***Official*** South Africa in England

[Uppercut]

They can beat top ODI nations, as much as other countries can, they just don't perform consistently.

Hmm, indeed. Nevertheless, they are a vastly inferior ODI side to South Africa.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Patel being suggested as a Test option!

An ODI option, ok. Maybe even the 2nd spinner on tour. But as the primary spin option, I remain to be convinced.

If he was a 2fer and only bowled if needed to support an all pace attack then that is just about understandable, but he had better score runs as well as that would still be his primary job.

Regarding Panesar, he is ok. He never was anything else nor was he likely to be. He is clearly the best spinner England have, but do we need to play an average spinner that cant bat or field every game? Im not sure.

Only really as a fall-back option, to be fair. If he's good enough to hold onto a top 6 spot on merit (and he averaged 45+ in FC cricket the last time I looked, so it's a chance) his SLA would allow us to play our best bowlers (seamers all, realistically) because we'd still have a semi-serious option if the pitch breaks up later on.

Panesar is too much of a passenger at times for my taste. His figures seem to have been flattered vastly by poor Windies & NZ teams playing him like prep-school first-formers. If the pitch looks like it'll turn square from day two we should include him by all means, but I'm coming round to Scaly's view a bit. Which isn't a phrase I use lightly.

 

[tooextracool]

I always believe you should go with a spinner. So as he's the best we have he should be the first name on the team sheet.

I've always been of that view as well but it just doesnt make sense when said player is a liability in the field and with the bat. And hes not even very good with the ball. Doesnt flight the ball enough for mine and has never managed to use his arm ball effectively or often enough in tests. If Panesar was as good as Vettori with the ball there might be a case for his selection in every game, but when we have fast bowlers of the caliber of Sidebottom, Jones and Hoggard who would be omitted from from the side because of him then I would only pick him on a bunsen.

Its very similar to the Tufnell situation a decade or so ago who easily spun rings around Panesar in the bowling department. However he just didnt amount to much in the field and with the bat to demand regular selection and his attitude didnt help either.

 

[Uppercut]

I've always been of that view as well but it just doesnt make sense when said player is a liability in the field and with the bat. And hes not even very good with the ball. Doesnt flight the ball enough for mine and has never managed to use his arm ball effectively or often enough in tests. If Panesar was as good as Vettori with the ball there might be a case for his selection in every game, but when we have fast bowlers of the caliber of Sidebottom, Jones and Hoggard who would be omittedeld and with the bat. And hes not even very good with the ball. Doesnt flight the ball enough for mine and has never managed to use his arm ball effectively or often enough in tests. If Panesar was as good as Vettori with the ball there might be a case for his selection in every game, but when we have fast bowlers of the caliber of Sidebottom, Jones and Hoggard who would be omitted from from the side because of him then I would only pick him on a bunsen.

Its very similar to the Tufnell situation a decade or so ago who easily spun rings around Panesar in the bowling department. However he just didnt amount to much in the field and with the bat to demand regular selection and his attitude didnt help either.

I too came round to that view, particularly given his failings on helpful enough pitches at Lords and Edgebaston this summer. It's not the lack of flight that worries me, Kumble uses very little either and is an excellent bowler. Where Panesar fails is in his tragic lack of variation- whether that be in the form of a flighted delivery or otherwise. Indeed, when he tries something new it's often half-baked and he gets his length completely wrong.

If they stick with the five man attack, though, he'll play every game.

 

[tooextracool]

I too came round to that view, particularly given his failings on helpful enough pitches at Lords and Edgebaston this summer. It's not the lack of flight that worries me, Kumble uses very little either and is an excellent bowler. Where Panesar fails is in his tragic lack of variation- whether that be in the form of a flighted delivery or otherwise. Indeed, when he tries something new it's often half-baked and he gets his length completely wrong.

If they stick with the five man attack, though, he'll play every game.

It would indeed help if he had a few more variations such as a well developed arm ball. However, he rarely ever makes use of his long fingers when bowling his stock ball by tossing the ball up. Giles is often ridiculed on this forum but he was very capable of varying his pace and giving the ball some air. Panesar would do well to learn from him.

Kumble is a completely different bowler from Panesar. His stock ball skids onto the batsman and throwing the ball up too often would make him fairly innocuous. He does vary his pace often and he does use flight far more than Panesar, especially for his googly though.

 

[Uppercut]

It would indeed help if he had a few more variations such as a well developed arm ball. However, he rarely ever makes use of his long fingers when bowling his stock ball by tossing the ball up. Giles is often ridiculed on this forum but he was very capable of varying his pace and giving the ball some air. Panesar would do well to learn from him.

I don't think such changes to his stock delivery are possible at this stage, shown by how often he gets his length wrong when trying to give the ball flight. What i would hope for would be the ability to use a flighted delivery as a variation, maybe once or twice an over, as a slower ball that turns more.

Kumble is a completely different bowler from Panesar. His stock ball skids onto the batsman and throwing the ball up too often would make him fairly innocuous. He does vary his pace often and he does use flight far more than Panesar, especially for his googly though.

Indeed, i was just pointing out that a flighted stock ball is not completely necessary to be an excellent bowler.

 

[Neil Pickup]

With respect to Patel's selection, it would absolutely only be if he was fit enough to hold down a place as a batsman on merit - which he may well be: that first class average is not shabby by any stretch.

It is slightly parallel to Australia's current slow bowler quandary for mine - the specialist spinner is not doing what he's being picked for, there are fast bowlers banging the door down, and you have batters (Clarke, Symonds) who can send down twirlers as well.

Hypothetically:

Strauss
Cook
Bell/Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood
Patel
Flintoff
Foster
Sidebottom
Harmison
Anderson

 

[Neil Pickup]

In other news, Harmison reverses ODI retirement and is called into squad for NatWest Series.

The only good aspect I can think of about this is that it may finally cause Richard to spontaneously combust.

 

[jammay123]

In other news, Harmison reverses ODI retirement and is called into squad for NatWest Series.

The only good aspect I can think of about this is that it may finally cause Richard to spontaneously combust.

worst news. england have practically given the series to sa already. im guessing its kp's doing.

 

[Neil Pickup]

worst news. england have practically given the series to sa already. im guessing its kp's doing.

"Steve, fancy a bit of 20 million quid? The West Indies really are ****e, mate"

 

[Woodster]

"Steve, fancy a bit of 20 million quid? The West Indies really are ****e, mate"

Steve : "Why aye, sounds canny like, I was always ganna return to ODI's before this tournament was announced like. I love my one-day cricket, really missed it like. So we only have to travel to the West Indies? Aye, that's not that far, I love travelling away like."

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, the best thing for Harmison would be to focus on Tests, but KP wants him, it would appear the likes of Hussain, Botham, Willis think it is the best think for him playing. They see ODIs as a chance for Steve to get overs under his belt so he's in shape for Tests; missing the point one thinks. Agree with Richard, Harmison is not a great one-day bowler.

That being said, as with every player we ever select I hope he does the job and proves me wrong

 

[zaremba]

That being said, as with every player we ever select I hope he does the job and proves me wrong

This is one of the things that sets you apart from Richard, of course.

 

[fredfertang]

It may be we dont give Richard sufficient credit and his posts on the Harmison issue have been a cunning plan all along to lure Harmy out of ODI retirement and onto further glories that only Richard has foreseen ........

And that is not an invitation to compare Richard to Baldrick

Nor me for that matter

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, the best thing for Harmison would be to focus on Tests, but KP wants him, it would appear the likes of Hussain, Botham, Willis think it is the best think for him playing. They see ODIs as a chance for Steve to get overs under his belt so he's in shape for Tests; missing the point one thinks. Agree with Richard, Harmison is not a great one-day bowler.

That being said, as with every player we ever select I hope he does the job and proves me wrong

In a way it shows a lack of respect (rightly or wrongly) for ODIs that they're selecting a bowler over more able candidates for an ODI series against a major cricketing nation simply in order to ensure he is ready for tests.

 

[Furball]

It suprises me that Pietersen wants Harmison back in both forms so badly, as on the face of it, Harmison seems like the complete opposite of KP.

 

[gettingbetter]

So Shah at 6 is wasted and goes upto 3. I thought that was the same reasoning for Bopara who went upto 3 from 6, and now he is back down there again. Unless Flintoff does.

Odd.

 

[Goughy]

they're selecting a bowler over more able candidates

Who?

 

[social]

Who?

Ditto

 

[BoyBrumby]

Almost worth taking Dickinson off ignore to see his response to this.

But only almost.