Ashes debate thread.

[kodos]

Panesar can turn the ball all he likes, but I don't see Langer, Ponting and Co being so bamboozled by it that they collapse. Let's not forget the valuable contributions of Giles with the bat in the Ashes, e.g. the 5th Test. A tail with Hoggard at 8 is just a nightmare scenario.

Many said that about Mohammad Rafique but look what he did to the Australians. I would certainly value wickets more than tail end runs.

Because Giles bamboozled them so much didn't he? Had a strike rate of 96. Damn he bamboozled them. They just couldn't play him! He bamboozled them so much they could only face 16 overs of his bowling before getting out!

I did remember one wicket where he did bamboozle a batsman. Remember Clarke's wicket in the Ashes But still Panesar over Giles easily.

 

[evertonfan]

Many said that about Mohammad Rafique but look what he did to the Australians. I would certainly value wickets more than tail end runs.



I did remember one wicket where he did bamboozle a batsman. Remember Clarke's wicket in the Ashes But still Panesar over Giles easily.

I think the wicket you are reffering to was Damien Martyn!

It was all the rough's work though.

 

[andrew_nixon]

I also don't get this mentality that us English people seem to have. We have a keeper who doesn't do well, so we want the old keeper who was quite frankly poor as well?

It's simple. BECAUSE READ HAS IMPROVED A HELL OF A LOT!!!!!!!

You pick spinners to spin, not to bat.

Exactly. Bowlers like Panesar, Keedy, Brown, et al would all be capable of taking more wickets than Giles, for a lower amount of runs, thus negating the need for them to bat.

My point is if Panesar doesn't take wickets. If he doesn't his place in the side is essentially wasted, whereas Giles can still score runs and take catches if his bowling doesn't go well.

That argument is just plain crap. If Murali doesn't take wickets for Sri Lanka, his place in the side is essentially wasted. So by your logic, we wouldn't pick Murali if he was English.

And did Giles averaging less than 20 with the bat really make up for averaging more than 60 and taking 16 overs to dismis a batsman with the ball?

And if you take away Giles one half century, he averages 12 with the bat. Not consistent enough.

 

[Gilchrist]

And to add to that, his fielding is not too special either.

 

[MUFC1987]

That argument is just plain crap. If Murali doesn't take wickets for Sri Lanka, his place in the side is essentially wasted. So by your logic, we wouldn't pick Murali if he was English.

And did Giles averaging less than 20 with the bat really make up for averaging more than 60 and taking 16 overs to dismis a batsman with the ball?

And if you take away Giles one half century, he averages 12 with the bat. Not consistent enough.

Murali can and does take wickets against Australia, Panesar is no where near as good, unless in some strange way you're trying to say that Panesar is as good as Murali? The difference is that Murali is good enough to take wickets in Australia, Panesar struggled in India on the most spinner friendly wickets produced, so how you believe he's going to get Ponting and Co out on a green top is beyond me.

If you take away Giles' half century he averages 12? If we took away Giles' half century, then there was a very real posibility of us drawing the Ashes, funny how you seem to have forgotten that.

 

[manee]

+ Panesar sends a mesege to all budding cricketers that may not be too coordinated. IF you try hard enough you will improve and may make international cricket

 

[kodos]

Murali can and does take wickets against Australia, Panesar is no where near as good, unless in some strange way you're trying to say that Panesar is as good as Murali? The difference is that Murali is good enough to take wickets in Australia, Panesar struggled in India on the most spinner friendly wickets produced, so how you believe he's going to get Ponting and Co out on a green top is beyond me.

If you take away Giles' half century he averages 12? If we took away Giles' half century, then there was a very real posibility of us drawing the Ashes, funny how you seem to have forgotten that.

Warne's record in India is also not too flashy with an average at 43 while he is possibly the best spinner in the history of the game. Also how are you certain that Panesar will be certain not to take wickets in Australia? For me let Panesar play the final 3 test matches of the series, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. At the WACA and GABBA, Giles should be opted ahead and they can even take the option of using Collingwood instead of Giles or select another seamer.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Murali can and does take wickets against Australia, Panesar is no where near as good, unless in some strange way you're trying to say that Panesar is as good as Murali? The difference is that Murali is good enough to take wickets in Australia, Panesar struggled in India on the most spinner friendly wickets produced, so how you believe he's going to get Ponting and Co out on a green top is beyond me.

Go back and read what I said. I'm using your argument about what happens if Panesar's bowling fails. The same will happen if Murali's bowling fails.

If you take away Giles' half century he averages 12? If we took away Giles' half century, then there was a very real posibility of us drawing the Ashes, funny how you seem to have forgotten that.

If you take away Giles half century, Australia would still have had a target of nearly 300 and nowhere near enough time to chase it. But that's not my point. My point is that he is not consistent enough with the bat.

 

[MUFC1987]

Go back and read what I said. I'm using your argument about what happens if Panesar's bowling fails. The same will happen if Murali's bowling fails.

If you take away Giles half century, Australia would still have had a target of nearly 300 and nowhere near enough time to chase it. But that's not my point. My point is that he is not consistent enough with the bat.

Yes Murali's place in the team would be negated if he didn't take wickets, but the point is that he's much more likely to take wickets then Panesar. Which is my point.

If Giles had got out cheaply, there is almost no chance that the tail would have hung around long enough for Pietersen to get his big score. That's what makes the difference.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Yes Murali's place in the team would be negated if he didn't take wickets, but the point is that he's much more likely to take wickets then Panesar. Which is my point.

And Panesar is MUCH more likely to take wickets than Giles!

If Giles had got out cheaply, there is almost no chance that the tail would have hung around long enough for Pietersen to get his big score. That's what makes the difference.

But that's not my point.

 

[MUFC1987]

And Panesar is MUCH more likely to take wickets than Giles!

There's not much to back that up though. Panesar didn't have the best figures in India, where even Shaun Udal performed as well as him. Panesar seems to be living off of one five-for, which is strange.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Panesar seems to be living off of one five-for, which is strange.

Not as strange as saying that a player who averages almost 60 and takes 16 overs to dismiss someone deserves a place in the team. Also not as strange as saying someone who is nowhere near the best spin bowler in the country deserves a place as a spin bowler.

 

[sid_19840]

I definately believe that Panesar is the best spinner that your team has got.Giles is more of a defensive bowler which isnt exactly the right way to go and what little Ive seen of Udal makes me suggest that some of the Indian Ranji Trophy spinners are way better than him.Monty needs to be backed with opportunities and Im sure he'll deliver.

 

[MUFC1987]

Not as strange as saying that a player who averages almost 60 and takes 16 overs to dismiss someone deserves a place in the team. Also not as strange as saying someone who is nowhere near the best spin bowler in the country deserves a place as a spin bowler.

Panesar averages 60 away from home with the ball. Oh, look, I can be selective to prove a point as well.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Panesar averages 60 away from home with the ball. Oh, look, I can be selective to prove a point as well.

Fair enough. Let's look at career bowling averages in England then shall we?

Panesar in England: 21.00
Giles in England: 43.11

Giles does not perform well on tracks that don't aid him. He is not consistent enough with the bat to warrant his poor bowling performances.