On Panesar

[zaremba]

It certainly helps, the supposedly rough treatment he got by being preferred to Giles in the last Ashes series started off his cult status - Giles who was of course on the wrong side of the media so was being ripped to pieces week in week out. We saw the wave of ridiculous preferential treatment by the media for Panesar build up then and it hasn't relented. All the ridiculous statements made after England botched the 2nd Test, about how Monty would have made the difference and won the game single handed. Can you imagine the reaction the moronic media would give if their hero was dropped? And the following outcry by know-nothing journalists if England didn't actually win without him, saying how a non-factor finger spinner would have vanquished England's foes spouting a load of further crap about how critical his variety to the attack is. That's one of the big problems with team sport in this country, unless you get strong characters calling the shots then the media influence things.

I have some sympathy with this. The selection of Giles for the 1st Test was perfectly logical even though the media didn't like it at all. The fact is that with Monty in the team we would have had a horribly long tail with Hoggard batting 3 places too high at number 8. Giles offered so much more in the field and with the bat that there was sense in playing him, especially given that either of the spinners was likely only to be playing a supporting role to the seamers.

Also as I recall (though may be wrong about this) Monty hadn't performed in the warm-up matches.

However the media reaction was given some impetus later in the tour by the fact that on his return at Perth Monty took 8 good Australian wickets.

 

[Richard]

The reason Giles' selection was such a bad idea (much as it wasn't as bad as it was made-out to be) was because he hadn't played for a year. Even though he'd done better in the whole 1 warmup game the two of them played, this wasn't really enough to convince me that he was still able to bowl passively. Whether he actually was, we'll never know, as that was the last cricket he played before the injuries returned.

I can't conceive either Giles or MSP would have been remotely effective in the opening two Tests, the pitches were far too flat. So it didn't really matter from the bowling POV. But Giles - in theory - offered more with bat and in field.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well I wouldn't say they were all good wickets. I remember three of them got out cutting, a couple were tailenders and a couple were late wickets that were too late to make any difference.

 

[zaremba]

Giles - in theory - offered more with bat and in field.

I'm pretty sure this was the decisive factor in his selection, in light of the fact that finger-spin wasn't going to win the match regardless of who was purveying it.

I'm not saying Giles' selection was necessarily correct, btw, just that it had a logic to it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

The notion of dropping Panesar strikes me as a bit odd.

He is the best spinner we've had for a number of years, even if he is not a world-beater. I'd always go in with a spinner, there are always a few batsmen who are more proficient against pace and less against spin in a side, and vice versa, so I think you need one. And Panesar is quite effective at tying up an end to give the seamers a rest when he is not looking dangerous, more effective at this than Giles tbh.

 

[Richard]

I'm pretty sure this was the decisive factor in his selection, in light of the fact that finger-spin wasn't going to win the match regardless of who was purveying it.

I'm not saying Giles' selection was necessarily correct, btw, just that it had a logic to it.

What annoyed me about that series was the fact that Giles got the two worst pitches to bowl on and MSP came in and immediately got the only pitch of the series which gave something to spin on which to have a go.

Anderson's selection made almost as little sense as Giles' given he'd had a similar lay-off. But I've long wished MSP had played those opening two Tests instead of Anderson. If he had it's likely both he and Giles would have been ineffective.

 

[zaremba]

But I've long wished MSP had played those opening two Tests instead of Anderson. If he had it's likely both he and Giles would have been ineffective.

You mean you wished we had played a bowler because he would have been ineffective? What lesson would that have taught the selectors?

 

[Richard]

Well MSP wouldn't have been any more ineffective than Anderson - in fact probably less so, at least he'd have made batsmen go after him if they wanted to score quickly (which admittedly the Australians would have been likely to do) rather than gifting the free runs Anderson did.

It'd have taught the selectors, and everyone, that MSP wasn't a million miles ahead of Giles as a bowler as he's often portrayed to be.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The notion of dropping Panesar strikes me as a bit odd.

He is the best spinner we've had for a number of years, even if he is not a world-beater. I'd always go in with a spinner, there are always a few batsmen who are more proficient against pace and less against spin in a side, and vice versa, so I think you need one. And Panesar is quite effective at tying up an end to give the seamers a rest when he is not looking dangerous, more effective at this than Giles tbh.

Panesar is only effective at tying up an end when the batsmen aren't trying to attack him - and lots of bowlers can be effective in those circumstances, Colly could do that job for instance. Once Panesar gets deposited in the stand he doesn't have any real idea, he just bowls it flatter and flatter.

 

[Manee]

In this Test, though, he has actually been flighting the ball, for the first time in his career. You will no doubt be pessimistic of this move but I think that of all the time he has been told to give the ball some air, it is heartening that he is finally doing it.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Panesar is only effective at tying up an end when the batsmen aren't trying to attack him - and lots of bowlers can be effective in those circumstances, Colly could do that job for instance. Once Panesar gets deposited in the stand he doesn't have any real idea, he just bowls it flatter and flatter.

Given the modern standards of scoring, he doesn't go for many runs even when he isn't taking wickets, as a general rule. There have only been a handful of occasions when he's been expensive without taking wickets, and in fact I can only recall this happening twice since the Ashes in 06/07, against Sri Lanka at Colombo and against New Zealand at Old Trafford, where he was admittedly rubbish but made up for it in the second innings.

There does need to be changes in the bowling attack, but Panesar is not one of the ones I would make, I would far sooner drop Broad or, to a lesser extent, Anderson.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I wouldn't drop Anderson as he's probably been England's best bowler this summer. I'd happily drop Broad, Pattinson and Panesar because you can't rely on them for 20-25 challenging overs each day. Bowl any of those three and the game generally drifts away from you. Bowl Anderson or Flintoff and they'll make something happen, make the batsmen uncomfortable and can build up some pressure. You want 4 bowlers like that otherwise you end up flogging Anderson and Flintoff into the ground as happened this Test.

 

[Uppercut]

Hmm, i never thought of it like that. The logical thing to say would be that Monty is capable of getting through a lot more overs than someone like Jones would. Also, he's still young. Realistically he has years and years more to play and is obviously looking to improve, working on his flight and such. By the tail-end of his career he could be a truly top-class spinner. Pitches, particularly their wear and tear, aren't always predictable, and sometimes Monty takes a lot of wickets at places you wouldn't expect. In England he sometimes has success purely because of the pressure of the crowds.

Agree with what you're saying though, his place maybe hasn't been questioned as much as it should have been.

 

[vic_orthdox]

What annoyed me about that series was the fact that Giles got the two worst pitches to bowl on and MSP came in and immediately got the only pitch of the series which gave something to spin on which to have a go.

Anderson's selection made almost as little sense as Giles' given he'd had a similar lay-off. But I've long wished MSP had played those opening two Tests instead of Anderson. If he had it's likely both he and Giles would have been ineffective.

Because of Giles' shape, he was never going to get any assistance from the pitch. That's what happens when you bowl flying saucers, unless it's a bunsen you get nothing from it.

 

[Top_Cat]

What annoyed me about that series was the fact that Giles got the two worst pitches to bowl on and MSP came in and immediately got the only pitch of the series which gave something to spin on which to have a go.

The WACA? Giving spin? Surely you jest. The WACA deck was as lacking in sideways movement as both Brisbane and Adelaide, just bounced a bit more. Monty took wickets in the first innings because he simply bowled better stuff. Remember the ball he bowled Langer with? Dead-straight. Monty would almost certainly have bowled better in Brisbane at least than Giles did for the trajectory and flight reasons Jack mentioned because there was almost no help with spin. Both Warne and Panesar went the journey at various stages in the match with Warnie getting mainly tail-enders.

 

[tooextracool]

I can vouch for that actually, barely turned a ball. Didn bowl particularly well either, was just played poorly by Australia. Certainly a step up from Giles in that series though, not surprisingly since Giles hadnt bowled in test match cricket in ages.

 

[Top_Cat]

I can vouch for that actually, barely turned a ball. Didn bowl particularly well either, was just played poorly by Australia. Certainly a step up from Giles in that series though, not surprisingly since Giles hadnt bowled in test match cricket in ages.

Yeah but what was interesting is that Giles actually looked as threatening as I'd ever seen him early in Brisbane. Was bowling quite well until Ponting took control.

 

[Richard]

The WACA? Giving spin? Surely you jest. The WACA deck was as lacking in sideways movement as both Brisbane and Adelaide, just bounced a bit more. Monty took wickets in the first innings because he simply bowled better stuff. Remember the ball he bowled Langer with? Dead-straight. Monty would almost certainly have bowled better in Brisbane at least than Giles did for the trajectory and flight reasons Jack mentioned because there was almost no help with spin. Both Warne and Panesar went the journey at various stages in the match with Warnie getting mainly tail-enders.

I've seen WACA decks offer turn several times before now (WA'n family friend said to me ages ago before I looked at the matter much that you tend to get a turner about once every 4 years there). TBH, I seem to remember MSP turning quite a few deliveries, at least early on, on that deck, and Warne likewise. Yes, the Langer ball was a dead-straight one.

I don't believe he'd have been remotely effective at either The 'Gabba or Adelaide Oval though. Unless, obviously, the Australians played him poorly.

 

[Richard]

Because of Giles' shape, he was never going to get any assistance from the pitch. That's what happens when you bowl flying saucers, unless it's a bunsen you get nothing from it.

As I said to Corey though, MSP was never going to get any assistance from the 'Gabba or Adelaide pitches.

Whether Giles would have got anything from the WACA deck we'll never know. They were not on an equal footing that series, however.

 

[Kweek]

so all in all, Giles had more flight but never in his lifetime is he going to spin a ball (this has to do with the way he releases the ball (and the angle he bowls in) as Jack mentioned)
Panesar is more likely to spin but bowls it far more flat, yes he needs to work on that and I believe he will, I truely believe that once Panesar makes some minorish changes in his bowling he could be very worthy to the team and offer variation and spin...yes a lot of decks won't offer much assistance but you need someone to tie up an end, give the paceman rest and heck even bore the batsman down the more bored the batsman is the more likely it is he's going to do someting stupid one way or another...