*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[marc71178]

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..."

Tragically a few people had missed the point if you look at the comments.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Think most of the complaints have been about Panesar himself rather than a spinner per se tbf.

Would've still gone for Rashid myself because I think he brings more to the table as a cricketer, but can see the logic in not wanting to ruin a young leggie. Although it does raise the question that if Rashid is considered that fragile is he ever gonna have the mental faculties for tests.

 

[Uppercut]

Rashid's quite heavily overhyped. There's maybe a 15% chance that he'll develop into a quality test player, which makes him an excellent prospect because the vast majority of such players never do. But he surely doesn't warrant all the column inches.

I'd probably just about rather have Panesar. I dunno, you'd really need to have seen how they were both bowling towards the end of the season to make the call.

 

[vic_orthdox]

From the very little I've seen of Rashid, I don't think he does enough with the ball - in terms of getting a heap of work on it, and a threatening enough stock ball - to be a genuine bowling threat at Test level.

 

[Manee]

From the very little I've seen of Rashid, I don't think he does enough with the ball - in terms of getting a heap of work on it, and a threatening enough stock ball - to be a genuine bowling threat at Test level.

My view would usually be that if he can be prolific for Yorkshire in Division One, which he does, then he should be able to do, at least okay, at Test level. However, I really do doubt the ability of County batsmen to play certain types of spinners. Piyush Chawla cleaned up a few times for Sussex and he has been inconsistent in FC cricket in India for years, same with Murali Kartik.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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.

Yes because bad deliveries or bad bowlers never take any wickets. Also bad bowlers aren't capable of bowling a good ball either of course. If a guy just bats I don't see Donkey getting him out barring a fluke.

 

[BoyBrumby]

From the very little I've seen of Rashid, I don't think he does enough with the ball - in terms of getting a heap of work on it, and a threatening enough stock ball - to be a genuine bowling threat at Test level.

He's definitely more of a Kumble than a Warne sort of leggie, but his accuracy is quite tidy and his wrong un is fairly well disguised. Clearly you're the best qualified to comment on his prowess as a twirler, but he's also a rather useful batsman too (over 700 runs at o45.5 for the season) and a decent fielder, neither of which one could truthfully say about Monty.

I only saw Monty bowl a couple of times this year for Sussex & then only in one dayers so it's hard to draw much conclusion re test form from them. But, from memory, he did rather well bowling defending a decent total against Lancs but got a bit of tap from Glamorgan, of all teams, and still seemed more inclined to go into his shell and push the ball through rather than try any variations.

There's an argument that says Monty maybe is our 2nd best test spinner as of now but, whilst I'm not quite in the piscine camp, his development has been disappointing given the raw materials he has. He's like a spinning savant; can do great things if his routine isn't interrupted without quite understanding how or why but seems to lack the wherewithal to cope when he is.

 

[Manee]

Yes because bad deliveries or bad bowlers never take any wickets. Also bad bowlers aren't capable of bowling a good ball either of course. If a guy just bats I don't see Donkey getting him out barring a fluke.

Bad deliveries from good bowlers take wickets sometimes. Bad deliveries from bad bowlers rarely take wickets. As a spinner, if you are delivering the ball with an unthreatening trajectory, at a poor pace and not doing anything in the air or off the pitch, it is likely that you will never take a top or middle order Test wicket. These sort of intangibles are crucial and it means that you cannot simply deconstruct each dismissal to chance or poor batting.

 

[aussie]

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.

If another pace bowler where picked instead of Panesar, you would only have 6 quicks not 7. But Bresnan shouldn't have been picked anyway, Shazad should have been in his place. While instead of Panesar another batsman or back-up opener for Cook in either (Hildreth/Carberry/Lyth) should have been in the final 16.

If a spinner is not good as the case clearly has been with Panesar since 2007, even if he gets a tranditional turning pitch (SCG) - he will not be effective againts good opposition in such conditions & would further decrease ENGs chances of trying to take 20 wickets

I have already explain on previous pages why IMO, although it may not be perfect. Why in the nightmare case that Swann does get injured, why picking the 4th seamer in Shazad would be a better stop-gap measure to fill the MASSIVE hole Swann would leave.

 

[marc71178]

And you've also repeatedly failed to respond to any counter discussion on the matter, you know the ones that pick massive holes in the 4 seamer theory.

 

[Julian87]

Bad deliveries from good bowlers take wickets sometimes. Bad deliveries from bad bowlers rarely take wickets.

What a load of rubbish.

 

[aussie]

And you've also repeatedly failed to respond to any counter discussion on the matter, you know the ones that pick massive holes in the 4 seamer theory.

Are you blind?. I responed to all of them on page 62, but nobody including yourself who was the first person to debate me on the matter has responded back since.

 

[Flem274*]

What a load of rubbish.

Mitchell Johnson to confirm.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bad deliveries from good bowlers take wickets sometimes. Bad deliveries from bad bowlers rarely take wickets. As a spinner, if you are delivering the ball with an unthreatening trajectory, at a poor pace and not doing anything in the air or off the pitch, it is likely that you will never take a top or middle order Test wicket. These sort of intangibles are crucial and it means that you cannot simply deconstruct each dismissal to chance or poor batting.

I think you're taking comments made here too 'big picture'. Compared with everyone who has ever played cricket, Monty is a ****ing awesome bowler - everyone who has ever been selected to play First Class cricket in some bowling capacity in a ****ing awesome bowler. However, there'd be no point discussing anything here if we were only allowed to compare players to every player ever. By Test standards, compared with other Test bowlers, Panesar's a poor bowler. You're free to disagree if you think he's Test standard or better than everyone else does or whatever but all you've been doing in your last couple of posts is moving the goalposts to make every single First Class bowler amazing. We should be able to differentiate between the qualities of the players at high levels.

 

[tooextracool]

He's definitely more of a Kumble than a Warne sort of leggie, but his accuracy is quite tidy and his wrong un is fairly well disguised. Clearly you're the best qualified to comment on his prowess as a twirler, but he's also a rather useful batsman too (over 700 runs at o45.5 for the season) and a decent fielder, neither of which one could truthfully say about Monty.

FC economy rate of 3.54 though doesnt really agree with that. To me playing a young leg spinner is always a big gamble, we saw what happened with McGain and this is a guy who is in his late 30s. Unless you know your game inside out, or you've had season after season off success, an away tour of the Ashes is quite possibly the worst place to make your debut.

 

[BoyBrumby]

FC economy rate of 3.54 though doesnt really agree with that. To me playing a young leg spinner is always a big gamble, we saw what happened with McGain and this is a guy who is in his late 30s. Unless you know your game inside out, or you've had season after season off success, an away tour of the Ashes is quite possibly the worst place to make your debut.

As I said I can see the reasons for opting for Panesar, but I think Rashid brings more to the table as a cricketer. We've had ample chance to blood him before now (God bless Tredwell, but he doesn't strike one as a long term test prospect and he's debuted after Rashid has been included in squads) so for the selectors to say "Ah, well, Australia's not the place for a debut" is a bit rich IMHO.

Rashid's been handled woefully, tbh. I hope we get the full story eventually because at the moment it seems a case in point about how to not manage a young prospect.

 

[Flem274*]

I saw Rashid a few years back and I really like the look of him tbh.

 

[Manee]

I think you're taking comments made here too 'big picture'. Compared with everyone who has ever played cricket, Monty is a ****ing awesome bowler - everyone who has ever been selected to play First Class cricket in some bowling capacity in a ****ing awesome bowler. However, there'd be no point discussing anything here if we were only allowed to compare players to every player ever. By Test standards, compared with other Test bowlers, Panesar's a poor bowler. You're free to disagree if you think he's Test standard or better than everyone else does or whatever but all you've been doing in your last couple of posts is moving the goalposts to make every single First Class bowler amazing. We should be able to differentiate between the qualities of the players at high levels.

You have a valid criticism of my opinion. I do have a few reservations about Monty at Test level. It is the way that people act as if he is a wasted selection and is totally incapable of doing a job if Swann gets injured or England wish to play two spin bowlers at Sydney that forces me to take such a viewpoint. I feel it is necessary to 'move the goalposts' and have some sort of perspective if people like Scaly wish to try to deconstruct each time he dismisses a FC or Test batsman as either a fluke or a horrendous batting error of playing for spin when it wasn't there.

 

[fredfertang]

Bad deliveries from good bowlers take wickets sometimes. Bad deliveries from bad bowlers rarely take wickets.

In isolation this doesn't really make sense but I know what Manee means - Ian Botham was a classic example of a bowler who, when he was bowling well, would suddenly send down what looked like a dreadful delivery and get a wicket with it - it happened too frequently to put it down to luck and it seemed Botham had just worked people out - his favourite trick was when he was bowling quickly (by his standards anyway) he'd suddenly lollop in looking like he'd lost interest and bowl a rank long hop which the batsman had to try and pull - in fact our hero had put in a bit more effort in his delivery stride so the ball was onto the batsman a fraction quicker than he expected and a top edge resulted

 

[BoyBrumby]

Better for one's sanity to take scaly with a healthy pinch of sodium chloride on certain topics.