On Panesar

[Lillian Thomson]

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...

The only flight Giles had was the early one he took home from the last Ashes series.

 

[sledger]

Tbh I'm always in favour of a spinner being in the side, whatever the conditions, and as Panesar is Englands best option he should remain in the side. I wouldn't much care to drop Broad at this stage either, as he has shown that he can actually put some runs on the board, and with batsman like Ambrose and Freddie at 6 and 7 respectively someone who can score runs in the lower order is a must, in addition to that his bowling has been decent enough imo to keep him in the side.

Logically the only real move I can see the selectors making for the next test is to bring back Sidebottom as a replacement for Pattinson, though if we are lucky they may also sack Ambrose and give Foster a chance.

 

[Richard]

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)

That isn't true though, Giles spun the ball plenty enough and turned it on the right surface. Same as any fingerspinner.

 

[Kweek]

That isn't true though, Giles spun the ball plenty enough and turned it on the right surface. Same as any fingerspinner.

yes well every tool can spin a ball if the conditions are right!
the thing is to be a succesfull spinner, and even more so internationally be able to spin it on any surface.
ive played all my life on astroturf and trust me it doesn't turn much...ive played on an international pitch a day after a one day international(the same pitch yes) and a pitch, what you would call a non-turner...turns more then a astroturf pitch...trust me.

where Panesar is better and advantage over giles can be archeived is that he is able to turn a ball on a pitch that doesn't offer that much support for him

 

[Scaly piscine]

People are going on about Panesar as though he'll be become some brilliantly effective bowler - it ain't gonna happen. He's an orthodox finger spinner, they're just heavily limited by modern day pitches, bats etc. as to what they can do. Also if you look at virtually all finger spinners over the last 5-10 years you'll see nearly all of them have started off okay and then their bowling average gets higher and higher - if I had time I'd go through and give proper examples. Off the top of my head I recall Vettori and Boje are particularly good examples.

 

[Richard]

yes well every tool can spin a ball if the conditions are right!
the thing is to be a succesfull spinner, and even more so internationally be able to spin it on any surface.
ive played all my life on astroturf and trust me it doesn't turn much...ive played on an international pitch a day after a one day international(the same pitch yes) and a pitch, what you would call a non-turner...turns more then a astroturf pitch...trust me.

where Panesar is better and advantage over giles can be archeived is that he is able to turn a ball on a pitch that doesn't offer that much support for him

He can't, though. He's a fingerspinner too.

While MSP does indeed have the ability to spin the ball more than Giles, due to his slightly larger hands and slightly greater effort, it's nowhere near as considerable a difference as some people seem to think.

MSP can only turn the ball significantly on a small minority of (turf) surfaces. This is the same as any fingerspinner. All fingerspinners are bound by their own limitations. MSP is not the superman super-spinner that some seem to want to believe he is.

 

[Kweek]

He can't, though. He's a fingerspinner too.

While MSP does indeed have the ability to spin the ball more than Giles, due to his slightly larger hands and slightly greater effort, it's nowhere near as considerable a difference as some people seem to think.

MSP can only turn the ball significantly on a small minority of (turf) surfaces. This is the same as any fingerspinner. All fingerspinners are bound by their own limitations. MSP is not the superman super-spinner that some seem to want to believe he is.

who made you the professor? im currently being trained by a guy that is one of the best if not the best left arm spin coach in the world and has studied all of those actions very carefully.
and the fact that Panesar spins it more has nothing to do with hands or effort, it has to do with action, angle and the way the ball is gripped and released, and Panesar is simply superior to Giles in that part of his bowling, I'm pretty sure Jack will back me up on this one aswell.

 

[Pup Clarke]

MSP is not the superman super-spinner that some seem to want to believe he is.

People were thinking that a couple of years ago, not any more.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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...

Giles didn't really ever "flight" the ball as such, because there was no overspin on it whatsoever. If he bothered to throw it up, it would hang there - never gets any drop. What he did to was vary his pace subtly, that was the biggest thing going for him.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He can't, though. He's a fingerspinner too.

While MSP does indeed have the ability to spin the ball more than Giles, due to his slightly larger hands and slightly greater effort, it's nowhere near as considerable a difference as some people seem to think.

MSP can only turn the ball significantly on a small minority of (turf) surfaces. This is the same as any fingerspinner. All fingerspinners are bound by their own limitations. MSP is not the superman super-spinner that some seem to want to believe he is.

Lets keep it simple

Giles' shape meant that when the ball made contact with the turf, it was mainly the side of the ball that hit the ground, therefore providing very little grip except on the most forgiving surfaces.

Monty's shape means that the spinning seam usually hits the ground, providing much more friction between the ground and the ball, creating more turn. What restricts the amount of turn for Monty is the trajectory that he bowls at, and also the speed.

Because Monty often has the seam facing at a right angle to the batsman, it makes it hard for the seam to properly grip. The slower the delivery, the more time it spends against the turf and is less likely to skid on.

In the end, a pitch that provides spin for Panesar does not equal a pitch that would provide turn for Giles.

 

[Goughy]

Lets keep it simple

Giles' shape meant that when the ball made contact with the turf, it was mainly the side of the ball that hit the ground, therefore providing very little grip except on the most forgiving surfaces.

Obviously I completely agree with you, but havn't we been over this a number of times already? Should it really need explaining again?

 

[Kweek]

Obviously I completely agree with you, but havn't we been over this a number of times already? Should it really need explaining again?

yes but apperently it didn't stick with Richard

 

[vic_orthdox]

Obviously I completely agree with you, but havn't we been over this a number of times already? Should it really need explaining again?

I can't really remember. Look, my head's hurting reading some of the stuff in this thread, so I may as well beat it against the brick wall to see if I can achieve something out of a sore head.

 

[Goughy]

I can't really remember. Look, my head's hurting reading some of the stuff in this thread, so I may as well beat it against the brick wall to see if I can achieve something out of a sore head.

I hope it sinks in.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I hope it sinks in.

I can put up with distaste for spinners, mostly held by fast bowlers such as yourself ( ) but pure ignorance of the craft ****s me.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I can put up with distaste for spinners, mostly held by fast bowlers such as yourself ( ) but pure ignorance of the craft ****s me.

In your role as the union rep for SLA bowlers (CW 101) what does Monty need to do to improve?

I was interested to read what you said about his trajectory, his high-arm makes him beautiful to watch, but would he benefit from a slightly rounder arm then?

 

[vic_orthdox]

In your role as the union rep for SLA bowlers (CW 101) what does Monty need to do to improve?

I was interested to read what you said about his trajectory, his high-arm makes him beautiful to watch, but would he benefit from a slightly rounder arm then?

Trajectory was more in reference to pace and flatness, rather than release point.

I'll write something more in-depth after dinner.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Trajectory was more in reference to pace and flatness, rather than release point.

I'll write something more in-depth after dinner.

Fair enough. An insider's view is always appreciated.

 

[aussie]

Although i am a fan of spinner being in the side. If Eng have have our best quicks firing again i don't think Monty's place should be a secured one at all.

If England want to bat Freddie @ 6 & play 5 bowlers if the selectors fear placing him & Jones as part of a 4-man attack is dangerous:

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Flintoff
Ambrose/Prior
Jones
Sidebottom
Anderson/Harmison
Panesar

The tail becomes VERY long which is a huge problem in itself given that Freddie aint a number 6 right now at all (even if i have the personal belief he will one day reach the level).

If the selectors want to pick 5 bowlers so badly i'd seriously consider picking Swann.

Currently without a doubt in my mind ENG best combination would be to pick recall Collingwood to make it 6 bats, Freddie @ 7, keeper & 4 quicks since in Freddie/Sidebottom/Jones/Harmison/Hoggard/Anderson the variety is their to cover all the changing conditions throughout a test match.

Monty thus should play when/if conditions suite. i.e the sub-continent & @ home OT & the Oval..

 

[Scaly piscine]

Old Trafford is quick pitch these days isn't it? I'd have 4 seamers there. The Oval's generally just a batting paradise like Lord's. I think it would be more the exception that there'd be a helpful pitch at home that would make him worth picking. For instance that dustbowl England helpfully served up against Sri Lanka so Murali could rip us to pieces, yet again. That was a game where Panesar bowled poorly but took an overly slow 5-fer (the pitch was so helpful that it was inevitable he'd take wickets, just a case of how quickly).