The only way I'd consider picking Panesar and Swann together is if the pitch was a Mumbai '04 style Bunsen.
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.
http://batallday.blogspot.com/ - Cricket blog dedicated to domestic cricket.
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.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
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.
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.
Last edited by LFD; 15-11-2012 at 03:57 PM.
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.
Exit pursuing a beerOriginally Posted by Jimmy Neesham
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.
Proud member of the Twenty20 is boring society
E-Mail - firstname.lastname@example.org
MSN - email@example.com
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)