• 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.

A Different View on Monty Panesar

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Would that be the one where he put England into a piss poor situation in the first place by taking 1-101 in the first innings? Then in the second innings took a 6-fer when NZ decided to play like a England's prattiest dismissals highlight reel?
Ah, Monty Panesar and New Zealand cricket; two of Scaly's grand passions. Right up there with Thierry Henry & Arsene Wenger.

You've managed to find a way of dissing both whilst giving no credit to either party. Kudos, indeed.

Life, sadly, isn't always black and white. Sometimes crap players do play well and decent players play like crap. Moreover, I'd generally expect a spinner to earn more of his corn based on what he does in the 2nd innings rather than the first. I just wish Monty played like that rather more often.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Your point about him taking most of his wickets against NZ & the Windies is well-made, but for all of their obviousness weaknesses as test sides just now, it was him who dragged us back from the brink in the second test versus the kiwis with as good a spell as one might wish for.
Yeah- fantastic spell from Monty on a wicket where he's been extremely successful, i'll take nothing away from that. But it further exemplifies my point that he'll either be awesome or useless depending on the pitch, therefore shouldn't be an automatic choice. If there was a test tomorrow at OT he'd be in my world XI. At Headingley, for instance, there's probably club cricketers (any that can swing it) who'd be more effective than him.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The rules state that you have to have a keeper - I've seen my side play with crap keepers plenty of times and win. I've seen us play with people who can't shoot and awesome keepers, and draw or lose.
The point is though that a goalkeeper's potential to influence is considerably greater than any other one player. You'd need 3 or 4 good-quality outfield players (obviously ideally defenders) to make-up for a bad goalkeeper; 1 improvement in an outfield player and 1 deprovement in a goalkeeper will make a hell of a negative difference; the opposite way around will actually make quite some positive difference.

Trust me, I'm a goalkeeper. :D
I think you're blurring your ideals and the actual reality. The fact is, rightly or wrongly (and I can certainly see merit in picking four seamers from time to time) we aren't going to go into a Test any time soon without a spinner, or hardly ever anyway. So it's a role that will always be involved in the team and should therefore be coached.
I'm not. You can coach a spinner as much as you want but it can't make him exceed the limits of his own ability. If England (and everyone else) want to weaken their side by playing a fingerspinner on all surfaces then there's sadly not a lot I can do to stop them but having a coach to try to make the situation better when it cannot just makes matters even worse.
And how often are we going to come across players that good? 95% of players need coaching. Coaching isn't just about teaching new skills, it's about development and helping a player to realise for themselves what they need to do to improve.
I don't think it's anywhere near as much as 95% TBH but that's no problem - coaches are essential to any team. However, as I say, wicketkeeping is something that a coach can do the least use to.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Some stats on spinners in 2008, particularly for Richard:

Most Test wickets - 4 spinners in the top 15, including 3 finger spinners (and Monty Panesar)

Best economy rates (min 100 overs) - 10 spinners in the top 20, including 7 finger spinners ( & MSP)

Most five-wicket hauls (min 2) - 6 out of 12 are spinners, including 4 finger spinners (5 if you count Mendis) (&MSP)

Best average (min 150 overs) - 6 in the top 20, including 3 finger spinners (+ Mendis)

Best strike rate (min 150 overs) - 6 in the top 20, including 2 finger spinners (+ Mendis)
The point isn't "finger-spinners are obsolete" or even "Monty Panesar isn't very good". It's more that he'll either be massively effective (see Old Trafford '07 or '08) or horribly ineffective (see the South Africa tour up to the dead rubber, every match he's ever played against India). It's usually pretty obvious when he's going to be super-effective and when he's going to pretty useless, so why pick him every time?
I think that was Richard's point.
It isn't - fingerspinners still have a place. However, that place is no longer "most grounds" which it used to be in the days when wickets were uncovered.

Fingerspinners have always needed the right pitch to be effective. When pitches were uncovered, these happened often, everywhere. These days, the only place such surfaces occur regularly is in Sri Lanka and, to a lesser extent, India. In other countries, you can easily get whole seasons going by without one Test on such a surface.

MSP had a few more than normal early in his Test career, which gave quite a few people the impression he was better than he was.

However, you can tell a fingerspinner to "attack" as often as you want on non-turning surfaces, he still can't take wickets. The only way a fingerspinner is ever going to get wickets on a pitch that isn't of the right type is when they're gifted, which doesn't happen all that often. If, as a fingerspinner, you try to attack when the pitch doesn't allow you to, all that'll happen is you'll go for lots of runs. So on an unfriendly surface, your choice if you have a fingerspinner is basically between 25-60-1 and 25-112-1. So if you keep picking fingerspinners on the wrong sort of pitch, they'll all end-up being simplistically dubbed "defensive" bowlers. Because once you actually get into the match and realise the realities rather than the ideas, you're pragmatic and tell your fingerspinner to bowl defensively.

MSP can only attack on the right type of pitch, exactly the same as any other fingerspinner.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The Brotherhood has no time for distinctions or levels. We welcome all.
:laugh:

I think I nearly gave our old coach a heart attack when I (jokingly) suggested to my mate, who was our leggy, that he was only there to bowl while the fast bowlers were having a rest.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Penguinissimo, a diamond amongst the rough of new posters. Great to see you onboard. I see Jack is already a fan. If you're a Linux user as your name suggests, you'll have another one. haha

Must admit, can't add much more to the thread than what's been said already. Pretty useless post in general!
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
The point is though that a goalkeeper's potential to influence is considerably greater than any other one player. You'd need 3 or 4 good-quality outfield players (obviously ideally defenders) to make-up for a bad goalkeeper; 1 improvement in an outfield player and 1 deprovement in a goalkeeper will make a hell of a negative difference; the opposite way around will actually make quite some positive difference.

Trust me, I'm a goalkeeper. :D
You also play cricket. But I wouldn't trust any of your opinions on that. :ph34r:
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
You also play cricket. But I wouldn't trust any of your opinions on that. :ph34r:
:laugh:

Vic fairly brimming with the of the spirit of the season.

I'd love to know your take on Monty's progress after 3 years in the saddle, vic, by the way. As you're our SLA man on the inside, as it were. :)
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
I've nothing much to add to the debate except to say that I heard a suggestion on TMS today that Monty has clammy hands which has led to the fast bowlers struggling to achieve reverse swing since he gets the ball damp.
Interesting. Ive no idea if it is true and I dont know if clammy hands would effect the ball too much. However, I fingerprint a number of people and some people have nasty hands so there could be an element of truth to it.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
The point is though that a goalkeeper's potential to influence is considerably greater than any other one player. You'd need 3 or 4 good-quality outfield players (obviously ideally defenders) to make-up for a bad goalkeeper; 1 improvement in an outfield player and 1 deprovement in a goalkeeper will make a hell of a negative difference; the opposite way around will actually make quite some positive difference.

Trust me, I'm a goalkeeper. :D
I disagree, tbh. When we had John Aldridge, he was head and shoulders above any other striker in the division. Now we happened to have a good keeper at the same time, but even if we haven't, the amount of goals Aldo got for us just by being able to score from any situation would have negated a poor keeper no problem - because we also had a very good keeper we managed to challenge for promotion to the Premiership, pretty much unthhinkable now. We've had good keepers most of the time since, but nobody of Aldo's class up front, and the difference is that we've gone from challenging to be in the Prem, to staying in League One and hovering in the midtable.

Richard said:
I'm not. You can coach a spinner as much as you want but it can't make him exceed the limits of his own ability. If England (and everyone else) want to weaken their side by playing a fingerspinner on all surfaces then there's sadly not a lot I can do to stop them but having a coach to try to make the situation better when it cannot just makes matters even worse.
My point is that they are always going to pick a spinner, whether you like it or not. And as such, the spinner(s) should receive specialist coaching, just like the quicks.

Richard said:
I don't think it's anywhere near as much as 95% TBH but that's no problem - coaches are essential to any team. However, as I say, wicketkeeping is something that a coach can do the least use to.
I actually think I was being conservative with 95%, but there is no real way of proving such a thing :). I'll say this though, just because a player thinks he doesn't need coaching doesn't actually mean that he doesn't.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
:laugh:

Vic fairly brimming with the of the spirit of the season.

I'd love to know your take on Monty's progress after 3 years in the saddle, vic, by the way. As you're our SLA man on the inside, as it were. :)
I would answer (in much detail), but I'm just about to hop in a car and head away for Christmas! Happy festive season for all. :)
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
I disagree, tbh. When we had John Aldridge, he was head and shoulders above any other striker in the division. Now we happened to have a good keeper at the same time, but even if we haven't, the amount of goals Aldo got for us just by being able to score from any situation would have negated a poor keeper no problem - because we also had a very good keeper we managed to challenge for promotion to the Premiership, pretty much unthhinkable now. We've had good keepers most of the time since, but nobody of Aldo's class up front, and the difference is that we've gone from challenging to be in the Prem, to staying in League One and hovering in the midtable.
Quite. Who was the keeper in Brazil's 1970 world cup winning team?

Goalkeepers are like wicketkeepers; you only really notice the very good or very bad ones.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Well, as we all know, cricket (though I can only speak about English cricket with any element of knowledge) is subject to fashions.

Qualified West Indians in the 80s, Australians in the 90s, any leg spinner with a pulse and a vogue for tall fast bowlers are to name but a few in recent years.

Monty was fashionable.
Hmmm. Panesar was extremely popular for a while after he was selected, and I grimaced at a lot of the broohaha too. Good advice would probably have been to market absolutely nothing apart from cricket gear, but I suppose that's easy for me to say. If anything, spinners who don't bat at all are the most unfashionable item in English cricket that you could wish to name. I'm trying to work out exactly what fashion you think propelled him into the test side in the first place.
 

Penguinissimo

U19 12th Man
Hmmm. Panesar was extremely popular for a while after he was selected, and I grimaced at a lot of the broohaha too. Good advice would probably have been to market absolutely nothing apart from cricket gear, but I suppose that's easy for me to say. If anything, spinners who don't bat at all are the most unfashionable item in English cricket that you could wish to name. I'm trying to work out exactly what fashion you think propelled him into the test side in the first place.
The fashion for fast tracking good prospects into the Test side on the off chance they'll magically be world beaters. One of the reasons why there was such a fuss over Monty was that it looked that that policy might have worked for once.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
The fashion for fast tracking good prospects into the Test side on the off chance they'll magically be world beaters. One of the reasons why there was such a fuss over Monty was that it looked that that policy might have worked for once.
Yeah, I had no problem with that sort of fuss. It was the excessive marketing of him as a 'personality' that I didn't enjoy. Perhaps Goughy will let us know whether what you wrote was the fashion he had in mind - my guess what it was something else, but I really don't know.

Beyond that, what were Panesar's FC stats when he was first picked?
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Yeah, I had no problem with that sort of fuss. It was the excessive marketing of him as a 'personality' that I didn't enjoy. Perhaps Goughy will let us know whether what you wrote was the fashion he had in mind - my guess what it was something else, but I really don't know.

Beyond that, what were Panesar's FC stats when he was first picked?
Just a smidge below 30 per wicket, but he was selected off the back of his 2005 season wherein he'd taken 51 @ 22.47. From CricketArchive.
 

Top