(4-man attack:) Anyone else think Eng have been fortunate?

Not taking anything away from the performance of the four (and two bits of) English bowlers so far - epic stuff.

That is just the point, though. They have performed and achieved to breaking point. Broad included, though with less reward statistically.

If Broad's injury had come earlier in the match, it's hard to believe Oz would not have lasted rather longer, and probably - exponentially - have scored quite heavily, such that 20 wickets would have been hard to find.

What do you lot think? It seems to me that with four bowlers and no true all-rounder (Colly is a wobbler, Kev is either a filler/relief bowler or a desperate measure), on Australian wickets of the modern unbreakable type, you are leaving things on a knife edge to ruin. And so, if his replacement breaks down ......

There have been times already where things looked duly ominous, and the Oz 2nd dig at Briz (once Hussey and Haddin got settled in, after a lot of good fortune) was a sort of warning shot of what might easily happen if the home team's batting lineup grows a bit in spirit, and develops some basic batting sense (which it has for the most part lacked so far).

Maybe this fortune will continue, in Perth and beyond ~ but I am not sure.

I admit it is hard to see which of the top six you could leave out at this stage. Even Colly, the least productive accumulator with the bat to date, has been a star in the field, and is as always a fantastically positive influence on team spirit and determination.

It's a tough one.

1-0 says its the right decision.

So does the 5th bowler used in the 2006/7 Ashes.

I think the difference has been in the management (huge factor), the team spirit (even greater), the captain and the direction.

Jimmy has just bowled his t!ts off. I really am surprised at how disciplined his line and length has been. Well done him.

If we have a bowler/keeper who is good enough to bat at six, then five bowlers would be a good move. However is seems that Strauss and Flower are as much against five bowlers as Vaughan and Fletcher were for it.

Re: JKL's point about results being all the evidence you need.

I don't believe results tell the whole story, and sometimes only retrospectively suggest some form of obvious destiny.

The Ashes 2005 could have gone either way.

So - despite Fletcher being a dick by that stage, and Fred being a makeshift captain without a chart to navigate - could the Ashes 2006-7, until mid-Adelaide. Then it was crumble, crumble all the way.

RE: OP - yes, I think the four-man attack is light on wickets, on these pitches, unless at least three of the bowlers are (in Jamie Redknapp speak) top, top players.

Anderson's been surprisingly good - although past history would suggest that he's due to be rubbish again - and Swann has long-since become England's match-winner.

Finn and, pre-side-split Broad are/were a bit meh. Might chip in a wicket or two, might bowl dross.

Didn't think England would take 20 wickets in a match in this series, so they've proved me wrong. But I don't think they'll take 20 again and Adalaide will prove to be the exception, as Kingsmead was last winter in SA, where England weren't remotely close to bowling the opposition out twice in any of the other Tests.

I don't know why we still obsess over the idea of a five-man attack, we've been just as bad and probably more so with a fifth bowler than without. The success of this attack depends on Graeme Swann to prise out wickets at crucial times, everything else is much of a muchness and it doesn't really matter whether we have three muches of muchy muchness or four. The problem when we play a five-man attack is that we don't have the glue at 6, 7 and 8 that we generally do at present. It was shown at Headingley last Ashes how far away we were from being able to field five bowlers without Flintoff. If anyone seriously wants to pick a fifth bowler, i.e. Tim Bresnan, simply for the sake of having one, then good for them. I don't know why we'd pick an extra player who is good enough in neither discipline just for the sake of it, but some people like to obsess over this idea.

Class post.

If four can't bowl them out, why would a 5th bowler make the difference

I think I've already indicated an answer to that one above.

Further explanation, if needed:

1) If Oz pitches remain unresponsive (and basically bat-friendly) as they have been so far:

2) Seamers can generally bowl shorter, sharper spells if they are "hunting in a pack",

3) The opportunity of greater variety in the attack is useful (admittedly Tremlett is no so different from Finn as, say, in 2005 Flintoff, Jones, Harmison and Hoggard complemented each other with different styles and challenges to the bat)

4) In case of injury - I would have thought more likely to be brought on by bowling 35-40 overs an innings than 20-25, in most cases - two seamers and a spinner is very thin. England got through that on the last day at Adelaide, but the risks are large.

Of course (and obviously) the quality of the bowlers and bowling has to be up to scratch, and the batting has to be strong enough to make it practicable.

If you actually read what I wrote, I am not saying it is likely, or perhaps even desirable, in the present circs, with the present England squad, against the present Australian squad, to insist on a "five-man attack" at all costs.

That would be a triumph of dogma over present reality. My purpose was to look at the possibilities and probabilities.

And my point was (I think) the reverse of dogma - rather that, taking everything into account, despite the heroics of three bowlers and possibly four, England may struggle to keep taking 20 wickets - unless Oz remain as weak as they have been.

You could of course take the view that the Poms don't need to take 20 wickets any more, just to hang on and bat out their share of 15 days. I'm not sure simply batting on and hanging on for the 1-0 would be a sound policy though.

Having a world class spinner is really the key to a four man attack. He can bowl half the overs from one end, with the other three rotating from the other.

There's a good bit of truth in that.

And hopefully (from a Pom perspective), after a disappointing First Test, he has now landed.

I think they've been a tad fortunate because of circumstances.

In Brisbane they were obviously not up to the task of taking twenty wickets on a flat pitch but it didn't matter because the game was destined to be a draw and the Aussie attack looked even worse by the end of the game.

In Adelaide they were perhaps fortunate to lose the toss. Australia batted when the only help available to the quicks was on offer. Katich went for an injudicious run which exposed to the swing rabbits to Anderson. The Aussies never recovered from this. Had either the openers put on their customary sixty or so, or England batted first which meant Australia would have been batting when the weather was at its hottest and the pitch almost its flattest, it would have been a steep task for it.

Because of Australia's failings in the first innings, it then batted last in the most friendly conditions for Swann.

So what you're saying is that England have been lucky because they have fast bowlers good enough to exploit swinging and seaming conditions, a spinner good enough to exploit spinning conditions, and fielders good enough to hit the stumps when the opportunity arises.

Bloody lucky to be 1-0 up then......

No, more that in other circumstances the four man attack might have been better exploited. They struggled quite a bit in the 300 partnership of Hussey/Haddin. Australia doesn't have the attack to win but had it batted on days two and three which were the ideal conditions and avoided batting last facing a deficit, it might have at least avoided losing. England at least has one bowler who an exploit swinging conditions but Australia's problem is that some of the top order batsmen are ill-equipped to face it.

Anderson bowled some good spells in SA too in favourable conditions without any fatal consequences for the home side, but the weaknesses of the swing rabbits have made it too easy for him.

Despite England being clearly the better team, Australia would have made a much better fist of it, had it batted second. So it could have been 1-1 just by dint of circumstance. As soon as Australia was batting first I knew it was our best way to lose, which was significant because the team picked was never going to win.