they lost 3-1

Hell, they even bowled England out for 134 in the 2nd Test, Walsh and Ambrose ripping through the side before West Indies were skittled for 54 in their 2nd innings and despite taking seven wickets in the 2nd innings they could not avoid a two wicket defeat. Those two were like men possessed, but it didn't stop the batting underperforming - and they had six batsmen.

I'll be delighted if the aussies play five bowlers, personally I think you'd be better off playing six batsmen and trying to pick off the inconsistencies in our bowling attack - do to us what we did to the West Indies.

The "variety" logic is one England applied in the past, before a 5-0 whitewash down under made them realise throwing bowlers at the situation did not help. Even with Flintoff in the side as an all-rounder, and wheelie bin Giles at eight, England failed to make 200 FIVE times out of 10, and only made 300+ three times.



From 2000 to 2012 England employed five bowlers just over half the time.

Five bowlers : P82 W34 D22 L26 (Won 41.46%) - 20W = 47.56%
Four bowlers : P79 W39 D20 L20 (Won 49.37%) - 20W = 53.16%

Funny how England won more and took 20 wickets more often with only four bowlers, although some of that can be down to who was played, but still it is significant. Break the win percentages down to big opposition :

vs Australia : five = 22.22%, four = 41.67%
vs India : five = 16.67%, four = 57.14%
vs South Africa : five = 41.67%, four = 18.18%
vs Pakistan : five = 16.67%, four = 53.85%
vs Sri Lanka : five = 50.00%, four = 20.00%

Sri Lanka have been a mixed entity, as have Pakistan, but take the five as wholes and England won 37.77% with four bowlers compared to 29.31% with five. England have a pretty ordinary record against South Africa, I think that record has more to do with the opposition than the bowler make-up. For example South Africa scored 637/2 to win one Test by an innings, I doubt if we'd played any more bowlers they would have done more than Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Swann and a back-up of Bopara (most notable of three) Another match was fairly close in which England scored 300+ in both innings, you could argue by "War logic" that an extra bowler might have lowered their scores by enough to win, and maybe it might have worked if England knew Taylor would suck so much, but we don't know the bowler would have made a difference as much as we didn't know Taylor would be like a rabbit caught in headlights.

England have found five bowlers at home only a little more productive :

Five bowlers

Home : P41 W24 D9 L8 (Won 58.54%) - 20W = 65.85%
Away : P41 W10 D13 L18 (Won 24.39%) - 20W = 29.27%

Four bowlers

Home : P48 W26 D12 L10 (Won 54.17%) - 20W = 54.17%
Away : P31 W13 D8 L10 (Won 41.94%) - 20W = 51.61%

But overall not only have four bowler attacks won more Tests for England, they've lost less too. It would be quite difficult to relay how bowlers get marginalised by there being five, but it isn't difficult to grasp that when a bowler is taking wickets he's more likely to be used and more than someone who isn't. For starters rotating five bowlers just makes it way too complicated, you are much better off identifying your best four bowlers (for the pitch) and rotating them. Watson as a fifth bowler and maybe Clarke too would be adequate, trying to bowl England out cheaply by throwing bowlers at it in a hope you can win is fundamentally flawed, as fundamentally flawed as trying to win football games 1-0 by packing your defence and hoping to sneak a winner on the counter.

 

[MUFC1987]

Great article on Compton.

If your face doesn't fit, it doesn't matter what you do.

 

[fade0508]

...Watching highlights of day 4 of the second Test in the 2005 series. What a brilliant summer of Test cricket! That was the first time I recall non-cricket fans glued to the telly!

If i recall correctly, Kasprowicz should not have been given out (?) Thank god there was no DRS!

 

[aussie1st]

The side being pieced together bit by bit. Safe to say Cowan will be number 3 given he has been a heap of time in the middle in these 2 warm up games. Number 6 and the pace bowling spots remain.

Agar is coming along nicely, every match he is taking a wicket or two.

 

[barmyarmy]

2009 - "McGrath expects Ashes Whitewash"

2010/11 - McGrath "Aus will win 5-0"

2013 - McGrath "The Ashes will be closer than people think"

Nuff said.

 

[Haarithan]

Still remember his "I don't see why Australia can't win it 5-0" quotes pre-Ashes 2009. As much a legend McGrath is, he is deluded.

BBC Sport - Ashes 2013: England opener Nick Compton unhappy with selectors

Strong interview from Compton. HAS to start at Nottingham imo

 

[qalisha2012]

Go England Go

England played very well in the champions trophy....hope they win the ashes, they have a solid team right now..

 

[spooony]

Even if they were "roads", would a fifth bowler suddenly mean you're bowling sides out for 250-300? Of course not. Five bowler theory works on a flawed logic.

England had five bowlers in the 2005 Ashes side, but it was Jones, Flintoff, Harmison and Hoggard that won the series, Giles took some wickets but England could as easily have won without him. England only used four bowlers in the final Test, while a lot was made of it England did manage a reasonably comfortable draw.



Thank you. Why? Because you've demonstrated how logic doesn't always follow, and it's been bugging me all weekend. Australia are worried about BATTING collapses so the way to allay that fear is to play five bowlers!?!?!?!?

Was it Ozzie Ardiles who was in charge of a spudz side who played FIVE attackers and no midfield? Exactly what I was saying about bowlers, quality vs quantity. Even if you played seven bowlers it wouldn't guarantee you bowl out the opposition, if anything you usually get 1-2 bowlers in a five man attack underused and so it is an inefficient policy.

Playing five bowlers won't make the aussies a robust batting side, it just means you'll have a longer tail and put pressure on the bowlers to try and rescue you whenever you make a score of par or below.

West Indies in 2000 is a good example of where bowlers couldn't make a difference, Walsh and Ambrose battled away but the batting was too reliant on a few stars. Ambrose and Walsh took FIFTY-ONE wickets between them in five Tests, the rest took 25 between them and they lost 3-1

Hell, they even bowled England out for 134 in the 2nd Test, Walsh and Ambrose ripping through the side before West Indies were skittled for 54 in their 2nd innings and despite taking seven wickets in the 2nd innings they could not avoid a two wicket defeat. Those two were like men possessed, but it didn't stop the batting underperforming - and they had six batsmen.

I'll be delighted if the aussies play five bowlers, personally I think you'd be better off playing six batsmen and trying to pick off the inconsistencies in our bowling attack - do to us what we did to the West Indies.

The "variety" logic is one England applied in the past, before a 5-0 whitewash down under made them realise throwing bowlers at the situation did not help. Even with Flintoff in the side as an all-rounder, and wheelie bin Giles at eight, England failed to make 200 FIVE times out of 10, and only made 300+ three times.



From 2000 to 2012 England employed five bowlers just over half the time.

Five bowlers : P82 W34 D22 L26 (Won 41.46%) - 20W = 47.56%
Four bowlers : P79 W39 D20 L20 (Won 49.37%) - 20W = 53.16%

Funny how England won more and took 20 wickets more often with only four bowlers, although some of that can be down to who was played, but still it is significant. Break the win percentages down to big opposition :

vs Australia : five = 22.22%, four = 41.67%
vs India : five = 16.67%, four = 57.14%
vs South Africa : five = 41.67%, four = 18.18%
vs Pakistan : five = 16.67%, four = 53.85%
vs Sri Lanka : five = 50.00%, four = 20.00%

Sri Lanka have been a mixed entity, as have Pakistan, but take the five as wholes and England won 37.77% with four bowlers compared to 29.31% with five. England have a pretty ordinary record against South Africa, I think that record has more to do with the opposition than the bowler make-up. For example South Africa scored 637/2 to win one Test by an innings, I doubt if we'd played any more bowlers they would have done more than Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Swann and a back-up of Bopara (most notable of three) Another match was fairly close in which England scored 300+ in both innings, you could argue by "War logic" that an extra bowler might have lowered their scores by enough to win, and maybe it might have worked if England knew Taylor would suck so much, but we don't know the bowler would have made a difference as much as we didn't know Taylor would be like a rabbit caught in headlights.

England have found five bowlers at home only a little more productive :

Five bowlers

Home : P41 W24 D9 L8 (Won 58.54%) - 20W = 65.85%
Away : P41 W10 D13 L18 (Won 24.39%) - 20W = 29.27%

Four bowlers

Home : P48 W26 D12 L10 (Won 54.17%) - 20W = 54.17%
Away : P31 W13 D8 L10 (Won 41.94%) - 20W = 51.61%

But overall not only have four bowler attacks won more Tests for England, they've lost less too. It would be quite difficult to relay how bowlers get marginalised by there being five, but it isn't difficult to grasp that when a bowler is taking wickets he's more likely to be used and more than someone who isn't. For starters rotating five bowlers just makes it way too complicated, you are much better off identifying your best four bowlers (for the pitch) and rotating them. Watson as a fifth bowler and maybe Clarke too would be adequate, trying to bowl England out cheaply by throwing bowlers at it in a hope you can win is fundamentally flawed, as fundamentally flawed as trying to win football games 1-0 by packing your defence and hoping to sneak a winner on the counter.

Aah stats. It can tell you many things depends on the question asked.

IE England managed to get 20 wickets using 4 bowlers. But who got 20 wickets using more than 5 bowlers or 5 bowlers?

Who was the fifth bowler or what do you calss as a 5th bowler. Any one can be a 5th bowler. Mark Boucher our wicketkeeper was a 5th bowler once and got a wicket. Doesn't say much

 

[Punk_Sk8r]

5th bowler was my mother