***Official*** England in India

[GingerFurball]

The only way I'd consider picking Panesar and Swann together is if the pitch was a Mumbai '04 style Bunsen.

[LFD]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Thank you for putting it a lot more eloquently than I could be bothered ever doing.

It's something I've been banging on about for ages though; 2 spinners in India is a waste of time. For foreign teams, it's always always always going to be your seamers that will win you Tests. When Murali and Warne, 2 of the greatest spinners of all time have fairly mediocre records in India, that should tell you how easily Indian batsmen play spin at home.

The two most successful sides in India over the last 15 years have been South Africa and Australia. A look at the records of Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Dale Steyn, Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie (and note what type of bowlers these guys are) should give you a clue as to why they're the best teams to have visited India.

Did you see this wicket?

It was crying out for two spinners!

All our wickets so far have come from the spinner!

[Woodster]

The fact that our quicks didn't bowl as well as they're capable of, especially Bresnan, makes the omission of Panesar to some as outrageous. I think we got the selection right, just don't think the players have helped to make it look the right decision. Pleased Swanny bowled well though.

[Scaly piscine]

Originally Posted by Woodster

The fact that our quicks didn't bowl as well as they're capable of, especially Bresnan, makes the omission of Panesar to some as outrageous. I think we got the selection right, just don't think the players have helped to make it look the right decision. Pleased Swanny bowled well though.

Yep.

If England bowled a load of ****e back home and Swann happened to be exception would people be clamouring for Panesar then?

England's seamers just bowled a load of ****e basically. They weren't helped by the fielding which yet again has missed crucial chances - you can't afford to do that on flat wickets. The seamers will bowl well sooner rather than later.

Panesar is an awful option. If Bresnan or whoever isn't doing his job then he pick someone else. Going to Donkey because it's India is just complete bollocks. He was useless the last however many times in India and Sri Lanka, he will be useless if he gets picked again. It has been showed repeatedly in the stats that tourists picking extra spinners in India isn't the way to go - apart from the fact any one of a dozen options are a better seamer than Donkey is a spinner.

[LFD]

Originally Posted by Woodster

The fact that our quicks didn't bowl as well as they're capable of, especially Bresnan, makes the omission of Panesar to some as outrageous. I think we got the selection right, just don't think the players have helped to make it look the right decision. Pleased Swanny bowled well though.

It is about picking the best options for the conditions - England didn't!

Tough for the pace bowlers on that pitch.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Thank you for putting it a lot more eloquently than I could be bothered ever doing.

It's something I've been banging on about for ages though; 2 spinners in India is a waste of time. For foreign teams, it's always always always going to be your seamers that will win you Tests. When Murali and Warne, 2 of the greatest spinners of all time have fairly mediocre records in India, that should tell you how easily Indian batsmen play spin at home.

The two most successful sides in India over the last 15 years have been South Africa and Australia. A look at the records of Allan Donald, Shaun Pollock, Dale Steyn, Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillespie (and note what type of bowlers these guys are) should give you a clue as to why they're the best teams to have visited India.

I think the issue with the selection is that two of the bowlers picked have been under a fitness cloud and neither bowled anywhere close to full tilt. If we had bowlers of the caliber of the ones mentioned above then by all means pick them, but a trundling Bresnan AND a guy with 10 overs under his belt prior to this game is questionable to say the least.

[Jono]

Was about to come and say that. Fully it Bresnan over monty isn't an awful selection but that slow fat **** who bowle at 120s long hops outside off is not a better selection, and of he's not fit that is an indictment on the management.

Also let's not pretend like the ball wasn't turning on day one, it was and India looked vulnerable at various times. Monty would have been a better selection on the wicket and with Bresnan bowling this way. Of course this is hindsight but it's the reality.

[Woodster]

Originally Posted by LFD

It is about picking the best options for the conditions - England didn't!

Tough for the pace bowlers on that pitch.

It is even tougher when we don't bowl well enough. The seamers are better than what they showed us today, whether Panesar would have made a difference, who knows? It's certainly easier to criticise selction after the first day has finished.

[LFD]

Originally Posted by Woodster

It is even tougher when we don't bowl well enough. The seamers are better than what they showed us today, whether Panesar would have made a difference, who knows? It's certainly easier to criticise selction after the first day has finished.

I agree the pace bowlers can bowl better. But I am not criticising the selectors in hindsight as we know I said they should select Monty before hand. After seeing the pitch, I thought it was an even worse decision not to select him.

Anyway, we will agree to disagree on the selection.

What was pleasing was Swann, as he needs a big series if England are going to do well. He had a good start.

[wellAlbidarned]

The pitch isn't a rank turner at all, Swann's turning it because he's ****ing Swann's and that's what he always does. Using his success to suggest they should've played two spinners is stupid, he's taken wickets because he's bowled well, not because of the conditions.

[Jono]

Why is it either a "rank turner" or "flat"? Ffs its day one and the pitch is gripping. This pitch will turn throughout the match.

The black and white way people describe Indian pitches is pretty frustrating. Was called a road 2 balls in by some people here, and then when Swann was getting it to turn massively before lunch people went "oh".

Swann would not be getting this much turn on the Ahmedebad wicket from 2010 vs. NZ. This pitch will be tough to face spin on throughout the match.

[LFD]

Originally Posted by wellAlbidarned

The pitch isn't a rank turner at all, Swann's turning it because he's ****ing Swann's and that's what he always does. Using his success to suggest they should've played two spinners is stupid, he's taken wickets because he's bowled well, not because of the conditions.

It was day 1!

[Pup Clarke]

Originally Posted by Jono

Swann would not be getting this much turn on the Ahmedebad wicket from 2010 vs. NZ

My guess is he would. It's easy to watch that he puts alot more "revs" on the ball than the spinners in that particular test (Bhaji, Ojha and Vettori).

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Jono

Why is it either a "rank turner" or "flat"? Ffs its day one and the pitch is gripping. This pitch will turn throughout the match.

The black and white way people describe Indian pitches is pretty frustrating. Was called a road 2 balls in by some people here, and then when Swann was getting it to turn massively before lunch people went "oh".

Swann would not be getting this much turn on the Ahmedebad wicket from 2010 vs. NZ. This pitch will be tough to face spin on throughout the match.

I've seen literally none of day 1's play but if the pitch was offering nothing for the seamers then it's a "road" in most people's eyes.

[Jono]

He would not be getting the turn on day 1 of that test like the deliveries he got Sehwag and Kohli out with on day 1. Just no way the ball would grip that much.

Obviously he's a gun and Burgey needs to taste it and stop bagging the great man, but this is not normal turn on an Indian wicket on day 1.