***Official*** England in India

[Neil Pickup]

I think another critical point that's being ignored here is that Patel's inclusion will reduce the workload on the seamers, allowing them to bowl shorter spells and therefore - hopefully - be more effective.

 

[grecian]

I'd rather pick a batsman if they want an extra batsman not a part timer who is average in both departments. I don't read too much into warm up games.

Who said anything about 5 runs?

Not sure, must have imagined it, because it would have been a stupid think for a **** to post.

Patel was picked in the squad as a batsman, he's done nothing to suggest that was wrong in the warm-ups, and talking about KP as a bowling option is on the same level as talking about Napier* as a batting option.

He's earned his place, and two seamers are, IMHO, impractical.

*Awaits my first infraction

 

[LFD]

I think another critical point that's being ignored here is that Patel's inclusion will reduce the workload on the seamers, allowing them to bowl shorter spells and therefore - hopefully - be more effective.

The same can be said for Monty.

 

[LFD]

Patel was picked in the squad as a batsman,

Which was ridiculous really.

 

[Cabinet96]

The same can be said for Monty.

So let me just confirm. If you want Monty to play instead of Patel, are you grouping him in part of a 5 man attack, or a two man attack with two quicks?

 

[vic_orthdox]

The question is not who will be more effective out of Panesar and Patel, it is who will be more effective out of Panesar and the third quick.

 

[LFD]

So let me just confirm. If you want Monty to play instead of Patel, are you grouping him in part of a 5 man attack, or a two man attack with two quicks?

Two spinners, two quicks - if Monty plays. Let's remember the spinners can bowl a lot of over between them and in emergency you have KP and Trott.

It would depend on the pitch if I selected Monty, it would have to be pro spinner wicket, otherwise I'd go Broad. I wouldn't start Patel, regardless. One century in a warm up match won't change that or turn him into a good reliable batsman.

 

[LFD]

The question is not who will be more effective out of Panesar and Patel, it is who will be more effective out of Panesar and the third quick.

You're probably right, I think it should be the question though.

I saw on the bbc today 'The Wall' agreed with me, Monty over Patel!

 

[Scaly piscine]

The question is not who will be more effective out of Panesar and Patel, it is who will be more effective out of Panesar and the third quick.

The third quick by light years. Far more effective bowler, more effective batsman, more effective fielder.

 

[Furball]

The question is not who will be more effective out of Panesar and Patel, it is who will be more effective out of Panesar and the third quick.

The third quick. By a mile.

 

[hazsa19]

Picking Patel is a wasted space in my book.

I would go with Bairstow at 6, a bowling attack of Monty Swann Jimmy Broad/ Bresnan, but I wouldn't be unhappy if they went with 5 front line bowlers and played Prior at 6.

 

[LFD]

Picking Patel is a wasted space in my book.

I would go with Bairstow at 6, a bowling attack of Monty Swann Jimmy Broad/ Bresnan, but I wouldn't be unhappy if they went with 5 front line bowlers and played Prior at 6.

Agreed.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I agree with the sentiment of the third quick. But I reckon that if it does happen, they'll select Patel, let Pietersen remain as a change bowler, and be happy with Patel bowling 10-15 overs per new ball, and the English hierarchy don't think that they'll be losing that much with the bat for what they get with the ball.

I'm always for picking your best six bats plus a keeper, I don't really agree with it, but I think it's what will happen.

 

[honestbharani]

If he has shown better form than the other #6 contenders and is also more of an asset with the ball than those other contenders, what's wrong with playing him?

 

[LFD]

If he has shown better form than the other #6 contenders and is also more of an asset with the ball than those other contenders, what's wrong with playing him?

Because he is a **** batsman!

He is a poor batsman and poor spinner - not a great combination for an England player.

 

[robelinda]

Dunno if its been mentioned yet in this thread, but Foxtel have secured rights to show the India v England test series live, right at the last minute! Hooray!

 

[BoyBrumby]

The question is not who will be more effective out of Panesar and Patel, it is who will be more effective out of Panesar and the third quick.

Yeah, quite. Patel's a fifth bowler and Monty's a fourth.

Assuming Swann's one of the other three it's an absolute no-brainer.

Btw, I see the Mumbai A fixture isn't listed as FC on cricinfo. Has it been subsequently downgraded or was it never one?

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, quite. Patel's a fifth bowler and Monty's a fourth.

Assuming Swann's one of the other three it's an absolute no-brainer.

Btw, I see the Mumbai A fixture isn't listed as FC on cricinfo. Has it been subsequently downgraded or was it never one?

Cricinfo definitely seemed to think it was one at the time. Whether it's been downgraded or they were just wrong is the question I suppose.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The question is not who will be more effective out of Panesar and Patel, it is who will be more effective out of Panesar and the third quick.

Normally i'd say the quick if we presume it is Broad and that Anderson and Bresnan are playing. With the fitness doubt I am leaning towards Panesar.

 

[Prince EWS]

Normally i'd say the quick if we presume it is Broad and that Anderson and Bresnan are playing. With the fitness doubt I am leaning towards Panesar.

Yeah Panesar v Onions is a trickier question if that's what it comes down to.