Originally Posted by sanskritsimon
Judging by the rest of the post, the aspect of this hypothetical bowling attack to which you object is just the bit about two spinners. But it is too early to make a judgement like this about either part of the hypothetical attack. With the first test still some weeks away, it seems to me just as likely for the fourth seamer to be overkill this summer as for the second spinner to be. If we are willing to vary the attack by varying the team that is selected with last-minute sensitivity to the likely conditions, then there's no need to make any judgement of the kind that you've made here. If we are not willing to do that, but instead we want to pick a team that can be maintained all summer and cover all bases, then it would seem prudent to include the second spinner as well as the fourth seamer, even though there may well be games in which one or other is not used. It should be pointed out that the current availability of e.g. Ansari, Stokes, Ali, Patel, etc. makes it possible to pick such a team without compromising the batting too much. That situation is exceptional; but already, it seems, the decision has been taken to lean towards the selection of the fourth seamer at no. 6, even though it may well be that your reservations about having Ali in the top six would apply equally to Stokes, and even though there may well be matches where we wouldn't need four seamers. I think it's interesting that this decision hasn't come under much scrutiny, yet whenever someone suggests playing a second spinner -- which can actually be done without affecting the batting much -- that suggestion comes under attack.
Stokes averaged 60 v South Africa in our last series.
And it wasn't all in one knock (memorable as it was) as only Root passed 50 more often for us that series.
Bit drastic to be calling for him to be dropped from the top 6 wouldn't you agree?