*Official* Fourth Test at Chester-le-Street

[andyc]

Surely Australia won't go with 4 spinners?

Don't think that's something to be worried about tbh

 

[Goughy]

Surely Australia won't go with 4 spinners? Especially with Watson in the team, I'd find it a tad bit hilarious if they go with 5 quicks. I tend to agree with hendrix in that an all quicks attack would be far too dimensional. The counterargument would be that Durham is seamers' paradise, but I dont see why a team would sacrifice variety for that. Lack of variety certainly hurts any bowling attack.

Having seen Lyon's bowling, I actually prefer Agar as he can bat as well.

1st Test: England v Pakistan at Lord's, May 17-20, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

2nd Test: England v West Indies at Lord's, Jun 29-Jul 1, 2000 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

A couple of games here, both from Lord's, where neither team played a spinner. Playing without a spinner isnt as rare or controversial as people on here seem to be making out.

The one dimensional argument is only relevant if there is a spot up for grabs between a seamer and spinner of comparable quality. Otherwise the benefit of variety is traded off by the loss of the more effective bowler.

 

[Ruckus]

Lyon, Agar, Doherty, Hauritz...what an attack that would be.

 

[hendrix]

You miss my point, it was a fast bouncy wicket so even SA couldnt justify a spinnier. Otherwise we saw Boje, Symcox, Adams too frequently for the good of the team. Too often, even on normal, wicket they played a substandard spinner ahead of a quick who would have helped them more.

Would South Africa have faired better had they not played their spinner?
Was their 4th seamer always the quality of McMillan/Klusener?
Is Nathan Lyon really as poor as Boje, Symcox and Adams?
Would anyone in Australia's attack knock off the top order as quickly as Donald and Pollock did?

I just don't think the scenarios are that similar.

If Durham really is that much of a seamer's paradise - we'll have to wait to see the wicket - then there might be justification to play 4 seamers. But probably not 5 with Watson. It's just unnecessary.

If the wicket is that suitable for fast bowling than surely the first 3 picked seamers will do a good enough job without need for another one.

 

[Ruckus]

The one dimensional argument is only relevant if there is a spot up for grabs between a seamer and spinner of comparative quality. Otherwise the benefit of variety is traded off by the loss of having the more effective bowler.

Yeah exactly. The variety argument makes no sense whatsoever if it is...wait...what you said was phrased perfectly. Carry on.

 

[dermo]

Surely Australia won't go with 4 spinners? Especially with Watson in the team, I'd find it a tad bit hilarious if they go with 5 quicks. I tend to agree with hendrix in that an all quicks attack would be far too dimensional. The counterargument would be that Durham is seamers' paradise, but I dont see why a team would sacrifice variety for that. Lack of variety certainly hurts any bowling attack.

Having seen Lyon's bowling, I actually prefer Agar as he can bat as well.

lyon, agar, ahmed, sok looking likely with smith to add a bit with his leg spin on debut

 

[NUFAN]

Australia's attack is underrated in regards to variety anyway. Do people really consider Bird similar to any of our other quicks? Starc is obviously completely different and then we've got Smith for some leg spin, Clarke left arm straight/orthodox. I'm not advocating Lyon's dropping (I haven't seen the pitch) but not picking Bird because of a lack of a variety doesn't seem right, surely its more of a case of retaining Lyon to hopefully help us in the second innings.

 

[Maximas]

I think Lyon deserves another chance anyway tbh, bowled better than his figures last match IMO

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah I agree. There's only so much overt variety you can have in an attack. You could even argue that having three fairly tight, line-length bowlers in an attack like Harris, Siddle and Bird could be good thing. There would be no let-off of pressure.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah sure Maximas, he probably did bowl better than 1/103 from 38 overs, but if he got 2/103 from 38 would you be saying he bowled better than his figures suggest?

Basically, is that good enough? Is Bird likely to take more than 2 wickets in 38 overs? England have strugged against our pace bowlers and made light work of our front line spinners. Its a tough decision to work out to play Lyon or Bird, its a little frustrating that Watto's inclusion helps Lyon!

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah I agree. There's only so much overt variety you can have in an attack. You could even argue that having three fairly tight, line-length bowlers in an attack like Harris, Siddle and Bird could be good thing. There would be no let-off of pressure.

In theory, sure. It falls apart in practice, though. It presupposes that bowling accurately at all stages of the game results in the same outcome.

Put it this way, if variety was irrelevent, there'd never be a need to throw in a wide ball occasionally. You'd just need to hit the channel every ball and boom5fer. Bowling to real people who really know how to bat teaches you a fairly harsh lesson otherwise.

 

[Ruckus]

I think the variety argument falls apart in practice more often tbh. Because you end up with selectors picking a bowler for more 'finicky' reasons rather than based off their overall quality as a bowler, We've already seen it with Starc. It hasn't backfired badly by any means, but that's mainly because the other bowlers have done exceptionally well.

 

[Spark]

will be a little annoyed if we change the batting order again simply because we can

 

[Maximas]

The Watson/Warner question:
- Should Warner open? Yes
- Should Watson move to four? No
- Should Watson play to give us an extra bowling option after a short break between matches? Yes

That is my stance on these questions, which leaves me a little confused as to what the right outcome is

 

[Ruckus]

In theory, sure. It falls apart in practice, though. It presupposes that bowling accurately at all stages of the game results in the same outcome.

Put it this way, if variety was irrelevent, there'd never be a need to throw in a wide ball occasionally. You'd just need to hit the channel every ball and boom5fer. Bowling to real people who really know how to bat teaches you a fairly harsh lesson otherwise.

I'm not saying variety is irrelevant, my view on it is exactly as Goughy stated above (i.e. variety isn't beneficial if it's a trade off for overall quality). I'm not really sure what point your trying to make with the wide ball thing. I mean if batsmen are clearly comfortable enough playing deliveries in the channel, then a good bowler will try and mix it up a bit (e.g. like Siddle did to Trott/Bell etc. in the first test). That's not variety, that's just normal variation part of intelligent bowling. Variety is differences in the raw components of a bowlers method - e.g. how fast they bowl, if they are left-arm/right-arm, how much bounce they get, if they swing it or seam it etc.

 

[Maximas]

Lyon would also come into greater consideration when Starc plays as well? Footmarks are important on dry wickets, sounds like it won't be a factor in this match though

 

[Son Of Coco]

Lean a bit towards picking your best bowlers over variety myself. Would like to see Bird get a go, and reckon he could do at least as good a job as Starc has done - dependent on the conditions of course. If it looks like there's a bit of movement in the deck - Bird. If it looks dry and it will aid reverse swing then probably Starc.

Bird, Harris and Siddle all offer different things as bowlers, they just happen to bowl with the same arm.

 

[Maximas]

Bird did very well in the Sydney test this year against SL on a pitch that was quite dry and abrasive though, I don't think Starc is any more effective than him on such pitches

 

[Top_Cat]

Seriously, you guys are going to be disappointed. As I said before the start of the series, Starc's going to get every opportunity he wants and he's bowled well enough this series overall. Bird's not in line for his spot.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

In theory, sure. It falls apart in practice, though. It presupposes that bowling accurately at all stages of the game results in the same outcome.

Put it this way, if variety was irrelevent, there'd never be a need to throw in a wide ball occasionally. You'd just need to hit the channel every ball and boom5fer. Bowling to real people who really know how to bat teaches you a fairly harsh lesson otherwise.

righto