Monty V Swann

[Goughy]

I also think it is the areas they give runs away. Not all runs are equal. Purely an observation but when Swann concedes runs he the stumps and the pads are still often in play. Panesar too frequently pulls it short and give low risk free runs. Econ rates may be similar but the release ball is there more frequently with Panesar.

 

[benchmark00]

Remember when Panesar was lead spinner in New Zealand? Remember how well that went?

If you didn't, it was 130 overs, 5 for 350.

So far Swann has 3/270 off 72 overs.

On track.

Swann 84 overs, 336 runs, 3 wickets.

 

[benchmark00]

88 overs, 348 and 3 wickets.

Fair to say that back fired.

 

[harsh.ag]

I don't think we have any reason to believe Swann is a more effective bowler than Panesar, just as there was no reason in the Warne-MacGill case. I suspect aesthetics and perceived temperament dominate more than anything else (plus other factors like lower order batting, slip fielding etc).

 

[Tom Halsey]

I think Swann's superior performances over a number of years still count for something.

Depends what you mean re: Warne v MacGill. I'd agree with you there in the sense that I think there were probably a good two or three years around the turn of the century where MacGill was the superior bowler. Don't think there is much of a case there yet though with Swann v Panesar.

 

[harsh.ag]

I agree Swann is a better bowler overall. But you really cannot overstate the importance of being given a long run in the side without getting axed randomly and then getting call-backs like Monty has. When he got to play regularly between 2006-08, his performances were better.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I agree Swann is a better bowler overall. But you really cannot overstate the importance of being given a long run in the side without getting axed randomly and then getting call-backs like Monty has. When he got to play regularly between 2006-08, his performances were better.

I haven't looked into it too closely but Sky said today that statistically the captain his performances were best under on a purely statistical level was Strauss which would tend to indicate against that given that he was never anything more than in and out of the side under Strauss.

I disagree that he was better than Swann in 06-08 anyway; I feel Monty was probably made to seem slightly better than he was in that era because he benefited by comparison to Giles (EDIT: and thinking about it, most fingerspinners of the era). I thought Monty could be very useful when the conditions suited but was largely innocuous when they didn't. The same criticism could admittedly be leveled at Swann but (mostly, there are a growing number of exceptions) to a lesser degree IMO.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Remember when Panesar was lead spinner in New Zealand? Remember how well that went?

If you didn't, it was 130 overs, 5 for 350.

I know. I was a Monty cheerleader back in 06, but his subsequent dropping wasn't selection bias, it was cause he was majorly 'found out' by the batting world

 

[Burgey]

The question is which of these two is second to Lyon?

 

[Uppercut]

I haven't looked into it too closely but Sky said today that statistically the captain his performances were best under on a purely statistical level was Strauss which would tend to indicate against that given that he was never anything more than in and out of the side under Strauss.

I disagree that he was better than Swann in 06-08 anyway; I feel Monty was probably made to seem slightly better than he was in that era because he benefited by comparison to Giles (EDIT: and thinking about it, most fingerspinners of the era). I thought Monty could be very useful when the conditions suited but was largely innocuous when they didn't. The same criticism could admittedly be leveled at Swann but (mostly, there are a growing number of exceptions) to a lesser degree IMO.

Yeah I think it's less true for Swann than for most spinners. He's basically just always good vs. lefties and never good vs. righties.

 

[Furball]

I haven't looked into it too closely but Sky said today that statistically the captain his performances were best under on a purely statistical level was Strauss which would tend to indicate against that given that he was never anything more than in and out of the side under Strauss.

I disagree that he was better than Swann in 06-08 anyway; I feel Monty was probably made to seem slightly better than he was in that era because he benefited by comparison to Giles (EDIT: and thinking about it, most fingerspinners of the era). I thought Monty could be very useful when the conditions suited but was largely innocuous when they didn't. The same criticism could admittedly be leveled at Swann but (mostly, there are a growing number of exceptions) to a lesser degree IMO.

Monty's stats under Strauss will be massively skewed by 2 series against Pakistan.

 

[Manee]

Monty is a good bowler but not quite Swann. I think people are too keen to call one rubbish in order to say the other is better.

 

[wpdavid]

Monty is a good bowler but not quite Swann. I think people are too keen to call one rubbish in order to say the other is better.

Judging by today's efforts, Swann isn't even looking the better batsman, never mind the better bowler. I wouldn't be surprised if Bresnan replaced Swann at Perth.

 

[Manee]

Judging by today's efforts, Swann isn't even looking the better batsman, never mind the better bowler. I wouldn't be surprised if Bresnan replaced Swann at Perth.

All opinions aside, they have both been ineffective. If Monty was picking up wickets, maybe one could make a strong statement that Monty is now the better option but I think without tangible proof I'll pick Swann over Monty for the next Test. Monty's effort was a good one and one which more lower orders need to emulate. Sticking around is sometimes the best option if you are under severe pressure. Swann and Broad were essentially attempting to score with their dismissals.