*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[aussie]

The idea of a 4 man pace attack is quite frankly the most thoughtless idea I've heard in a long time. Yes, it worked when you had the caliber of Roberts/Marshall/Holding/Garner who were pretty much guaranteed to bowl out sides within 90 overs. But the idea of decent/average bowlers such as Anderson/Broad/Finn and Tremlett together when they could so easily end up being out there for 2 days is quite ridiculous. Each of them would have to bowl 40-50 overs in one inning in such a scenario. If an injury magnet like Tremlett goes down, that could well end up being 50-60 overs. There is absolutely no way the England management will want to take that kind of risk, nor should they have to because it is beyond logic.

To say that I hate Panesar would be putting it mildly. But the bottom line is that out of all of our spin bowling options hes the best available to do the job in the event that Swann is injured (i.e. hold one end down). The likes of Rashid do not and will not offer this.

Their is nothing beyond logic about picking 4 seamers Anderson/Braod/Finn or Tremlett/Shazad in the event Swann gets injured. Even though they are jsut decent/average & are not of the calibre of other great 4-man pace attacks of the past.

Its a better compromise to cover the BIG HOLE Swann would leave if he misses a test for whatever reasons instead of picking Panesar. Because their is no proof that Panesar would be able to maintain any control or utilize a wearing wicket, given his woeful test form since 2007.

Their is enough proof though that Shazad although he may not give great control, will certainly utlizie the wearing 4th/5th wicket (or the old ball) & attain reverse-swing.

Plus why are you people taking about Rashid?, He was rightly not picked nor should have Panesar.

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

Exactly. Some people seem to still be thinking that Panesar of between IND 06 - WI 07 that will be seen in the Ashes.

 

[Flem274*]

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.








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.

EDIT: woops.

 

[vcs]

Picking Monty and him getting a 5fer was a pretty good selection I'd say.

TBF, he said they got it wrong by not picking him instead of Giles from the start, the series was all but lost by the time they finally saw sense.

 

[Flem274*]

Ah, I reread it. Will edit.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Swan developed that fairly late too didn't he, was basically a bowler trying to put big revs on the ball and not much else for most of his career? Just get the feeling at 27, Monty has plenty of time and might just have turned the corner even.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I always said Panesar would average 35+, so it's inevitable he'll play again and some stage and continue to be rubbish.

From a purely statistical point of view I didn't see anything for Sussex that suggests he's improved one iota. He still struggled to break partnerships, he struggled to bowl out proper batsmen and he still benefited from coming on at 7+ down and getting a cheap tailender or two.

He's not a guy who averages 34 (and in reality he's lucky to get that much, along with disproportionate tailender and worthless declaration charge wickets), but a guy who averages 34 and has absolutely hideous batting and fielding. His overall contribution is still awful. He also completely unbalances the side.

 

[aussie]

I always said Panesar would average 35+, so it's inevitable he'll play again and some stage and continue to be rubbish.

From a purely statistical point of view I didn't see anything for Sussex that suggests he's improved one iota. He still struggled to break partnerships, he struggled to bowl out proper batsmen and he still benefited from coming on at 7+ down and getting a cheap tailender or two.

He's not a guy who averages 34 (and in reality he's lucky to get that much, along with disproportionate tailender and worthless declaration charge wickets), but a guy who averages 34 and has absolutely hideous batting and fielding. His overall contribution is still awful. He also completely unbalances the side.

Indeed. Plus he was playing in Division 2 also

Panesar is pooor mans Paul Tufnelll. Just like Tufnell, they both came into test cricket with a bang early, then where worked out & regressed. But at least Tufnell always had the ability to be effective on turner & have some degree of control againts international bats (in the 90s). Panesar cannot be expected to give you any of that & i dont see that changing.

 

[GIMH]

Always found it bizarre how inadequate Monty was on day five

 

[zaremba]

he's not a guy who averages 34... But a guy who averages 34 and has absolutely hideous batting and fielding. His overall contribution is still awful. He also completely unbalances the side.

awta

 

[Manee]

I'm not as keen as Scaly to write off Monty for life. However, why not allow him to have some more long fruitful seasons for Sussex and perfect his game in county cricket, like Swann did. I think that with medium pacers and spinners, the more overs that they have under their belt and the more wickets and years in county cricket, prior to about the age of 30 for medium pacers and around 32 for spinners, the better.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not as keen as Scaly to write off Monty for life. However, why not allow him to have some more long fruitful seasons for Sussex and perfect his game in county cricket, like Swann did. I think that with medium pacers and spinners, the more overs that they have under their belt and the more wickets and years in county cricket, prior to about the age of 30 for medium pacers and around 32 for spinners, the better.

Well, it's not like he's going to be missing county games on this tour. Nor is it like he has any real chance of playing unless Swann's injured.

 

[Manee]

Well, it's not like he's going to be missing county games on this tour. Nor is it like he has any real chance of playing unless Swann's injured.

Maybe it isn't too important, but do we want to give him the message that one season is all he needs?

 

[Furball]

Maybe it isn't too important, but do we want to give him the message that one season is all he needs?

Who's the alternative?

He's far from the worst option as a back up spinner.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I just don't see Panesar improving personally.

First of all he's been around a bit, Test sides have had exposure to him. That's a big negative for someone as one dimensional as him. Most finger spinners of recent times have suffered from this, because teams find a method that is successful and the finger spinner has little comeback to it due to their monotony.

If you don't immediately assume Donkey's ripping them up to a foot and let his stock delivery get you lbw - how is he going to get people out? He isn't going to entice the drive. He isn't going to work over a batsman. It's just plonk it down and hope.

 

[marc71178]

Is GIMH Andy Zaltzman in disguise?

 

[GIMH]

Cracking article

 

[four_or_six]

Some classics in there, particularly like Morgan and Panesar's write-ups. And Swann:

"Transforming from a county also-ran into a modern England great like a forgetful larva suddenly remembering it was supposed to be a prize-winning butterfly..."

 

[vic_orthdox]

Was a really good laugh. Sort of like someone entertaining posting on here, a snippet of stats here that make some sense and support his argument, with a few good gags spread throughout.

Just waiting for someone to say, "Well, it'd be more accurate if you looked at Cook's stats in good bowling conditions, without including Bangladesh..."

 

[vic_orthdox]

One thing I don't understand about the complaints over Panesar (or a spinner) being selected as back-up is that there are two spare pace bowlers, in Bresnan and Tremlett, anyway. Why would you pick a seventh pace bowler to be part of the squad, if you require him then you must've had that many injuries that you can call him into your squad later on.

If you get to the fifth Test (assuming it's in Sydney), and Swann is injured, then you need to have the ability to call on a spinner within that squad to try and take 20 wickets.

 

[Manee]

One thing I don't understand about the complaints over Panesar (or a spinner) being selected as back-up is that there are two spare pace bowlers, in Bresnan and Tremlett, anyway. Why would you pick a seventh pace bowler to be part of the squad, if you require him then you must've had that many injuries that you can call him into your squad later on.

If you get to the fifth Test (assuming it's in Sydney), and Swann is injured, then you need to have the ability to call on a spinner within that squad to try and take 20 wickets.

But it is the naivety of some posters here, that suggests that Monty can never adequately fill the role as a spinner to help take 20 wickets; that his wickets have mainly, if not all, come as a result of some sort of idiotic batsman error or declaration carelessness from people. These same people are those, who if they were to play professional cricket, would likely never take one wicket, on their best day, regardless of circumstance. It is a lack of appreciation for top level cricket, imo, that wishes to dissect the record of a Panesar to batsmen playing for non existant spin and gifting wickets away whereas the extent to which such elementary errors occur, without some sort of deeper explanation is exponentially smaller at international level to even the top batsmen at cricket clubs or even low level domestic cricket.

Oh well, not really related to your post, and will surely be criticised, but that is my opinion.