***Official*** Pakistan in England

[grecian]

Dalrymple or Panesar... neither are gonna contribute much with the ball anyway. Playing Panesar isn't attacking, it's like playing one short.

They should get rid of Panesar and bring in a seamer, let KP bowl if necessary. That would be the sensible thing to do.

Monty is more likely to take wickets, I'm not particularly championing him, I just think hes the more attacking option. I think we should go with Panesar, Tremlett, Hoggard, Harmison and depending on conditions, Cork or Dalrymple. Bell unluckily misses out.

Yet I'm reasonably sure that won't happen as two of them ain't in the squad.

We're meant to be trying for at least second best in the world, we need to take twenty wickets for that.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Take a gander at Panesar's strike rate - one wicket every 16 overs. So no, we're not gonna take twenty wickets any quicker with him playing.

Seamers may be expensive but they take wickets a lot quicker, so 4 seamers + KP, Colly etc. is the way to go as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

you definitly have to replace Plunkett with Lewis, he's took 54 wickets at 16ish in first class, and didnt look all that bad against Sri Lanka.

An attack of Hoggard, Harmy, Lewis, Panesar, collingwood and Pietersen

 

[steds]

An attack of Hoggard, Harmy, Lewis, Panesar, collingwood and Pietersen

and a humongous tail.

 

[BoyBrumby]

and a humongous tail.

Yeah. Hoggy @ 8 is quite frightening when you think Pakistan will probably have one of Akmal, Afridi or Razzaq there.

 

[Scaly piscine]

you definitly have to replace Plunkett with Lewis, he's took 54 wickets at 16ish in first class, and didnt look all that bad against Sri Lanka.

An attack of Hoggard, Harmy, Lewis, Panesar, collingwood and Pietersen

No, you get rid of Panesar first. Most of the 'balance' problems stem from the fact that he couldn't bowl Boycott's mum out on a bunsen and he can't bat or field either.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, you get rid of Panesar first. Most of the 'balance' problems stem from the fact that he couldn't bowl Boycott's mum out on a bunsen and he can't bat or field either.

Except he was England's best bowler on the final day of the first test...

 

[Steulen]

Without Panesar, the England attack is too one-dimensional. If the medfast option doesn't work, you're left with the Piethrowing Open Championships featuring Messrs. Pietersen and Collingwood. At least Panesar provides quality spin bowling. Fingerspin, unfortunately, but it's still too good to be taken lightly by the batsmen. Not sure if Dalrymple can do that.

So I'd play Panesar, together with Hoggard and Harmison, and instead of Dalrymple look for the best fastish bowling allrounder plying his trade in the county circuit. If that's Cork, so be it. Of course, as long as Getridof Jones is in the side, the tail problems will remain, but that's another issue.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Except he was England's best bowler on the final day of the first test...

And took 2 wickets out of 54 overs on a turner (since the ball obviously has to turn 3-4 yards for you lot to class it as a bunsen where the untouchable Panesar is concerned). Plunkett was England's best bowler for the majority of the SL series... but of course he's not wearing a turban and doesn't have comical fielding and cult hero status. I didn't think Fletcher would be stupid enough to be taken in by all that sort of nonsense that kept the likes of Tufnell getting caps when he had a negative contribution.

And don't give me that old crap about how he keeps one end quiet either, because he got hammered in the first innings and will get hammered whenever the opposition wants to.

 

[Autobahn]

And took 2 wickets out of 54 overs on a turner (since the ball obviously has to turn 3-4 yards for you lot to class it as a bunsen where the untouchable Panesar is concerned). Plunkett was England's best bowler for the majority of the SL series... but of course he's not wearing a turban and doesn't have comical fielding and cult hero status. I didn't think Fletcher would be stupid enough to be taken in by all that sort of nonsense that kept the likes of Tufnell getting caps when he had a negative contribution.

And don't give me that old crap about how he keeps one end quiet either, because he got hammered in the first innings and will get hammered whenever the opposition wants to.

So you're gonna drop one of our most promising spinners in years because he's a cult-hero?

 

[Steulen]

And took 2 wickets out of 54 overs on a turner (since the ball obviously has to turn 3-4 yards for you lot to class it as a bunsen where the untouchable Panesar is concerned). Plunkett was England's best bowler for the majority of the SL series... but of course he's not wearing a turban and doesn't have comical fielding and cult hero status. I didn't think Fletcher would be stupid enough to be taken in by all that sort of nonsense that kept the likes of Tufnell getting caps when he had a negative contribution.

And don't give me that old crap about how he keeps one end quiet either, because he got hammered in the first innings and will get hammered whenever the opposition wants to.

No Panesar = No plan B = Bad.

 

[Autobahn]

Yeah exactly Hussain spent years trying to create variation with field changes to make up for a mostly right arm medium fast attack.

 

[Scaly piscine]

So you're gonna drop one of our most promising spinners in years because he's a cult-hero?

Being one of our most promising spinners doesn't alter the fact that he's crap at batting, fielding and has a completely ineffective bowling style. I'd sooner have Rashid in the side - because he's a wrist spinner and so has the potential to actually alter the course of games for the good at Test level.

 

[silentstriker]

So you're gonna drop one of our most promising spinners in years because he's a cult-hero?

No, you're going to drop one of your most promison spinners because he wears a turban and he's a cult hero.

 

[silentstriker]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/254404.html

Well, there goes Plunkett. Seriously, what is in the English water these days? Everyone and their mother is injured.

 

[GIMH]

Me and my mum are fine thankyou!

Anyhow - serious investigations needs to be done about the way our bowlers are lookd after.

First choice attack
Hoggard - hasn't missed a Test in a couple of years, suffered a minor injury the other week, but that was just a freak accident
Harmison - Missed 4 Tests and the ODI series V India through shin splints, I think. Definitely a shin injury anyway
Flintoff - Recurring ankle problem has caused him to miss 1 Test and the ODIs V Sri Lanka, and he is now out until The Ashes basically
Simon Jones - Candidate for amputation, has been out for about a year now, did play a few games warming up for the India tour, and then in County Cricket, but to no avail
Giles - Long standing hip injury has caused him to miss two Test series, three ODI series, will miss the rest of this series, and I think the last Test series he did play in (V Pakistan) he may have missed a match as well.

So four out of five have missed Tests through injury, they have generally not been freak accidents, but physical problems that wouldn't happen to normal men like me, doing a desk job that pays them to post on CW!

Backup bowlers
Anderson - Stress Fracture in the back has kept him out since India
Plunkett - I think it was a side strain. Not a serious injury, but once again, not an accident

The nature of the injuries, for me, definitely tells us something. I'm not a medical expert, but players aren't having accidents, we can't put it down to bad luck. These are strains, and splints, and bone spur problems and such like. It's something that must be seriously looked at. Are our bowlers not being looked after properly? Are they not warming up properly? Is there something wrong with the shoes they wear? It can't be a coincidence, I no longer think it's bad luck - of the batsmen, Vaughan has had knee problems for years, and Ed Joyce had a freak accident. As far as I can recall, they are the only batsmen generally missing games through injury. For me, that in itself says something.

 

[Goughy]

The nature of the injuries, for me, definitely tells us something. I'm not a medical expert, but players aren't having accidents, we can't put it down to bad luck. These are strains, and splints, and bone spur problems and such like. It's something that must be seriously looked at. Are our bowlers not being looked after properly? Are they not warming up properly? Is there something wrong with the shoes they wear? It can't be a coincidence, I no longer think it's bad luck - of the batsmen, Vaughan has had knee problems for years, and Ed Joyce had a freak accident. As far as I can recall, they are the only batsmen generally missing games through injury. For me, that in itself says something.

You want to know the African theory thats been around for a while but recently Nike (i think) have taken up the idea and worked with?

It comes down the wearing of shoes from a young age to play sport in.

In Western countries children run and play in shoes or trainers from a young age. Whereas in years gone past they would be barefoot far more often (Afrikaaners still walk around and play rugby barefoot).

Anyway, the theory is that the body is conditioned to the footwear providing support and therefore certain stabalizing muscles do not develop properly and this effects the entire body and injuries as the body is not balanced and fighting against itself.

The theory is that sprint work should be done barefoot as with warm-ups to strengthen the stabilizing muscles and therefore prevent injury.

To recap, injuries were fewer in years gone by as stabilizing muscles were developed by barefoot exercise and movement whereas now footwear is so advanced that it takes most of the effort from exercise and prevents bodies being trained to deal with certain stresses.

Hope that all makes sense

 

[silentstriker]

You want to know the African theory thats been around for a while but recently Nike (i think) have taken up the idea and worked with?

It comes down the wearing of shoes from a young age to play sport in.

In Western countries children run and play in shoes or trainers from a young age. Whereas in years gone past they would be barefoot far more often (Afrikaaners still walk around and play rugby barefoot).

Anyway, the theory is that the body is conditioned to the footwear providing support and therefore certain stabalizing muscles do not develop properly and this effects the entire body and injuries as the body is not balanced and fighting against itself.

The theory is that sprint work should be done barefoot as with warm-ups to strengthen the stabilizing muscles and therefore prevent injury.

To recap, injuries were fewer in years gone by as stabilizing muscles were developed by barefoot exercise and movement whereas now footwear is so advanced that it takes most of the effort from exercise and prevents bodies being trained to deal with certain stresses.

Hope that all makes sense

Hmm, but the wearing of shoes at an early age is hardly a phenomenon thats unique to England these days. I doubt kids in Australia play barefoot much, but I could be wrong.

Though your theory does make sense, but if it were true, why would England be hit with them all of a sudden?

 

[Goughy]

Hmm, but the wearing of shoes at an early age is hardly a phenomenon thats unique to England these days. I doubt kids in Australia play barefoot much, but I could be wrong.

Though your theory does make sense, but if it were true, why would England be hit with them all of a sudden?

Well its certainly not my theory its something that has been explained to me by a few people in Africa.

I would guess due to the cold weather the English wear heavy shoes more often than Australians eg Flip-flops would be nearly as good as barefoot as there is no support

The English bowling problems are not recent. As long as I can remember there has been a discussion as to why they break down seamingly more often than in other countries. There are countless examples throughout the 80s and 90s (the time I have been watching cricket). There have been equally bad times as we have now.

 

[Goughy]

As I said this theory has been around for a long time in South Africa.

Here is Nikes take on it

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,68474-1.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1