*Official* Fourth Test at Chester-le-Street

[Furball]

Yeah the only time this series I can really recall Australia's bowling losing any semblance of control was at Lord's after Root tonned up when frankly everyone was waiting for Cook to declare.

 

[Pothas]

God, you don't play a spinner just for the sake of playing a spinner if the pitch isn't going to suit. Pick an extra batsman for all I care, but picking a spinner because you're 'supposed to' is a complete waste of a place.

Don't think Watson is helped by having a decent bowling work load on top of opening. If you're going to pick 4 front line pace bowlers in pace bowling conditions then his work load would of course naturally drop off.

Or just drop him. Problem solved.

 

[Uppercut]

Every single time Australia have played 4 seamers without a front line spin option it has been an unmitigated disaster*.

*except at the WACA

That's nonsense, they did it at Headingley in '09 and it was a massive success. Doing it here would be a very similar move, and this time they'll know not to get carried away and remain unchanged for the Oval.

I'm also surprised at how much of a **** people give about over rates. They should barely enter the discussion at all, they're not worth trading off against your chances of winning the game.

 

[Spikey]

it usually turns into failure cause they're afraid to drop one of them for the next test - see 09 ashes, 10/11 ashes and the SCG this year, where through different circumstances we had 4 incumbent seamers...so we played MJ at 7

 

[Ruckus]

I just think there could be some good reasons to play 4 seamers if the pitch looks good for the quicks. Firstly, I think the risk of Harris breaking down is getting increasingly likely. If we only play 3 fast bowlers, then he'll have a big role to play again just like the last two tests. If we played 4 though, we could just use him in short bursts, with Bird taking over most of his duty. That way we'd get pretty much the same value out of him without the high risk of him getting injured (if we win this test, it will be so important that he can be available to play for the final one as well). Secondly, given Starc is seemingly still likely to be picked, I think Bird as a 4th bowler is much more likely to take wickets than Lyon or Agar. Thirdly, as Benchmark said, if he is in the team, it can't hurt to allow Watson to focus solely on his batting atm. And if Harris breaks down mid-test, Watson just hasn't looked like taking many wickets this series. He has bowled very tight, but has looked innocuous. That's not going to be good enough if we need another bowler to cover.

 

[Maximas]

it usually turns into failure cause they're afraid to drop one of them for the next test - see 09 ashes, 10/11 ashes and the SCG this year, where through different circumstances we had 4 incumbent seamers...so we played MJ at 7

The SCG this year was an absolute disgrace, they had no problem resting Starc on boxing day who was desperate to play, depriving him of a magic moment (although they blamed the bone fragments ankle thing later) but then got all soft come next week, Aus were lucky to win that match, tell you what, if Sanga and SL's first choice seamers played...

 

[Tangles]

The SCG this year was an absolute disgrace, they had no problem resting Starc on boxing day who was desperate to play, depriving him of a magic moment (although they blamed the bone fragments ankle thing later) but then got all soft come next week, Aus were lucky to win that match, tell you what, if Sanga and SL's first choice seamers played...

That's the selectors though. They only have rules and consistency when it suits them. When it doesn't you get Maxwell, Agar, Doherty, MJ etc.

 

[Tangles]

Just saw that Maxwell scored a ton in SA. In line for the 5th test then using Warner as a precedent.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ashes 2013: Congratulations England, but don't be too smug as Australia are now on top - Telegraph

Oh Warne.

 

[hendrix]

Why?

Pick the bowlers most likely to take 20 wickets at the lowest cost. Shouldnt matter if that is 0 or 3 spinners

Most of these bowlers took their wickets with the new ball, or at worst first change.

I don't agree with variety for variety's sake, but unless it's a green top, your 4th bowler should be a spinner. Especially with Watson in the team.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Most of these bowlers took their wickets with the new ball, or at worst first change.

I don't agree with variety for variety's sake, but unless it's a green top, your 4th bowler should be a spinner. Especially with Watson in the team.

If you don't have a spinner who is up to test standard though, what's the point?

 

[Uppercut]

Most of these bowlers took their wickets with the new ball, or at worst first change.

I don't agree with variety for variety's sake, but unless it's a green top, your 4th bowler should be a spinner. Especially with Watson in the team.

What would you say has changed so much about cricket since the West Indies dominated by picking four quicks every time? Is it just the over rates thing?

 

[Top_Cat]

Nothing but the WI quicks had variety between them even though they were all fast bowlers. Siddle, Harris and Bird don't have the same variety and aren't so good they make up for it. That's why Bird will only come into consideration for Harris' spot, not Starc's.

Variety does matter a lot, have little doubt it's why blokes like Clarke, Gray et al didn't play much during the WI's time at the top.

 

[Burgey]

Over rates are a big issue imo, but as T_C says, those blokes were just quality bowlers. They weren't a great attack because they were quick, they had some variety about them, and were all either very good or great at what they did.

 

[Goughy]

Most of these bowlers took their wickets with the new ball, or at worst first change.

I don't agree with variety for variety's sake, but unless it's a green top, your 4th bowler should be a spinner. Especially with Watson in the team.

That inflexible, traditional mentality hurt South Africa throughout the 90s. Rather than putting out a scary bowling attack like this 1st Test: South Africa v India at Durban, Dec 26-28, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo they pretty much always included the soft option of a sub par spinner. It is flawed logic that held them back.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wasn't Klusener really injury-prone too, though?

 

[hendrix]

That inflexible, traditional mentality hurt South Africa throughout the 90s. Rather than putting out a scary bowling attack like this 1st Test: South Africa v India at Durban, Dec 26-28, 1996 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo they pretty much always included the soft option of a sub par spinner. It is flawed logic that held them back.

Fast, bouncey South African wicket.

from the almanack report:

Inspired bowling by Donald on a pitch the like of which most of the Indians had never seen before created a three-day finish. India's two innings required a mere 73.2 overs, with Donald claiming nine for 54. Their second innings, 66, fell nine short of the previous lowest against South Africa - by Australia, on the same ground in 1949-50.

The pitch provided excessive bounce as well as movement off the seam

Not having a good spinner is what held them back. Not not playing all 4 quicks on all wickets.

 

[Ruckus]

Think another good reason to play 4 quicks, is that we could then have a new ball pairing of Bird and Harris. Starc has been decidedly average with the new ball. Whilst I think Siddle, given how he has bowled, would actually do a pretty good job, I doubt the selectors will opt for him though.

 

[Swingpanzee]

Surely Australia won't go with 4 quicks? 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.

 

[Goughy]

Fast, bouncey South African wicket.

from the almanack report:


Not having a good spinner is what held them back. Not not playing all 4 quicks on all wickets.

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 wickets, they played a substandard spinner ahead of a quick who would have helped them more.