*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[BoyBrumby]

Vic Marks quoted interesting (well, interesting for cricket nerds) stat regarding Monty. Only Laker, Lock, Underwood and Swann have more test 5-fors than Monty of post-war English twirlers. Puts him in some heady company, really.

 

[Jarquis]

Would love to know the story behind Rashid's omission for the EPP squad though. So bizarre.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Would love to know the story behind Rashid's omission for the EPP squad though. So bizarre.

Does seem almost willfully cruel, tbh.

As you say, one suspects there's more to it than just on-field performances.

 

[Themer]

They said that they'd been in contact and both Rashid and Yorkshire though he needed some rest rather than going into the EPP. So they decided that it was better for him to have a long rest than go around playing with little chance of getting into the real squad.

That is what they said at the announcement any way.

 

[BoyBrumby]

They said that they'd been in contact and both Rashid and Yorkshire though he needed some rest rather than going into the EPP. So they decided that it was better for him to have a long rest than go around playing with little chance of getting into the real squad.

That is what they said at the announcement any way.

Hmm. Reckon ol' Dusty's spinning more in retirement than he did whilst bowling myself.

 

[FBU]

I'm sure Rashid will be on the Lions tour to the West Indies in the new year. I think KP should be working on his bowling a lot more.

The Home of CricketArchive

 

[Manee]

Don't mean to advertise and mods feel free to remove the post if necessary but PakPassion have an interview with Rashid and are currently taking questions from members.

 

[social]

I imagine the selectors were just like "I suppooooose Panesar will do if there's DEFINITELY no one else we could bring..."

The world's batsmen are absolutely ****ting themselves about the recall of a division 2 bowler who has been an abject failure at the top level

 

[zaremba]

The world's batsmen are absolutely ****ting themselves about the recall of a division 2 bowler who has been an abject failure at the top level

Calm down just a tad - 126 Test wickets at 34.37 with 8 5 wicket hauls (including one at Perth!): "abject failure" seems a bit of a stretch.

And he's not a Div 2 bowler any more...

 

[GIMH]

Didn't realise his average was that high. Really rocketed didn't it?

His last memorable performance with the ball must have been the win against NZ at OT

 

[Woodster]

Yes very harsh assessment of Panesar. May not be a world beater, but on his day, the guy's a handful. Personally I'm interested to see if there's any difference between his performances nowadays, than when he last played for England.

 

[zaremba]

Didn't realise his average was that high. Really rocketed didn't it?

Yeah he got it below 30 at one point. But even at 34 we're still in the same sort of territory as some pretty decent Test bowlers of recent years: Daniel Vettori, John Emburey, Phil Edmonds, Tim May.

 

[Furball]

Really struggling to understand the Panesar hate - picking a back up spinner with 126 Test wickets at 34 a piece, who's toured Australia and who has a 5fer in Australia is a pretty logical, rational call to make.

You know what you'll get with Monty - he might not be a world beater, but it's a far safer call than gambling on an unknown quantity like Rashid, who for all his promise, has yet to really have an outstanding season at First Class level. I reckon most sides would kill to have a backup spin option with the record Panesar has.

 

[Top_Cat]

Calm down just a tad - 126 Test wickets at 34.37 with 8 5 wicket hauls (including one at Perth!): "abject failure" seems a bit of a stretch.

Day 1 in Perth, no less.

 

[Woodster]

Really struggling to understand the Panesar hate - picking a back up spinner with 126 Test wickets at 34 a piece, who's toured Australia and who has a 5fer in Australia is a pretty logical, rational call to make.

You know what you'll get with Monty - he might not be a world beater, but it's a far safer call than gambling on an unknown quantity like Rashid, who for all his promise, has yet to really have an outstanding season at First Class level. I reckon most sides would kill to have a backup spin option with the record Panesar has.

Fair shout mate, and one I agree with. While Rashid's season may not be truly classed as outstanding this season, it was very good though. It's good competition for places, but for me they got it right with Panesar.

 

[morgieb]

Really struggling to understand the Panesar hate - picking a back up spinner with 126 Test wickets at 34 a piece, who's toured Australia and who has a 5fer in Australia is a pretty logical, rational call to make.

You know what you'll get with Monty - he might not be a world beater, but it's a far safer call than gambling on an unknown quantity like Rashid, who for all his promise, has yet to really have an outstanding season at First Class level. I reckon most sides would kill to have a backup spin option with the record Panesar has.

Think it's because that although it looks decent on the surface, he's done nothing since about mid-2007.

 

[tooextracool]

Think he benefitted from some rank poor batting from the visiting WI and NZ sides. Hes not an 'abject' failure, he has a lot of natural ability just not much of a cricketing brain. If he manages to learn even a little bit from Swann on this tour, it'd slingshot his performances.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think he benefitted from some rank poor batting from the visiting WI and NZ sides. Hes not an 'abject' failure, he has a lot of natural ability just not much of a cricketing brain. If he manages to learn even a little bit from Swann on this tour, it'd slingshot his performances.

I think that's a fair enough criticism of Monty, actually. He seems to lack the cricketing smarts of Swann. Certainly doesn't have Sir Graeme's chutzpah; when batsmen came after him his reaction was generally to push it through a little faster and he's fairly quick for a spinner anyway. I couldn't imagine Monty, after being deposited back over his head like Umar Akmal did to Swann, tossing another one up to see if he was good enough to do it again and being bowled through the huge gate.

 

[tooextracool]

One of my biggest frustrations with Panesar was that he rarely ever tossed it up. He bowled 6 deliveries in an over at the same pace. Then Duncan and co tried to help him to bowl slower and throw it up there and he went from average to abject. That episode ended with him criticizing everyone for trying to tamper with his bowling and vowed to return to his old self which wasnt exactly a mouth watering prospect

 

[aussie]

I personally wouldn't have had Shahzad touring after watching him earlier this year. With the bat he looked utterly clueless, and with the ball he did nothing until it aged and started to reverse. You cannot pick someone as part of a 4 man attack if he's not going to be effective unless conditions really suit.

Haha. OMG thats exaclty why he should have been picked. You have basically proved my point.

The old will always reverse swing in AUS. That guaranteed at almost all the grounds that will be used in the Ashes, with old ball on a wearing 4th/5th day wicket. You said yourself he did nothing to you until the ball started to reverse. Thus it makes more sense to pick him in the unthinkable scenario that Swann gets injured. Since we have some fair degree of certainty that on last-day wicket he can have some effect. Instead of Panesar who their is no guarantee he will be able to utilize a wearing wicket.

Plus if Anderson hopefully learns to reverse-swing the ball on this tour. You would have two reverse-swing bowlers on the last day/wearing wicket scenario which wold adequately make up for Swann absense. Instead of Panesar who their is no guarantee he will be able to utilize a wearing wicket.


Also, the small point that he's not in the squad means that it's not a choice between him and Monty in the event one of them is called upon, so my original point stands - if Swann were to get injured, then I'd pick Panesar to replace him almost every time.

Panesar was selected because of his previous expereience in AUS according to selectors reasoning. Reasoning which doesn't make any sense because when Panesar was bowling in AUS in 06/07 - he was acutally in his 1st year & best year of international cricket, when he was looking pretty exciting. Then after he ran into the IND batsmen in the 07 home summer - between IND 07 - Ashes 09, Panesar regressed to level worse than Nathan Haurtiz.

So its ludicrous to equate Panesar "past exeperience in AUS" as a reason for picking him for this tour. When he has regreseed significantly from the bowler he was during the last 2006/07 for the last 4 years. Thus as back-up to Swann in the event Swann misses a test, he would not be effective.


Shazad for aformentioned should have been picked in the main squad. Thus he would have been the better replacement for Swann, to try & cover the big hole he would leave.

Neither can Shazad. Neither can anyone not named McGrath, Warne, Murali, etc. Even then it's uncertain.

I'd bet large sums of money that you were bagging the selectors last time out for picking Panesar in Perth. You may be shocked to know that sometimes sport is uncertain and unpredictable and that sometimes you need to take a punt to get the edge and win instead of just compete.

At least with Panesar, if the conditions don't suit, you at least know he'll do a job. Shazad would be more likely to be a pretty expensive pick under blue skies.

Firslty no. My position & i think most ENG fans & commentators where all over the ENG selectors & Fletcher for not picking Monty since the first test, given the fantastic year he was having ATT. Instead of the conservative selection of Giles in the 1st two tests.

Monty coming in a taking 5 immediately proved why the selectors where wrong from the start. Although AUS batsmenn as they did @ MCG, SCG would have probably got accustomed to Panesar over the lenght of a 5 test series & would have played him better after the intial shock.


I've already explained above why Panesar would not do a good job if picked & why Shazad potentially would if was selected & picked in the scenario of "Swann getting injured"


But either way if you or Marc dont believe Shazad would do that, along with i not believing what Panesar could do. If both our assertions are proven over the course of the Ashes, it would mean ENG would be in an even worse position if Swann indeed got injured.