Pace, not spin, the key to defeating India

The flight could hurt him......

I like a person who uses stats to justify a position. Well considered DD. You've got some good points there and your argument is quite compelling.

Trouble is Steele that both Maxwell and Smith are batting all rounders. Their bowling performances are not their strengths and both have fairly poor bowling averages in shield cricket. Their batting averages are quite reasonable at over 40. I doubt that they would make much difference to Australia's overall performance. Having O'Keefe there may help but he isnt there

I see Harris was tearing it up in the Ryobi final ... surely he's no more injury prone than the other fast bowlers.

The mistake we made was letting pattinson only bowl 6 overs on the first day of the indian 1st innings. He got 3 wickets in those overs. We should have gone full on assault. the stats make interesting reading. Lyon was not effective. our pace bowlers took 7 of the first innings wickets. our spinner got 3. Our pace bowlers went for 285 runs, our spinners went for 259. OUr pace bowlers bowled 96.3 overs at 2.95 runs per over and 40.71 runs per wicket. Our spinners did 58 overs at 4.46 runs an over and 86 runs per wicket you don't win games giving 40 runs per wicket let alone 86. siddle, starc and lyon were deadwood. each bowler has an off day. but when 3 misfire at once that is a problem. MY solution - play no spinners. make the indians face a 5 prong pace attack. (Johnson, pattinson, henriques, starc, siddle (would love bird but is he hurt) make them force the pace with runs or the game will peter out into a draw (which may be a risk with them 1 up in the series) If we worried about losing clarke for not getting through the overs in a day, then we are worried about the wrong thing. HIs job is to win games. We should be 1 up in the series and making india play for wins. He may be our best batsmen, but he now has a hundred, so is due to fail (well if we follow the injury management profile of the aust selectors he should be rested) not 1 down and letting them play for draws.

Dont agree with you if Okeefe was in the squad, as he His batting makes up for any perceived loss. However I do tend to agree if that second spinner is Doherty as I don't have much confidence in his ability. Smith or maxwell would probably be more valuable than him.

Resting Pattinson would be a poor decision on so many levels. Firstly, he is our number 1 wicket taker as proven in the First test. Secondly, the experience he will gain from being heavily involved in this series will be invaluable in years to come and force him to become a much more versatile bowler. If he picks up an injury then so be it. Our current stocks of young fast bowlers is as good as ever so providing one or two raw guys with an opportunity on the back of a POTENTIAL injury to Pattinson is not the worst thing that could happen.

Even if your 'constant applied pressure by a spinner' idea is correct, does Australia have two spinners that that can constantly apply pressure?

I nearly fell off my chair when I heard that. It's not like Clarke was flogging him throughout this test either. He only bowled in 2 or 3 over spells for a total of around 30 overs for the entire match. I'm all for putting bowlers in cotton wool if they are that injury prone but that can go against them as well if the player doesn't get enough match fitness.

I would have liked to have seen how Bird went, hopefully he is alright as I do want to see how he goes in these conditions. But highly unlikely he'll be included given his flight schedule.

Would like to go along with what the article is proposing and its probably in the end right. But other than Pattinson, who have we got there who is making an impression in the fast bowling ranks. Perhaps unleashing Bird needs serious consideration. His consistency and accuracy may find some of their batsmen wanting. But the wickets there seem to blunt the effectiveness of Starc and Siddle, and I suspect Johnson would also fall into that category. The bowlers I think I'd use would be Pattinson, Bird, Lyon, Doherty (or Starc) and use part timers Henriques and Warner a lot more. I agree though that if the best Lyon can get is one wicket every 70 runs, Doherty cant be expected to cause any more damage to the Indians

The key in India is bowling at the stumps. Left armers angled across are not the answer. If Bird has gone home Pattinson must play. Further to this Henriques needs to bowl more overs. Even Wade. The slower and straighter the bowling the better. Hussey's mediums would even be handy now. The other option is to use Bird going home as an excuse to send O'Keefe over. Play him, Lyon, Doherty and open the bowling with Moises and Siddle if we must rest Pattinson

As well it would be interesting to se whether in those games where paceman have taken the majority of wickets, whether those visiting teams were playing 1 or two spinners. Whether we have three or four pacemen won;t make a lot of difference. It's the quality that counts.

I agree, playing two average spinners is not going to add much value. Maybe 3 quicks, 1 spinner and a weeks worth of catching practise?

Advocating more spinners doesn't really make sense and thus I agree with this article. You just have to look at the figures from the first test. Our quicks took more wickets for less runs at a better run rate than the spinners. Nathan Lyon, our best spinner, got pumped, what are we supposed to expect from Xavier Doherty who has a first class average in the mid 40s? If we're to play two spinners it should have been Lyon and SOK.

Wouldn't surprise me if that's what happens. But if they get medical advice he could break down, just like in the 2012 New Years Test, ignore it and play him and he gets injured, what would we all be thinking then? Especially if it results in him missing the Ashes.

Hi Arthur, agree with most of what you said however: Lyon is not our best spinner. He is about spinner no. 4 in my line up (3rd worst Australian bowler in terms of runs conceded in an innings) What does this say about Michael Clarke's captaincy that he continues to select a non performer, but worse continues to bowl an obviusly out of form spinner to the point where he gets 200 runs against him.

If we're picking 4 quicks we have to go Starc, Pattinson, Johnson and Siddle Yet as we saw the two of them together leak runs Pattinson, Johnson, Siddle and Bird when he gets back is extremely attractive.

If O'Keefe or Beer were in the squad, two spinners might work. As it is, we have decent-to-good quicks and only one spinner worthy of a game (Lyon, and plenty doubt him as well). Even in the most spin-helpful of conditions our quicks will outperform our spinners more often than not, at least against good players of spin. Starc would be the only one to come out of the bowling line-up for mine, but with Bird coming home that only leaves Johnson, Doherty, Maxwell and arguably Smith as options. None of those can come in and be expected to perform any better than Starc's dismal effort, so while he should come out, he can't. The side for the second Test may have to be the same as for the first, simply because there are a lack of options - overall in Australian cricket, and also with what I view as a poorly selected squad compounding the problem.

Pick 4 quicks. Bowl relentless line and length, set defensive fields and at least keep the run rate manageable. Playing a second spinner is inviting a pure massacre and the likelihood of India scoring 600 at 4 an over. At least 4 quicks will restrict the scoring rate. The Indians eat second rate spin for breakfast. They are far less comfortable against quality pace, even on dustbowl wickets. 3-215 at 4.5 an over from our "best" spinner is hardly cause to add our 2nd or 3rd best spinner to the mix. Pattinson's 5-96 is much more appealing. Siddle and Starc bowled OK too, without luck. Pattinson got the breaks this time.