The Oval: scene of Ashes triumphs and forfeited test matches. It’s always a great occasion – and matches are usually hard fought to the end. However, this summer the debate about the balance of the England’s team has been closer fought than the actual cricket.
England have absolutely trounced India thus far, whereas the debate about whether England should pick four bowlers or five has raged on – with neither side able to comprehend that events so far have neither confirmed nor undermined the legitimacy of their argument; both scoring runs and taking twenty wickets has proved easy thus far.
Of course, we all thought this one had been put to bed after the Ashes. They said we couldn’t take twenty wickets in Australia without five bowlers – but we did. The five bowler brigade where therefore dispatched like a Mitchell Johnson longhop.
However, the injury to Jonathan Trott has reopened the debate – not because we don’t think four bowlers can do the job, but because we’ve suddenly realised that our reserve batsman is about as convincing as evidence given by The News Of the World editorial board.
At the centre of the controversy is Ravi Bopara – a man who contributed precisely seven of Englands 710 runs at Edgbaston. Cynics might suggest that picking Bopara is like fielding five specialist batsmen (rather than six) anyway.
Before the third test, we debated whether it was better to select an ineffectual sixth batsman, just to keep the balance of the side the same, or a world class fifth bowler – at the time, this would have been Tremlett or Finn.
The argument is a simple one: do you want pick your world class players, or not? We would probably laugh at South Africa if they left out say, Morne Morkel, to accommodate someone like Francois du Plessis – just because they think the world will end if they don’t pick six batsmen.
However, if there’s one thing we’ve learned about Andy Flower and Andrew Strauss, it’s that they’re as conservative as the 1922 committee. If they want to stick with six batsmen, regardless of who the batsmen actually are, then they’re going to stick with six batsmen. There’s nothing that you or I, nor superman, can do about it.
Fortunately their misplaced faith in poor old Ravi didn’t cost us at Edgbaston. If one bloke makes almost three hundred on his own, it doesn’t really matter what your number six gets. However, we might not be so fortunate at the Oval.
The selection debate will be even more hotly contested this time because of the identity of bowler likely to profit from Bopara’s potential absence: doubts over Anderson’s fitness have made the return of Graham ‘bunny’ Onions a mouth-watering possibility.
Onions is a bit of cult hero to England fans. He’s a fantastic line bowler, he saved two test matches with the bat in South Africa, and he played a key role in our Ashes success of 2009. The clamour for Onion’s inclusion ahead of Bopara will be boisterous and sustained … and probably led by his number one fan, Lily Allen: ‘sun is in the sky, oh why oh why would they rather pick anyone else’.
James Morgan
Good piece!
Thoughts racing through my head when reading this were:
1. We’ve played with 3 bowlers, not 4, Swann has only taken four wickets in the series so far, at a cost of 80 runs each, a wicket every 109 balls.
2. Is there no regular place in the team for Bresnan? By playing “Big Bres” we should be able to get away with 5 bowlers – or have the 1922 committee decided it never shall be so?
Alternatively why not scare the life out of India and go for:
Swann
Bresnan
Onions
Monty
Flinn
Anderson
Tremlett
Shahzad
Broad
Collingwood
Mahmood
Using 11 balls – bowling at the same time, from different directions. Or am I getting a bit silly now?
For me, this is the acid test.
If they don’t field 5 for the Oval, then they really never will.
I would be less surprised to see India field 8 batsmen, at this point.
The 6th batsmen is needed far more often than the 5th bowler. Looking back to the 2005 Ashes, Hoggard or Jones were often significantly underused. I would be amased if England change startegy at this stage though Sri Lanka in the winter might need five bowlers due to the climatic conditions.
Why change a winning formula? Why do we suddenly need five bowlers when India have still failed to pass even 300 in their six innings this series? And by what route has Onions jumped ahead of the luckless Finn in the pecking order?
Also, why the big downer on poor old Ravi? If the likes of Bresnan and Prior can transform themselves into world-class performers, then imagine what ravibop could achieve – he’s got more pure natural talent in his little finger compared to the likes of Cook and Trott.
Not saying that Onions would play ahead of Finn. If Anderson is injured, they would both play (if Bopara is left out). Re: those saying that taking wickets hasn’t been a problem, so why change – runs haven’t exactly been hard to come by either. Maybe we should play with ten men – which is effectively what you’re doing if the sixth batsman makes a duck! The fifth bowler will almost always bowl – therefore making a contribution. Also, if we need 5 bowlers in the subcontinent, then this Oval test is the perfect opportunity to try it out – dead rubber etc. Why not experiment? Swann at 10 is just ridiculous, we have runs coming out of our ears. One injury to a bowler (has happened a lot this summer with too much cricket etc) and suddenly the team is exposed. it’s very risky.
I presume this is tongue in cheek! We play 6 batsman because we have 4 good to great bowlers who bowl well in decent length spells. Guess what? It works and all of the bowlers have habits of running through 2 or 3 batsman in a single spell every other test. 5 bowlers would be unneccesary and weaken the batting. If we need some overs KP can serve them up. That’s excellent selection and management.
Personally I’d have called up Taylor for the previous Test but Bopara is getting a chance because they see some class in him. Same reason Cook kept getting in the team this time last year – yep you remember last year when before the test blowhards were calling for Cook to be shot back to Essex out of a cannon? Wonder how that worked out? Won the Ashes in Oz and no1 in the world you say?
Don’t worry you’ll have a 6 batsman 5 bowlers line up in Sri Lanka – where it makes sense.
Well argued, Rohan. Good points there. However, I am willing to bet my family jewels that England will not pick 5 bowlers in Sri Lanka … even though they should. The more the media suggests they should, the less likely there are to do it ;-)