Four good seamers are more than enough, and a spinner is a useful thing to have. Including Kallis to have that fourth seamer certainly doesn't compromise anything in terms of the batting, hence you have the luxury of adding another dimension to the attack.BTW, those who've picked a spinner for every Test rather than just for the subcontinent or the odd other turning pitch that might be encountered, or picked Ntini over the heads of at least (in my book) 2 or 3 better-qualified candidates, some reasoning would be interesting?
But you're bowling for batting mistakes. I don't think a top-order batsman is any more likely to make an unforced error against Hauritz than they are against, say, Michael Clarke. Or JP Duminy, who incidentally also picked up the wicket of Australia's most in-form batsman during the series. Hauritz has five wickets at an average of over 50 in this series. Even with the supposed advantage of making the batsmen adjust what they're doing. Would a fifth seamer really have done any worse?Haurtiz got more than one important top-order wicket in this series, on pitches that were doing nothing for finger-spinners. Harris too. You're not bowling to machines, you're bowling to people who have to adjust and alter what they're doing. That sometimes creates openings where otherwise there would be none. They probably shouldn't get out to them, but history shows us that time and again good batsmen have done so. They're batsman induced dismissals, but their errors the batsmen sometimes make because of the change in bowling approach.
Handy looking team, that. However I feel that 6 right-arm seamers (7 if you include Cronje) is not necessary.Following-on from the England and West Indies ones... let's have a SA side from readmission to the end of last year.
Reckon I'd go for:
GC Smith
G Kirsten
JH Kallis
DJ Cullinan
WJ Cronje (c)
BM McMillan
MV Boucher (w)
SM Pollock
PS de Villiers
AA Donald
DR Steyn
This is on the presumption that the match wasn't played in the subcontinent - in the subcontinent (or on occasional other pitches elsewhere) I'd bring in N Boje or P Harris for either Pollock or Steyn (can't really decide which). In the squad I'd also have HH Gibbs, L Klusener, AB de Villiers and DJ Richardson (could hardly be anyone else could it?). If anyone objected to Cronje's presence, which in a way would be understandable, he'd be replaced with AG Prince (though probably in time JP Duminy).
What about everyone else?
Yeah, I counted 7 which I whought was overkill.Handy looking team, that. However I feel that 6 right-arm seamers (7 if you include Cronje) is not necessary.
I hate all seam attacks with a passion that matches Richard's dislike of token spinners. I'll never agree that an all seam attack is preferable if there is a half way decent spinner. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.But you're bowling for batting mistakes. I don't think a top-order batsman is any more likely to make an unforced error against Hauritz than they are against, say, Michael Clarke. Or JP Duminy, who incidentally also picked up the wicket of Australia's most in-form batsman during the series. Hauritz has five wickets at an average of over 50 in this series. Even with the supposed advantage of making the batsmen adjust what they're doing. Would a fifth seamer really have done any worse?
So you'd have broken up Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts for a token spinner?I hate all seam attacks with a passion that matches Richard's dislike of token spinners. I'll never agree that an all seam attack is preferable if there is a half way decent spinner. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
What I'm waiting for is the day Bangladesh play a match on a square turner when Mushrafe is injured and select an all-spin attack.I hate all seam attacks with a passion that matches Richard's dislike of token spinners. I'll never agree that an all seam attack is preferable if there is a half way decent spinner. As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
They had Viv. And I'd rate that attack inferior to one with three equally good seamers and a very good spinner.So you'd have broken up Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts for a token spinner?
So you'd have broken up Marshall-Holding-Garner-Roberts for a token spinner?
I'd also be interested to know how many times that actual quartet took the field together. If it's much more than zero, I'd be surprised.They had Viv. And I'd rate that attack inferior to one with three equally good seamers and a very good spinner.
this attack played together in 6 tests. 2 against india and 4 against england. the four pronged pace attack had, at its best, three great bowlers and one good bowler. four great bowler together probably never happens in test cricket. fI'd also be interested to know how many times that actual quartet took the field together. If it's much more than zero, I'd be surprised.
Regardless of the exact combination though, the Windies' four-pronged pace attack was definitely helped by there not being any top quality spinners in those isles at the time. If there had a spinner of the Gibbs/Ramadhin/Valentine class around during the 1980s I'd definitely have dropped one of the quicks for him.
Haha.kirsten
smith (c)
kallis
cullinan
rhodes
s.pollock
boucher (wk)
steyn
de villiers
ntini
donald
And I have no doubt they would have been far less successful if they did.If there had a spinner of the Gibbs/Ramadhin/Valentine class around during the 1980s I'd definitely have dropped one of the quicks for him.
I agree with your basic point, but it's fair to say that when the Windies played Roger Harper they didn't seem to give much more away than when they played an all-pace attack.And I have no doubt they would have been far less successful if they did.
The 4 seamers allowed them to completely control the tempo of the game, reduce scoring opportunities to a minimum and gave the batsman no rest.
A spinner may be nice but it would (maybe counterintuitively) ruin the balance.
Yeah there have been some shockers. However, we did some research a while ago in a thread and IIRC England in the 90s were far more successful with an all seam attack than with a spiner included.I agree with your basic point, but it's fair to say that when the Windies played Roger Harper they didn't seem to give much more away than when they played an all-pace attack.
The quality of the quicks in the Windies team may be a bit misleading though. The reality of a 4-man pace attack for many teams is usually a bit different. I can never get out of my head the misery of the 1st Ashes Test of 1989 (Defreitas, Newport, Foster, Pringle; Aus 601-7 dec)