***Official*** Tour Games

[Scaly piscine]

I think most people here know your opinion of Panesar, you've stated it plenty of times. It's not like you ever say anything new, no offence but it just gets old when you pop up with the same stuff everytime he's mentioned.

I'm just replying to what's posted, if everyone insisted on being original there'd be half a dozen posts a day on this site.

 

[Nate]

Of course they do. However, you are making negative comments about Panesar and his place in the side, primarily on his figures in warm up matches thus far. I am saying that he should have had 3 more wickets if it hadn't been for the mistakes of others. If those easy chances had been taken, his figures would look more flattering than they do at the moment.

Also, if you are dismissing Panesar for his figures in these warm-up games, presumably you will also call for Flintoff to be dropped, due to these figures he has registered so far on the tour:

10-0-55-1
15-4-52-0
4-1-11-0
12-2-34-1
6-1-18-0

A grand total of 2 wickets. Of course, Flintoff shouldn't be dropped, as his place is invaluable in the side. Neither should Panesar. He is the man in possession, having performed well for England in the summer. Neither should he be judged on meaningless warm-up games, where he has even been quite unlucky with chances missed off his bowling.

It's clear you don't like Panesar, which is fair enough. But your arguments for why he shouldn't play at Brisbane are sooo weak.

Finally someone uses that. The only real point you can argue with for mine, and a damn fine one at that.

"Lest we not forget."

 

[greg]

Flintoff is holding back, Panesar is different because he's a spinner. Also Panesar has barely managed to get his average into the low 30s on more spin friendly wickets than you'd expect to see, I can only see his average going up significantly during the Ashes and that means he's not worth his place in the side.

Well we can have a long argument about whether he would be worth his place as a fourth bowler on pitches not necessarily able to help him. But in a five man attack the mere fact that he is a matchwinner in the second innings (whilst being able to "do a job" keeping it tight in the first) means he absolutely is worth his place. Most pitches in Australia will offer help to spinners late in the game - you seem to think that the fact that Monty can exploit that is a negative! - in fact so much that you think England should pick a fifth(!) fast bowler.

 

[Gloucefan]

I'm just replying to what's posted, if everyone insisted on being original there'd be half a dozen posts a day on this site.

I'm not saying that we should be original all the time just you don't need to to try and convince all that Monty is crap, maybe just accept a lot people think he is a quality bowler. Just accept it, time will tell anyway.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Flintoff is holding back, Panesar is different because he's a spinner. Also Panesar has barely managed to get his average into the low 30s on more spin friendly wickets than you'd expect to see, I can only see his average going up significantly during the Ashes and that means he's not worth his place in the side.

I've seen Flintoff bowl on this tour, as have most people here, and I don't think he was "holding back", aside from bowling less overs than normal. Not that it matters that he didn't take wickets, but if you're going to read so much into Panesar's performances I don't see why you shouldn't do the same with Flintoff.

Anyway, you do realise the advantage of variety in an attack? Assume for a moment that Brisbane cracks up and turns on the 5th day, and Australia are chasing say 300 to win. Don't you think it'd be valuable to have someone who can take wickets on such a surface? Even if he doesn't take wickets on non-turners all series, he's still going to get a handful of opportunities to take wickets, and he's certainly going to be a bigger threat on a 5th day turner than Plunkett or Mahmood. England will already have 3 or 4 pacers who should all be capable of taking wickets, there's no need to throw some more inexperienced right-arm quicks in there just for the sake of it. A spinner would be of far more value, even if it's someone like Giles.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I've seen Flintoff bowl on this tour, as have most people here, and I don't think he was "holding back", aside from bowling less overs than normal. Not that it matters that he didn't take wickets, but if you're going to read so much into Panesar's performances I don't see why you shouldn't do the same with Flintoff.

Anyway, you do realise the advantage of variety in an attack? Assume for a moment that Brisbane cracks up and turns on the 5th day, and Australia are chasing say 300 to win. Don't you think it'd be valuable to have someone who can take wickets on such a surface? Even if he doesn't take wickets on non-turners all series, he's still going to get a handful of opportunities to take wickets, and he's certainly going to be a bigger threat on a 5th day turner than Plunkett or Mahmood. England will already have 3 or 4 pacers who should all be capable of taking wickets, there's no need to throw some more inexperienced right-arm quicks in there just for the sake of it. A spinner would be of far more value, even if it's someone like Giles.

We all know how much use Giles was when the pitches wore out in the last Ashes - none at all. Panesar might be a bigger threat on a 5th day wicket than Plunkett or Mahmood, but those two will be a far greater threat for the first 3 days of most if not all of the Tests.

 

[Mister Wright]

Isn't Giles supposed to be the more economical of the two spinners? So far from what I've seen on tour Panesar has been the more economical.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

We all know how much use Giles was when the pitches wore out in the last Ashes - none at all. Panesar might be a bigger threat on a 5th day wicket than Plunkett or Mahmood, but those two will be a far greater threat for the first 3 days of most if not all of the Tests.

You're missing the point. If England end up on a raging turner and Australia have Warne or even Warne and MacGill and England have Plunkett instead of Panesar, they are at a significant disadvantage. At absolute worst, Panesar will be toothtless on the more seamer-oriented wickets, where England already have 3 or 4 competent options. It's about variation, not just about picking the 5 bowlers with the best strike rates.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Except our 4 present seamers aren't likely to bowl 90 in a day and that's particularly if you consider that Hoggard won't be as effective once the new ball has gotten older and could turn to cannon fodder, Flintoff is supposedly being saved for 4-6 over attacking bursts instead of being a stock bowler, Anderson and Harmison could be crap on any given day or session.

With Australia you know that McGrath and Lee can be relied upon for 20+ overs each and then you've got Warne. But look at what happened last Ashes to their other bowlers with their 4 man attack.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's not as though Panesar (or Giles) can't be relied on to bowl a few overs when the ball isn't turning as well. At the very least they can tie up an end fairly well and might pick up the odd wicket, and when the pitch is turning they become more dangerous and provide crucial variety to the attack in changing conditions. There's simply no wicket on which you'd want to go in with five seamers and no spinners, unless you were absolutely certain it was going to be a seamer and it wouldn't ever last long enough to take spin, like Brisbane with a fair coating of grass or something. 90% of the time in Australia you will want a spinner later in the game, especially given that Australia can occasionally be vulnerable against spin and England's 5th seamer options aren't exactly brilliant players with stunning test records in Plunkett and Mahmood.

At the very least, Panesar bowled well for England in the home summer and took a fair number of wickets, and whether or not you think he's a great bowler he was certainly valuable to have on those pitches and deserves another shot in the team. Giles didn't do so much in the Ashes, but he wasn't that bad and did bowl a tricky length and didn't go for all that many runs aside from the occasional poor spell. If all Panesar does for five tests is keep it tight most of the time and take a few wickets when the pitches are turning in the second innings and average sub-40 he will certainly have been worth his place in the side ahead of someone like Mahmood, who probably wouldn't maintain a lower average anyway, and certainly wouldn't provide variety.

 

[Scaly piscine]

It's not as though Panesar (or Giles) can't be relied on to bowl a few overs when the ball isn't turning as well. At the very least they can tie up an end fairly well and might pick up the odd wicket, and when the pitch is turning they become more dangerous and provide crucial variety to the attack in changing conditions. There's simply no wicket on which you'd want to go in with five seamers and no spinners, unless you were absolutely certain it was going to be a seamer and it wouldn't ever last long enough to take spin, like Brisbane with a fair coating of grass or something. 90% of the time in Australia you will want a spinner later in the game, especially given that Australia can occasionally be vulnerable against spin and England's 5th seamer options aren't exactly brilliant players with stunning test records in Plunkett and Mahmood.

At the very least, Panesar bowled well for England in the home summer and took a fair number of wickets, and whether or not you think he's a great bowler he was certainly valuable to have on those pitches and deserves another shot in the team. Giles didn't do so much in the Ashes, but he wasn't that bad and did bowl a tricky length and didn't go for all that many runs aside from the occasional poor spell. If all Panesar does for five tests is keep it tight most of the time and take a few wickets when the pitches are turning in the second innings and average sub-40 he will certainly have been worth his place in the side ahead of someone like Mahmood, who probably wouldn't maintain a lower average anyway, and certainly wouldn't provide variety.

There would be a point in playing a spinner if they were genuinely good enough, I don't believe Panesar is that. I think like Giles that Australia will milk what they want off him and then when they need to they'll take him apart. I don't see how this contribution is worthwhile when he's not taking wickets - which will be most of the time.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Some people on here are making Giles out to be some part time spinner that occasionaly takes wickets, inbetween getting smashed for 5 an over every innings. Remember when he took 22 wickets in 4 tests, at an average of 23.13, ans striking at 50.70. Remember when he bowled Brian Lara, through the gate with that ball, to someone who is considered by many to be the best player of spin in the last two decades. Sure he is no Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralidharan, but is certainly no mug.

 

[marc71178]

Dizzy for the Squad, else Clark and Johnson will single handingly lose the first test for us!

Since at most one of them will play, how will they both lose it?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Some people on here are making Giles out to be some part time spinner that occasionaly takes wickets, inbetween getting smashed for 5 an over every innings. Remember when he took 22 wickets in 4 tests, at an average of 23.13, ans striking at 50.70. Remember when he bowled Brian Lara, through the gate with that ball, to someone who is considered by many to be the best player of spin in the last two decades. Sure he is no Shane Warne or Muttiah Muralidharan, but is certainly no mug.

Giles, 

The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2005 

  Win   Mat    O       R   W   BBI    BBM     Ave  Econ    SR 5w 10
  Eng     5  160     578  10  3/78   5/146  57.80  3.61  96.0  0  0

By Test standards he may as well have been a part-timer.



Edit: Nice of CW to *finally* let me edit my post

 

[marc71178]

You're missing the point. If England end up on a raging turner and Australia have Warne or even Warne and MacGill and England have Plunkett instead of Panesar, they are at a significant disadvantage.

If we end up on any pitch and have Plunkett in the side, we're at a significant disadvantage.

 

[PhoenixFire]

That's just one series, dominated by fast bowling (except Warne obviously). I'm not calling him anything other than a good bowler (which is what he is), but some people are unduly harsh on him.

 

[PY]

Vaughan out for a blob against a WA 2nd XI and England's Academy side are a whopping 12/5.

Wait and see if there's any repurcussions from him playing now I guess.

 

[Langeveldt]

Boohoo - Comparing Giles and Panesar is like comparing Rice Cakes with Bread and Butter.. Not much there, and not much in it.. Although one of them has potential and should play in the next test, the other doesn't, neither of them will strike fear into the Aussies..

Is Alec Stewart available for the next test? Good to see we still have a decent keeper batsman in the country..

Good to see the talented Mahmood making himself an automatic selection too

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yea it's ridiculous how desperate England are for a decent wicket-keeper who can hold a bat. The two choices... a guy who only goes for catches when they go straight into his mitts and looks like he'd struggle to outbat Harmison or Hoggard. The other one a guy who goes for everything, drops a few, doesn't get near a few as they head towards first slip and looks like he'd struggle to outbat Giles.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yea it's ridiculous how desperate England are for a decent wicket-keeper who can hold a bat. The two choices... a guy who only goes for catches when they go straight into his mitts and looks like he'd struggle to outbat Harmison or Hoggard. The other one a guy who goes for everything, drops a few, doesn't get near a few as they head towards first slip and looks like he'd struggle to outbat Giles.

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