A Different View on Monty Panesar

[Richard]

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

That's one biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig image.

 

[Uppercut]

That's one biiiiiiiiiiiiiiig image.

It's gona be one biiiiiig war.

 

[Richard]

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

You have no goalkeeper, you concede 30 or 40 goals minimum per game. You have a goalkeeper who isn't that good, you concede 7 or 8. You play with 9 outfield players and you can easily still win the game if they're good enough. The goalkeeper is a notably completely different role from the other 10 in football, the way only bowling and batting is comparably in cricket.

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.

Debateable. I'm not entirely sure how much help a masseuse is to a seam-bowler, but my bet is quite a bit. My bet is that it means they bowl well for longer.

On the other hand, a spin-bowling coach can be completely useless. The bowler has to have the ability, and I'd say the ability of ANY fingerspinner is sufficiently limited as to make the role of spin-bowling coach with Team England unneccessary.

Also, it's been noted before how for many of the best players, a coach is merely a bonus anyway. Especially with a wicketkeeper, so much of it is natural, and so much of the learning has to be self-taught. Alan Knott and Bob Taylor didn't need coaches, they were just naturally brilliant. Alec Stewart didn't become a good wicketkeeper because a coach tutored him endlessly; he did it through his own work.

 

[GIMH]

You have no goalkeeper, you concede 30 or 40 goals minimum per game. You have a goalkeeper who isn't that good, you concede 7 or 8. You play with 9 outfield players and you can easily still win the game if they're good enough. The goalkeeper is a notably completely different role from the other 10 in football, the way only bowling and batting is comparably in cricket.

The rules state that you have to have a keeper - I've seen my side play with crap keepers plenty of times and win. I've seen us play with people who can't shoot and awesome keepers, and draw or lose.

Debateable. I'm not entirely sure how much help a masseuse is to a seam-bowler, but my bet is quite a bit. My bet is that it means they bowl well for longer.

On the other hand, a spin-bowling coach can be completely useless. The bowler has to have the ability, and I'd say the ability of ANY fingerspinner is sufficiently limited as to make the role of spin-bowling coach with Team England unneccessary.

I think you're blurring your ideals and the actual reality. The fact is, rightly or wrongly (and I can certainly see merit in picking four seamers from time to time) we aren't going to go into a Test any time soon without a spinner, or hardly ever anyway. So it's a role that will always be involved in the team and should therefore be coached.

Also, it's been noted before how for many of the best players, a coach is merely a bonus anyway. Especially with a wicketkeeper, so much of it is natural, and so much of the learning has to be self-taught. Alan Knott and Bob Taylor didn't need coaches, they were just naturally brilliant. Alec Stewart didn't become a good wicketkeeper because a coach tutored him endlessly; he did it through his own work.

And how often are we going to come across players that good? 95% of players need coaching. Coaching isn't just about teaching new skills, it's about development and helping a player to realise for themselves what they need to do to improve.

 

[Scaly piscine]

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)?

Mmhmm, I'm not a fan of toothless finger spinners in general. I thought Giles contributed very little (gotta love how people said he was important to the Ashes victory, he was useless with the ball and did nothing with the bat bar for the last Test) and now lo and behold England have found someone who contributes even less. Giles could at least bat (generally) and was very good at gully.

The arguments used to justify such players who basically relegate their team to 10 men for most of the match are silly.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ha, it's nice to read a first post (and, indeed, first thread) from a newbie that suggests they might actually be able to locate their own arsehole without the need of sat nav. Welcome onboard, Mr Penguinissimo.

I personally don't think Monty can be entirely exonerated from blame for his current travails; there's no doubt in my mind that there have been occasions when he has been expected to be our main threat (Uppercut mentioned Edgbaston, but one could equally have said the recent first test) and he hasn't cut the mustard. Without hypothesising as to the reasons for his failure to bowl us to victories, I think it's only reasonable that he should carry at least some culpability, whatever mitigation the defence might offer.

I do think there is some truth in the suggestion that Monty is unsure of his role in the side tho. My tuppence worth is that this can be partly attributed to the inherent English mistrust of spinners generally. Spin bowling just isn't what we do and we haven't really produced a genuine world-class twirler since dear old Deadly, who debuted four decades ago now. Consequently there's an English tendency to view spinners as primarily containers who can block up an end whilst we rotate the seamers at the other and who might occasionally come into their own on 4th and 5th day pitches when the surface is well and truly broken up. If the spinners can hold a bat the right way up, so much the better too. Ash Giles is in many ways the archetype of this kind of spinner, but one could equally point to Illingworth (Raymond or Richard, actually), Titmus or Emburey.

The "specialist spinner" (i.e. one who's largely gash with the willow) is consequently viewed with a measure of mistrust; because we don't really believe in their kind as match-winners their deficiencies in other areas are used as sticks to beat them with, in a way that they usually aren't with seamers. We've had a whole host of seam-up bowlers who've been utterly arse with the bat in the semi-recent past (Malcolm, Mullally, Giddens & Lawrence who were all hopeless and even Fraser and Hoggard who couldn't do much more than block up an end, which Monty can do reasonably well) and I don't really ever recall it ever being suggested that their lack of batting prowess should count against them. All it takes is one duff game for Panesar (seemingly) & the usual suspects (step forward Duncan Fletcher) are pointing out that "he can't bat, you know". Because we don't think that spinners can actually, really win us games they must have this second string to their bows.

That said, I certainly would've hoped to see more progress from Monty by now. If we are to view him as a match-winner he does rather need to bowl like one more often.

As an aside, re England's wicket-keeping coach, I'd suspect Moores (as an ex stumper himself) probably handles this duty with maybe some input from Flower too.

 

[Penguinissimo]

Some stats on spinners in 2008, particularly for Richard:

Most Test wickets - 4 spinners in the top 15, including 3 finger spinners (and Monty Panesar)

Best economy rates (min 100 overs) - 10 spinners in the top 20, including 7 finger spinners ( & MSP)

Most five-wicket hauls (min 2) - 6 out of 12 are spinners, including 4 finger spinners (5 if you count Mendis) (&MSP)

Best average (min 150 overs) - 6 in the top 20, including 3 finger spinners (+ Mendis)

Best strike rate (min 150 overs) - 6 in the top 20, including 2 finger spinners (+ Mendis)

 

[Uppercut]

The "specialist spinner" (i.e. one who's largely gash with the willow) is consequently viewed with a measure of mistrust; because we don't really believe in their kind as match-winners their deficiencies in other areas are used as sticks to beat them with, in a way that they usually aren't with seamers. We've had a whole host of seam-up bowlers who've been utterly arse with the bat in the semi-recent past (Malcolm, Mullally, Giddens & Lawrence who were all hopeless and even Fraser and Hoggard who couldn't do much more than block up an end, which Monty can do reasonably well) and I don't really ever recall it ever being suggested that their lack of batting prowess should count against them. All it takes is one duff game for Panesar (seemingly) & the usual suspects (step forward Duncan Fletcher) are pointing out that "he can't bat, you know". Because we don't think that spinners can actually, really win us games they must have this second string to their bows.

See, i always thought it went the other way for Monty- he gets away with more than most would since he's so god damn loveable. Most of his wickets have come against the West Indies and New Zealand, itbt, i haven't seen him threaten decent batsmen since Australia (where he duly got tonked for the rest of the tour after his first innings). I don't think any non-fielding non-batting bowler could get away with that, regardless of style.

 

[Uppercut]

Some stats on spinners in 2008, particularly for Richard:

Most Test wickets - 4 spinners in the top 15, including 3 finger spinners (and Monty Panesar)

Best economy rates (min 100 overs) - 10 spinners in the top 20, including 7 finger spinners ( & MSP)

Most five-wicket hauls (min 2) - 6 out of 12 are spinners, including 4 finger spinners (5 if you count Mendis) (&MSP)

Best average (min 150 overs) - 6 in the top 20, including 3 finger spinners (+ Mendis)

Best strike rate (min 150 overs) - 6 in the top 20, including 2 finger spinners (+ Mendis)

The point isn't "finger-spinners are obsolete" or even "Monty Panesar isn't very good". It's more that he'll either be massively effective (see Old Trafford '07 or '08) or horribly ineffective (see the South Africa tour up to the dead rubber, every match he's ever played against India). It's usually pretty obvious when he's going to be super-effective and when he's going to pretty useless, so why pick him every time?

 

[Penguinissimo]

The point isn't "finger-spinners are obsolete"

I think that was Richard's point.

 

[BoyBrumby]

See, i always thought it went the other way for Monty- he gets away with more than most would since he's so god damn loveable. Most of his wickets have come against the West Indies and New Zealand, itbt, i haven't seen him threaten decent batsmen since Australia (where he duly got tonked for the rest of the tour after his first innings). I don't think any non-fielding non-batting bowler could get away with that, regardless of style.

I think Monty's loveableness reached its sell-by date sometime in the summer, actually. What was formerly viewed mainly (& patronisingly) as his child-like delight at taking a wicket has quickly turned into a tiresome (& counterproductive) overexurberance when making appeals that have as near to no chance of a positive outcome as makes no odds.

Your point about him taking most of his wickets against NZ & the Windies is well-made, but for all of their obviousness weaknesses as test sides just now, it was him who dragged us back from the brink in the second test versus the kiwis with as good a spell as one might wish for.

As I said tho, his performances and progress haven't been all one might've hoped for and, consequently, his place seems under genuine threat for the first time since Oz in 06/07. Not because Swann has outbatted him (he's barely made a run, as it goes), but because he's outbowled him in every innings so far.

 

[Goughy]

Im not sure what people want him to be. He was a pretty ordinary spinner in the beginning and still is. He was never a big spinner of the ball and had poor control over his length. Early on many people seemed to be carried away by his exuberant behaviour and one can only guess certain people were influenced by the way he looks. He was seldom properly judged on his bowling capabilities.

He is destined to be a middle of the road Test bowler with an average in the mid-30s.

Now after saying all that, I dont hold him in a particularly high regard but I do still think he is England best spin option.

I dont think the point about him not knowing what his role is valid. He needs to be able fulfil multiple roles. As he will mainly be the sole spinner in the team he needs to be capable of tossing the ball up and tweaking it hard and aggessively and also capable of firing the ball in and being defensive.

He cannot afford to be one dimentional. If he is then that is a real worry.

I dont worry about Panesar as Im pretty confident I have a fix on his capabilities. If England play a spinner then he has a very good case for inclusion but it is more a case of people realisticlly adjusting their expectations than Panesar improving.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Im not sure what people want him to be. He was a pretty ordinary spinner in the beginning and still is. He was never a big spinner of the ball and had poor control over his length. Early on many people seemed to be carried away by his exuberant behaviour and one can only guess certain people were influenced by the way he looks. He was seldom properly judged on his bowling capabilities.

He is destined to be a middle of the road Test bowler with an average in the mid-30s.

Now after saying all that, I dont hold him in a particularly high regard but I do still think he is England best spin option.

I dont think the point about him not knowing what his role is valid. He needs to be able fulfil multiple roles. As he will mainly be the sole spinner in the team he needs to be capable of tossing the ball up and tweaking it hard and aggessively and also capable of firing the ball in and being defensive.

He cannot afford to be one dimentional. If he is then that is a real worry.

I dont worry about Panesar as Im pretty confident I have a fix on his capabilities. If England play a spinner then he has a very good case for inclusion but it is more a case of people realisticlly adjusting their expectations than Panesar improving.

Can't agree that Panesar isn't a big spinner of the ball. In fact I'd go so far as to say he's probably the biggest turner of all orthodox finger-spinners bowling just now. Certainly can't think of one that turns it more.

Moreover, you suggest he can't afford to be one-dimensional and that people need to lower their expectations rather than him improving. Surely if he ceases to be one-dimensional he is improving?

 

[fredfertang]

Poor old Monty is a bit like a sub-prime mortgage – back in 2006 he was most people’s favourite investment and was totally over-hyped – by 2008, reality has dawned and the investors confidence has, with his form, dried up and been repossessed and Monty’s stock is in crisis – he desperately needs some investment if he is to recover – he may not of course but without an ECB bail out (ie a quality coach) then there is no chance and he’ll go the same way as Icesave

 

[Goughy]

Can't agree that Panesar isn't a big spinner of the ball. In fact I'd go so far as to say he's probably the biggest turner of all orthodox finger-spinners bowling just now. Certainly can't think of one that turns it more.

Moreover, you suggest he can't afford to be one-dimensional and that people need to lower their expectations rather than him improving. Surely if he ceases to be one-dimensional he is improving?

KP probably turns the ball more and whilst Panesar undoubtably he has a decent arm ball he has taken many wickets with balls that dont turn much and just push forward down the wrong line.

Compared to a guy like Tufnell he doesnt flight and turn the ball and he has not often produced when you would expect him to.

Ignoring the fact Ive watched him bowl a lot (as most of us on here have) and I dont think he turns it much, the fact that 1/4 of all his wickets are LBW and he has virtually no stumpings (4 out of 120 wickets) also speak for itself. This is pretty typical. Good bowling but more based on targeting the stumps at an awkward pace than real turn.

I admit there is an apparent contradiction in my post. Though it is more in the phrasing than the sentiment.

I dont think he will become a multi faceted all round skilled spin bowler capable of fulfilling a number of roles.

The best ones can do that and I dont think Panesar will fall into that bracket. However, his failings as a multi-dimentional bowler shouldnt take away from his domestic competition.

Panesar is a pretty ordinary Test spin bowler but he is ahead of many (if not all) of the other England options.

 

[Goughy]

Poor old Monty is a bit like a sub-prime mortgage – back in 2006 he was most people’s favourite investment and was totally over-hyped – by 2008, reality has dawned and the investors confidence has, with his form, dried up and been repossessed and Monty’s stock is in crisis – he desperately needs some investment if he is to recover – he may not of course but without an ECB bail out (ie a quality coach) then there is no chance and he’ll go the same way as Icesave

Well, as we all know, cricket (though I can only speak about English cricket with any element of knowledge) is subject to fashions.

Qualified West Indians in the 80s, Australians in the 90s, any leg spinner with a pulse and a vogue for tall fast bowlers are to name but a few in recent years.

Monty was fashionable.

 

[GIMH]

He still is fashionable. It's only hardcore cricket fans that post on forums, and commentators etc, that seem to be getting fed up of him. A few lads in work gave me a fair amount of abuse today when I suggested that Monty perhaps could do with some time on the sidelines to work on his game.

 

[zaremba]

Penguinissimo, congratulations for (a) a great and thought-provoking first post here and (b) unquestionably the best username on CW (apologies, GIMH).

I've nothing much to add to the debate except to say that I heard a suggestion on TMS today that Monty has clammy hands which has led to the fast bowlers struggling to achieve reverse swing since he gets the ball damp. I don't know whether to laugh, cry or jeer at this particular theory. My preferred theory on our inability to achieve reverse swing recently is simply that our administrators are cretins who let our top-class bowling coach leave (or that Marcus took his mints away with him). However this new theory, whilst almost certainly bollocks, is nonetheless intriguing.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I think Monty's loveableness reached its sell-by date sometime in the summer, actually. What was formerly viewed mainly (& patronisingly) as his child-like delight at taking a wicket has quickly turned into a tiresome (& counterproductive) overexurberance when making appeals that have as near to no chance of a positive outcome as makes no odds.

Your point about him taking most of his wickets against NZ & the Windies is well-made, but for all of their obviousness weaknesses as test sides just now, it was him who dragged us back from the brink in the second test versus the kiwis with as good a spell as one might wish for.

As I said tho, his performances and progress haven't been all one might've hoped for and, consequently, his place seems under genuine threat for the first time since Oz in 06/07. Not because Swann has outbatted him (he's barely made a run, as it goes), but because he's outbowled him in every innings so far.

Would that be the one where he put England into a piss poor situation in the first place by taking 1-101 in the first innings? Then in the second innings took a 6-fer when NZ decided to play like a England's prattiest dismissals highlight reel?

 

[GIMH]

I'd blame the batsmen more than him for the mess we were in itbt