Re: Monty Panesar : Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:15 am  

Prince of Denmark wrote: Panesar is actually the leading wicket taker in Division 1 this year (at least before the current round of matches) so given he was back up spinner on last winter's tour he certainly ought to be under very serious consideration for the next one! The Pakistan series in Abu Dhabi & Dubai (3 Tests) starts in mid-January, with Sri lanka (2 Tests) in late March / early April. I would think his deal with Randwick factors in a possible place on those tours during the second half of thier season. Division 1 bowling averages below batting averages on this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket ... 432449.stm Gary Keedy and Samit Patel are the other most prominent spinners on the list if you ignore occasionals who've taken just a few wickets. It's a pity Adil Rashid seems to have gone backwards this year. I would think Scott Borthwick is a bit too green for a senior tour at present. Danny Briggs at Hants is the other spinner to have featured in Lions matches this summer so he's obviously in the selectors' thoughts too, but again he's pretty raw. Tredwell is the only notable contender in Division 2 as far as I can see, but he's an off spinner and if the selectors might want to use two spinners in Asia a left armer or a leggie would give more variety in tandem with Swann. I'll be surprised if the selectors ignore Panesar's wealth of experience, and think they'd be foolish to do so. He may have been overshadowed by Swann in recent times but he can still tie an end down without going for too many runs. I'd think about taking Patel as an all-rounder / spin option. agree with all that except to say that I believe Monty was found out by the test opponents when they realised his lack of variety - i'm sure coaches have tried to broaden his repertoire which would put himback in favour with the selectors A very close friend who used to be at Lords on the MCC coaching staff agrees with you about Raschid and reckons Borthwick could be a regular fixture in the international scene for the next ten years.This is a guy who himself was coached by the great Tom Cartwright and Don Wilson to name but two so who maybe knows a thing or two about his subject.

Prince of Denmark wrote: Panesar is actually the leading wicket taker in Division 1 this year (at least before the current round of matches) so given he was back up spinner on last winter's tour he certainly ought to be under very serious consideration for the next one! The Pakistan series in Abu Dhabi & Dubai (3 Tests) starts in mid-January, with Sri lanka (2 Tests) in late March / early April. I would think his deal with Randwick factors in a possible place on those tours during the second half of thier season. Division 1 bowling averages below batting averages on this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket ... 432449.stm Gary Keedy and Samit Patel are the other most prominent spinners on the list if you ignore occasionals who've taken just a few wickets. It's a pity Adil Rashid seems to have gone backwards this year. I would think Scott Borthwick is a bit too green for a senior tour at present. Danny Briggs at Hants is the other spinner to have featured in Lions matches this summer so he's obviously in the selectors' thoughts too, but again he's pretty raw. Tredwell is the only notable contender in Division 2 as far as I can see, but he's an off spinner and if the selectors might want to use two spinners in Asia a left armer or a leggie would give more variety in tandem with Swann. I'll be surprised if the selectors ignore Panesar's wealth of experience, and think they'd be foolish to do so. He may have been overshadowed by Swann in recent times but he can still tie an end down without going for too many runs. I'd think about taking Patel as an all-rounder / spin option. agree with all that except to say that I believe Monty was found out by the test opponents when they realised his lack of variety - i'm sure coaches have tried to broaden his repertoire which would put himback in favour with the selectors A very close friend who used to be at Lords on the MCC coaching staff agrees with you about Raschid and reckons Borthwick could be a regular fixture in the international scene for the next ten years.This is a guy who himself was coached by the great Tom Cartwright and Don Wilson to name but two so who maybe knows a thing or two about his subject.

Re: Monty Panesar : Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:45 am  

Listening to the pundits on Sky, they all pretty much say you need 2 quality spinners in each Test Match side, when you go to India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka. Do England bat down the order too far, at the expense of a second spinner, or do we take the risk (again) with Monty, and forego the "extra" batsman, for this winter's tour. If we do, Morgan(a little to hitandmiss at this level, at the mo) to be rested for me.

Re: Monty Panesar : Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:03 am  

lefty goldblatt wrote:

Listening to the pundits on Sky, they all pretty much say you need 2 quality spinners in each Test Match side, when you go to India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka. Do England bat down the order too far, at the expense of a second spinner, or do we take the risk (again) with Monty, and forego the "extra" batsman, for this winter's tour. If we do, Morgan(a little to hitandmiss at this level, at the mo) to be rested for me.

Given the strength of our top five, I reckon you could have Prior, Bresnan, Broad, Swann at 6-9, plus Anderson & Panesar. Alternatively pick Samit Patel at 6; he's as good a batsman as Morgan IMO and gives a reasonable left arm spin option. My gut feeling is the selectors will stick with Morgan at 6 and Pietersen & Trott as the only auxiliary bowlers in addition to the four specialists. Although the four bowlers policy has proved successful results-wise, all the main seam bowlers (Anderson, Broad, Tremlett, Bresnan) have missed Tests with strain / fatigue type injuries since the start of the Ashes tour, and I can't help feeling we need a genuine fifth bowling option to share the workload on the slow, low pitches of the Subcontinent. Even someone like Bopara could be effective there - he averages better than one wicket per match in a first class career spanning well over 100 matches. If he can break a partnership and the rest only need to take 19 wickets between them it could make all the difference.

I don't really know a lot about Borthwick. If he's as good as he's cracked up to be maybe he could play as a bowling all-rounder / second spinner, but I'd want Panesar (or Tredwell) on hand just in case Swann gets incapacitated at short notice. There has to be a second experienced spinner in the squad of 16 for me.

Re: Monty Panesar : Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:33 am  

I just don't get this Samit Patel thing, everyone seems to think he's a good thing yet when I watch him he's hopeless, his batting looks poor and he doesn't look to me to be a specialist bowler. I'd rather have KP as the second spinner than him.

I'd take Panesar as the second spinner, he's worked very hard at his game, his fielding & batting have improved no end, I think he has more varitaion now hence why he he's a big part of the Sussex T20 side and not getting smacked around there etc. I don't see anybody even taking him close to be honest.

I just can't see Patel making big test match runs, so if he's going to contribute teens & twenties, England can do without that. Factor in his poor fitness standards in those Indian conditions, I just don't see Flower & Strauss considering him. They have such high standards now.

Re: Monty Panesar : Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:21 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I'm not suggesting he's as good as Swann, but as we're now good enough to carry a player, it would be fun for the viewer for it to be him.

You're either on a wind up or just plain daft.

Re: Monty Panesar : Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:59 pm  

JWP wrote:

I just don't get this Samit Patel thing, everyone seems to think he's a good thing yet when I watch him he's hopeless, his batting looks poor and he doesn't look to me to be a specialist bowler. I'd rather have KP as the second spinner than him.

He's not a specialist bowler, he's a batting all-rounder. You wouldn't have him as one of four bowlers, but he'd be a useful fifth bowler in helpful conditions; basically a spin bowling alternative to Bopara. Providing of course he justifies selection as a batsman, which I personally feel he would. I've always rated Patel as a batsman, he's a talented strokeplayer, if somewhat impetuous. If he's made progress with his fitness issues (which presumably he has or he wouldn't have been involved at all this season) I'd consider him.

Biggest difference between Patel and Pietersen is that Patel actually bowls on a regular basis, whereas Pietersen seems to be a reluctant bowler, or his captains just don't consider him as a serious option, so when he does bowl he's rusty and only gets two or three overs without doing much. One of my bugbears with England teams for a long time now is that new young batsmen establishing themselves are not encouraged to persevere with potentially useful part-time bowling, e.g. Ian Bell. Even Collingwood was often under-used in Tests. It doesn't matter quite so much with the medium pacers, but it would be useful to have a second spinner in the top 6 who could make an impact when conditions favour spin.

Re: Monty Panesar : Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:34 pm  

I've just no evidence in my head that Patel could be a decent test match player, he's just had head fart after head fart when I've watched him. Any runs he's got have been nicks & mishits, maybe i'm unlucky - I've just yet to see him bat well, certainly at International level, I can think of times I've seen Yardy & Dalrymple bat okay, Rikki Clarke too in ODI's, not Patel.

England have just given KP the ODI series off, maybe to rest up before he bowls his booty off in India. <wink>

If they want two genuine spinners, has to be Panesar.

Re: Monty Panesar : Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:06 pm  

JWP wrote:

I've just no evidence in my head that Patel could be a decent test match player, he's just had head fart after head fart when I've watched him. Any runs he's got have been nicks & mishits, maybe i'm unlucky - I've just yet to see him bat well, certainly at International level, I can think of times I've seen Yardy & Dalrymple bat okay, Rikki Clarke too in ODI's, not Patel.

England have just given KP the ODI series off, maybe to rest up before he bowls his booty off in India. <wink>

If they want two genuine spinners, has to be Panesar.

I judge players on Tests & County Championship; not ODIs.

Agree that Panesar should play if we really want two proper spinners, but if we're going to keep our 6 batsmen/4 bowlers strategy (with three seamers) I'd like to see Patel instead of Morgan on the Subcontinent.

Rikki Clarke is probably the best all-round fielder in England, well worth picking as twelfth man for any match in which Ricky Ponting may be involved.

Re: Monty Panesar : Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:07 am  

JWP wrote:

I've just no evidence in my head that Patel could be a decent test match player, he's just had head fart after head fart when I've watched him. Any runs he's got have been nicks & mishits, maybe i'm unlucky - I've just yet to see him bat well, certainly at International level, I can think of times I've seen Yardy & Dalrymple bat okay, Rikki Clarke too in ODI's, not Patel.

England have just given KP the ODI series off, maybe to rest up before he bowls his booty off in India. <wink>

If they want two genuine spinners, has to be Panesar.

ODIs don't count when the cricket purists are concerned as Prince of Denmark may be alluding to ?

I personally believe this 20/20 format will kill the traditional game as we have known it but that's another topic...
with respect this thread is about spinners,not all-rounders - Monty is a useful bowler but unless he has dramatically improved his variation I can't se him being of much use on the Test scene - i'd rather give Raschid,Tredwell or Borthwick the nod depending on fitness & county form

i'm not anti-Monty for any other reason than I don't think he would be much of a threat to any of the Test playing nations.

good luck to him down under and I hope he proves me wrong....

Re: Monty Panesar : Sat Aug 27, 2011 9:23 pm  

sanjunien wrote:

ODIs don't count when the cricket purists are concerned as Prince of Denmark may be alluding to ?

I personally believe this 20/20 format will kill the traditional game as we have known it but that's another topic...
with respect this thread is about spinners,not all-rounders - Monty is a useful bowler but unless he has dramatically improved his variation I can't se him being of much use on the Test scene - i'd rather give Raschid,Tredwell or Borthwick the nod depending on fitness & county form

i'm not anti-Monty for any other reason than I don't think he would be much of a threat to any of the Test playing nations.

good luck to him down under and I hope he proves me wrong....

I think there's a bit of a bandwaggon that gets jumped on with Monty, the TV pundits picked up on the fact that he always bowled 56mph, every delivery was the same speed etc. When his form dipped, and more his confidence then they always came back to this, and things like that he didn't set how own fields etc, he seemed really immature as a bowler, especially one who'd taken 100+ test wickets, and good wickets, tore through Pakistan for example.

I think now, he's more confident in his own skin, he's worked hard, he bats & fields better and is a better bowler. He took the move to Hove to get to a surface that doesn't spin as much, to make him out think bastmen in the flight etc.

He was almost a victim of too much success, he got into the England side, took wickets, people wore his masks, it just snowballed. FFS, people cheered if he hit the ball at times when batting. I think getting out of the limelight will have done him no harm, but he's a fine bowler, he spins the ball, he gets bounce and I think he's better than what people credit him for, he didn't pick up 100+ mugs, he got good wickets, top order wickets.