***Official** West Indies in England***

[Scaly piscine]

IIRC Panesar did take more wickets in our home tests than any other England bowler last summer. Admittedly he was one of the few to play in all 7 tests, but even so. And obviously we're talking tests, not odi's here.

That was largely because England played on an absolute dustbowl against Sri Lanka and Harmison rattled the Pakistan batsmen in another game (who played Panesar poorly on the whole anyway). Panesar's lack of incisiveness cost England the first Test against Sri Lanka and it's pretty clear from his strike rate (which is lower than it should be because of the helpful pitches he's played on) that he's not a particularly attacking option most of the time.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In saying that though, give him 5-10 tests (I guess that's the summer) and if he doesn't perform, its time to try a new breed (that will take him up to approx 15-20 tests, and I believe that's a suitable amount to establish yourself at that level).

What's wrong with letting him learn to bowl at domestic level and then bringing him up to international level when (if?) he's actually good enough? It's cheapening Test cricket to let someone learn to bowl at Test standard whilst playing it. There's a reason for first-class cricket.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

because majority in this side didn't seem to have much respect for Lara

You what?

 

[simmy]

That was largely because England played on an absolute dustbowl against Sri Lanka and Harmison rattled the Pakistan batsmen in another game (who played Panesar poorly on the whole anyway). Panesar's lack of incisiveness cost England the first Test against Sri Lanka and it's pretty clear from his strike rate (which is lower than it should be because of the helpful pitches he's played on) that he's not a particularly attacking option most of the time.

I don't think that it is neccesarily his fault.

I think at times Vaughan uses him as a more defensive than say Flintoff and the fields he sets represent this.

Panesar could surprise with both ball and bat this summer, I reckon.

 

[simmy]

You what?

Lol I didn't get that either.

 

[no1_gangsta_786]

I havent looked through the whole thread, so apologies in advance if this has already been answered...but in the schedule on the first page it says that both T20 will be played on June 28...is this correct??

 

[aussie]

It very hard to predict what England's 1st test XI will be given that most of the players missing from Australia are most likely to be fit for the 1st test, the wicket-keeper position still wide open & the best balance of the side still undecided i.e whether to play 4/5 bowlers, where Flintoff should bat & who will bat in the middle-order.

But i'll have a go at a possible XI for the 1st test:

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughan*
Bell
KP
Collingwood
Flintoff
Pothas+
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar/Jones - depending on conditions

 

[SpaceMonkey]

It very hard to predict what England's 1st test XI will be given that most of the players missing from Australia are most likely to be fit for the 1st test, the wicket-keeper position still wide open & the best balance of the side still undecided i.e whether to play 4/5 bowlers, where Flintoff should bat & who will bat in the middle-order.

But i'll have a go at a possible XI for the 1st test:

Trescothick
Strauss
Vaughan*
Bell
KP
Collingwood
Flintoff
Pothas+
Harmison
Hoggard
Panesar/Jones - depending on conditions

I find it hard to think they will drop Cook, and no ones mentioned Pothas in the England circle (from what ive heard anyway).

 

[wpdavid]

That was largely because England played on an absolute dustbowl against Sri Lanka and Harmison rattled the Pakistan batsmen in another game (who played Panesar poorly on the whole anyway). Panesar's lack of incisiveness cost England the first Test against Sri Lanka and it's pretty clear from his strike rate (which is lower than it should be because of the helpful pitches he's played on) that he's not a particularly attacking option most of the time.

Only partly true, afaics. Trent bridge was the only real spinners' track he played on last summer, so the rest of time he was having to cope with conditions that weren't over-helpful. At Old Trafford, although you could argue that he benefited from Harmison's efforts in the 1st innings, the reverse was true in the 2nd innings. From memory, he had two poor tests last summer - the Oval and one of the Lord's tests (sorry, can't remember which one). Other than that, he did well.

Going onto his strike rate, it hasn't helped him playing all his tests either against Asian sides who are generally pretty good against the slower stuff, or against the best side in the world. That doesn't make him the finished article, or change the fact that he still has a lot to prove to live up to some of the hype, but he deserves more credit than you're giving him, imho.

 

[Richard]

Haha, dire comment. South African bowlers may struggle a tad on slow, flat wickets in one day cricket, but on a decent test wicket, they have a very good attack.

I'm still sorely tempted to reply to that post even though, as usual, you get there first...

 

[Richard]

In fact, stuff it, can't resist.

With the form of the England bowlers, they are looking similar to the Soith African bowling attack - 'brand' names, but they lack penetration. Also, add to the matter that they are all bowlers who bowl right-arm 130-140, it looks really bleak.

Aaaaaaand... so what?

Anyone with 2 eyes could see that they don't lack penetration - they'd not be brand-names if they did. Nel can get people out on anything if things go his way, Ntini will go through brick-walls before he stops bowling, and Pollock bowled better than he has for about 6 years last season.

 

[Richard]

Panesar is a wicket taker?!?!?!?!?!?

On turning pitches, yes, most certainly.

How many of them we'll get we wait and see.

 

[Richard]

Hopefully Simon Jones will return and give us a decent "balanced" attack which carried us between 2003-05. (With Harmison replaced with someone that bowls the ball on the square, preferably Broad or Anderson)

Sorry, Broad and Anderson bowling the ball on the square?

I think Hoggard will pick up a lot of wickets, with the ball likely to swing in early May and the Windies hardly accustomed to playing it.

Haha, stereotypes are soooooo funny sometimes, especially when they're as wrong as those 2.

 

[Richard]

Panesar's lack of incisiveness cost England the first Test against Sri Lanka

No, dropped catches did.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Sorry, Broad and Anderson bowling the ball on the square?

.Anderson is actually a half decent bowler especially in OD cricket.

 

[Richard]

Only partly true, afaics. Trent bridge was the only real spinners' track he played on last summer, so the rest of time he was having to cope with conditions that weren't over-helpful. At Old Trafford, although you could argue that he benefited from Harmison's efforts in the 1st innings, the reverse was true in the 2nd innings. From memory, he had two poor tests last summer - the Oval and one of the Lord's tests (sorry, can't remember which one). Other than that, he did well.

Going onto his strike rate, it hasn't helped him playing all his tests either against Asian sides who are generally pretty good against the slower stuff, or against the best side in the world. That doesn't make him the finished article, or change the fact that he still has a lot to prove to live up to some of the hype, but he deserves more credit than you're giving him, imho.

TBH, I'm less than convinced about that. There are some Asian batsmen who are top players of spin (doesn't matter how good you are, of course, when you get balls like the Younis Khan one last summer) but there are also more than a few who are decidedly iffy. I hate the stereotype of Asian = good against spin.

As for the Test pitches last summer, Panesar went more or less exactly as you'd expect a fingerspinner to - did nothing on the non-turners (Lord's both times, Edgbaston, The Oval, Headingley - in truth his performance there was exaggerated by end-of-innings wickets) and did well on the turners (Trent Bridge and Old Trafford - how anyone could think that one didn't turn is beyond me).

Amazingly enough, almost exactly the same as Giles did in 2004 - the only difference was that Giles was already in the stereotype of "defensive bowler" nonsense by then. Panesar was new enough to fit the hype.

 

[Richard]

.Anderson is actually a half decent bowler especially in OD cricket.

Anderson has done virtually nothing of note in Test cricket and his accuracy is still wholly questionable.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Anderson has done virtually nothing of note in Test cricket and his accuracy is still wholly questionable.

Where did I say that he was accurate?.

 

[Richard]

You were replying to a post of mine where I mentioned his accuracy.

Therefore I put 1 and 1 together and made 2.

If you'd prefer me to make 6...?

 

[Pup Clarke]

He ain't as wayward as you make him to be out Richard.