I think the way he could make this team better is replacing Cummins. People will say that Miller didn't bowl enough to be part of an attack of 4 but that ignores context. He didn't bowl much for a lot of games when Aus had 6 options and he wasn't needed, but later on if needed he could lead the attack and bowl 20+ overs an innings without any loss of effectiveness.
It depends where Cummins ends up. If he is Lillee level then dropping him becomes untenable.
But with Bradman, Smith, Gilchrist in the lineup and Simpson as the 4th bowlers, I would argue that not only is it not required, it unnecessarily weakens the bowling.
Occasional threat applies to both of them, just slightly more to Kumble. The 'odd game' becomes the odd game in the odd game. Jadeja is scoring runs pretty frequently though.
if i wanted a spinner to hold 1 end then Jadeja is the answer, he was superb in that role on pitches that barely helped spinners the last time we toured England while their spinners were being milked for runs by us when they bowled
this is the exact same argument that some Indian fans are making for Jadeja’s inclusion over Kumble should there only be 4 bowlers and yet its deemed to be sacrilege by a few dissenters
It just comes down to whether Miller's batting is better than Cummins by more than Cummins' bowling is better. Because I have no issue with Miller being part of a 4 man attack.
To be fair it makes more sense for India than for Australia.
i personally think it makes more sense to go all in on further strengthening the bowling than trying to do patchwork for the batting but appreciate it if you see otherwise
More batting = more runs. In cricket the team that makes the most runs wins.
In Test cricket you need to take 20 wickets. Making runs doesn't matter as much, especially when you consider how strong bowling is in comparison to batting as far as influence over the game goes.
An ATG attack is knocking out a number of top order ATG bats with the new ball fairly frequently. You need to be able to cash in against the older ball.
Why not play 6 bowlers? Or 10? Most of us think the right balance sits in the 4.x range.
You only lose of you're bowled out twice, so yes while I do agree that bowling is a touch more important, if you can't avoid getting bowled out it doesn't matter.
Sure, but even then it's always going to be difficult cashing in vs ATGs.
You can't avoid getting bowled out though anyway. Generally 70% of all team innings in history have ended as all out, so essentially every 2 out of 3 innings.
Headley never opened in his life in tests and you are playing him as opener. Does not seem right.
