• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** Pakistan in England

Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I can see both sides of this Monty argument and I think the middle ground is a fairer reflection of the situation.

A few points that agree with Scaly and some that agree with the others

- The cupboard is bare. Monty is the best spinner available
- He did bowl well in the 2nd innings of the 1st test but not nearly as penetrative (sp?) as a quality spinner should be in the 4th innings on an assisting track
- If you play a spinner then he is the man. The question should be, is his inclusion more beneficial than an extra seamer or additional batsman? I'm not sure.
- He has only had a short career so it is a very small sample size but in the places a spinner earns his money (ie the 2nd innings of an opponent) he has only taken 12 wickets in 7 innings.

I am on the side of Monty being the most likely long term solution to the England spinners gap, but I'm not convinced that he is upto the required standard yet. I would like him to work on his game in County Cricket and play when a spinner is essential given the wicket. I probably think an extra seamer or batsman is more benefical to the line up.

I generally have the viewpoint that a spinner should only be included if they are more likely to out perform a seam bowler. As it stands, I think Monty is less likely to take wickets than a selected seamer or he will take overs away from those in the side that would be more effective.

I think he is the future but not quite ready for the present though he is ahead of Giles in my opinion.

Watch him go and take a 10fer in the 2nd test now Ive said all that :)
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
steds said:
"It was a turning pitch. Plunkett and Harmison had nothing to work with. Monty should have took all 10."
Click to expand...
Harmy 4 wickets in 44.3 overs.
Plunkett 2 wickets in 33 overs.
Monty 2 wickets in 54 overs.

Monty had conditions in his favour, KP, Kaneria, Afridi and every England main seamer took wickets at a faster rate.

If Monty can't perform when the conditions are the most in his favour he'll likely see for a year then how can we expect him to be of any use the rest of the time? Unlike lots of others I don't see the point in having a specialist 'give the seamers a rest whilst being milked with complete ease' bowler.
 
Goughy

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
Interesting point (or maybe Im just boring :) )
2 topics that have cropped up have been that the Pakistanis are very good players of spin and that Monty can be an important player for England.

Anyway, since 2000 Pakistan has lost 20 Test matches.

In those 20 test matches most teams have played 1 or 2 spinners and 3 or 4 seamers.

So it is interesting to see that given the disproportionate number of seamers played compared to spinners that in those 20 losses a spinner has taken the most wickets (or tied) in 23 of the 40 innings and spinners have taken the most wickets in 14 of Pakistans 20 2nd innings. This also obviously includes a couple of games where a spinner has hardly bowled as Pakistan have been rolled over.

Im not sure what the moral is but it seems if you want to beat Pakistan then spin is your best option and it helps if you have a Murali, a Kumble, a Warne or a .....Gayle:)
 
Last edited:
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Steulen said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd still take Hoggard at 9 in general - usually ends up batting with someone who can take the initiative and bat positively, and he's more often then not hard to dislodge.
 
superkingdave

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
I'd still take Hoggard at 9 in general - usually ends up batting with someone who can take the initiative and bat positively, and he's more often then not hard to dislodge.
Click to expand...
becoming less and less frequent these days imo.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Goughy said:
Interesting point (or maybe Im just boring :) )
2 topics that have cropped up have been that the Pakistanis are very good players of spin and that Monty can be an important player for England.

Anyway, since 2000 Pakistan has lost 20 Test matches.

In those 20 test matches most teams have played 1 or 2 spinners and 3 or 4 seamers.

So it is interesting to see that given the disproportionate number of seamers played compared to spinners that in those 20 losses a spinner has taken the most wickets (or tied) in 23 of the 40 innings and spinners have taken the most wickets in 14 of Pakistans 20 2nd innings. This also obviously includes a couple of games where a spinner has hardly bowled as Pakistan have been rolled over.

Im not sure what the moral is but it seems if you want to beat Pakistan then spin is your best option and it helps if you have a Murali, a Kumble, a Warne or a .....Gayle:)
Click to expand...
You could also argue that perhaps Pakistan aren't as great against spin as they're made out to be when the Monty fans are busy telling me how he'd average 20 if he was bowling against other teams.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
marc71178 said:
No, but the actual way he bowled and the bad luck does.
Click to expand...
The bad luck being all those plumb lbws turned down and all those nicks and bat pads that were dropped... oh wait...

Guess he was just unlucky to come across a world class stodge like Abdul Razzaq eh...
 
Beleg

Beleg

International Regular
A question to all of you:

Should Sami play? And if he shouldn't, who would you replace him with?
 
TT Boy

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
no1_gangsta_786 said:
Jamie Dalrymple released from the England test squad.
Click to expand...
Rather surprised by Dalrymple’s exclusion when you consider that Andrew Strauss this morning was rather under the impression that Dalrymple would probably play. I agree with his removal from the squad though, say what you want about Monty Panesar but his leaps and bounds a far better bowler than Dalrymple.
 
TT Boy

TT Boy

Hall of Fame Member
From all reports the pitch will have pace and bounce and will not suit the spinners till later on, so playing two spinners would be out of the question. Pakistan with all their injuries in the pace department are not even going with two proper spinners, so I really do not believe we should be so bold.
 
Armadillo

Armadillo

State Vice-Captain
Beleg said:
A question to all of you:

Should Sami play? And if he shouldn't, who would you replace him with?
Click to expand...
ATM with all the injury problems I can't see a replacement for him so, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top