***Official*** Sri Lanka in England

[marc71178]

Because he can't bat and if it doesn't spin, he's hardly going to be used. The only reason to drop Panesar at the moment would be for a seam bowler.

Or an extra bat and good catcher!

 

[Nishant]

i think panesar is handy in a team. But, plunkett is not that gud( although it is true that he can bat better than panesar). I guess, when harmy and co *** back, plunkett will be out. Mahmood not bad.....its good for england to try a few youngsters. Simon jones is regulary unfit so u cant really rely on him all the time; u need back up and mahmood, with expereince, may be useful.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Or an extra bat and good catcher!

*cough* Bell *cough*

 

[aussie]

Got to commend Sri Lanka on the way they fought back in this test match, but somehow i feel as Boycott said on the radio if it were Australia, Englad would have finished them off very clinically after restricting them in the 1st innings.

Still i stand by the idea that England are better of just playing with 4- (world class) seamers & picking the extra batsman ahead of the spinners who are average at best, since the likes of Harmison/Hoggard/Jones/Flintoff have shown that they can be effective in all conditions on all pitches. To me i think Fletcher likes to have the spinner as a basis of rotating the seamers around so they can stay fresher which is a good thing yes, but cricketers these days a pretty fit so i don't think they 4 quicks would suffer than much with a bigger workload. The great West Indies side for 19 years did it without much need for a spinner & since this England pace attack is the best one since the WI i dont think they will have much of a problem doing so either.

Finally Jones needs to watch himself, if he doesn't have 6 solid test & Read does well with bat & gloves in the county season i would have Read keeping in the ashes, but still its early days.

 

[Pothas]

I dont understand why people are calling for the extra batsman to be honest. Afterall
Sri Lanka only managed to get 5 England wickets at Lords. I would like Bell to be in the side but i reallly dont see the need for him. I was actualy very impressed with Penesar when i saw him bowl on Saturday and i think he deserving of keeping his place in the side.

 

[gio]

Got to commend Sri Lanka on the way they fought back in this test match, but somehow i feel as Boycott said on the radio if it were Australia, Englad would have finished them off very clinically after restricting them in the 1st innings.

Still i stand by the idea that England are better of just playing with 4- (world class) seamers & picking the extra batsman ahead of the spinners who are average at best, since the likes of Harmison/Hoggard/Jones/Flintoff have shown that they can be effective in all conditions on all pitches. To me i think Fletcher likes to have the spinner as a basis of rotating the seamers around so they can stay fresher which is a good thing yes, but cricketers these days a pretty fit so i don't think they 4 quicks would suffer than much with a bigger workload. The great West Indies side for 19 years did it without much need for a spinner & since this England pace attack is the best one since the WI i dont think they will have much of a problem doing so either.

Finally Jones needs to watch himself, if he doesn't have 6 solid test & Read does well with bat & gloves in the county season i would have Read keeping in the ashes, but still its early days.

Typical. We finally find a young English spinner who has real ability, and some people already want to discard him. Crazy.

To only play 4 fast bowlers and as a result no real variety is criminal. We're building for the ashes, and you can't suceed against the convicts, or any quality side, without a spinner. ANd it's not just any old spinner that's in the attack, its a good young traditional SLA who can really turn the ball on ocasions. Give him a chance!

 

[gio]

i think panesar is handy in a team. But, plunkett is not that gud( although it is true that he can bat better than panesar). I guess, when harmy and co *** back, plunkett will be out. Mahmood not bad.....its good for england to try a few youngsters. Simon jones is regulary unfit so u cant really rely on him all the time; u need back up and mahmood, with expereince, may be useful.

Don't be so quick to right off Plunkett. He's still very young, but already has a good action and has the ability to hit the seam. He'll get quicker as well. Very good prospect imo.

 

[Barney Rubble]

My England side for the second Test (not the one I think Fletcher will pick):

Trescothick
Strauss
Cook
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff*
Jones+
Hoggard
Mahmood
Harmison
Panesar

Forget the number eight who can bat for now. Let's just play our best bowlers and see how many wickets we can take. Pakistan beat us with Mohammad Sami at eight, after all!

Mahmood over Plunkett because he's the closest thing to the Dragon we've got - Plunkett isn't like-for-like, we lose the variety in the attack if he's the one replacing Jones.

I wouldn't replace Panesar with Bell, we need the variety. Although I am still in the Bell > Collingwood camp - I think I always will be.

 

[Scaly piscine]

My England side for the second Test (not the one I think Fletcher will pick):

Trescothick
Strauss
Cook
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff*
Jones+
Hoggard
Mahmood
Harmison
Panesar

Forget the number eight who can bat for now. Let's just play our best bowlers and see how many wickets we can take. Pakistan beat us with Mohammad Sami at eight, after all!

Mahmood over Plunkett because he's the closest thing to the Dragon we've got - Plunkett isn't like-for-like, we lose the variety in the attack if he's the one replacing Jones.

I wouldn't replace Panesar with Bell, we need the variety. Although I am still in the Bell > Collingwood camp - I think I always will be.

I agree with picking the best bowlers available... so back to Lancashire reserves Saj.

Unless your idea of variety is having a second version of Harmison with 500% extra long-hoppy goodness and a bit less bounce (hell even Harmison can swing the thing very occasionally - same as Mahmood again) then I don't see how Mahmood adds more useful variety than Plunkett. Plunkett is a bit similar to Hoggard, but moved the ball when Hoggard didn't. Oh and I'd keep hiding if you think Bell > Collingwood...

 

[dinu23]

probable XI for the Sussex match:
1 Upul Tharanga, 2 Jehan Mubarak, 3 Michael Vandort, 4 Kumar Sangakkara, 5 Mahela Jayawardene (capt), 6 Thilan Samaraweera, 7 Prasanna Jayawardene (wk), 8 Lasith Malinga, 9 Nuwan Zoysa, 10 Malinga Bandara, 11 Farveez Maharoof.

 

[luckyeddie]

Don't be so quick to right off Plunkett. He's still very young, but already has a good action and has the ability to hit the seam. He'll get quicker as well. Very good prospect imo.

Good call.

I make no secret that I've championed the lad over the last couple of years, but things haven't gone his way, especially last week. He really bowled very well in the second innings, producing a couple of spells that were metronomic in their accuracy.

One for the future.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Typical. We finally find a young English spinner who has real ability, and some people already want to discard him. Crazy.

To only play 4 fast bowlers and as a result no real variety is criminal. We're building for the ashes, and you can't suceed against the convicts, or any quality side, without a spinner. ANd it's not just any old spinner that's in the attack, its a good young traditional SLA who can really turn the ball on ocasions. Give him a chance!

Giles has real ability. In fact Giles is a better bowler than Monty, if he was fit he'd be playing for England in Monty's stead. Don't get me wrong I love watching him bowl and when Gilo hangs up his boots I want him in the side, but saying finally we have a talented spinner is a slight on Giles for me.

It's Panesar not Panacea.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Giles has real ability. In fact Giles is a better bowler than Monty, if he was fit he'd be playing for England in Monty's stead. Don't get me wrong I love watching him bowl and when Gilo hangs up his boots I want him in the side, but saying finally we have a talented spinner is a slight on Giles for me.

It's Panesar not Panacea.

Amen to that.

Not to mention, Gilo being back would simple things up so much in terms of whether we need Plunkett for his batting or not.

 

[simmy]

Panesar is a quality spinner IMO. He will get better as he again is still very young.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Still i stand by the idea that England are better of just playing with 4- (world class) seamers & picking the extra batsman ahead of the spinners who are average at best,

Because Panesar's two second innings wickets weren't crucial...

And Giles didn't get any crucial wickets against Australia last year...
No...

I don't see any harm in picking a specialist spinner if one of your seamers (Flintoff) is an above average batsman. This especially if your spinner (Giles) can bat. People tend to write off variety and whatnot, but someone (I think Warne) made the comment that you don't pick a team to win the first innings. You pick a team to win a match. Having even a useful spinner in the team opens up more options in the second innings of a match.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Except Johnson, Kirtley and Saggers have all looked to be substandard in Tests and Lewis in ODs...

As shown by their abysmal Test/ODI averages of 17, 29, 35 and 31 respectively. And we all known that given a little experience and time to settle in most people tend to improve.

They only looked substandard the large majority of people that rate their bowlers on speed rather than effectiveness.

Sorry to bring this old chestnut up, but I planned to argue against it and just never got round to it.

Kirtley just proved how useless he is for Sussex today - 20-3-53-0 v Tharanga, Mubarak, Vandort for the most part. Besides, he's got strong chucking allegations surrounding him. Johnson got his wickets against Zimbabwe, and a look at his D2 figures should make anyone realise that he should not be anywhere near any Test team. Saggers is 34 - you don't call anyone up like that unless you're desperate for a win, better to pick someone aged 24 who's probably just as likely to get wickets (i.e. not at all, yet). Lewis' ODI average comes from 3-32 v Bangladesh on a seamer, and he was spared in one of the ODIs v Australia this summer. Besides, it looks like the Sri Lankans have learnt to play swing bowling now, so I don't think he should be in the team.

I agree that the England selectors are a little overobsessed with pace, but they do have the best track record since the 1970s, so I'd trust them - especially as they do nowt but going around watching cricketers.

 

[aussie]

Typical. We finally find a young English spinner who has real ability, and some people already want to discard him. Crazy.

I am not doubting that England have found a young spinner who has ability but at the moment i think England can do better of in picking 4 seamers as their main bowling options on all pitches in most conditions (unless they play in the sub-continent on a raging turner where they will need a slow bowling option). But in the coming years if Panesar can prove to be a real match-winning spinner he could come in & give the attack variety because Tufnell as a young spinner definately showed as much promise or even more than Panesar where he wasn't afraid to give the ball then faded into the traditional english-style offy of the recent past who is afraid to toss the ball up, while Gilo as always been a hard worker.

Yes Panesar has shown potential but don't lets go over-rating him just yet.

To only play 4 fast bowlers and as a result no real variety is criminaL

Even though having an attack of 4 fast bowler isn't much variety it certainly isn't criminal because the great West-Indian side for 20 years did that with GREAT SUCCESS.

We're building for the ashes, and you can't suceed against the convicts, or any quality side, without a spinner. ANd it's not just any old spinner that's in the attack, its a good young traditional SLA who can really turn the ball on ocasions. Give him a chance!

What??, England certainly can win the ashes in Australia without a main spinner since it was the FAST BOWLERS who caused Australia problems not Ashley Giles. If England are to play a spinner (even though i dont think they should knowing Fletcher & co they will) it will be the experienced Giles & not Panesar since if Panesar plays he will be targeted & since he is so young & inexperienced will be to England detriment.

 

[JASON]

SL batsmen getting some good time in the middle . But I would not read too much into the score given this Sussex attack is hardly comparable to England's Flintoff , Hoggard, Mahmood +/- Harmison +/- Plunkett +/- Lewis . Edgbaston will be a different pitch to Lords and English bowlers will be keen to prove a point as will Freddie who has come under some fire.

The absence of Maharoof to me suggests the SL tour selectors have already decided to play him at Edgbaston, regardless.

To me that's a decision they may come to regret. If Kapugedera scores runs in this game, I would certainly feel he warrants selection over Maharoof. Maharoof may have scored some runs at Lords but his contribution with the bat is not reliable as does his contribution with the ball.

WRT Openers , I feel regardless of what happens at Hove even in the second innings , I woud pick Sanath J over Vandort . Mubarak by now should not even be in the equation !!

 

[aussie]

Because Panesar's two second innings wickets weren't crucial...

And Giles didn't get any crucial wickets against Australia last year...
No....

I am not doubting that the wickets they took in these matches weren't crucial but that doesn't deny the fact that they are both just average spinners.

I don't see any harm in picking a specialist spinner if one of your seamers (Flintoff) is an above average batsman. This especially if your spinner (Giles) can bat. People tend to write off variety and whatnot, but someone (I think Warne) made the comment that you don't pick a team to win the first innings. You pick a team to win a match. Having even a useful spinner in the team opens up more options in the second innings of a match.

No disagreeing here but the thing is even Giles has shown that in the 2nd innings of test matches when the pitch becomes very abbrasive & starts assisting he can be pretty ineffective, two prime examples areOld Trafford 2005 & Durban 2004. In the likes of Hoggard/Flintoff/Jones as shown in the ashes last year England have 3 bowlers who when the pitch becomes like this can reverse swing the ball which would cause a batsman as much heaches as a Mural or Warne spinning it a mile on a 2nd inning wicket, thus the need for England to have a match winning spinner is negated.

Theirfore England have the luxury of extending the batting & could have Flintoff batting down at #7 which he shoud since he is England best bowler & for the workload he does he should not be batting in the top 6 at all..

 

[dinu23]

SL batsmen getting some good time in the middle . But I would not read too much into the score given this Sussex attack is hardly comparable to England's Flintoff , Hoggard, Mahmood +/- Harmison +/- Plunkett +/- Lewis . Edgbaston will be a different pitch to Lords and English bowlers will be keen to prove a point as will Freddie who has come under some fire.

The absence of Maharoof to me suggests the SL tour selectors have already decided to play him at Edgbaston, regardless.

To me that's a decision they may come to regret. If Kapugedera scores runs in this game, I would certainly feel he warrants selection over Maharoof. Maharoof may have scored some runs at Lords but his contribution with the bat is not reliable as does his contribution with the ball.

WRT Openers , I feel regardless of what happens at Hove even in the second innings , I woud pick Sanath J over Vandort . Mubarak by now should not even be in the equation !!

I think the our batsmen have done well here. Don't forget Sussex are on top of their division this season. I don't think Sanath will make it to the team now. Moody would want to prove a point to De Mel by sticking with Vandort or Mubarak.