England vs India- Should England play 5 bowlers or 4 bowlers?

For the upcoming series against India should England play 5 bowlers with Prior at 6 and no KP or play 4 bowlers and have the same side as they do in the current series against Sri Lanka. Here are the possible line ups.

Current side:

1) Andrew Strauss (C)
2) Alistair Cook
3) Jonathan Trott
4) Kevin Pietersen
5) Ian Bell
6) Eoin Morgan
7) Matt Prior (W-K)
8) Stuart Broad
9) Graeme Swann
10) Chris Tremlett
11) James Anderson

Possible line up:

1) Andrew Strauss (C)
2) Alistair Cook
3) Jonathan Trott
4) Ian Bell
5) Eoin Morgan
6) Matt Prior (W-K)
7) Stuart Broad
8) Graeme Swann
9) Chris Tremlett
10) James Anderson
11) Monty Panesar/ Steve Finn depending on conditions

I personally would play the 2nd side especially if KP doesn't score runs in this test or the next. He's a liability and England can't go into the vital India series with a man struggling to get runs. Prior is capable of batting at and Broad,Swann,Tremlett and Anderson are more than handy with the bat. The extra bowler would certainly help England as they go in to face arguably, the best batting side in the world.

What would you play 5 or 4 bowlers? And which side are the selectors most likely to go with?

liam
mate bresnan will be fit for the india series.he was sensational in the Ashes.broad is way too inconsistent.i would play bresnan over broad.however if i were to play 5 bowlers i would play both.but personally i prefer the 6+4 combo which has worked well for us.I would possibly drop KP and bring in Taylor if kp doesnt find form.

Well the selectors will go with the 6/4 split , for the very good reason that it works...
Big scores enable bowling attacks to wear down opponents even on flat decks , and a proper complement of batsmen helps to ensure they keep making them.

You might point to this game with 6/7/8/9 all making runs as proof we only need 5 batsmen : you might also think about what might have happened had there been no Morgan in the line-up yesterday...

shankythebiggestengfan wrote:liam
mate bresnan will be fit for the india series.he was sensational in the Ashes.broad is way too inconsistent.i would play bresnan over broad.however if i were to play 5 bowlers i would play both.but personally i prefer the 6+4 combo which has worked well for us.I would possibly drop KP and bring in Taylor if kp doesnt find form.

I can't see the selectors picking Bresnan over Broad especially after making him T20 captain.

If England go with the same combo that they have him now then I would agree to drop KP but bring in Bopara. He's next in line and probably deserves a place after how well he's played in the County Championship.

Reckon you COULD go with either Bopara or Patel ahead of KP if you wanted to add a bit more of a bowling option, but I doubt it'll happen

liam
sorry mate what the hell are you talking about?bopara is averaging 34 this season while taylor is averaging 60 this season.bops has a pathetic international record.taylor averages 50 in f/c cricket and he has already played 54 matches at the age of 21 and has scored 3 f/c double hundreds and is close to 4000 f/c runs.and he is just 21.that shows you how special a player he is.
bopara averages 34 this season in f/c cricket.so hardly a man in form.He was given a chance for the Lions against SL and he flopped and In The Same Match Taylor impressed one and all despite batting in an unfamiliar position.
so how does bopara deserve a place ahead of taylor?just bcoz he bowls?that would be ludicrous.

and if broad is picked ahead of bresnan coz he is the T20 captain then that would be even more ridiculous.

Holding said yesterday that no team worth its salt would even consider playing 5 bowlers.

My point proven today,England should play 5 bowlers.

Liam_Main wrote:My point proven today,England should play 5 bowlers.

Not really.
We could have done with more variety today, but that could have been achieved by replacing one of the tall fast bowlers with Dernbach.
Doesn't neccesarily require 5 bowlers.

5 bowlers on a flat pitch wouldn't change the fact that the pitch is flat. If we had left out a proven quality bowler then you may have a point but I don't think that having Dernbach in as a 5th bowler would have made a massive difference. Anderson, maybe, but then we wouldn't have needed one of the others. 4 bowlers is fine for me, especially if Swann is one of them.

Four bowlers. What would a fifth bowler done today? If he had bowled better than any or all of the three in operation then he should have been picked in the first place and one of these three left out.

The conditions didn't suit England but they bowled the total wrong line and length at Sri Lankas openers. That disappointed me. I think 5 bowlers would be a better option but I can see where you's are coming from,if another bowler would make a impact we'll never know. Expecting a better effort tomorrow.

All today proved was England's attack isn't overly special.

Steyn, Morkel, Zaheer would've made something happen, even on a road.

"5 bowlers on a flat pitch wouldn't change the fact that the pitch is flat. "

But 5 bowlers on a flat pitch will give Strauss a much needed extra specialist bowling option. I would have gone for Monty Panesar as the 5th bowler on this flat wicket. It still amazes me that for a leading test match nation we don't have 2 different starting XI's to choose from on the morning of day 1 of a test match :- one XI comprising of 6 batters and 4 bowlers for when the wicket and conditions are likely to favour swing and seam pace bowling, and another XI comprising of 5 batters and 5 bowlers for when the wicket is as flat as a pancake as was the case at Lords today.

People still not addressing the other side of the argument: sure it is nice to have extra bowling options , but it comes at a cost.

Flat pitch yes , but England were 22/3 and still not out of trouble when the 4th wicket fell. Then number 6 Morgan made 79 , and the "tail" cashed in after.

We'll never know what would have happened had Prior batted at 6 , but there must be a strong possibility that England would not have made anything like 486 , and the pitch would still have been flat for the 5 bowlers...

What is certainly a fact is that England have won a lot of Test series lately with their (arguably inflexible) policy of 6 batsmen and 4 bowlers.

Suits me...

alfie wrote:People still not addressing the other side of the argument: sure it is nice to have extra bowling options , but it comes at a cost....

Which is why I have stated above that the England captain should have in his mind 2 different starting XI's to choose from prior to the toss of the coin on the morning of day 1 of a Test Match.

5 bowlers

5 bowlers are not needed but variety in style of the 4 selected bowlers is.

Given the strength of India's batting lineup, I think 5 bowlers would be the best option. I can see England having to do a lot of bowling and having an extra man to spread the workload would more than make up for having 1 batsman less.

Think England's batting lineup is strong enough to sacrifice 1 player.

Agree with eirebilly that a mix of styles is also essential to keep the Indian batsmen on their toes.

England have some very good bowlers who can bat a bit as well so i just dont see the need for it this series. Indias heavy batting line up may lead me to rconsider later this year though

Don't worry about India's batting lineup.

Sehwag and Gambhir, the best opening partnership around, are likely to miss the England tour.

So India have issues with stand in openers, so the batting will be weakened.

I just think the selecetors will always um and ah over the side.

Personally, what we have, KP's form aside, is the makings of a cracking side. It's looking the best it has for a long while. This test we have missed Anderson badly, but we do have a squad that usually copes well with 4 bowlers. My one concern is the lack of Colly type mid overs, which may bring Bopara in over Morgan, should Eoin lose form.

Seiously sonic_boom? Why would they miss the tour?

This test has shown its vital for England to play 6 specialist batsmen and 5 specialist bowelrs alongside prior. Unfortunatly they dont have Kallis 3 years ago available for selection and the umpires tend to be quite strict about the 12 players thing.

Theres only any point in picking 5 bowlers when they need two proper spinners, and then one should be Rashid or Patel to avoid lengthening the tail too much.


"I would have gone for Monty Panesar as the 5th bowler on this flat wicket."

Makes sense, we have seen how much spinners have ripped through the batting. Or not.
Its not like England needed Morgans batting ....even with hindsight picks it wouldnt change the fact that Englands top order played like they had already won the game and Englands bowlers as a unit just didnt want to be there.

with Anderson fit i would play the team who played at Cardiff, keep the winning team so to say. If KP continues to fail swap him out later on.

eirebilly wrote:Seiously sonic_boom? Why would they miss the tour?

Sehwag had shoulder surgery.

Gambhir has a shoulder problem, which prevents him from throwing and effects his batting. This may also lead to surgery.

Although India do have some very fine youngsters more than capable of filling the void.

Has to be four bowlers. If you have a fifth bowler that would make that much of a difference then he would be in your best four. The only time you need the extra bowler is if an injury occurs and you can't pick a side far an injury.

JDizzle wrote:Has to be four bowlers. If you have a fifth bowler that would make that much of a difference then he would be in your best four. The only time you need the extra bowler is if an injury occurs and you can't pick a side far an injury.

4 bowlers have to then be the best 4 bowlers who can combine to take 20 wickets a test match without leaking runs consistently. Otherwise a 5 man bowling attack is the better option, now that Prior is the England keeper.