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

The four man attack has worked so far because Broad bowled tightly, which allowed Jimmy to attack from the other end. can Tremlett fulfill a similar role? I have my doubts.

Tremlett is probably the most accurate of all the England bowlers. Doesn't try too many variations like Broad sometimes does. His game is to pound away back of a length and keep hitting the splice of the bat.

He's a bit one dimensional at times, and it means he's not really suited to one day cricket, but if there's something in the pitch for him, he'll be a handful.

As Henry mentioned the key to having a 4-man bowling attack is having a high quality spinner. The spinner must be able to combine the stock role of keeping things tight whilst also being a wicket threat.

Every successful 4 man bowling attack has had this spinner, except the West Indies, who had a wealth of fast bowling options and exploited the rules in the 1980s that meant you could bowl a very slow over rate. Their games rarely lasted the full 5 days anyway.

If your spinner is an honest journeyman like the King of Spain, or Paul Harris, you would be recommended to have 5 bowlers. But a Kumble, Warne or Qadir can shoulder the burder of 4.

The fifth bowler should also add something the others don't. That's how you could accomodate a Steve Smith or an Adil Rashid who can bowl wicket-taking deliveries, but can't be relied on to bowl economically.

I always liked 5 bowlers but fair enough it's less crucial when you have Swanny rather than the King of Spain as your spinner - a top class spinner can bowl a lot of overs as well as being a wicket-taker and reduce the need for 4 seamers. I suppose an ordinary spinner who bats at 7 or 8 is almost making it effectively a 4-man attack anyway...

Imagine the current team with Freddie in his prime, he'd probably bat at 8. But I suppose you can always construct a world-beating side on the assumption all your best players were at their peak together, it doesn't actually happen very often though I suppose it was the case with Australia!

The key for Australia in the subsequent test is to keep England out in the field long enough for it to become an issue. Apart from the Hussey/Haddin partnership they haven't really done that because of a combination of good bowling and injudicious batting.

England has improved. Australia has got worse. And who really started this thread?

I refuse to believe it was Frommie Pete, the OP doesn't have a single pun in it.

Of course, it only takes one injury to completely stuff the four man attack...

Colly and Swanny will clean up the tail and do the business in the 2nd innings.

The swing rabbits and general ineptitude ensured that the four man attack wasn't really tested today either.

Dello (Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:45 am) wrote:Of course, it only takes one injury to completely stuff the four man attack...

Who was injured?

Anderson & Finn were both off at various stages, just cramp I think. Same with KP.

Yeah, Tremlett was the only seamer standing at one point. Tremlett!