What a pathetic disgrace of a decision that will be. He could cost us the Ashes.
As I've said before, the solution is pick Giles and Panesar. I know where Fletcher's coming from with the batting - Mahmood, Hoggard, Harmison and Panesar is a sight that Warne would love to see - but the last time we won at the 'gabba (1986/87) we played two finger-spinners (Edmonds and Emburey) when the 'gabba was a bowl-first pitch not the bat-first pitch it is now (and for god's sake let's hope Freddie and Fletcher know this)
Ian Botham, Freddie Flintoff, Kevin Pietersen, Brian Laudrup, Gazza and Daniela Hantuchova....a fan of you all FOREVER!!!
Can't wait to see Australia field a crap leg-spinner like Hollland or Hohns again.....
Congratulations to Daniela Hantuchova on her 3rd career title....
Bob Woolmer 1948-2007..farewell to the best coach England never had...
Arise Sir Beefy....
Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, Grubb...
When I said I was basing the team on Fletcer's comments, I had only heard him say he was going for five bowlers, not about the control and the pitch not turning.
Yea Panesar is a better bowler than Gilo, but saying Gilo is a waste of a player is a bit harsh yo, the man is a good reliable player and even though i would rather Panesar play myself, Fletcher's reasoning is very fair IMO, with neither Read/Jones very convincing with the willow ATM i would be like England will have 6 bats and a long tail which is an area which Australia will surely target.Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
This all comes down to the mistake of making Flintoff captain. I'm sorry, but a Flintoff who is not fit to bowl a reasonable share of overs is not so important to the team that the rest of the team should be wrecked to accommodate him, especially in Australia where i don't think his batting will be nearly as effective as in England.
Panesar is so much better than Giles as a bowler, in all conditions, that it defies belief that England should be looking to play a five man attack to accommodate Flintoff's lack of fitness only to force him to bowl more by picking Giles.
I reckon that Panesar has the potential to bowl as many as 10 overs more a day than Giles, especially in first innings conditions which are not helpful (no rough etc). Take into account that Collingwood (not in the team if we play a five man attack) could potentially bowl up to 10 overs a day, and we see that the "four man attack" with Panesar, will not put significantly greater strain on Flintoff, than the five man attack with Giles. For all Mahmood's claimed "improvement" he still hasn't come close to winning a match or offering any control for England.
off subject but does anyone know which if any bars will be showing the ashes live in the u.k.?
i presume due to the new licensing laws some will be?
i suspect this indeed will be the england team for the first test after listening to the Fletcher interview it seems certain colly and bell are fighting for one place and giles will play if definitely fit as fletcher is obsessed with his batting at no.8 despite Monty being a millions times the better bowler.
Duke 92 on castle street or anyone one of the popular Kro bar locations may show it i think, gotta find out myself.Originally Posted by craigschwartz
It would be pathetic if he dropped Bell and Panesar
...and ReadOriginally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero
President of RTDAS - Ryan ten Doeschate - The Freddie Flintoff of Associate Cricket
Member of DNAS, ESAS - Dirk Nannes, Edgar Schiferli. Dutchmen can bowl.
Originally Posted by Pedro DelgadoOriginally Posted by Matt79
Read's clearly out of form.
Read's clearly out of form.
Likewise, Australia will surely target the horrible bowling line-up. Bowling > daylight > Smith`s dirty underwear > strength of the tail.Originally Posted by aussie
Jesus brings life eternal
don't think it will be all that horrible, TBH i think people are over-rating the effect Panesar may have on the aussie bats, yes he is a good young bloke and has impressed so far but he still ripe and to me there is a higher chance that Australia may hurt him early than he'll cause them damage. Plus you got to look at the overall strenght of your side having a long tail will hurt you in the end check Windies vs Sri Lanka 2001..Originally Posted by Nnanden
Duncan Fletcher said yesterday that England have got to play five bowlers in the first Test, because Andrew Flintoff isnít fit enough yet to be one of four. Which makes sense. He also dropped a heavy hint that Ashley Giles would be one of the five, and Monty Panesar wouldnít. Which makes no sense at all.
Fletcher explained that he wanted control. Well, Panesar offers more than Giles does. He goes for about 2.6 runs an over in Tests, while Giles, over the past two years, has gone for 3.3. Itís a perfect illustration of how attack is the best form of defence. Despite being possibly Test cricketís most defensive slow bowler, Giles is actually less good at defending than Monty, who prefers to attack.
Fletcher wants Flintoff not to overbowl himself. Well, Panesar will bowl more than Giles. Monty bowls 40 overs per Test, Giles 31 Ė and thatís making no allowances for the fact that Giles is returning from a long lay-off. So if Giles plays, at least nine more overs will have to be bowled by the seamers, who are more expensive than Monty.
Fletcher (presumably) wants wickets. Monty got more this summer than any other England bowler. He took 27 wickets, Matthew Hoggard 25, Steve Harmison (who missed three Tests) 20, and Flintoff (who missed four) 12. Montyís strike rate in the summer was 62 balls per wicket. Gilesís has recently been 92. Giles takes two wickets per Test, Monty three to four. Unless the ball swings for Hoggard, itís fair to say that with Harmison out of sorts and Flintoff feeling his way back, Panesar is the England bowler most likely to get good batsmen out.
Fletcher is in danger of repeating the mistake he made in the last Ashes series, when he picked Ian Bell ahead of Graham Thorpe on the grounds that Thorpe could no longer bat at number four, and therefore had to compete with Kevin Pietersen for the number five spot. This line of thinking presumed that Bell was ready to bat at four, which he wasnít.
This time, Fletcher is thinking: Brisbane is mainly a seamersí pitch, so the spinner needs to offer control, so we can take the more defensive option. And this is leading him into a double fallacy. First, as shown above, Monty offers better control. Secondly, the best form of control is taking wickets. Shane Warne takes plenty at Brisbane. Even Giles took some there four years ago. On all the evidence, Monty would take more, for fewer runs.
Against that, he would cost runs in the field and with the bat, but then so do many good bowlers. Alastair Cook doesnít bowl, and is not a great fielder, but thatís no reason to replace him with a bits-and-pieces player. Giles has sterling qualities as a team man, but if England really need those on Nov 23, they should play him as a second spinner, ahead of the fourth seamer, Sajid Mahmood. It would be an unusual move at Brisbane, but England did it in 1986-87 (with Emburey and Edmonds), and that was the last time they won there.
Monty has made the first slow-bowling slot his own. More than that, as Warne says, he has made England a better team, which is a remarkable feat for a man still in his first year of international cricket. Michael Vaughan has said that England have to attack if they are to beat Australia again. Monty is a weapon they canít afford to be without
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)