• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2013/14

Spikey

Spikey

Well-known member
benchmark00 said:
Yes that's possible also of course, in fact for some reason I didn't even think of Pattinson, and in probability I too would have Pattinson. I think it's more than a chance that Lyon won't play irrespective.
Click to expand...
you've always hated james pattinson tbf. not a surprise you forgot him tbh
 
Maximas

Maximas

Well-known member
Well there's Smitteh as well, but tbh I've always believed no matter the conditions the value of having a specialist spinner in the team due to the unique challenge it poses to the batsmen is higher than an extra seamer
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Spikey said:
but then there's only 4 bowlers (plus noted medium pacer david warner).
Click to expand...
Yeah but going with four bowlers could be an option if Watson is out. Going in with five bowlers anyway is an option too of course but with so many bowlers on tour, plus Henriques, that option was covered well enough without having to send anyone else over. Only having six fit batsmen there was an issue, especially since Lehmann hates Hughes.

Typically teams cover all bases in their touring squad and then decide on the balance of the side for each game dependant on the pitch, the way everyone's playing, strengths and weaknesses etc. They don't decide on the balance of the eleven before the name the squad and then just name injury cover players; team balance is fluid.
 
dermo

dermo

Well-known member
usually id be more inclined to say pick a spinner regardless but when the 4th seamer is patto you'd be crazy not to consider it
 
Spikey

Spikey

Well-known member
one of the only non-boring (ie "old school", "attacking play", "rotation is dead", "have some beer") coaching philosophies lehmann has is his belief that if you don't have a really special bowler, it's really tough to win playing only 4 bowlers. i think he's totally wrong, but it's certainly a belief he has (see below), and that's why henriques was called in, in case watson went down. i'd just find it a really strange™ turn to go in with only 4 bowlers. yeah clarke could be that option, but still, i just find it hard to get my head around.



No Cookies | Herald Sun
No Cookies | Fox Sports News, Live Sport, Sports | Fox Sports
 
Last edited:
Spikey

Spikey

Well-known member
cricketweb is right ftr. i'm all out of cookies as it stands. rough times for Spikey. got some Bulla Chocolate Ice Cream tho
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Spikey said:
this is why I support 7. MJ 8. Siddle 9. Harris 10. Pattinson ftr. Patto takes 5, siddle does little, NUFAN tastes
Click to expand...
Harris had rightfully claimed his spot in the batting order ahead of Siddle by the end of the Ashes.

But anyway I'd go with six bats and the Ashes bowling attack. Pattinson is a much better bowler than Siddle and would make my side at absolutely full strength, but I just don't really see the need to risk him given he's been a bit of an inconsistent performer across his career so far and hasn't done anything to suggest he's on top of his game since returning from injury. Siddle's far less likely to be a liability and that's pretty important if you're going 6-4. I'd have considered Pattinson more heavily if the Watson insurance was still there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top