Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yeah he might as well have said that Meaker was likely to be more a more threatening seam bowling option than Trott.
-
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.
***Official*** England in India
- Thread starter Jarquis
- Start date
NasserFan207
International Vice-Captain
India right on top now, all up to whether their spinners can deliver.
Reckon I was bang on about Panesar playing. These are two spinner pitches.
Reckon I was bang on about Panesar playing. These are two spinner pitches.
I was.
I also said I would have a four man attack with two spinners and two pace options and a proper 6, not Patel.
One has 143 wickets, the other has 3.
I know which one I'd rather in my side!
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The pitches weren't much different last time and he still got spanked. As do most spinners of Panesar's quality in India.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
TT Boy
Hall of Fame Member
Probably because he was crap in the South African series as well.
Broad at least had moments there. Doesn't look fit here however.
Viscount Tom
International Debutant
Haha
Has to be the best image of the lot so far.
Has to be the best image of the lot so far.
Teja.
Global Moderator
Broad was nowhere as bad really, even in this test. He was comfortably the most economical of England's pacers going into the third session and still has a reasonable ER of 4.1 in contrast to Bresnan's 5.6.
Besides, Broad actually looked threatening when he maintained a wicket-to-wicket length and piled the pressure on. Yes, he really should not have bowled the 5-6 freebies that he did, but in contrast to Bresnan, he had a far superior day. Bresnan taking 0-56 in 10 flatters him really. He was the one who really let Sehwag get in by bowling a massive amount of lollipops to him. Sehwag's first sixty runs or so included 32 of 19 balls from Bresnan.
Besides, Broad actually looked threatening when he maintained a wicket-to-wicket length and piled the pressure on. Yes, he really should not have bowled the 5-6 freebies that he did, but in contrast to Bresnan, he had a far superior day. Bresnan taking 0-56 in 10 flatters him really. He was the one who really let Sehwag get in by bowling a massive amount of lollipops to him. Sehwag's first sixty runs or so included 32 of 19 balls from Bresnan.
Woodster
International Captain
Much talk will surround the exclusion of Panesar, and the way Swann has bowled it could be a justifiable claim. Swann was excellent today. Personally speaking I'm not a fan of two seamers and two spinners, nor would I have been keen to see us go in with five specialist bowlers. By process of elimination I was happy with the side selected, but was disappointed in Bresnan, who looked well down on pace and was treated disdainfully at times by Sehwag.
Sehwag proved today he can still do it, and it was no surprise, these pitches are perfect for Sehwag, no movement through the air or off the deck for the quicks allowing him to spank it with authority through the line.
Pujara too looked good and deserved to be not out overnight. England will be disappointed again with the chances/half-chances that have gone down again. Prior's down the legside off Sehwag was a stiff one, but he'll be disappointed, Trott should have snaffled one at slip, Prior's missed stumping, that fortunately wasn't costly, was probably the easiest opportunity.
India are on top, no doubt, but England can bounce back in the morning, but must bat well and long when we get our chance.
Sehwag proved today he can still do it, and it was no surprise, these pitches are perfect for Sehwag, no movement through the air or off the deck for the quicks allowing him to spank it with authority through the line.
Pujara too looked good and deserved to be not out overnight. England will be disappointed again with the chances/half-chances that have gone down again. Prior's down the legside off Sehwag was a stiff one, but he'll be disappointed, Trott should have snaffled one at slip, Prior's missed stumping, that fortunately wasn't costly, was probably the easiest opportunity.
India are on top, no doubt, but England can bounce back in the morning, but must bat well and long when we get our chance.
I am not being obtuse.
Monty is clearly a better bowler than Patel. This wicket needs to spinners, Monty is our second best spinner and should be playing.
Patel is a poor batsman and I'd rather see youth get a chance with Bairstow who has done well when used recently and is the future.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
tooextracool
International Coach
I think both Bresnan and Broad have been abysmal for a while now, much to my own chagrin with regards to Broad as he genuinely looked like a world class bowler during the 2011 summer. There should be question marks asked with regards to fitness of all of the bowlers, all three (including Anderson) were at one point or another bowling in the high 80s to low 90s mph mark during the careers and none of them have been able to reach anywhere near that pace for over a year now.
I also think that England need to rethink their thought process when making their bowling selections in the subcontinent as, excluding the rather unlikely scenario of a green top, it makes little sense to select 3 fast bowlers let alone two of them that have been under a fitness cloud for a while. Given that Finn was out, England's best bet was Panesar for this match, for the sole reason that in these conditions he could have at least held an end up for most of the day.
I also think that England need to rethink their thought process when making their bowling selections in the subcontinent as, excluding the rather unlikely scenario of a green top, it makes little sense to select 3 fast bowlers let alone two of them that have been under a fitness cloud for a while. Given that Finn was out, England's best bet was Panesar for this match, for the sole reason that in these conditions he could have at least held an end up for most of the day.
Well I think the selectors have got it wrong, so I will criticise them!
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Uppercut is spot on anyway; playing in India doesn't turn the ball for you.
Yes, many surfaces in India, including this one, are much more responsive to spin bowling than pace bowling. However, this is offset by the fact that Indian batsmen as a rule are far, far better at playing spin than they are at playing pace. The conditions do you all you to play two spinners as part of a four man attack but they certainly don't require it if your seamers are better bowlers than you spinners. It's quite possibly the biggest con in world cricket, getting teams to play substandard spinners against India because of the conditions and then having the Indian top order hammer them all day because they're not up to the task.
Here are a couple inconvenient truths for Monty fans.
1. Panesar has already played five Tests in India and has an attrocious record himself; 11 wickets @ 56. In fact it was his innocuousness in India last time that saw Swann overtake him as England's #1 spinner in the first place.
2. Overseas spinners do not do better than overseas seamers in India. The Indian top order would love nothing more than to face some foreign straight breaker who'd struggle to get a game in Ranji cricket every week, so serving them up here and leaving out better pace options because of the conditions just plays in their hands. Here are the records of overseas bowlers in India since 2000:
Spinners: 299 wickets @ 45.91
Seamers: 479 wickets @ 39.10
Now Bresnan has hardly covered himself in glory in this match in or fact in general of late so Panesar was a serious option, but lets not pretend it was a ridiculous selection, that Panesar would've taken a bag full of wickets, or that you need two spinners away against India. Without wanting to sound too tinfoil hat, that's what they want you to think.
Furthermore, the Patel comparison is just absurd. I wouldn't have picked Patel either but saying you think Panesar is a better bowler is doing nothing but stating the obvious; no-one is going to disagree, and the selectors didn't pick him because they thought he was. It's another issue entirely.
Yes, many surfaces in India, including this one, are much more responsive to spin bowling than pace bowling. However, this is offset by the fact that Indian batsmen as a rule are far, far better at playing spin than they are at playing pace. The conditions do you all you to play two spinners as part of a four man attack but they certainly don't require it if your seamers are better bowlers than you spinners. It's quite possibly the biggest con in world cricket, getting teams to play substandard spinners against India because of the conditions and then having the Indian top order hammer them all day because they're not up to the task.
Here are a couple inconvenient truths for Monty fans.
1. Panesar has already played five Tests in India and has an attrocious record himself; 11 wickets @ 56. In fact it was his innocuousness in India last time that saw Swann overtake him as England's #1 spinner in the first place.
2. Overseas spinners do not do better than overseas seamers in India. The Indian top order would love nothing more than to face some foreign straight breaker who'd struggle to get a game in Ranji cricket every week, so serving them up here and leaving out better pace options because of the conditions just plays in their hands. Here are the records of overseas bowlers in India since 2000:
Spinners: 299 wickets @ 45.91
Seamers: 479 wickets @ 39.10
Now Bresnan has hardly covered himself in glory in this match in or fact in general of late so Panesar was a serious option, but lets not pretend it was a ridiculous selection, that Panesar would've taken a bag full of wickets, or that you need two spinners away against India. Without wanting to sound too tinfoil hat, that's what they want you to think.
Furthermore, the Patel comparison is just absurd. I wouldn't have picked Patel either but saying you think Panesar is a better bowler is doing nothing but stating the obvious; no-one is going to disagree, and the selectors didn't pick him because they thought he was. It's another issue entirely.
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
And that's fine, but you're making your argument in a ridiculously obtuse manner. You're straw manning the selectors by making out as if they picked Patel because they thought he was a better bowler than Panesar, when in reality they picked Bresnan because they thought he was a better bowler than Panesar and picked Patel because they thought he was a batting option than Bairstow when you added in his bonus bowling.
If you'd have gone with Bairstow in for Patel and Panesar in for one of the seamers then that's fine, but bloody say that. Comparing Panesar's bowling to Patel's in your posts makes no sense at all because you're dropping Patel for Bairstow. Frankly, I'm done with this.
I have said that, plenty of times!
I know Patel was chosen as a batsman, primarily (which is wrong IMO). But he is also chosen as the second spinner - hence the comparison with Monty.
You are saying yourself you wouldn't have selected Patel, so I don't see why you are arguing for the sake of it!
flibbertyjibber
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well i'd have gone with Panesar over Broad on fitness grounds as I said before the game. If Broad was deemed fit enough then Bresnan would have missed out. I wouldn't be worried if we went with both spinners in future games if the pitches are like this that give nothing for a pace bowler.
It was quite clear by the way that Dhoni grinned after the T20 match that these pitches will be suited to spinners. I don't blame the England management though as 3 seamers and a spinner has been so successful in recent years that it was understandable they would stick to what they knew. Saying we would have gone with Panesar is no guarantee that England would be in a better position now anyway as he may have bowled dross himself.
Bonus of the day was Swann, back to his best. Lets hope his elbow stands up to the workload.
It was quite clear by the way that Dhoni grinned after the T20 match that these pitches will be suited to spinners. I don't blame the England management though as 3 seamers and a spinner has been so successful in recent years that it was understandable they would stick to what they knew. Saying we would have gone with Panesar is no guarantee that England would be in a better position now anyway as he may have bowled dross himself.
Bonus of the day was Swann, back to his best. Lets hope his elbow stands up to the workload.
We'll never know.
I think Monty would be the second most likely player to take wickets on this pitch after Swann.
I don't however think it would change the result of the match, sadly!