It's commonly accepted in cricket that bowlers win you matches. Why then does every country in the international arena persist with a jack of all trades all-rounder instead of an extra bowler?
Dean Jones, the man who rewrote the one-day cricket manual, once said the 50-over format provided a more searching examination of a team than Test cricket.
He was not trying to argue one-day cricket was a higher form than Tests but merely pointing out how teams found it harder to mask bowling deficiencies in the limited-overs format.
In Tests a captain may choose to banish an under-performing bowler to the outfield but he does not have the same luxury in 50-over or Twenty20 cricket where there are restrictions as to how many overs one can bowl.
That rule is the main reason why one-day specialists inevitably are all-rounders. From the current series James Hopes and Luke Wright, both uncapped at Test level, are excellent examples of this.
Hopes' omission at Lord's was an indication that Australia, with Cameron White in such a rich vein of form, is happy to have a batsmen occupying the No.7 slot otherwise taken by the all-rounder.
That White did not bat was irrelevant in the wash-up of Sunday's game but worth noting in future discussions as to what sort of player you want in that position.
The fifth bowler will more often than not be called upon to roll his arm over whereas the seventh batsman can sit in the shed all game and not bowl. They are, in essence, a passenger.
With that in mind, does it not make more sense for a side to pick six batsmen - including a wicketkeeper who in the post-Adam Gilchrist era is expected to also be a high-class willow wielder - and five frontline bowlers?
The relevance to Australia is whether it decides to pick an extra bowler, say Peter Siddle or Ben Hilfenhaus, another batsman (White, assuming it's not Michael Hussey in the gun), or the all-rounder (Hopes).
The returns from the fifth and sixth bowlers (or in some cases seventh and eighth) used in Australia's 24 completed ODIs warrant analysis.
In the 13 games won by Australia this year, its non-frontline bowlers have outperformed the opposition's on 10 occasions (76.9 percent)
In Australia's 11 losses, the number falls to four (44 percent).
Furthermore, on the 14 occasions Australia's fifth and sixth bowlers outshone the opposition's it won 10 times. On the seven occurrences they did not, Australia lost six games.
Such numbers, albeit derived from a small sample size and only relevant to Australia and its opposition in 2009, indicate extra bowling depth is more important than batting.
For further evidence of this, look to each of Australia's four World Cup triumphs.
In 1987, it was the bowling variations of Steve Waugh and Simon O'Donnell which proved crucial.
Tom Moody's deployment mid-tournament formed the catalyst for Australia's revival in 1999.
And in 2003 and 2007, Australia's bowlers were so dominant it did not really matter what Darren Lehmann (2003) or Shane Watson (2007) did with Andrew Symonds, who featured in both campaigns.
Furthermore, it's no coincidence Australia's one-day form improved once Brett Lee returned to the side, though England's incompetence is an equally strong reason.
If Mitchell Johnson's batting continues to improve to the point where he could hold down No.7, Australia should increasingly consider playing five frontline bowlers.
That's bad news for Hopes but the opposite for the Siddle or Hilfenhaus.