England in India

Who will win this series?

  • India win both tests and ODIs

    Votes: 74 52.5%
  • India wins Tests, England wins ODIs

    Votes: 6 4.3%
  • England wins Tests, India wins ODIs

    Votes: 15 10.6%
  • Test Series Drawn, India wins ODIs

    Votes: 27 19.1%
  • Test Series Drawn, England wins ODIs

    Votes: 5 3.5%
  • England win both tests and ODIs

    Votes: 14 9.9%

  • Total voters
    141
Sureshot said:
Rubbish, so you reckon Giles would average 15 more with the bat than Keedy/Panesar?

Batting record:
Ashley Giles
Average: 26.35
50's: 22
100's: 3
Test Average: 20.72
50's: 4
100's: 0

Gary Keedy
Average: 11.17
50's: 1
100's: 0

Monty Panesar
Average: 7.79
50's: 0
100's: 0

To answer your question, yes! The main thing though is that whoever comes in for Giles need's to take more wickets than he does, otherwise the move is pointless.
 
I was basing what i said on though, with the spinner only averaging 30ish, i reckon Monty would average Mid 20s.
 
stevie said:
Batting record:
Ashley Giles
Average: 26.35
50's: 22
100's: 3
Test Average: 20.72
50's: 4
100's: 0

Gary Keedy
Average: 11.17
50's: 1
100's: 0

Monty Panesar
Average: 7.79
50's: 0
100's: 0

To answer your question, yes! The main thing though is that whoever comes in for Giles need's to take more wickets than he does, otherwise the move is pointless.

Which is why i can't fathom the re selection of Udal. He doesn't take more wickets, and his average is tosh. I think that in Panesar we have a high class spin bowler, who can do a lot with the ball. If he has a good doosra, then we have a quality spinner for the future, and the sooner he's deployed, the better.
 
It would depend on the pitch but if there was no swing probably Hoggard. That said I'd probably play 4 and 1 regardless.
 
You don't necessarily really need to turn the ball like a beast to get wickets. You also need to be able to strategize, patiently, and think the batsmen out. One prime example--Anil Kumble, who is quickly honing in on 500 wickets.
 
Well it was a good idea to retain Giles, but Udal really astonishes me. He is 36 years old, barely even turns the ball and has very little variation with his bowling. Yes, he cant bat at the end but you got Giles to do that so what is the point on persisting with Udal. Either pick Panesar as the backup spinner or play Panesar and drop Hoggard if the pitch will be turning heavily.
 
I think the team with better batting will win, in the end. Although spinners help in India, Indians are also the best players of spin. It's a funny paradox. I think the English seamers will be able to trouble the Indian batsmen more than a spinner who is included just because he is a spinner. Perhaps they should stick to their current XI.
 
Why play a spinner like Giles with an average of 46 (which will go up in India) when someone like Plunkett would average less?
 
I would keep Giles for this tour. It spins in India, so Giles will at least get some turn. Giles was useful in the Ashes, remember that ball to bowl Martyn at Old Trafford?

I would have:
Giles
Harmison
Jones
Hoggard (Batting order :p)
 
sohummisra said:
You don't necessarily really need to turn the ball like a beast to get wickets. You also need to be able to strategize, patiently, and think the batsmen out. One prime example--Anil Kumble, who is quickly honing in on 500 wickets.
Spot on! Just have a look at the Shane Warne MasterClass, if you can find it, where he says how instead of trying to aim to a target on the pitch, he imagines what shot he wants the batsman to play. Another thing from this is that spin is often irrelevant, you have to beat the batsman in flight. A traditional spinner generally uses loop and drift, someone like Kumble uses pace and sheer accuracy to keep the batsman on his toes.

Secondly, you don't need a doosra! Saqlain Mustaq's development of the doosra arguably helped kill his career. Initially it was amazing, but soon enough, batsmen knew how to pick it and he seemed to have forgotten his other abilities.

Obviously though, there is something wrong with the ECB. I think they have what I call "OMG Shane Warne!" syndrome. This is where you don't believe spinners are capable of being useful unless they are of legendary ability.

The ECB obviously has a policy of employing spinners purely to rest the pacemen. It has no other use for them, which is why they rely on players such as Giles, Udal and Blackwell. As I say, when you have "OMG Shane Warne!" Syndrome, you refuse to believe anything that any situation that has been created by a spinner of Warne's calibre could be replicated by a lesser player.

When Australia toured India in 2004, they brought with them Cameron White and Nathan Hauritz, because they believed they would be useful training tools, White bowling with a method similar to Kumble, Hauritz, a traditional off spinner. Much to everyone's surprise (indeed, shock) Hauritz proved useful, albeit, not a matchwinner, when Warne injured his thumb while practicing. Even further to everyone's amazement, Michael Clarke came in with his handy left arm spin, taking 6/9!

If you are the ECB, though, you probably don't even know this match took place, it is so far from your grip on reality.
 
Drewska said:
I would keep Giles for this tour. It spins in India, so Giles will at least get some turn. Giles was useful in the Ashes, remember that ball to bowl Martyn at Old Trafford?

I would have:
Giles
Harmison
Jones
Hoggard (Batting order :p)


He conceded 571 runs in the Ashes at an average of 57.1 !

Well said angryangy, i really feel though Panesar should go, he even went to Aus to improve his batting to enhance his chances. None of the other spinners did.
 
Yeh Lehmanns (he rocks btw) and done some movement with a son of a famous player not sure who though. Andrew might know if anyone does.
 
Forget the pitch and the conditions, and play your best team. And for England their best team is 4 seamers + 1 spinner. And from the squad that spinner has to be Giles.

If I remember the last time in 2001, when England tour India, their bowling attack wasnt probably half as good, but they still lost by only 1-0, and were unlucky not to have drawn the series, as rain intervened in one of the test matches that they looked like winning.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top