***Official England in India***

[pup11]

I have always been advocate of test openers who are willing to attack the bowlers and hence set the tone for the innings and also pushing the bowlers on the backfoot, of course gone are the days when openers had to be cautious during the 1st session.

 

[Uppercut]

An arm-ball would indeed be useful, but it wouldn't make any difference on non-turning surfaces - an arm-ball and a non-turning off-break are pretty much the same thing.

As for good variation of flight and pace - that could turn him into an exceptionally effective bowler on turning pitches, but again it wouldn't help on non-turners as as Vettori's case shows, you can't flight batsmen out by the crateload.

Well Panesar does get some degree of turn from most surfaces, a fair few more than Vettori does. An arm-ball isn't really equal to a non-spinning offbreak, although in Panesar's case it probably would be because he bowls with a flat trajectory all the time.

I think the excitement in his early career was to do with the idea that he would improve certain areas of his game- in particular his flight and his variation. A couple of years on, it hasn't happened, and because everyone knows that now he's easier to find a way to play- look at Smith at Edgebaston, when Panesar should have been at his most effective. (I know you'll mention the let-off, but the method was still excellent and suggested that Panesar had been worked out). Not only that but his batting and fielding is still a joke.

 

[Richard]

Well, last time her toured was 2 years back, and he came out a cropper. Piss poor returns of 5 wickets at 62 even on wickets like Mumbai (a ripper)

Yep, he did - outbowled by Shaun Udal (and it wasn't like purely his figures were better because of cleaning-up the tail - Udal honestly did bowl better), and then he bowled poorly at Galle on the other occasion he's been presented with a turning pitch in the subcontinent in his career, taking a 0-for.

Purely and simply, he bowled less well in those 3 games (of the India tour last time, the pitch at Mohali also offered something to both seam and spin in addition to those mentioned above) than he is capable of. The India series was, after all, his debut - it's not like he'd be alone in having a bad series on debut. We can only hope he bowls better this time.

 

[Richard]

I have always been advocate of test openers who are willing to attack the bowlers and hence set the tone for the innings and also pushing the bowlers on the backfoot, of course gone are the days when openers had to be cautious during the 1st session.

Nah, they'll never be gone as long as there are good opening bowlers and seaming wickets around. Apart from the last 7 years when wickets have generally been roundly flat and bowlers poor, there's been no more than a tiny number of successful strokeplaying openers (Slater and Anwar were two such cases but they're in a very small minority - most who attempted to play shots at the top of the order failed miserably).

The flat wickets and poor bowling of recent times has seen a proliferation of strokeplaying openers managing success, but it's not something you should ever look for in an opener.

 

[Uppercut]

I have always been advocate of test openers who are willing to attack the bowlers and hence set the tone for the innings and also pushing the bowlers on the backfoot, of course gone are the days when openers had to be cautious during the 1st session.

In the sub-continent that's fine, but the ball swings round corners early on sometimes in England or New Zealand so you don't want the men at the top playing shots. Probably explains why the England ODI side can't find a man for the powerplays.

 

[pup11]

I'm very surprised you think Vaughan will get in the squad, never mind the team for the opening Test.

If Harmison bowls as he did at The Oval (what people viewed as well) he won't have any effect if India bat well.

If I had to guess at the bowling-attack for the Test I'd probably take a punt on Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison, MSP. I hope there won't be a second spinner because there's just no need. And if there is one I hope it's Swann.

Hasn't he decided to retire yet, c'mon what is he waiting for, i think he should have retired as soon as his knees were gone, and surely he has no place in the current test side now.

 

[Uppercut]

Yep, he did - outbowled by Shaun Udal (and it wasn't like purely his figures were better because of cleaning-up the tail - Udal honestly did bowl better), and then he bowled poorly at Galle on the other occasion he's been presented with a turning pitch in the subcontinent in his career, taking a 0-for.

Purely and simply, he bowled less well in those 3 games (of the India tour last time, the pitch at Mohali also offered something to both seam and spin in addition to those mentioned above) than he is capable of. The India series was, after all, his debut - it's not like he'd be alone in having a bad series on debut. We can only hope he bowls better this time.

Definitely a factor, but let's not forget too that this Indian team tend to eat most spinners for breakfast, so Panesar's hardly alone in failing there.

 

[Richard]

Well Panesar does get some degree of turn from most surfaces, a fair few more than Vettori does.

He might get turn from more surfaces than Vettori does, but surfaces on which he turns it enough to be dangerous are still in a minority. No matter what he does (short of switching to wristspin), this won't change, and if he's played well he won't offer any real threat on such surfaces.

An arm-ball isn't really equal to a non-spinning offbreak, although in Panesar's case it probably would be because he bowls with a flat trajectory all the time.

I think the excitement in his early career was to do with the idea that he would improve certain areas of his game- in particular his flight and his variation. A couple of years on, it hasn't happened, and because everyone knows that now he's easier to find a way to play- look at Smith at Edgebaston, when Panesar should have been at his most effective. (I know you'll mention the let-off, but the method was still excellent and suggested that Panesar had been worked out).

As I say though - even if his flight and variation was better, all this would do would be to make him even more effective on turning wickets. It wouldn't mean he went from ineffective to effective in Tests like these matches which I'm providing links to here and here and here and here and here.

Not only that but his batting and fielding is still a joke.

The batting doesn't bother me - you can afford one, even two, useless batsmen in a team. But the fielding is and always has been a concern - it's a real anachronism to see such a dreadful fielder in a Test team. I can field better than him and I barely practice my fielding - he (as far as I'm aware) still works unfailingly on it. It's a serious concern that despite this he's still as dreadful as he is.

 

[Richard]

Definitely a factor, but let's not forget too that this Indian team tend to eat most spinners for breakfast, so Panesar's hardly alone in failing there.

It's true that Indian batsmen have made life difficult for many spinners at times in the last 20 years and more, but that series was hardly an outstanding batting-line-up:
Jaffer who played well at Nagpur when he came back but isn't an oustanding player of spin
Sehwag who was mostly worked-out by the seamers
Dravid who played well
Tendulkar who was totally out-of-nick at that time
Laxman who faced 1 ball all series before being ridiculously dropped
Yuvraj Singh who isn't a particularly outstanding player of spin anyway and was poor that series
Kaif who's no more than middle-of-the-road as a Test batsman even if he has improved since that series
Dhoni who has yet to convince anyone as a Test batsman
And the tail of whom only Kumble is especially good.

 

[Richard]

Hasn't he decided to retire yet, c'mon what is he waiting for, i think he should have retired as soon as his knees were gone, and surely he has no place in the current test side now.

His knees aren't gone, and if he'd retired in 2006 it'd have been a travesty - full credit to him for fighting back and for getting back in the Test team. He had some good times to show that he wasn't a one-year wonder in 2002 as some thought.

I honestly also still feel he can continue to score - he's far from useless. Fact is though he's barely managed a run this season, for anyone, Yorkshire or England. His only innings of significance involved a plumb lbw being turned-down on 32.

 

[gettingbetter]

Well, a poor mentality is more difficult to solve than a poor technique. He averages 39 without Bangladesh. Not only that, he has a terrible record in India. I wouldn't drop him, there's noone pushing hard for his place, but I certainly don't expect him to play a starring role in this series. Because, well, he never does.

No one pushing hard? Shah, Bopara, Patel and you could possibly even throw up Key. It is well known that Bell has never taken a game by control in a career which is rather long (40 odd Tests now?). But the thing is that, as many posters have said thus far, he has never really been out of form. The main gripe with him is that he is a bit like Monty - his average has remained in between 42-46 for a long time and he has the odd game which lets everyone forget that he really should not be as safe as he is.

 

[gettingbetter]

Kaif? Goooood, I hope not. Not good enough for Tests for mine and never has been.

He's done what most players should do when dropped. Go back to domestic cricket and A tours and score runs.

 

[Richard]

It's debateable whether Kaif should ever have played a Test in my book. By Indian standards (until recently it seems) he's never been especially prolific.

 

[Uppercut]

He might get turn from more surfaces than Vettori does, but surfaces on which he turns it enough to be dangerous are still in a minority. No matter what he does (short of switching to wristspin), this won't change, and if he's played well he won't offer any real threat on such surfaces.

As I say though - even if his flight and variation was better, all this would do would be to make him even more effective on turning wickets. It wouldn't mean he went from ineffective to effective in Tests like (lots of tests).

Yeah, but it would help, especially when batsmen go after him. You couldn't hit him out of the attack, or force him to put mid-on and mid-off back. Panesar's nowhere near the bowler he could be.

I think the point you're making is that a finger spinner with no doosra who can't bat or field has no place in a test side under most conditions. Generally that's true- but it's very difficult to tell what a pitch will do in three or four days, so they keep him there to hedge their bets. What i think is, he could be worth that unconditional place in the side just for bowling if his variation and flight were to improve- but as it stands, he's not.

 

[Uppercut]

No one pushing hard? Shah, Bopara, Patel and you could possibly even throw up Key. It is well known that Bell has never taken a game by control in a career which is rather long (40 odd Tests now?). But the thing is that, as many posters have said thus far, he has never really been out of form. The main gripe with him is that he is a bit like Monty - his average has remained in between 42-46 for a long time and he has the odd game which lets everyone forget that he really should not be as safe as he is.

Noone is pushing hard. Shah, Bopara and Patel are all ODI players. Bopara had a tour and failed horribly, Shah doesn't fill me with confidence in the slightest and Patel's FC record isn't particularly strong this season- if he was in the side it'd be as a bits-and-pieces allrounder. I'm not saying none of those should replace Bell, I'm just saying their cases aren't the most convincing.

 

[gettingbetter]

Noone is pushing hard. Shah, Bopara and Patel are all ODI players. Bopara had a tour and failed horribly, Shah doesn't fill me with confidence in the slightest and Patel's FC record isn't particularly strong this season- if he was in the side it'd be as a bits-and-pieces allrounder. I'm not saying none of those should replace Bell, I'm just saying their cases aren't the most convincing.

Bopara: yes he did have a poor first tour in possibly the toughest cricket environment in the world, but for the last two CC seasons he has been averaging above 60. Too many on here have written him of for life after the SL tour.

Shah: more bloke has been knocking on the door for the last 3-5 years and hasn't even had a decent look in. KP seems to favour him and hopefully this will allow him to have an extended run in the team. How he doesn't fill you with confidence while Bell does is beyond me.

Patel: has one of the best FC records for any player in CC who hasn't played a Test. Most people think that is a decent critereon to select upcoming players and to push those who have been stagnant in the team.

 

[gettingbetter]

Also, Shah and Patel are more Test qualified than ODI, while Bopara is 50/50.

 

[GIMH]

Why don't we take best of both worlds? One guy who does the seeing around... scores around his average every time and ensure the shine is taken off while the other guy just lambasts, sometimes scoring 100s and sometimes 0s.

India have Sehwag and Gambhir (though Gambhir is again moderately aggressive)

We have Strauss and Cook who are both fond of getting in then out of late

 

[GIMH]

I'm very surprised you think Vaughan will get in the squad, never mind the team for the opening Test.

If Harmison bowls as he did at The Oval (what people viewed as well) he won't have any effect if India bat well.

If I had to guess at the bowling-attack for the Test I'd probably take a punt on Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff, Harmison, MSP. I hope there won't be a second spinner because there's just no need. And if there is one I hope it's Swann.

I wouldn't think Vaughan would get straight back in, but they clearly don't fancy Shah, Bopara isn't good enough and they need a reserve opener out there as well. Unless they pick Key then Vaughan will travel IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

Bopara: yes he did have a poor first tour in possibly the toughest cricket environment in the world, but for the last two CC seasons he has been averaging above 60. Too many on here have written him of for life after the SL tour.

Shah: more bloke has been knocking on the door for the last 3-5 years and hasn't even had a decent look in. KP seems to favour him and hopefully this will allow him to have an extended run in the team. How he doesn't fill you with confidence while Bell does is beyond me.

Patel: has one of the best FC records for any player in CC who hasn't played a Test. Most people think that is a decent critereon to select upcoming players and to push those who have been stagnant in the team.

Bell certainly doesn't fill me with confidence. Didn't you notice the entire post i made to that effect? Those players do have a case, but it isn't really all that strong for any of them. I'm quite indifferent to whether they replace Bell, i don't think any of them (inc. Bell) will succeed in India.