manee said:Are you forgetting Australia dominating the first test in the last ashes and what was the result there?
ZoraxDoom said:Saj pitches it up. That's what they need. Harmy should bowl about 40 overs in the nets each day and get his rythem.
evertonfan said:IYou can argue with it all you like, it's within the laws of the game.
Drewska said:Anyone here on PC from Brisbane? Any chance of a storm in the next 2 days?
sifter132 said:I've never seen Monty bowl in a match - but it seems he might be a bit overrated when just looking at the figures. In 10 Tests taken 32 wickets (3.2 per test) and he's averaging 32.41 with the ball. That's not really what I was expecting after hearing all the hype from the English.
So I thought I'd compare him with Giles recent record. Since 2003, Giles has played 27 Tests (not including this one), has taken 76 wickets (2.81 per test) with average of 37.8.
Worse figures yes - but consider his value with the bat. The problem with the England side is that they need to play an extra bowler to cover for Flintoff, which makes their tail longer, meaning that 1 or 2 of their bowlers need to be able to bat a little bit.
By the numbers, assuming they both take 3 wickets per test, Giles will concede 16 more runs (3 x 37.8 = 113 for Giles, 3 x 32.41 = 97 for Monty) with the ball.
With the bat in those 27 matches, Giles has scored 805 runs at 23.68, while Monty averages 10.2 (after only 5 innings, but I think this will be a fairly accurate number). If England bats twice, as they most certainly will against Australia, then Giles has value of 23.68 x 2 = 47.36, Monty 10.2 x 2 = 20.4, a difference of 26.96
Numbers can be misleading (and boring for some of you), but just from the naked eye - Giles seems to have improved since 2005. Sure Michael Clarke got into him a little bit, but Clarke is a great player of spin.
I can't blame Fletcher for taking the more defensive decision to play Giles. England holds the Ashes, so they are entitled to play more defensively to retain them.
irottev said:Can people just stfu about Monty Panesar and Giles. I think it's quite obvious that we all think Monty should be playing but it won't do any good.
If you want to bitch about bowlers, bitch about Harmison and his second slip wides like the newspapers are. The fast bowlers were terrible.
You compare the way McGrath, Lee and Clark bowled with the way Harmison, Hoggard and Anderson bowled. There is the major problem right there. The English bowlers are not in their class. Australia could give England 3 bowlers like Tait, Gillespie and Johnson who can't make the Aussie team but would all do better then H,H and A.
The Australian's are well prepared and the English arn't.
Giles isn't performing well, but that was the first innings. Who actually expects a spinner to be dominating on the first day of a test on a non-responsive? Not me! If the England bowlers don't buck up their ideas in their second bowling effort (if they get one which looks doubtful) then I would play Panesar and Giles!
aussie1st said:You are dreaming lol, Brisbane is in major drought season right now so you won't be seeing any rain to save the English.
Yeah, and all England need is for McGrath to step on a ball again.manee said:Are you forgetting Australia dominating the first test in the last ashes and what was the result there?
Drewska said:We just needs kaspa in the squad for the next test with his old getting back in the team tricks .
barmyarmy said:Just a note for all those on Giles-watch that he was dropped on 0 so we nearly didn't get 20 runs...
Sureshot said:Hoggard is better than those 3 mentioned.