***Official*** South Africa in England

[wpdavid]

I only looked at wins. Im sure there were plenty of other occasions in losses and draws.

I wouldnt be supised if in the mid-late 90s England went with no spinner more often than not.

Now if Ive listed most of them and they happen to be mainly wins, then maybe there is a lesson there.

There may well be, hence my preference for that line-up on Wednesday and my comments about mid90's SA.

However, I don't think it happened very often even in the mid/late 1990's. And I'd be absolutely astonished if it happened 'more often than not'. When I skimmed through some fixtures & series that were relatively likely not to have featured a spinner, there was always a Croft, Illingworth, Emburey, Tufnell or Salisbury lurking in the background. Not that they did a lot, which supports the point you're making, but one of them usually played.

 

[Scaly piscine]

In the past pitches obviously wore more, bat technology/attitudes were different and spinners could nearly always be relied upon to keep it tight. Also Panesar is fairly exceptional in how bad his batting and fielding are, only Tufnell and Such from the times I remember would rival him - usually it was finger spinners who could bat reasonably well that were picked.

So anyways more reasons to pick a seamer over Panesar.

 

[grecian]

Hey, if you can guarantee we'd have four fit decent seamers, all firing I'd prefer them over Monty every match. Yet that's not what we've seen since 05, I'm afraid. Broad, Anderson and Harmison have all bowled worse then Panesar on a number of occasions, even on seaming pitches. Jones and Flintoff's fitness is debatable as well. Hoggard seems to be written off by the selectors too, maybe harshly. Lets not even mention Mahmood or Plunkers either.....

 

[wpdavid]

Hey, if you can guarantee we'd have four fit decent seamers, all firing I'd prefer them over Monty every match. Yet that's not what we've seen since 05, I'm afraid. Broad, Anderson and Harmison have all bowled worse then Panesar on a number of occasions, even on seaming pitches. Jones and Flintoff's fitness is debatable as well. Hoggard seems to be written off by the selectors too, maybe harshly. Lets not even mention Mahmood or Plunkers either.....

All true, and I wouldn't even have considered this before now. But I'm wondering whether, at this particular moment, the 1st choice 4 do present a more genuine threat to SA than 3 of them plus Panesar.

The selectors will probably render the discussion meaningless by playing 5 bowlers anyway.

 

[grecian]

All true, and I wouldn't even have considered this before now. But I'm wondering whether, at this particular moment, the 1st choice 4 do present a more genuine threat to SA than 3 of them plus Panesar.

The selectors will probably render the discussion meaningless by playing 5 bowlers anyway.

Possibly your right, the iffy weather forecast may well play a big factor, too.

Rainy and hot by all accounts, we need a swing-bowler in form I reckon, there's that bloke from Notts, maybe he should be called up.....

 

[Pup Clarke]

Yeah, Mark Ealham.

 

[Richard]

Andre Adams, clearly.

 

[Richard]

I think the only occasion that Goughy missed out (and forgive me if it was there) was the Leeds test against WI in 2000.

It was there. The team he mentioned played the Tests at Headingley and The Oval in 2000.

For mine, that was the strongest team England put on the park in my time. In Trescothick and Hick, just two weak-links, and even Trescothick had fortune on his side so he didn't look that bad. Even in 2005, when a much more thrilling and taut-to-the-bitter-end success was managed, there were more weak-links in Geraint Jones, Harmison and Bell.

Such a shame it never played together again after those 2 Tests in 2000. Oh, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?...

 

[wpdavid]

It was there. The team he mentioned played the Tests at Headingley and The Oval in 2000.

For mine, that was the strongest team England put on the park in my time. In Trescothick and Hick, just two weak-links, and even Trescothick had fortune on his side so he didn't look that bad. Even in 2005, when a much more thrilling and taut-to-the-bitter-end success was managed, there were more weak-links in Geraint Jones, Harmison and Bell.

Such a shame it never played together again after those 2 Tests in 2000. Oh, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?...

The team was listed, but the Leeds game wasn't one of the ones named. Not that it matters a lot. And yes, it was a good side, albeit flattered by playing at home to WI. Some of them, notably the opening bowlers & some of the batsmen, were badly shown up 12 months later though.

 

[Richard]

No, don't think they were TBH. The bowlers simply bowled far, far worse a year later than they had in 2000.

The only batsman I think you could say was shown-up was Trescothick, and to an extent Atherton (though he was at the end of his career by then and had already proved himself earlier). Hussain, Stewart and (when he replaced Hick) Ramprakash all did respectably enough, better indeed than they had in 2000. Vaughan and Thorpe were denied the chance to do so by injury, and Butcher of course grabbed his unexpected opportunity.

 

[Stapel]

I'd go with one of two XIs.

If it is a flat pitch:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Broad
Ambrose
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

If it is a seaming wicket:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Ambrose
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar

I agree with that. Though the funny thing is that Broad's recent batting figures are better than Collingwood's. So, maybe England should play the flat pitch option anyway.

There is no reason to kick either Sidebottom or Anderson out of the XI. Otherwise, England has a few decent fast bowling alternatives with Harmison, Jones and Hoggard. If Panesar would be left out for whatever reason, I'd probably bring back a batsman.

 

[Richard]

I agree with that. Though the funny thing is that Broad's recent batting figures are better than Collingwood's.

Even despite this (and it's a fair discrepancy), who'd seriously go into any match expecting Broad to outplay Collingwood?

 

[Zinzan]

In the past pitches obviously wore more, bat technology/attitudes were different and spinners could nearly always be relied upon to keep it tight. Also Panesar is fairly exceptional in how bad his batting and fielding are, only Tufnell and Such from the times I remember would rival him - usually it was finger spinners who could bat reasonably well that were picked.

So anyways more reasons to pick a seamer over Panesar.

Funnily enough, I don't think Panesar is quite as bad with the willow as some make out. He's no Bradman obviously, but I would have thought there were a few worse tailenders in the world cricket and not just Christopher Martin.

You know what Scaly....I'm starting to get the distinct impression that your not a Panesar fan

 

[Goughy]

Funnily enough, I don't think Panesar is quite as bad with the willow as some make out. He's no Bradman obviously, but I would have thought there were a few worse tailenders in the world cricket and not just Christopher Martin.

You know what Scaly....I'm starting to get the distinct impression that your not a Panesar fan

Hmm, a Test average of under 6 and a FC average of under 8 combined with little coordination suggests you are being very generous.

Frankly, his batting is terrible but its an irrelevance given his role in the team.

Doesnt matter to me if he averages 3 or 10 in Test cricket.

However, Monty does seem to have this ability to get people to support and defend every weakness, no matter how obvious.

 

[Zinzan]

Hmm, a Test average of under 6 and a FC average of under 8 combined with little coordination suggests you are being very generous.

Frankly, his batting is terrible but its an irrelevance given his role in the team.

Doesnt matter to me if he averages 3 or 10 in Test cricket.

However, Monty does seem to have this ability to get people to support and defend every weakness, no matter how obvious.

Interesting, I've never really studied his stats tbh, but watching Englands last 7-8 tests played, he definately struck me as being a step-up from Martin, I mean he didn't quite have the propensity to miss straight deliveries that martin has. But hey, I stand to be corrected, maybe he is currently the 2nd worst test batsmen.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I figure with Panesar there's some vision/co-ordination thing going on that limits him, he should be better than he actually is.

 

[Uppercut]

He's a joke with the bat and atrocious in the field. Period.

Having said that, i've backed South Africa for the series and i'd feel much better if they were facing an all-seam attack. This is the batting lineup against which Virender Sehwag took 3-12 in an innings, they have a greater propensity to make stupid mistakes against spinners than they do seamers IMO.

 

[Zinzan]

Having said that, i've backed South Africa for the series and i'd feel much better if they were facing an all-seam attack. This is the batting lineup against which Virender Sehwag took 3-12 in an innings, they have a greater propensity to make stupid mistakes against spinners than they do seamers IMO.

A point your not alone in noticing

 

[Richard]

Hmm, a Test average of under 6 and a FC average of under 8 combined with little coordination suggests you are being very generous.

Frankly, his batting is terrible but its an irrelevance given his role in the team.

Doesnt matter to me if he averages 3 or 10 in Test cricket.

Absolutely. It's the poor fielding rather than the poor batting that is and always has been the concern to me.

 

[Scaly piscine]

He's a joke with the bat and atrocious in the field. Period.

Having said that, i've backed South Africa for the series and i'd feel much better if they were facing an all-seam attack. This is the batting lineup against which Virender Sehwag took 3-12 in an innings, they have a greater propensity to make stupid mistakes against spinners than they do seamers IMO.

Panesar's been a great help in SA getting the best possible result in the first two Tests.

60 overs without a wicket in the 1st Test on the last couple of days, powerless in the 2nd Test as SA went from 130odd for 4 to 500+. What does he have to be before people question his place?