***Official*** Pakistan in England

[GIMH]

LOL that's as close as Scaly will come to praising Monty ie not at all

 

[pskov]

Panesar averages 30.72 afer only 8 matches. Giles averages 39.60 after over 50. How can anyone possibly say that Giles is a better bowler than Panesar? The only thing that sould remotely have a possibiliy of keeping Giles in the team is his batting, and Monty has shown he isn't the rabbit everyone thought he would be. The fielding issue isn't as important and Monty has improved a bit, but Giles isn't a fantastic fielder by any means (he does have a good arm though) and England have actually 'hidden' Panesar fairly well in the field this summer.

Basically in order to be picked ahead of Giles, he has to make back the 15 or so runs an innings he loses in batting and the 1 drop every 3 or 4 tests he might make, which is being generous as he has only made one drop in his 8 tests so far and that assumes that Giles would never drop anything at all. Seeing as he bowls more acurrately and tighter than Giles he easily makes back the runs and he also easily creates more than enough wickets to make back any drops he might make himself. For me it's a complete non-issue, Monty should now be England's number 1 spinner.

 

[silentstriker]

Panesar averages 30.72 afer only 8 matches. Giles averages 39.60 after over 50. How can anyone possibly say that Giles is a better bowler than Panesar? The only thing that sould remotely have a possibiliy of keeping Giles in the team is his batting, and Monty has shown he isn't the rabbit everyone thought he would be. The fielding issue isn't as important and Monty has improved a bit, but Giles isn't a fantastic fielder by any means (he does have a good arm though) and England have actually 'hidden' Panesar fairly well in the field this summer.

Basically in order to be picked ahead of Giles, he has to make back the 15 or so runs an innings he loses in batting and the 1 drop every 3 or 4 tests he might make, which is being generous as he has only made one drop in his 8 tests so far and that assumes that Giles would never drop anything at all. Seeing as he bowls more acurrately and tighter than Giles he easily makes back the runs and he also easily creates more than enough wickets to make back any drops he might make himself. For me it's a complete non-issue, Monty should now be England's number 1 spinner.

Plus, though he will never become a great fielder...with enough work he might be a passable one. And if I am not mistaken, he does work hard on it, right? As for batting, he is not a total rabbit, and I think he could make a 20 here or there.

 

[grecian]

Was surprising to see a pitch do so much at Old Trafford, but still most of the wickets Panesar got were from a bad shot or a fluke, you could understand bad shots against GBH because he shook up the batsmen. Anyway every dog has its day, even Giles takes five-fers occasionally.

So you reckon Panesar created no problems apart from the wickets, serious question Scaly, did you watch ANY of this test match.

Oh and Danish Kaneira and Alfridi really spun it on this wicket didn't they?

 

[marc71178]

So you reckon Panesar created no problems apart from the wickets, serious question Scaly, did you watch ANY of this test match.

Nope, he relied on TMS and Cricinfo.

 

[Scaly piscine]

So you reckon Panesar created no problems apart from the wickets, serious question Scaly, did you watch ANY of this test match.

Oh and Danish Kaneira and Alfridi really spun it on this wicket didn't they?

Can I ask you a serious question - are you even semi-literate?

Gets boring having to constantly read rubbish like this from lots of people on here who've managed to create this type of conclusion via some form of delusion or incompetence.


Panesar got a wicket from a stumping which 99 times out of 100 he'd have kept his foot behind the line, a shot played onto a toe, a dead straight ball which was padded up to. That push shot towards a ball pitched in the rough outside a leftie's off stump wasn't too clever either. Then you've got the dismissals in the first innings which were poor shots...

Without Pakistan's gormless batting he'd have took 3-4 for the match instead of 8. And yes Pakistan weren't too clever against Harmison either.

Can anyone in their right mind seriously see Panesar averaging anywhere near 30 if he plays a full Ashes series? He won't keep getting helpful pitches.

 

[grecian]

Can I ask you a serious question - are you even semi-literate?

Gets boring having to constantly read rubbish like this from lots of people on here who've managed to create this type of conclusion via some form of delusion or incompetence.


Panesar got a wicket from a stumping which 99 times out of 100 he'd have kept his foot behind the line, a shot played onto a toe, a dead straight ball which was padded up to. That push shot towards a ball pitched in the rough outside a leftie's off stump wasn't too clever either. Then you've got the dismissals in the first innings which were poor shots...

Without Pakistan's gormless batting he'd have took 3-4 for the match instead of 8. And yes Pakistan weren't too clever against Harmison either.

Can anyone in their right mind seriously see Panesar averaging anywhere near 30 if he plays a full Ashes series? He won't keep getting helpful pitches.

Umm, semi-literate, sorry what are you on about, you lose an argument over a player, and you resort to insults. Delusion or incompetence, thats surely wishing Plunkett should play for England.

Answer my question about why Danish Kaneira didn't turn the ball square, without insulting me please.

I have no idea if Monty will take lots of wickets against Australia, like clearly you had no idea that he'd take wickets in this match, or you wouldn't of advocated dropping him, I guess

 

[greg]

Can I ask you a serious question - are you even semi-literate?

Gets boring having to constantly read rubbish like this from lots of people on here who've managed to create this type of conclusion via some form of delusion or incompetence.


Panesar got a wicket from a stumping which 99 times out of 100 he'd have kept his foot behind the line, a shot played onto a toe, a dead straight ball which was padded up to. That push shot towards a ball pitched in the rough outside a leftie's off stump wasn't too clever either. Then you've got the dismissals in the first innings which were poor shots...

Without Pakistan's gormless batting he'd have took 3-4 for the match instead of 8. And yes Pakistan weren't too clever against Harmison either.

Can anyone in their right mind seriously see Panesar averaging anywhere near 30 if he plays a full Ashes series? He won't keep getting helpful pitches.

Give it up. Do you even understand anything about spin bowling? Good spin bowlers get huge numbers of their wickets from "not clever shots". If they were clever they wouldn't have got out would they? The Pakistanis (with the possible exception of Inzy) got out because of what happened with the non-wicket taking deliveries. Do you think Younis Khan just padded up just for the hell of it? A batsman of his class just doesn't make that sort of misjudgement without a good reason. Regularly bowling big (for show) spinners to let them know what he was capable off. And them being completely uncertain as to whether any individual ball was a big spinner or something going straight on. And Monty's economical as well!

God knows what Plunkett or Mahmood would average if they weren't allowed to get wickets against bad batting!

 

[Jono]

Well done England - dominant!

GO MONTY!

 

[GIMH]

Well if this post-Ashes England team are anything it's unpredictable. Lost away to Pakistan when we should have taken a 1-0 lead, and could reasonably, on form, have expected to get something out of the series. Went to India with the world and its brother seemingly expecting England to get trounced 3-0, then faced Sri Lanka at home, a series we were expected to take 2 or 3-0 and deservedly only drew.

Now I know there are two tests left and this series is not yet won. But I highly doubt anybody expected an innings victory and this match to be over by Saturday night. It's notable that Pakistan have failed to take ten wickets yet. Well done England.

 

[greg]

Well if this post-Ashes England team are anything it's unpredictable. Lost away to Pakistan when we should have taken a 1-0 lead, and could reasonably, on form, have expected to get something out of the series. Went to India with the world and its brother seemingly expecting England to get trounced 3-0, then faced Sri Lanka at home, a series we were expected to take 2 or 3-0 and deservedly only drew.

Now I know there are two tests left and this series is not yet won. But I highly doubt anybody expected an innings victory and this match to be over by Saturday night. It's notable that Pakistan have failed to take ten wickets yet. Well done England.

Consistent problem in the winter and vs Sri Lanka. We were picking too many bowlers because of the mythical need for a "five man attack". A five man attack is BAD if you haven't got five good bowlers. It weakens the batting (obviously) AND the bowling (because the good bowlers bowl less than they would otherwise have). We wouldn't have had a problem vs SL if Flintoff hadn't felt able to ignore Panesar for large periods because Lords was a "seam friendly wicket". At Old Trafford Strauss was forced to bowl him (albeit reluctantly - he tried Collingwood first!) and the results were instantaneous. England captains must get out of the mindset of a spinner only being into the side to contain or to bowl in the second innings on very helpful wickets. Once that happens England will realise that a five man attack isn't crucial (and indeed can be counterproductive, both to the bowling and the batting) if we haven't got five test quality bowlers. Monty has gone along way towards proving that.

The debate was different when it was "giles in a five man attack" vs "a four man attack without giles". The key there was that giles was crucial because he offered variety, however limited. For Australia the selectors should be looking hard at the merits of a four man attack. If Jones is fit then a five man attack could still be worthwhile. If he's not then it should definitely be four men all the way.

 

[GIMH]

Of course, the only argument against that, though, is that people worry about a four-man attack involving Flintoff. Collingwood and Bell are useful players to have in the side for me, and as long as you have viable part-time options then a four-man attack is not to be sniffed at.

 

[Goughy]

Of course, the only argument against that, though, is that people worry about a four-man attack involving Flintoff. Collingwood and Bell are useful players to have in the side for me, and as long as you have viable part-time options then a four-man attack is not to be sniffed at.

Hmmm, thats not really a good argument against, is it?

 

[greg]

Of course, the only argument against that, though, is that people worry about a four-man attack involving Flintoff. Collingwood and Bell are useful players to have in the side for me, and as long as you have viable part-time options then a four-man attack is not to be sniffed at.

Why should we "worry" about a four man attack involving Flintoff? Did the Australians ever worry about a four man attack involving McGrath?

I firmly believe that the fundamental reason for Flintoff being overbowled (which happened in a five man attack btw) is not because we have not got enough other bowlers in the team. It is because he is Flintoff and (since the ashes) he has been better than the others. He is the man who bowls when we need wickets and when we need to control the runs. And the main reason for that is that we haven't had a reliable spinner to take the burden off the quicks. Did he bowl too many overs at Lords? Yes. Was it because we did not have enough bowlers? No we had five. It was because England had decided it was a seam friendly wicket and for ridiculously long periods they ignored Monty. That would not and could not have happened if we had had a four man attack.

 

[marc71178]

At Old Trafford Strauss was forced to bowl him (albeit reluctantly - he tried Collingwood first!)

Yes he did, because there was only 14 or so overs gone when he needed to bring in a 4th bowler.

A bit of pre-planning and one of the openers would've had a shorter first spell and then be able to come on at the other end.

 

[social]

Why should we "worry" about a four man attack involving Flintoff? Did the Australians ever worry about a four man attack involving McGrath?

I firmly believe that the fundamental reason for Flintoff being overbowled (which happened in a five man attack btw) is not because we have not got enough other bowlers in the team. It is because he is Flintoff and (since the ashes) he has been better than the others. He is the man who bowls when we need wickets and when we need to control the runs. And the main reason for that is that we haven't had a reliable spinner to take the burden off the quicks. Did he bowl too many overs at Lords? Yes. Was it because we did not have enough bowlers? No we had five. It was because England had decided it was a seam friendly wicket and for ridiculously long periods they ignored Monty. That would not and could not have happened if we had had a four man attack.

It wasn't just McGrath - he was backed up by one of the greatest bowlers ever and 2 other top class test bowlers AND all had stamina.

The only teams that have been consistently successful in the history of cricket with 4 man attacks are Aus, the West Indies, and Pak for a period (with Waqar and Wasim).

Eng is forced into the present course of action because of a lack of options.

They need Flintoff back desperately to provide another option and a reliable no.7 because their current line-up has, WI excepted, the longest tail in recent memory.

 

[Goughy]

It wasn't just McGrath - he was backed up by one of the greatest bowlers ever and 2 other top class test bowlers AND all had stamina.

The only teams that have been consistently successful in the history of cricket with 4 man attacks are Aus, the West Indies, and Pak for a period (with Waqar and Wasim).

Eng is forced into the present course of action because of a lack of options.

They need Flintoff back desperately to provide another option and a reliable no.7 because their current line-up has, WI excepted, the longest tail in recent memory.

Hmmm, so only the best teams of the past 30 years have used that tactic, and the teams that have used 5 have been less successful!! Way to illustrate a point

Also if you look at the series before the WI became the best in the world, Australia beat them. They started with 5 bowlers selected and then moved to 4 in order to strenghten the batting and win the series.

I have shown before that Australia have been successful going into tests with only 3 bowlers (backed up by Bevan and Blewett).

 

[JASON]

Well played England !! What a bowling performance by Harmison and Monty !!

I love Monty !! He is absolutely brilliant .

 

[social]

Hmmm, so only the best teams of the past 30 years have used that tactic, and the teams that have used 5 have been less successful!! Way to illustrate a point

Also if you look at the series before the WI became the best in the world, Australia beat them. They started with 5 bowlers selected and then moved to 4 in order to strenghten the batting and win the series.

I have shown before that Australia have been successful going into tests with only 3 bowlers (backed up by Bevan and Blewett).

Huh?

It's been proven over the years that only teams with great bowlers can get away with a 4-man attack consistently.

How many great bowlers does Eng have? None

As for Aus - playing in Sydney with McGrath and Warne at their peak is hardly a relevant argument.

Nor is the fact that Aus had Lillee and Thomson at their peak an argument for doing likewise.

Even they had good part-time back-up from Greg Chappell and Cosier AND the series was played on green-tops

 

[Nate]

Got to love the SP vs people-with-under-1000-post wars. Well played to you in the latter, good arguement which I certainly agree with. Monty definately seemed to have bowled well this match, I`ve only seen highlights, I hope he can keep producing on less friendly surfaces. Likewise with Harmy. A bit concerning over the other bowlers and a few batsman. But a very good show.