***Official*** Tour Games

[greg]

What I find funny is how everyone seems so intent on debating the wrong things.. Like which of two mediocre spinners should be playing, or which of two mediocre keepers should be playing, when there are more pressing issues at hand that actually affect the outcome of the ashes.. Flintoff's captaincy, Vaughan's fitness, Harmison and Anderson's ineffectiveness to name but a few..

England have discovered a good SLA bowler, who's taken some good scalps and bowled some good spells, but people are banding him around like he's the only thing that can keep the ashes in England.. He isn't, and it makes very little difference if he plays or not

1) Flintoff's captaincy has been "debated" ad nauseam. He shouldn't be captain, but it's not going to change
2) Vaughan is not fit and won't be fit, and would have to be picked for his captaincy alone since there's no reason to think he'd get any runs, so not too much to debate there
3) Harmison - well what are we supposed to debate. We want him to bowl well and he isn't. What can you do?
4) How can you complain about people debating the value of Monty and then say that Anderson, an Anderson who hasn't played for a year at that, is a valuable topic for debate?

The only reason there is so much 'debate' about Panesar is because he hasn't been picked. Despite being arguably our most consistently good bowler last summer and presumed a certainty for the Ashes in September. He may not have been ever going to single handedly win us the Ashes, but he'd have given us a better chance. And we'd almost certainly only be one down.

No different to all those people in Australia debating Tait vs Gillespie/Kaspa, or Clarke/Katich vs Hussey in 2005

 

[PhoenixFire]

Alec Stewart the 43 year old managed to score 69 more runs than Chris Read.

 

[steds]

Alec Stewart the 43 year old managed to score 69 more runs than Chris Read.

It's not particularly hard, that.

 

[PhoenixFire]

I suppose

 

[Langeveldt]

4) How can you complain about people debating the value of Monty and then say that Anderson, an Anderson who hasn't played for a year at that, is a valuable topic for debate?

Thats the whole point, spearheading an attack in the biggest series of all time having not played for a year.. Pretty debatable tbh..

 

[Langeveldt]

I'm loving Alec Stewart's knock.. He's probably my favourite non-SA player and just quietly sticking it to the whole Read v Jones thing.. It's plain to see who the best keeper batsman is

 

[PhoenixFire]

How much would I love it if they brought him back, I'd say Les Ames is still a better keeper than those two.

 

[greg]

Thats the whole point, spearheading an attack in the biggest series of all time having not played for a year.. Pretty debatable tbh..

Well of course it's ridiculous. But he's not "spearheading" the attack. In the presence of Ashley Giles he's the fourth bowler. And useless though his performances may be, there's far less cause to think that replacing him with another pace bowler would make any difference than the difference that replacing Giles with Monty would make.

Since when has Anderson ever been anything other than "mediocre"? And who is his non-"mediocre" replacement?

 

[Slow Love™]

The only reason there is so much 'debate' about Panesar is because he hasn't been picked. Despite being arguably our most consistently good bowler last summer and presumed a certainty for the Ashes in September. He may not have been ever going to single handedly win us the Ashes, but he'd have given us a better chance. And we'd almost certainly only be one down.

How does that work?

 

[NZTailender]

Plunkett injured or something? Is listed in the XI with Harmison as twelth man yet he hasn't bowled while Harmison has.

 

[greg]

How does that work?

Considering i'm of the belief that Panesar would make a significant improvement to the bowling attack over Giles, I think i'm entitled to the view that in a match where England lost with 4 overs to spare, where Giles made no significant contribution with bat or ball, that we would not have lost (either because Australia would have scored fewer runs in first innings, and/or failed to chase the 168 runs in 36 overs in the second).

OK, saying "almost certainly" (as if it were a fact) is wrong, how about "almost certainly, IMO"?

 

[Slow Love™]

Considering i'm of the belief that Panesar would make a significant improvement to the bowling attack over Giles, I think i'm entitled to the view that in a match where England lost with 4 overs to spare, where Giles made no significant contribution with bat or ball, that we would not have lost (either because Australia would have scored fewer runs in first innings, and/or failed to chase the 168 runs in 36 overs in the second).

OK, saying "almost certainly" (as if it were a fact) is wrong, how about "almost certainly, IMO"?

No, I'm not that militant about people inserting an IMO (though I know some are), and I already accept it as your opinion. I just would have thought "possibly" might have flown better than "almost certainly". Both 'cause I think that Australia could have chased the 168 faster if needed, and because Giles wasn't the only slow bowler to really struggle before the fifth day on that wicket.

Plus I think that the idea that not picking Panesar for the Adelaide test was a significant factor in England losing that match ignores the most obvious reasons for the loss - that the batsmen succumbed to the pressure the Australian bowlers (and perhaps the English batsmen themselves) exerted on that last day. It seems a bit of a red herring to suggest that the game was lost at the selection table.

 

[greg]

No, I'm not that militant about people inserting an IMO (though I know some are), and I already accept it as your opinion. I just would have thought "possibly" might have flown better than "almost certainly". Both 'cause I think that Australia could have chased the 168 faster if needed, and because Giles wasn't the only slow bowler to really struggle before the fifth day on that wicket.

Plus I think that the idea that not picking Panesar for the Adelaide test was a significant factor in England losing that match ignores the most obvious reasons for the loss - that the batsmen succumbed to the pressure the Australian bowlers (and perhaps the English batsmen themselves) exerted on that last day. It seems a bit of a red herring to suggest that the game was lost at the selection table.

Well of course not, but then when the match is so tight there are a dozen things, of varying levels of significance, which could have made a difference. I'm sure there are some Australians who firmly believe that Australia lost the 2005 Ashes because the umpires incorrectly called Langer "one-short" in the second innings at Edgbaston

 

[marc71178]

How does that work?

Obviously Monty would've batted out the last session on his own.

 

[greg]

Obviously Monty would've batted out the last session on his own.

I don't think you want to highlight the batting contribution of your chosen slow bowler in this case...

Anyway, back on the thread topic:

Anyone at the WACA today?

 

[marc71178]

Regardless of current contribution, Giles is far better with the bat than Panesar.

If we're playing 5 bowlers Giles HAS to play because Hoggard at 8 is lunacy.

 

[greg]

Regardless of current contribution, Giles is far better with the bat than Panesar.

If we're playing 5 bowlers Giles HAS to play because Hoggard at 8 is lunacy.

Well I look forward to your condemnation of the selectors come the next test, because i don't think that Giles has a chance of being in the team now.

 

[steds]

If we're playing 5 bowlers Giles HAS to play

Mahmood?

 

[NZTailender]

Pomersbach having a good knock. I imagine WA will declare overnight and England to bat tomorrow?

 

[Langeveldt]

Since when has Anderson ever been anything other than "mediocre"? And who is his non-"mediocre" replacement?

Has rarely been anything other than mediocre, except in the WC2003.. I'd like to see Jon Lewis playing, even though he's a defensive bowler, he could perform a similar role to Stuey Clarke, and at least he can hit the flaming wicket unlike Harmison and Mahmood..