***Official*** Pakistan in England

[silentstriker]

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

You know more about bowling actions than I do. Do you find anything in their bowling action that puts extra stress on their bodies? I mean, is it something that English coaches tell them to do that could be causing this?

 

[silentstriker]

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

Just read the article. It makes sense. Homo Erectus evolved mostly on flat plains in Africa, our feet would have adapted to run on the grassy plains.

 

[Goughy]

You know more about bowling actions than I do. Do you find anything in their bowling action that puts extra stress on their bodies? I mean, is it something that English coaches tell them to do that could be causing this?

Possibly, but I think there is a lot in the above theory about the use of heavy shoes for all activities that causes certain parts of the body more fragile than yesteryear.

There are a lot of people who now have barefoot grass training as part of their regimes.

I ran the opening leg of a 4x100m relay here in SA with all athletes being barefoot. When we finished the other guys were laughing as I found it hard to go around the bend as I felt I would slip and lose my balance.

They were telling me that if you run a lot and train barefoot that your feet have a greater range of motion, develop balance, feel far more natural and strengthen all the surrounding tissue.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

Rashid? The guy who has played ONE first class game, is mostly known as a batsman and is 19 or something?

Just because he's a wrist-spinner doesn't mean he's any good. Look at Ian Salisbury or even Cameron White, who was the "new Warne" a few years ago and is now recognised as having more potential with bat than ball. Rashid might be good, but if he is he'll certainly show it with a season or two for Yorkshire before he deserves a test cap. Panesar bowled very well in the last test match England played, and as such he should be involved in the next one, at the very least. I don't care if he wears a turban or not, he's certainly looks a reasonably capable spin option, and going into a test with the current trend in English pitches with a injury-ravaged pace attack and no spinner would be ridiculous.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Rashid? The guy who has played ONE first class game, is mostly known as a batsman and is 19 or something?

Just because he's a wrist-spinner doesn't mean he's any good. Look at Ian Salisbury or even Cameron White, who was the "new Warne" a few years ago and is now recognised as having more potential with bat than ball. Rashid might be good, but if he is he'll certainly show it with a season or two for Yorkshire before he deserves a test cap. Panesar bowled very well in the last test match England played, and as such he should be involved in the next one, at the very least. I don't care if he wears a turban or not, he's certainly looks a reasonably capable spin option, and going into a test with the current trend in English pitches with a injury-ravaged pace attack and no spinner would be ridiculous.

How the hell do you keep coming up with this crap about him bowling very well in the last Test? He took 2 wickets in 54 overs on a turner. The word to describe that is abject.

I don't like Mahmood, but a good burst from him (one of his 3 wickets in 4-5 overs ones) can change a game, same goes for any seamer likely to play. Panesar may as well be a spectator for all of the influence he will have on a game.

The reality is this, at Test level:

Limited finger spinner who can't bat or field = no potential whatsoever

Wrist spinner and reasonable bat = some potential

some potential >>>> no potential

 

[no1_gangsta_786]

Pakistan's Shahid Afridi took a nasty knock on his elbow while batting in the Old Trafford nets ahead of the second Test starting on Thursday.

Coach Bob Woolmer insisted it was not a serious injury, however.

Woolmer said: "I don't think he's done any structural damage. He can move the arm - it's not broken.

"It was a little bit tender to start with. But touch wood he'll be available to play and he'll be 100%. He's a tough man from the north.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Rashid? The guy who has played ONE first class game, is mostly known as a batsman and is 19 or something?

Just because he's a wrist-spinner doesn't mean he's any good. Look at Ian Salisbury or even Cameron White, who was the "new Warne" a few years ago and is now recognised as having more potential with bat than ball. Rashid might be good, but if he is he'll certainly show it with a season or two for Yorkshire before he deserves a test cap. Panesar bowled very well in the last test match England played, and as such he should be involved in the next one, at the very least. I don't care if he wears a turban or not, he's certainly looks a reasonably capable spin option, and going into a test with the current trend in English pitches with a injury-ravaged pace attack and no spinner would be ridiculous.

The problem is I can see Big Dunc & his fellow selectors panicking now Plaunkers is broken & dumping Monty in the chase for some lower order runs. Without Plunkett we have nothing even vaguely approximating a test 8 (well, Geraint excepted, obv...) so I suspect Dalrymple's superior batting & <coughs> steady off-spin may carry the day.

If we wanted to be brave we could leave out Bell for Dalrymple, but I think we'll be looking at something like this:

Trescothick
Strauss*
Cook
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Dalrymple
G Jones+
Hoggard
Harmison
Mahmood

 

[Steulen]

How the hell do you keep coming up with this crap about him bowling very well in the last Test? He took 2 wickets in 54 overs on a turner. The word to describe that is abject.

I don't like Mahmood, but a good burst from him (one of his 3 wickets in 4-5 overs ones) can change a game, same goes for any seamer likely to play. Panesar may as well be a spectator for all of the influence he will have on a game.

The reality is this, at Test level:

Limited finger spinner who can't bat or field = no potential whatsoever

Wrist spinner and reasonable bat = some potential

some potential >>>> no potential

You can't say Monty hasn't got potential...he's generally seen as the best current England-qualified spin bowler ffs! He's got a Test 5-for in England, how many other England spinners can say that?

His batting may be typecast as a no. 11 sitting duck, but his 28 off 26 balls against Sri Lanka shows he's capable of batting that some no. 9 batsmen (are you watching, Mr. Hoggard) could only dream of.

His fielding leaves a lot to be desired, true.

In all, if you're already struggling to have a decent plan A because every 60+ mph bowler forgot to drink his milk as a lad, it seems insane to lose your best plan B because the bowler involved will probably not score a ton from no. 11 boo hoo.

 

[steds]

How the hell do you keep coming up with this crap about him bowling very well in the last Test? He took 2 wickets in 54 overs on a turner. The word to describe that is abject.

You're looking at numbers, not performance.

 

[Goughy]

He's got a Test 5-for in England, how many other England spinners can say that?

England have debuted 5 other spinners since 1990 that have played equal or more games in England as Panesar.

Tufnell
Such
Giles
Salisbury
Croft

Of the five 3 have taken fifers in England (Giles, Such and Tufnell)

Hope that answers your question

 

[Scaly piscine]

You're looking at numbers, not performance.

I'm looking at the facts.

Would you say Kabir Ali and Kirtley were brilliant based on their performances on very helpful wickets in their first Tests? Obviously you would if you think Panesar did well in the last Test. And unlike Panesar they actually took several wickets...

 

[Steulen]

England have debuted 5 other spinners since 1990 that have played equal or more games in England as Panesar.

Tuffnell
Such
Giles
Salisbury
Croft

Of the five 3 have taken fifers in England (Giles, Such and Tuffnell)

Hope that answers your question

a) Good company
b) One crocked, two retired
c) No competition

 

[Steulen]

I'm looking at the facts.

Would you say Kabir Ali and Kirtley were brilliant based on their performances on very helpful wickets in their first Tests? Obviously you would if you think Panesar did well in the last Test. And unlike Panesar they actually took several wickets...

Both are pace bowlers. That's no comparison.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Both are pace bowlers. That's no comparison.

They're all ineffective at Test level and look good when they get helpful pitches (like most) and are useless otherwise.

Perfectly reasonable comparison as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Steulen]

They're all ineffective at Test level and look good when they get helpful pitches (like most) and are useless otherwise.

Perfectly reasonable comparison as far as I'm concerned.

They do not have the same role in the team, as a pace bowler you're one of four, as a spinner it's just you, spinners are most useful later on while often being used to rest the pace bowlers early on and in general England captains don't know what to do with spin bowlers (5 overs Freddie, are you sure, you could bowl 56 yourself you know?). It's no comparison AFAIC.

 

[Scaly piscine]

They do not have the same role in the team, as a pace bowler you're one of four, as a spinner it's just you, spinners are most useful later on while often being used to rest the pace bowlers early on and in general England captains don't know what to do with spin bowlers (5 overs Freddie, are you sure, you could bowl 56 yourself you know?). It's no comparison AFAIC.

So what? They're all ineffective and look good on helpful wickets.

If they're going to use someone to give the main bowlers a rest just tell Bell or Collingwood to bowl wide of off-stump.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So what? They're all ineffective and look good on helpful wickets.

If they're going to use someone to give the main bowlers a rest just tell Bell or Collingwood to bowl wide of off-stump.

So your problem is really with spin bowlers, not with Monty? And give it up about him taking 2 wickets already, nobody else took any more than that. He bowled well, got two top order batsmen out and could have had more, and in order for the innings to be completed he would have had to take 5 or more, most likely. Why single him out when he was the best bowler? What about Plunkett, Hoggard and Harmison that did nothing of note on day 5?

 

[Steulen]

So what? They're all ineffective and look good on helpful wickets.

If they're going to use someone to give the main bowlers a rest just tell Bell or Collingwood to bowl wide of off-stump.

Which does what for your chances of winning the match?

If you insist on being English, tell Monty to bowl defensively.

If you're trying to win, use him as your strike bowler later on in the match.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Which does what for your chances of winning the match?

If you insist on being English, tell Monty to bowl defensively.

If you're trying to win, use him as your strike bowler later on in the match.

Better than picking Monty and letting him bowl, at least you then have some batting and fielding to go with some wicketless, ineffective bowling.

Monty who takes one wicket every 16 overs isn't going to win you a match any more than someone like KP bowling.

 

[steds]

Why single him out when he was the best bowler? What about Plunkett, Hoggard and Harmison that did nothing of note on day 5?

"It was a turning pitch. Plunkett and Harmison had nothing to work with. Monty should have took all 10."