A Different View on Monty Panesar

[Penguinissimo]

Personally i'd keep him in every squad, but only play him if it looks like the pitch is going to turn.

And play a seamer in his place if it doesn't? Or play a spinner (like Swann or Rashid) in his place who can offer other things to the team apart from his bowling?

 

[GIMH]

No, and nor should we. Even if you do insist - utterly wrongly IMO - that there should be a spinner playing every Test - then it's still going to be just the one on the overwhelming majority of occasions.

Of course the likes of Jack Russell and Alec Stewart have done work with Geraint Jones and Matthew Prior, but that's been basically private tuition UIMM and certainly not an ECB-contracted role. Nothing wrong with spinners having the same thing, but as Will has said - MSP has to act on his own.

Spin bowling and wicketkeeping is too much of a minority role to use valuable money on a full-time contract for a coach. Batting and seam-bowling isn't, thus Andy Flower and Ottis Gibson.

Completely disagree. All football teams have a goalkeeping coach, even the lower league sides with no money. So for an international side that gets the type of funding our cricket team does to not have specialist coaches for roles because only one player performs them is stupid. They have a masseuse or two FFS, so a spin and keeping coach should be automatics.

 

[Penguinissimo]

Completely disagree. All football teams have a goalkeeping coach, even the lower league sides with no money. So for an international side that gets the type of funding our cricket team does to not have specialist coaches for roles because only one player performs them is stupid. They have a masseuse or two FFS, so a spin and keeping coach should be automatics.

Completely agree.

 

[Goughy]

What he needed was a mentor, one who believed in his talent and who could nurture that talent into full bloom, his Terry Jenner. He still doesn't have that - in fact, England don't even have a spin bowling coach. Why the hell not?

Interesting and thought provoking post. There are bits I agree with and some I dont.

Im in a real rush right now so just quickly Ill address the quoted part. Firstly, I believe Warnes 'mentor' relationship with Jenner started before International cricket. It was not a product of specialist coaching once an international.

Secondly, how many nations employ a full time spin bowling coach for the national team? Not many.

These things are all done at a lower level. Monty should have his 'mentor' from his early career. He shouldnt be so green and in need of guidance once at Test level.

 

[Uppercut]

I have to say that I disagree unreservedly with this.

Spin is a specialised role, and there are times when it is not required - and English spinners have forever been handicapped by this, since in the first innings of any Test in England before August, spinners can be redundant. Unless your name is Shane Warne, who was as devastating in England as he was anywhere else.

But let's think who are the two highest wicket-takers in Test cricket ever...oh yes. And if that is flippant, how about that almost every team starts Tests played on the subcontinent with 2 spinners?

Let me edit your statement for you:

Unlike batting and seam-bowling, AVERAGE spin is a minority role IN ENGLAND - often aN ENGLISH team is best-served going into a side without aN AVERAGE spinner in this day-and-age. It'd be a waste of money IMO to have anyone in the role other than what Parsons was doing UNLESS THERE WAS A CHANCE THAT ONE OF OUR SPINNERS COULD BE REALLY SPECIAL.

Usually when Rich talks about the redundancy of spin, he's referring to finger-spin in the modern era. Wrist-spinners like Murali, Kumble and Warne are a different kettle of fish entirely. It sort of shows in the fact that even finger-spinners that are obviously of very good quality like Vettori and Panesar still end up with poor averages.

 

[Penguinissimo]

These things are all done at a lower level. Monty should have his 'mentor' from his early career. He shouldnt be so green and in need of guidance once at Test level.

I may agree with this - but since he doesn't, should we work with the situation we have and try to do something to help him progress?

 

[Penguinissimo]

Usually when Rich talks about the redundancy of spin, he's referring to finger-spin in the modern era. Wrist-spinners like Murali, Kumble and Warne are a different kettle of fish entirely. It sort of shows in the fact that even finger-spinners that are obviously of very good quality like Vettori and Panesar still end up with poor averages.

I see the point, but the logical conclusion from this when applied to England is that the England selectors should either:

a) play four seamers, treating Flintoff as a specialist bowler and picking an extra batsman instead of Monty;

b) pick the best wrist spinner available, on the basis that he could one day become more effective than Monty;

c) play five seamers.

And that's assuming that you don't distinguish Monty (and you have done Murali) by saying that he turns the ball more than the average finger spinner and therefore should be viewed differently.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I see the point, but the logical conclusion from this when applied to England is that the England selectors should either:

a) play four seamers, treating Flintoff as a specialist bowler and picking an extra batsman instead of Monty;

b) pick the best wrist spinner available, on the basis that he could one day become more effective than Monty;

c) play five seamers.

And that's assuming that you don't distinguish Monty (and you have done Murali) by saying that he turns the ball more than the average finger spinner and therefore should be viewed differently.

Welcome to the CW world of broad sweeping classifications.

 

[Richard]

Completely disagree. All football teams have a goalkeeping coach, even the lower league sides with no money. So for an international side that gets the type of funding our cricket team does to not have specialist coaches for roles because only one player performs them is stupid. They have a masseuse or two FFS, so a spin and keeping coach should be automatics.

Goalkeeping is the most important position in football though, and I question the ultimate neccessity of one or two of the positions employed full-time by the ECB.

Don't underestimate the importance of a masseuse though. Absolutely vital for conditioning, even if the popular perception is of other things.

 

[Manee]

Absolutely superb and although I can see possible areas where one may disagree, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment and a great deal of the content. It is good to see a poster ready to concentrate on the important side of cricket in great detail and with great tact.

 

[Richard]

I have to say that I disagree unreservedly with this.

Spin is a specialised role, and there are times when it is not required - and English spinners have forever been handicapped by this, since in the first innings of any Test in England before August, spinners can be redundant. Unless your name is Shane Warne, who was as devastating in England as he was anywhere else.

But let's think who are the two highest wicket-takers in Test cricket ever...oh yes. And if that is flippant, how about that almost every team starts Tests played on the subcontinent with 2 spinners?

Let me edit your statement for you:

Unlike batting and seam-bowling, AVERAGE spin is a minority role IN ENGLAND - often aN ENGLISH team is best-served going into a TEST IN ENGLAND without aN AVERAGE spinner in this day-and-age. It'd be a waste of money IMO to have anyone in the role other than what Parsons was doing UNLESS THERE WAS A CHANCE THAT ONE OF OUR SPINNERS COULD BE REALLY SPECIAL.

The only way any spinner is going to become really special - in this day and age of covered wickets - is if he's a wristspinner. Much as McNamara might call this a broad sweeping classification, I'd say it's about as much of a sweeping generalisation as that plants grow in soil. If you unearth a wristspinner somewhere, then yeah, invest a bit of time in him and pay for some private tuition for him.

However, wristspinners of the requistite calibre are precious rarities. And fingerspin isn't something that's going to play enough of a role, not just in England but anywhere except India and Sri Lanka, for it to justify a full-time coach, IMO. Those are the only places I'd normally think about going in with one fingerspinner, never mind two.

 

[Uppercut]

I see the point, but the logical conclusion from this when applied to England is that the England selectors should either:

a) play four seamers, treating Flintoff as a specialist bowler and picking an extra batsman instead of Monty;

b) pick the best wrist spinner available, on the basis that he could one day become more effective than Monty;

c) play five seamers.

And that's assuming that you don't distinguish Monty (and you have done Murali) by saying that he turns the ball more than the average finger spinner and therefore should be viewed differently.

Hmm, i don't consider Murali a finger spinner, but that's another matter.

What i'd do is pick a different player depending on conditions. Monty turns the ball a bit more than most finger-spinners, but still not enough to make him effective on flat pitches the way Warne and Murali are. If the pitch looks like it'll take turn, Monty should play. If not, an extra seamer should play in his place. Horses for courses. That's how i'd go.

 

[Richard]

I see the point, but the logical conclusion from this when applied to England is that the England selectors should either:

a) play four seamers, treating Flintoff as a specialist bowler and picking an extra batsman instead of Monty;

b) pick the best wrist spinner available, on the basis that he could one day become more effective than Monty;

c) play five seamers.

And that's assuming that you don't distinguish Monty (and you have done Murali) by saying that he turns the ball more than the average finger spinner and therefore should be viewed differently.

Monty Panesar doesn't turn the ball more than the limit for fingerspinners though, just above what's probably the average. More pitches than not will still render him virtually turn-less. Murali isn't a fingerspinner - he's a wristspinner. Not an orthodox one, but clearly a wristspinner. Wristspinners can turn the ball on almost any surface.

As for England picking the best wristspinner available - given that, for any country and England more than most, wristspinners who even approach being Test-class are something you almost never see (Australia is the only place where this has ever been an exception and even then generations go by without one), I'd say that's a nono. Robin Hobbs and Ian Salisbury's cases show why.

I myself prefer four bowlers to five, but however many you pick, IMO mostly they should all be seamers.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The thing is that Panesar has never been that good and never will be that good at Test level. England are killing themselves by accommodating someone who can't bat or field and is a non-factor with the ball on most occasions.

I mean England wouldn't dream of picking a specialist 70s mph bowler. But they're happy to pick a spin bowler who has proven time and time again that he can't help you force results on flatter wickets even when they're wearing. You might get one minefield pitch once a few years. The rest of the time he's either ineffective or he's reliant on piss poor batting - the sort of sides you'll beat anyway.

In short he's hardly ever a match-winner and you can be sure his millstone effect is damaging England every other game. His net effect is undoubtedly negative.

 

[Penguinissimo]

The only way any spinner is going to become really special - in this day and age of covered wickets - is if he's a wristspinner. Much as McNamara might call this a broad sweeping classification, I'd say it's about as much of a sweeping generalisation as that plants grow in soil. If you unearth a wristspinner somewhere, then yeah, invest a bit of time in him and pay for some private tuition for him.

However, wristspinners of the requistite calibre are precious rarities. And fingerspin isn't something that's going to play enough of a role, not just in England but anywhere except India and Sri Lanka, for it to justify a full-time coach, IMO. Those are the only places I'd normally think about going in with one fingerspinner, never mind two.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree - clearly this is something you feel strongly to be true.

Although there isn't a Test-playing country that agrees with you - they would all prefer to play a spinner of even moderate ability than to play no spinner at all.

If you'll permit me one more flippant point, I would say the two words "over rate" - just ask Ricky Ponting.

 

[Uppercut]

Scaly Piscine has arrived. I can see where this is going:

 

[Penguinissimo]

Scaly piscine - I've only been here for one morning, but presumably I'm right in greeting you as Monty's biggest critic here (based on this post and one in the Eng v India thread)?

 

[Richard]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree - clearly this is something you feel strongly to be true.

Although there isn't a Test-playing country that agrees with you - they would all prefer to play a spinner of even moderate ability than to play no spinner at all.

Yeah, I know - the "you must have variation" nonsense has been a scourge for a long, long time now. Sometimes even despite the obviousness of the untruety of a statement, the majority continue to stick to it. The truth, though, is that there isn't a fingerspinner since the 1960s who's been effective consistently in England, or South Africa, or West Indies, and it's not been effective in Australia since the 1940s and early-1950s. Nor has there ever been any fingerspinners who've been consistently effective in New Zealand.

If you'll permit me one more flippant point, I would say the two words "over rate" - just ask Ricky Ponting.

That's more a problem with lack of urgency than lack of spin. Even with spinners, sides have absymal over-rates and have done for years.

 

[Richard]

Scaly piscine - I've only been here for one morning, but presumably I'm right in greeting you as Monty's biggest critic here (based on this post and one in the Eng v India thread)?

Any post by Beevers relating to MSP is best scrolled past. Whether he dislikes him because he stole Liam Plunkett's place or just because he's popular I don't know, but it got monotonous a loooooooooooong time ago.

I'd say most posts by him are not worth taking the slightest note of myself actually, but fortunately these days about the only thing he ever posts about in CC is MSP. Which means you can just skip past all his posts.

 

[GIMH]

Goalkeeping is the most important position in football though, and I question the ultimate neccessity of one or two of the positions employed full-time by the ECB.

Don't underestimate the importance of a masseuse though. Absolutely vital for conditioning, even if the popular perception is of other things.

The bolded section is up for debate IMO. Keepers don't win matchers, they stop you from losing them.

How many times have we seen a Test that could have been won wind up being drawn or lost because a keeper has dropped catches? How many times have we seen England fail to win on day five on a turning pitch?

Yeha, a masseuse is helpful. But coaching a spinner and a keeper would be more helpful.