Stephen Bailey
Executive member
plympilgrim said:
I don't wish to get involved in the Panesar/Giles talk because it's boring me, but I do believe Panesar has been every bit as economical as Giles.
England in Australia
- Thread starter andrew_nixon
- Start date
I don't wish to get involved in the Panesar/Giles talk because it's boring me, but I do believe Panesar has been every bit as economical as Giles.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Ah the old myth, Panesars career economy rate after taking on India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan is lower than Giles... His strike rate is lower, his average is lower. Again that is not the argument I was trying to start, that has been argued every 10 pages through this entire thread, I was asking why everyone on this forum has decided that Fletcher is picking the entire team? IF FREDDIE HAD WANTED PANESAR, HE WOULD HAVE PANESAR!
Oh dear, I've just shouted, feel much better now
It really is impossible to have a debate! People either don't read the post, or just carry on posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over......
Oh dear, I've just shouted, feel much better now
It really is impossible to have a debate! People either don't read the post, or just carry on posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over......
Like I said, Monty couldn't be playing for various reasons:
A) Secret weapon
B) To avoid his confidence being dented if he gets attacked
C) They need runs from Giles
D) Like said before, and by me, the Aussie won't go out of their way to attack Giles. He has been very tight.
E) The team feels more 'settled' with him.
F) Giles could be giving insights to Freddie, with them both being the most experienced players.
Anyways, not too bad for England. This is where they wish they had an Afridi. Let him explode tommorrow. If it comes off, take a risk and try and bowl the Aussie out in 1-2 sessions. if it doesn't, a draw it is.
Oh, and ayone read this:
A) Secret weapon
B) To avoid his confidence being dented if he gets attacked
C) They need runs from Giles
D) Like said before, and by me, the Aussie won't go out of their way to attack Giles. He has been very tight.
E) The team feels more 'settled' with him.
F) Giles could be giving insights to Freddie, with them both being the most experienced players.
Anyways, not too bad for England. This is where they wish they had an Afridi. Let him explode tommorrow. If it comes off, take a risk and try and bowl the Aussie out in 1-2 sessions. if it doesn't, a draw it is.
Oh, and ayone read this:
Tim de Lisle's diary said:
bulletproof nun
School Cricketer
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Monty versus Giles......hmm thats a real issue for england lets look at this piece by piece. Fielding: tough to judge as it cant be easily measured as you can with wickets, runs etc. But having seen Giles drop that Dolly on day 3 that cost us approx. 200 runs, can we do much worse. Batting: Ok Giles has the better average, but Monty has always come in at 11 so rarely has time to make any impression. Bowling: Monty hands down. Everything about him is more authoritive. Giles couldn?t get any spin on a fourth day track. Warne got it sideways on day one, hell even Pietersen got ample turn. Giles inclusion is based on the theory that he reinforces the batting line-up. This is another defensive move by England. Giles average is 15 runs better than Monty?s. Yet Monty has consistently dismissed the top quality batsmen, the Inziman Ul-Haqs the Younis Kahns and the Mohammed youssef?s. What has Giles got? 1 wicket and not through good bowling. Monty gets Batsmen out, Giles lets Batsmen get themselves out. If Monty only takes 2 wicket in an innings then you can bet that they will Ponting and Hussey and will consequently save England from conceding more runs than his batting average loses.
Looking at a longer term view Giles is a decade older than Monty, Giles is in the twilight of his career, hell he hasn?t played cricket for a year, Monty is the young pretender who hasn?t some much filled Giles shoes as taken them down the charity shop and replaced them with a new, shinier pair. If I was an Aussie I know who I would prefer to face.
To use a football example if I was the Portuguese left back in that world cup quarter final, I would have much preferred to have played against the lethargic negative play of David Beckham, than Aaron Lennon with his penetrating runs that leave the defender completely in the dark as to what?s coming next.
Much as with the England football team (Frank Lampard must be wandering what he has to be dropped) the cricket team seem to me to be too much of a clique. A group of players who are assured of a starting place and know that they wont be dropped. Security leads to playing the comfort zone and this is definitely evident with Giles and will probably be with Vaughn. Vaughn will come back and replace one of Bell or Collingwood no matter how well they play. Look at Chris Read an excellent test series against Pakistan apparently counts for nothing if the England team plays like rubbish in a meaningless one-day competition.
Looking at a longer term view Giles is a decade older than Monty, Giles is in the twilight of his career, hell he hasn?t played cricket for a year, Monty is the young pretender who hasn?t some much filled Giles shoes as taken them down the charity shop and replaced them with a new, shinier pair. If I was an Aussie I know who I would prefer to face.
To use a football example if I was the Portuguese left back in that world cup quarter final, I would have much preferred to have played against the lethargic negative play of David Beckham, than Aaron Lennon with his penetrating runs that leave the defender completely in the dark as to what?s coming next.
Much as with the England football team (Frank Lampard must be wandering what he has to be dropped) the cricket team seem to me to be too much of a clique. A group of players who are assured of a starting place and know that they wont be dropped. Security leads to playing the comfort zone and this is definitely evident with Giles and will probably be with Vaughn. Vaughn will come back and replace one of Bell or Collingwood no matter how well they play. Look at Chris Read an excellent test series against Pakistan apparently counts for nothing if the England team plays like rubbish in a meaningless one-day competition.
Last edited:
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
I give up.. this thread is destined to remain the same argument for eternity 
Nice to know I guess that every member of PlanetCricket has their thoughts (all the same as well) on the Panesar v Giles debate.
Oh and Zorax, yes you were the only person who actually tried to engage in the debate
I like the quote about Warne
Nice to know I guess that every member of PlanetCricket has their thoughts (all the same as well) on the Panesar v Giles debate.
Oh and Zorax, yes you were the only person who actually tried to engage in the debate
I like the quote about Warne
The Stickcricket blog has been updated. Great read, top stuff. Very true.
http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php
http://www.stickcricket.com/blog.php
s2sschan
Club Cricketer
Originally Posted by Tim de Lisle's diary
2. We have again seen the folly of picking a defensive slow bowler whose main contribution is a few runs at no.8. And now both teams are doing it.
Calling Shane Warne " A Defensive Slow Bowler", Tim's out of his mind.
2. We have again seen the folly of picking a defensive slow bowler whose main contribution is a few runs at no.8. And now both teams are doing it.
Calling Shane Warne " A Defensive Slow Bowler", Tim's out of his mind.
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
I'm pretty sure that it's a tongue in cheek comment.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
s2sschan said:
Quick Duck!! *whoosh*
Phew, for a second there I didn't think it was going to make it over your head, but it's fine it went straight over.
gambino said:
Surely they would've known what he was like after a couple of dozen overs? Oh and don't kid yourself Monty outbowled some of the best players of spin and made MoYo look like a YoYo.
plympilgrim said:
But he doesn't go for more runs and is infact more economical over their last 10 tests. Monty bowls just as tight as Giles.
I must say this match is turning into a farce. For crying out loud find a pitch somewhere that does something, but doesn't turn into a canyon. What's the point in batting on roads? Sure Australia will win back the Ashes, but is it really worth it? Warne's bowling was a bit pathetic with all his talk before the game. Bowling around the wicket at Pietersen is just pointless and a waste of time. Anderson has to be out of the team. He's not good enough yet to take wickets a la Hoggard. Give Saj a go as he could be a secret weapon.
I agree too much of a road for my liking I just don't understand why they are doing this. Usually on the 4th and 5th day you get major variable bounce which should force a result. The first day there is a bit of seam movement usually. All seems to be missing and sadly the WACA appears to be even more of a road than this.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
This isn't a road, roads generally have a bit of bounce and pace, this looks like it was airlifted straight from Pakistan. Up until this test I thought Pakistan had the deadest pitches anywhere in the world (honestly there pitches are a disgrace but that's for another topic) yet Australia seem like they may not be too far behind.
That said, the groundsman has come out and admitted that he misread the weather and that he had ballsed up the wicket.
End of the day England have only themselves to blame for being 1-0 down. The last pitch would have suited Harmisons lines in this test perfectly, but he barely hit the wicket and was ineffective. This test, a bit of spin from Monty may or may not have caused problems, we'll unfortunately never know.
That said, the groundsman has come out and admitted that he misread the weather and that he had ballsed up the wicket.
End of the day England have only themselves to blame for being 1-0 down. The last pitch would have suited Harmisons lines in this test perfectly, but he barely hit the wicket and was ineffective. This test, a bit of spin from Monty may or may not have caused problems, we'll unfortunately never know.
Similar threads
