*Official* Road to the 2010/11 Ashes

[tooextracool]

Hit-the-deck syndrome, innit.

Yeah, though I should think its more of a 'not bowling on the stumps' syndrome. Hitting the deck is great, especially if you are 6'7 but if you don't toss the odd ball up there then you are basically hoping for the batter to hand you his wicket rather than snatching it from him.

 

[aussie]

He's obviously saying this Aussie attack isn't as good as the one he faced last time...surely you agree?

Ye but didn't that same "not so good AUS attack" fail Cook in the 2009 Ashes.

By SA you mean Bangladesh? Because last time I checked, Cook was one of our few performing batters in SA.

Well technically yes. But i wasn't too convinced after his scratchy hundred @ Durban that he had turned the corner & he had finally found a way to handle quality pace-bowling consistently. His struggles vs PAK this summer proved that.

Cook remains an accident waiting to happen.

 

[tooextracool]

Well technically yes. But i wasn't too convinced after his scratchy hundred @ Durban that he had turned the corner & he had finally found a way to handle quality pace-bowling consistently. His struggles vs PAK this summer proved that.

Cook remains an accident waiting to happen.

So he struggled in SA and still scored a 118. And then he struggled against Pakistan this summer and scored a 110. It seems like you have done a great job validating TC's assertion (which you originally argued against):

Yeah agree with Uppercut, he might nick out regularly but he'll probably still peel off a ton or two this series.

 

[aussie]

So he struggled in SA and still scored a 118. And then he struggled against Pakistan this summer and scored a 110. It seems like you have done a great job validating TC's assertion (which you originally argued against):

Well no i doubt believe he will score a hundred this time, if AUS bowl to potential, much less two.

 

[Themer]

He scored a century when horribly out of form in 2006 against a much better Australian bowling line up so...

 

[aussie]

He scored a century when horribly out of form in 2006 against a much better Australian bowling line up so...

Cook wasn't out of form during the 2006 Ashes. That first year of his in 2006 was his best period as ENG player. Its just that world-class AUS attack ATT, was the first team to expose him technically & since then he has not improved.

If ENG had a good back-up, mainly Trescothick not having his mental issues. Cook would have been dropped a while ago.

 

[aussie]

Also i quite worried & stunned as to how no one else isn't opposing Panesar's selection. Would CWers (fellow ENG supporters mainly) pick Panesar as part of a 4-man attack in AUS if the unthinkable happens that Swann gets injured??

 

[Jarquis]

Should read more posts imo.

 

[marc71178]

Also i quite worried & stunned as to how no one else isn't opposing Panesar's selection. Would CWers (fellow ENG supporters mainly) pick Panesar as part of a 4-man attack in AUS if the unthinkable happens that Swann gets injured??

Yes, I would personally.

 

[Themer]

As would I. He was decent enough first time right until his massive form dip and he would appear to be back in form this year.

I'd rather throw him in than Tredwell or Rashid.

 

[aussie]

Yes, I would personally.

How is Panesar a better option to pick under such a scenrio than a 4th seamer?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh I so can't wait to see Swann get into the Aussies.

Like he did in England?

Nah, he's been going well and it will be interesting.

 

[marc71178]

How is Panesar a better option to pick under such a scenrio than a 4th seamer?

Because you insist he isn't?

Or more seriously, because he offers variety rather than picking a seamer who replicates another man already playing.

 

[aussie]

Because you insist he isn't?

Or more seriously, because he offers variety rather than picking a seamer who replicates another man already playing.

The only variety he Panesar offer - is the fact he is a spinner. It is not productive variety, since he cannot be depended do anything well with any degree of certainty. What makes you 100% confident that Panesar would provide sturdy accuracy in the absence of Swann & the AUS batsmen wouldn't hit him out of the attack?. Or if given a 5th day track, what makes you confiident he can bowl ENG to vicotry?.

How is picking a 4th seamer in Shazad (who should have toured) who at least has shown he can reverse-swing the ball (which is the vareity you would want, instead of havign 3 tall seamers in an attack Broad/Finn/Tremlett) - not the better option?.

 

[marc71178]

I personally wouldn't have had Shahzad touring after watching him earlier this year. With the bat he looked utterly clueless, and with the ball he did nothing until it aged and started to reverse. You cannot pick someone as part of a 4 man attack if he's not going to be effective unless conditions really suit.

Also, the small point that he's not in the squad means that it's not a choice between him and Monty in the event one of them is called upon, so my original point stands - if Swann were to get injured, then I'd pick Panesar to replace him almost every time.

 

[Top_Cat]

The only variety he Panesar offer - is the fact he is a spinner. It is not productive variety, since he cannot be depended do anything well with any degree of certainty.

Neither can Shazad. Neither can anyone not named McGrath, Warne, Murali, etc. Even then it's uncertain.

I'd bet large sums of money that you were bagging the selectors last time out for picking Panesar in Perth. You may be shocked to know that sometimes sport is uncertain and unpredictable and that sometimes you need to take a punt to get the edge and win instead of just compete.

At least with Panesar, if the conditions don't suit, you at least know he'll do a job. Shazad would be more likely to be a pretty expensive pick under blue skies.

 

[social]

Panesar is very average - we know it, he knows it, the Aussies know it, Eng knows it

He's simply there because a backup was needed and there was no-one else

Nothing more to say really

 

[tooextracool]

The idea of a 4 man pace attack is quite frankly the most thoughtless idea I've heard in a long time. Yes, it worked when you had the caliber of Roberts/Marshall/Holding/Garner who were pretty much guaranteed to bowl out sides within 90 overs. But the idea of decent/average bowlers such as Anderson/Broad/Finn and Tremlett together when they could so easily end up being out there for 2 days is quite ridiculous. Each of them would have to bowl 40-50 overs in one inning in such a scenario. If an injury magnet like Tremlett goes down, that could well end up being 50-60 overs. There is absolutely no way the England management will want to take that kind of risk, nor should they have to because it is beyond logic.

To say that I hate Panesar would be putting it mildly. But the bottom line is that out of all of our spin bowling options hes the best available to do the job in the event that Swann is injured (i.e. hold one end down). The likes of Rashid do not and will not offer this.

 

[GIMH]

Panesar is very average - we know it, he knows it, the Aussies know it, Eng knows it

He's simply there because a backup was needed and there was no-one else

Nothing more to say really

Haha, yes, this.

Whether or not Panesar is our second best spinner, he has had a good season and his international record is not atrocious.

Plus Australia can't get him out so it's all good

 

[Uppercut]

I imagine the selectors were just like "I suppooooose Panesar will do if there's DEFINITELY no one else we could bring..."