Monty and Swann

[Goughy]

There are 2 Tests in India and then England go to WI after Christmas.

So the question is, how bad does Panesar have to bowl or/and how well does Swann have to bowl in India for Swann to be the number 1 spinner for the WI tour?

I cant see it happening but maybe others can.

 

[Precambrian]

Panesar's only worry in WI should be from the lefties, Gayle and Shiv. I think he'll be given a run to see whether he can deal the pressure. Swann though good so far, has to prove a lot before he is established in the test team.

 

[Uppercut]

There are 2 Tests in India and then England go to WI after Christmas.

So the question is, how bad does Panesar have to bowl or/and how well does Swann have to bowl in India for Swann to be the number 1 spinner for the WI tour?

I cant see it happening but maybe others can.

Swann's better on the majority of pitches, but if Panesar does get his type of pitch he'll win the match. It's a bit like the Mishra-Kumble debate from not long ago. Personally i'd go with Swann for the superior batting.

 

[Richard]

I'm not enormously keen on the idea of either playing too regularly, both are merely fingerspinners.

TBH, I think against poor players of slow bowling (not neccessarily spin), which most West Indians certainly were last time they faced England (TBF, of course, they were poor against both slow and quick which was anything above woeful standard - ie, not the sort of stuff Harmison and Plunkett served-up), MSP is likely to do far better than Swann. This is turning pitch or no turning pitch, but more so than ever on a turner.

Also, MSP at his best > Swann at his best, on turning pitches, against any batsmen, for mine. Can't ever see Swann producing a spell like MSP's second-innings one against NZ in 2008. However, Swann has already slightly exceeded my expectations so far on this tour and this game isn't over yet so he has the chance to do so more.

I wonder if Swann is a bit better than I, or a few others, have realised. Having obviously never seen him bowl in the longer game, and given that turning surfaces at Trent Bridge (unlike Wantage Road, his old home ground) are pretty unusual, no-one who isn't a religious Northants or Notts fan who goes to near enough every game will be able to know for sure exactly how good a bowler he is.

I think, though, that he's already shown everyone that they can be enormously relieved the selectors had enough faith in him to pick him over Rashid for this tour.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I think Monty will do well in the WI. He always prefers the bouncier pitches, which he should get in WI. Even if they arent as bouncey now as they use to be in the past. I personally dont think the WI have batsmen good enough to keep Panesar out.

 

[Richard]

Bourda and Queen's Park Oval were never very bouncy and often had a bit in them for spin as well. Sabina and Kensington were, but now are often almost subcontinent-esque. See for example Lara's anger at India winning there in 2006 on a pitch that couldn't have been better-suited to their game. Can't remember what the new stadiums in Georgetown and St.John's are really like, my bet is there won't be much consistency in them for a few years. The old ARG of course almost never had anything in it for bowlers of any kind.

Subcontinent-esque pitches + batsmen with nothing like subcontinent-esque skill against slow bowling = very likely plenty of wickets for decent spinners.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Bourda and Queen's Park Oval were never very bouncy and often had a bit in them for spin as well. Sabina and Kensington were, but now are often almost subcontinent-esque. See for example Lara's anger at India winning there in 2006 on a pitch that couldn't have been better-suited to their game. Can't remember what the new stadiums in Georgetown and St.John's are really like, my bet is there won't be much consistency in them for a few years. The old ARG of course almost never had anything in it for bowlers of any kind.

Subcontinent-esque pitches + batsmen with nothing like subcontinent-esque skill against slow bowling = very likely plenty of wickets for decent spinners.

Thats pretty much it. I think any spinner we take (even if Rashid played) would take wickets. Unless the WI batsmen have changed alot since i last saw them play. Does anyone know if they're allowing TV replays in the WI tour? I'd actually think Monty would benefit far more from them than most other spinners due to how many LBW shouts he gets compared to others.

 

[Goughy]

Monty would benefit far more from them than most other spinners due to how many LBW shouts he gets compared to others.

How many he shouts for has no relation to how close they are. Im not even sure he knows the LBW law. If he does then it is even more of an embarassment

 

[SpaceMonkey]

How many he shouts for has no relation to how close they are. Im not even sure he knows the LBW law. If he does then it is even more of an embarassment

Im not going by how many shouts he has. I'm going on how often tv replays have shown people plumb LBW to him when they were given not out. While he does have some that arent out given LBW i think the wrong ones given not out far outweight the ones in his favour.

 

[GIMH]

Although Swann did nothing with the blade in this match, I think his batting ability may at least get the selectors thinking, if he can weigh in with decent contributions with the ball. Basically Swann is good enough to bat at 8, none of our other bowlers are, except for Flintoff who bats at 6, and Broad, who isn't good enough in Tests just yet.

The question for me is, what is the better attack?

Flintoff-Anderson-Harmison-Sidebottom-Swann

Flintoff-Anderson-Harmison-Broad-Panesar

Could it come down to a choice between those attacks? I'm really not sure, but I know which one I'd prefer.

 

[sledger]

Thought Swann bowled very well today tbh.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Im not going by how many shouts he has. I'm going on how often tv replays have shown people plumb LBW to him when they were given not out. While he does have some that arent out given LBW i think the wrong ones given not out far outweight the ones in his favour.

Unfortunately he will have already used up the challenges...

 

[four_or_six]

I didn't think I'd be saying this but... the more I think about it, the more I think Swann works better in the team than Panesar. He offers a lot more in the field and with the bat, and I don't think Panesar has improved his bowling as much as he might have done. If it was a case of us having four bowlers, then I'd go with Panesar for sure as he's more likely to run through a team. But with Fred there, I reckon Swann gives a better balance.

 

[Richard]

Unfortunately he will have already used up the challenges...

Nah. Only Pietersen can challenge a decision, and hopefully he'll have the sense not to do so in a split-second just because MSP's had an aborted appeal for one that pitched 1 foot 4 inches outside leg-stump.

 

[Richard]

How many he shouts for has no relation to how close they are. Im not even sure he knows the LBW law. If he does then it is even more of an embarassment

As I said in the tour thread, I think he generally just shouts the second he sees ball hit pad. Without thinking "something pitching outside leg can't be correctly given lbw".

 

[Richard]

Although Swann did nothing with the blade in this match, I think his batting ability may at least get the selectors thinking, if he can weigh in with decent contributions with the ball. Basically Swann is good enough to bat at 8, none of our other bowlers are, except for Flintoff who bats at 6, and Broad, who isn't good enough in Tests just yet.

The question for me is, what is the better attack?

Flintoff-Anderson-Harmison-Sidebottom-Swann

Flintoff-Anderson-Harmison-Broad-Panesar

Could it come down to a choice between those attacks? I'm really not sure, but I know which one I'd prefer.

Yeah, former one is miles better.

Nonetheless, I really wouldn't want any of Harmison, Swann, Broad (the current version of) or MSP in the side very often. I don't feel any are good enough bowlers to have success on a wide variety of pitches.

Clearly Sidebottom should be in the side miles before Harmison. He's clearly easily the better bowler.

 

[GIMH]

Realistically though, Harmison is likely to get a decent run, ie he will get the next test, and the WI series.

 

[Richard]

He certainly should get the next Test (little sense IMO in changing your team wilfully in a two-Test series) but I'll assess the WI series when the time comes. It'd be fairly safe to presume Harmison won't do that well in the upcoming game, for one thing, but we wait to actually see it happen first.

Say Sidebottom and Flintoff are fit - those two pick themselves. Anderson, well, it depends hugely on how he goes in the next game really, though on balance last summer's work should probably have earned him 3 or 4 bad games rather than 2. Also, if Mohali produces the sort of pitch it's famous for, he might just enjoy the place. MSP I still think is far more likely than Swann, but it's almost certain we'll have one of the two.

So it'll most likely come down to Broad or Harmison, barring someone doing something unusual in some A-team game, if there is any such thing between now and the selection of the WI party.

 

[aussie]

Wouldn't pick any personally, since i firmly believe the best balance for England is to pick 6 pure batsmen, Freddie @ 7, Keeper & 3 quicks.

 

[Uppercut]

Wouldn't pick any personally, since i firmly believe the best balance for England is to pick 6 pure batsmen, Freddie @ 7, Keeper & 3 quicks.

You'd need Samit Patel at 6 if you were to do that. Can't have four pacemen without any backup, what if Freddie's ankle or Sidebottom's back goes?