Test Players Having To Be Good At Two Disaplines

[greg]

Bell, Cook, Collingwood, KP, Tresco, Strauss have only 3 wickets between them in a combined 155 Tests. The only recent England batsman to make any contribution with the ball was Vaughan (6 wkts in 64 tests) and given his knee he is not likely to ever bowl again.

Every other country has a specialist batsman that can help with the bowling. England doen't, therefore we are forced to pick 5 bowlers and have a long tail.

Its time the batsmen stood up and allowed a team with better balance to be picked.

Don't really agree with this at all. The reason we have picked a five man attack is two fold.

a) on a positive note: Flintoff
b) on the negative: the lack of a serious spinning option meaning we haven't been able to put out a balanced four man attack.

Nothing to do with the batters being able to bowl a few overs or not.

 

[Goughy]

Don't really agree with this at all. The reason we have picked a five man attack is two fold.

a) on a positive note: Flintoff
b) on the negative: the lack of a serious spinning option.

Nothing to do with the batters being able to bowl a few overs or not.

Ok we will agree to differ. But how is having a couple of batsmen capable of fulfilling the 5 bowling role and therefore allowing an extra batsmen to be picked a bad idea?

 

[silentstriker]

Ok we will agree to differ. But how is having a couple of batsmen capable of fulfilling the 5 bowling role and therefore allowing an extra batsmen to be picked a bad idea?

Then you'd have to go without a specialist spinner, unless you want to drop one of Harmison-Jones-Flintoff-Hoggard. I think extra batsman that can bowl are nice...but they should be used as the second spin option behind a specialist spinner. WI got away without a spinner, and maybe ENG can too...but its extremely hard in the second innings of a wearing pitch. You almost always regret not picking one.

 

[greg]

Ok we will agree to differ. But how is having a couple of batsmen capable of fulfilling the 5 bowling role and therefore allowing an extra batsmen to be picked a bad idea?

I suppose it depends what you see the "5 bowling role" as being for. If just to fill in a few overs, break the odd partnership, and give the main bowlers a brief rest, then of course you are right. But i just don't think the lack of batsmen to do this is the reason for England's five man attacks.

For the last 10 years England have had a World Class allrounder in their side (Stewart followed by Flintoff). You could just as easily turn your argument on its head and say that all the other test playing nations have been forced to get their specialist batsmen to bowl a few overs because they weren't as fortunate as England with producing genuine allrounders.

 

[Goughy]

Ashley Giles on the other hand is a one-dimensional bowler - he only really offers the keep it tight option.

So Ashley Giles last summer was a key cog because the only thing missing from England's bowling attack was the "keep it quiet" option.

The mythical "keep it quiet option". Just another term for a bowler that does not take wickets. During the Ashes, Giles had a worse economy rate than Harmison and Flintoff. It was hardly like he stopped the runs from one end.

I don't mind a bowler being given the job of restricting the run scoring but there is no way a specialist bowler should be picked to do the job. What a waste of a selection! If you want someone to average nearly 60 a wicket and go for over 3.6 runs an over (as Giles did in the Ashes) then throw the ball to a batsman who can bowl a bit.

 

[marc71178]

Gilo developed into our best spinner, but it wasn't that which got him the nod in the first place.

To be fair to him, not many spinners were challenging him when he was first picked - I mean an average of about 25-26 in the Championship over his career is pretty good.

 

[marc71178]

Its time the batsmen stood up and allowed a team with better balance to be picked.

All well and good, but if they're not thrown the ball in matches, how are they going to take wickets?

 

[GIMH]

It's a vicious circle, if they don't work on their bowling, they won't be thrown the ball

 

[Steulen]

Then you'd have to go without a specialist spinner, unless you want to drop one of Harmison-Jones-Flintoff-Hoggard . I think extra batsman that can bowl are nice...but they should be used as the second spin option behind a specialist spinner. WI got away without a spinner, and maybe ENG can too...but its extremely hard in the second innings of a wearing pitch. You almost always regret not picking one.

Just because they've won the Ashes for England doesn't mean they're the Bowling Beatles, to be revered for eternity without actually producing anything. Even if they were all fit, I would have no trouble leaving out Hoggard in non-swinging conditions or Jones on a sluggish slow pitch.

The way Panesar is bowling coupled with the fact he looks like a genuine wicket-taking spin option, he deserves to be on an equal footing with the pacers in the 5 players for 4 places stakes. Due to his role, he'd hardly ever be left out, even in Perth or Brisbane.

 

[Goughy]

Just because they've won the Ashes for England doesn't mean they're the Bowling Beatles, to be revered for eternity without actually producing anything. Even if they were all fit, I would have no trouble leaving out Hoggard in non-swinging conditions or Jones on a sluggish slow pitch.

The way Panesar is bowling coupled with the fact he looks like a genuine wicket-taking spin option, he deserves to be on an equal footing with the pacers in the 5 players for 4 places stakes. Due to his role, he'd hardly ever be left out, even in Perth or Brisbane.

Is that your own phrase or did you get it from somewhere else? If its your own, it is very, very, good. I think its a great analogy.

You make a good point. Just playing well last year does not mean you should be an automatic pick next year.

 

[Steulen]

Is that your own phrase or did you get it from somewhere else? If its your own, it is very, very, good. I think its a great analogy.

You make a good point. Just playing well last year does not mean you should be an automatic pick next year.

All my own

I do think this pace quartet will slowly get to legendary status, and the less they play together, the more the legend will rise.
As long as I don't have to consider who's Ringo Starr in this line-up...

 

[Magrat Garlick]

All my own

I do think this pace quartet will slowly get to legendary status, and the less they play together, the more the legend will rise.
As long as I don't have to consider who's Ringo Starr in this line-up...

Jones = Lennon (crocked early)
Flintoff = McCartney (big publicity man)
Harmison = Harrison (flashes of brilliance)
Hoggard = Ringo (works quietly in the background)

What was the thread about again?

 

[Oli Norwell]

So what's everyone think of this conspiracy theory where Panesar is being made out to be hopeless with the bat, just so Giles can come back into the side easily.

Panesar is no mug with the bat. Okay Giles may be worth 10 or 15 runs more a match, but Panesar is worth 2 or 3 wickets a match more at least.

I fear Fletcher wants his old guard back (i.e. Jones, Giles, Vaughan, etc). For me Giles is our 13th man, maybe coming back into the side on a spinning wicket, when we play 2 spinners.

Of course if Pietersen could work on his bowling, we wouldn't need to think about 2 specialist spinners.

 

[Oli Norwell]

Jones = Lennon (crocked early)
Flintoff = McCartney (big publicity man)
Harmison = Harrison (flashes of brilliance)
Hoggard = Ringo (works quietly in the background)

Hehe brilliant!

 

[silentstriker]

So what's everyone think of this conspiracy theory where Panesar is being made out to be hopeless with the bat, just so Giles can come back into the side easily.

Panesar is no mug with the bat. Okay Giles may be worth 10 or 15 runs more a match, but Panesar is worth 2 or 3 wickets a match more at least.

I fear Fletcher wants his old guard back (i.e. Jones, Giles, Vaughan, etc). For me Giles is our 13th man, maybe coming back into the side on a spinning wicket, when we play 2 spinners.

Of course if Pietersen could work on his bowling, we wouldn't need to think about 2 specialist spinners.

England playing two specialist spinners anywhere is like India going in with five pace bowlers in Mumbai.

 

[GIMH]

We played Giles and Udal in Pakistan

 

[GIMH]

And Panesar and Udal in Mumbai

 

[Goughy]

Panesar is no mug with the bat. Okay Giles may be worth 10 or 15 runs more a match, but Panesar is worth 2 or 3 wickets a match more at least.

Of course if Pietersen could work on his bowling, we wouldn't need to think about 2 specialist spinners.

Where is the evidence that Panesar is worth 2-3 more wickets a game?

Panesar averages 3.1 wickets per game

Giles averages 2.7 wickets a game

Giles averaged 3.25 wickets per game at the same stage of his career as Panesar ie after 8 tests.

So in fact after 8 tests Monty averages less wickets per test than Giles after 8 tests.

Ive also already pointed out that in the same number of Tests as Monty has played now (8) that Tufnell had taken 10 more wickets.

Again, I ask for us all to calm down about Panesar and see how he progresses before getting too excited.

EDIT- Rather than the 10-15 runs mentioned, Giles averages over 25 runs a game and Monty around 5. A difference of 20 runs.

I think this is the 1st time I have ever mentioned anything remotely good about Giles, just that in the face of all the Monty-mania I think it is required to represent reality.

 

[GIMH]

Giles' average is 20, Panesar's is 10, so the difference is ten. Didn't know that about Giles having more wickets/game at the equivalent point of his career though

 

[silentstriker]

Giles' average is 20, Panesar's is 10, so the difference is ten. Didn't know that about Giles having more wickets/game at the equivalent point of his career though

Thats because Giles bats higher, so Monty would have more not outs. The difference in the number of runs scored isn't actually 10.