• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

On Panesar

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
It was interesting listening to Shaun Pollock in the booth the other day talk about SA bowling composition.

He said they usually played 3 seamers, a spinner and Kallis. In the first innings Kallis was relied upon to be the 4th bowler and in the 2nd innings the spinner was relied upon to be the 4th bowler.

Obviously in both innings the seam bowlers were relied upon to provide a front line role.

This would be why Boje played so much cricket. With that type of balance the spinner needs to be able to add more than just occasional 1st innings support and a main role in the 2nd innings as they are being carried half of the time.

Panesar has an ordinary record (av approx 40) in the first innings and a decent record in the second innings (av mid 20s). In the first innings of games he is seldom called upon to perform a major role unless the seamers are struggling. He isnt plan A.

Now the question is, can the selection of a spin bowler that cant bat and is mainly only effective in half the innings be justified ahead of a seam bowler that could contribute in both?
(regarding a decent spinner, not a great, and outside spin favourable environments)
 
Last edited:

Langeveldt

Soutie
Yes.. Wouldn't Ashley Giles be of very similar worth? Based on the fact he averaged about 10-15 more than Panesar with the bat and 10-15 more with the ball? It's like having a keeper who can bat.. If they bat well, better to have a mediocre gloveman than a very good one who is basically a tailender with the bat..
 

Flem274*

123/5
For now I'd keep Panesar. Though if Sidearse, Flintoff, Anderson, Jones and someone like Tremlett are all fit and firing and England aren't in the subcontinent, Panesar's place would justifyibly be under threat.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
In the past (albeit distant past now) there was more often than not a balanced attack of two seamers, two spinners and an allrounder who was the third seamer. The spinners weren't there expecting to bowl a team out in the first innings, they were there to take advantage of a wearing pitch in the second innings. If a good spinner could bowl a team out in the second innings he could quite happily be "carried" for the rest of the game.
These days everyone is expected to contribute everything, that's why we end up with a string of highly imcompetent wicket-keepers and someone like Ashley Giles being number one spinner just because he can score a few runs.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Monty Panesar won't cause any big problems on far more Test pitches than not - first-innings or second-innings. The "wearing pitches as the game goes on" is extremely rare these days - virtually never will a pitch offer nothing to spinners early in the game and then offer quite a bit later on. I don't know when this went from theory-and-practice to theory-only, but it's certainly never been remotely commonplace since I started watching properly in 1998.

Generally I'd not pick fingerspinners for Test cricket (regardless of their batting ability, unless they're frontline batsmen who also bowl a la Sanath Jayasuriya) on most grounds outside the subcontinent, unless you look at the pitch before the game and it's obviously going to turn. For instance, Old Trafford has done this in the last 3 seasons.

Both Ashley Giles and Monty Panesar have played a great many Tests for England at times when they had little chance of being effective against good batting, and that's why Giles' Test average is so high compared to most fingerspinners. However, people will insist "you must have variation", so most of the time and if you pick four (or even five) seamers you'd better bank on it working, as it'll always get disproportionate criticism if it fails.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
In the past (albeit distant past now) there was more often than not a balanced attack of two seamers, two spinners and an allrounder who was the third seamer. The spinners weren't there expecting to bowl a team out in the first innings, they were there to take advantage of a wearing pitch in the second innings. If a good spinner could bowl a team out in the second innings he could quite happily be "carried" for the rest of the game.
These days everyone is expected to contribute everything, that's why we end up with a string of highly imcompetent wicket-keepers and someone like Ashley Giles being number one spinner just because he can score a few runs.
I do agree with your general gist and his runs from no.8 certainly didn't harm Gilo's cause, but I think if one looks at his overall FC record as a bowler it compares pretty favourably with the other potential spinning options we had available at the time.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Yes.. Wouldn't Ashley Giles be of very similar worth? Based on the fact he averaged about 10-15 more than Panesar with the bat and 10-15 more with the ball? It's like having a keeper who can bat.. If they bat well, better to have a mediocre gloveman than a very good one who is basically a tailender with the bat..
Actually its more like 8 more with the ball. I dont think Panesar is significantly better bowler than Giles tbh, he is a far more attacking finger spinner and turns the ball a little bit more, but his command of varying his pace and flight is poor compared to even Giles. However, the question really is, is it worth consistently having a bowler in the side averaging 32 odd with the ball and virtually nothing with the bat over a seamer like Jones?
As long as Flintoff is batting at 6 and England pick 5 bowlers, I personally dont see why not but when we play 4 bowlers a different tack needs to be used, which IMO should involve picking the best bowlers for the conditions.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you want to pick a player who's only effective on bunsens, when the batsman bats awfully or during a declaration charge then by all means pick Panesar.

Personally I'd sooner pick a seam bowler who's a bit different for 'variety' than a non-factor finger spinner, that extends to virtually all finger spinners not just Panesar. You can't skimp on quality seamers or quality batting to accommodate players like Panesar. England keep doing it and that's why they're average at the moment.

You've got to get your 4 best seamers (or a wrist spinner) playing and a decent top 6, with the first bit being most important. Seamers and wrist spinners win you Test matches. It's not like England lack a 5th bowler to get through some quiet overs in between when Colly plays. That's basically all Panesar does half the time.

England are very lucky they've got a wide range of quality seamers at their disposal who are actually all fit now, but they're wasting it with dumb selections. Flintoff gets flogged into the ground because England don't pick enough good seamers in the first place.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
:huh:
I'm sure the selectors thank the Lord everyday for having such riches at their disposal.
3 out of 5 bowlers from our Ashes winning side are currently fit and firing but relegated to FC cricket. All 3 of them have some reason to be miffed when clearly inferior bowlers are being picked ahead of them.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
3 out of 5 bowlers from our Ashes winning side are currently fit and firing but relegated to FC cricket. All 3 of them have some reason to be miffed when clearly inferior bowlers are being picked ahead of them.

That may well be true, but that's not the same as claiming we have a "wide range of high quality seamers" to choose from.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
This would be why Boje played so much cricket. With that type of balance the spinner needs to be able to add more than just occasional 1st innings support and a main role in the 2nd innings as they are being carried half of the time.
Boje was a good batsman. Better tha Vettori or much hyphed Broad. Probably better than Flintoff as well, because he's that odd player in the side who played spin very well.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That may well be true, but that's not the same as claiming we have a "wide range of high quality seamers" to choose from.
Nice of you to be so creative when you're using direct quotes which alters what I actually said significantly, you're not a journalist by any chance are you?
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well the 4 bowlers that won the Ashes are still playing. Sidebottom is obviously a quality bowler. Anderson seems to have developed into a quality bowler.

Pick 4 of those 6 and they'd rival any seam attack out there.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Well the 4 bowlers that won the Ashes are still playing. Sidebottom is obviously a quality bowler. Anderson seems to have developed into a quality bowler.

Pick 4 of those 6 and they'd rival any seam attack out there.
We'll just have to agree to differ on what constitutes a range of quality seamers.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Monty Panesar won't cause any big problems on far more Test pitches than not - first-innings or second-innings. The "wearing pitches as the game goes on" is extremely rare these days - virtually never will a pitch offer nothing to spinners early in the game and then offer quite a bit later on. I don't know when this went from theory-and-practice to theory-only, but it's certainly never been remotely commonplace since I started watching properly in 1998.

Generally I'd not pick fingerspinners for Test cricket (regardless of their batting ability, unless they're frontline batsmen who also bowl a la Sanath Jayasuriya) on most grounds outside the subcontinent, unless you look at the pitch before the game and it's obviously going to turn. For instance, Old Trafford has done this in the last 3 seasons.

Both Ashley Giles and Monty Panesar have played a great many Tests for England at times when they had little chance of being effective against good batting, and that's why Giles' Test average is so high compared to most fingerspinners. However, people will insist "you must have variation", so most of the time and if you pick four (or even five) seamers you'd better bank on it working, as it'll always get disproportionate criticism if it fails.
While I think it is a great pity that the game has come to this I have to say Richard has got this spot on. Panesar is a decent finger spinner and the variation he lacks will no doubt follow with experience but on modern wickets I cant see even the likes of Laker, Lock and Verity being able to repeat their feats of days gone by and like it or not (and personally I dont) uncovered wickets will stay consigned to history and other than in freak circumstances I doubt we are going to see pitches breaking up - why would any groundsman jeopardise his career by under preparing a test pitch?

A finger spinner who doesn't contribute with the bat is thus an expensive luxury and one which only a very fine batting side, which this England lineup palpably isn't, can afford in the long term and given that I think we can now safely conclude that no amount of net practice and encouragement is going to turn Monty into a competent batsman I fear his days are numbered - its a shame because Manchester and Perth in 2006 and just that one delivery that did Younis Khan at Headingley were worth the entrance money alone but day in day out I think the reality is that Simon Jones particularly but potentially several other pace men are more likely to contribute to a victory

The alternative is find a top quality wrist spinner but 100 years of tradition is tough to overcome - I haven't seen much of Rashid, Marshall, Borthwick and their like but unless someone knows something I dont I can't see any of them breaking the mould
 

Athlai

Not Terrible
Reckon MSP's constant selection could always have something to do with how well liked he is by the general public.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Reckon MSP's constant selection could always have something to do with how well liked he is by the general public.
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It certainly helps, the supposedly rough treatment he got by being preferred to Giles in the last Ashes series started off his cult status
Not really, it was started at the beginning of the summer of 2006, in the summer's very first Test.
Giles who was of course on the wrong side of the media so was being ripped to pieces week in week out.
Much as many people are misinformed on the Giles-Panesar case, thinking MSP an enormously superior bowler, Giles being picked for those opening two Tests in 2006/07 made no sense, whatsoever. For any number of reasons.
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.
No-one really said that. Simply that he could hardly have fielded or batted any worse than Giles, perhaps a little unexpectedly, did.
 

Top