Nov 17-20: Australia A v England XI at Hobart

[Ollie_H]

Monty bowled pretty well and caused them plenty of trouble and could've easily taken more than 3 wickets.

From the few overs I saw last night, he was varying his pace quite subtly but he was so flat. Wasn't giving the ball any time to get any drift or lull the batsman down.

 

[Haarithan]

And not to forget the fact that he fielded pretty well. Man what a catch that was in the 1st innings of Ed Cowan's dismissal , for a second Monty transformed himself to Jonty

 

[War]

What are you blabbering on about now? Monty bowled pretty well and caused them plenty of trouble and could've easily taken more than 3 wickets.

What are you blaberring about.

Clearly you had to be watching a different game if you seriously suggesting that Panesar caused the AUS (A) batsmen top order "plenty of trouble". My goodness that could not have been further from the truth.

But anyway, just move on from your trip away from reality. To the question i asked based on how Monty bowled in this warm-up, if the unthinkable happens & Swann gets injured would you support Panesar playing as part of a 4-man attack (3 quicks + 1 spinner)?.

War added 17 Minutes and 18 Seconds later...

I thought Cullen had the most talent of anyone you've named there, Krejza included. Pity Dan hasn't been able to keep up his performance level. As for Krejza, I don't think you'll ever see any out and out attacking finger spinners play for Australia. They'll need to be able to shut up shop if necessary too. That's what is expected of a finger spinner here in Australia - or anywhere really. Keep it tight and exploit whatever the conditions give you. The more attacking choice is the leg spinner, and that's why I'm guessing the selectors are just gonna keep recycling spinners until Steve Smith goes to the top of the spinners pile.

And I've highlighted the most important part of your statement. It all comes down to the captain, and how much confidence he has in the spinner. No use picking one if the captain won't bowl him. And the opposite is true too: no use picking 4 quicks, if the captain still wants some overs of spin. Anyway, Doherty is obviously the apple of Ricky's eye at the moment, and that's good enough for me.

Cullen never impressed me. Looked pretty average when he first appeared on the international stage after all they hype he was getting after some solid FC bowling for South Australia. Krejza was far more impressive by some way really.

What you say about the an attacking leg-spinner being the likely preferred route for a attacking spinner. Instead of attacking off-spinner is true. But this is where AUS have to adjust to the times & what they have.

No use picking another usless tweaker ffies & left-armers, who when he gets favourable conditions is going t struggle to bowl out opposition teams. Pick the best spin option & that is Krejza who can do that role.

Tell Ponting give me a calll & i'll tell you how to use Krejza in a 5-man attack of Hilfenhaus/Bollinger/Johnson/Watson/Krejza. Really its not rocket science.

What is apple of Ponting eyes currently is not necessarily a good thing either. Especially if the selection will fail to do the job its supposed to (although Doherty could get KP a few times, if he doesn't focus).

 

[sifter132]

Well Monty had to deal with a pitch that didn't turn at all - so that cuts out half the danger of playing him. O'Keefe barely got the ball off the straight either. They showed Monty's speed graph on TV, and he was OK at varying his pace, particularly as the game went on, but he was still bowling too flat. His trajectory isn't too threatening.

I think on Cullen v Krejza, the very small number of international games they both played are a bit misleading. Cullen was fairly average for Australia compared to the times I'd seen him bowl, while Krezja really got a bag of wickets in that debut Test that I didn't think he entirely deserved. Mostly deserved, but 12? No. He basically finished off the Indian innings twice to get half of those. Too bad they'd scored stacks of runs by then... The reason I personally preferred Cullen was the flight and trajectory. Krejza seems to be a drift/turn offie - not so much emphasis on flight. Not that it matters now, Cullen's got a LONG road back

And just a bit of trivia. Out of all post-war finger spinners with strike rates under 70 and economy rates OVER 3, who has the most wickets? Hint: he's just been dropped...

That list of finger spinners with RPO over 3 and S/R under 70:
1 N.Hauritz 63 wickets
2 A.Mendis 56
3 Mahmudullah 22
4 J.Botha 15
5 R.Peterson 14
6 J.Krejza 13
G.Robertson 13

Point being that there haven't been many finger spinners who've gone for over 3 an over in Test cricket and stayed around to take a lot of wickets.

 

[Sureshot]

What are you blaberring about.

Clearly you had to be watching a different game if you seriously suggesting that Panesar caused the AUS (A) batsmen top order "plenty of trouble". My goodness that could not have been further from the truth.

But anyway, just move on from your trip away from reality. To the question i asked based on how Monty bowled in this warm-up, if the unthinkable happens & Swann gets injured would you support Panesar playing as part of a 4-man attack (3 quicks + 1 spinner)?.

Yes, he offers variety, 4-man attack will leave us in serious trouble (seeing as Bresnan would be the likely one to come in if we went with 4-men due to Swann being injured). He bowled okay in unhelpful conditions, he had several other chances during the match and on another day would've taken 6-7 wickets. On a flat pitch that's pretty decent for a spinner. He also offered control and kept things tight, which is just as important a role for the spinner to do.

 

[War]

Yes, he offers variety, 4-man attack will leave us in serious trouble (seeing as Bresnan would be the likely one to come in if we went with 4-men due to Swann being injured). He bowled okay in unhelpful conditions, he had several other chances during the match and on another day would've taken 6-7 wickets. On a flat pitch that's pretty decent for a spinner. He also offered control and kept things tight, which is just as important a role for the spinner to do.

Firstly you need to "define" variety. Since for me variety a spinner @ test level is the ability to bowl on teams on last day wearing wickets.

Panesar showed none of that in that warm-up even though he wasn't bowling on a seamer friendly wicket. He looked like the same Panesar who was struggling between India 2007 - Cardiff 2009. Lack of spin & just pushing it through @ one-pace.

Picking a pacer in one of Tremlett or Shazad would be far more sensible pick if the unthinkable were to happen & Swann got injured. Given the conditions in AUS this series (judging by soem of the domestic games of late) could be fairly seamer friendly.

The 4th seamer isn't guaranteed to aid in helping us to take 20 AUS wickets either, since the hole Swann would leave if he got injured is almost irreplaceable - but its certainly a better option as replacement than a useless tweaker like Panesar who is highly unlikely to spin out AUS top 7, if he gets a last day turner.

 

[Sureshot]

I don't see the credance in your statement of "useless tweaker" he has taken 8 5-wicket hauls, one of which was in Aus last time around, he's also been in pretty decent form for us last season. Of course he can never be a replacement for Swann, but he's good enough to warrant his place should the conditions suggest a spinner is needed.

By variety, I meant the spin option.

 

[RoboRocks]

I see War's point, in a sense. He doesn't seem to be spinning the ball like he used to. I know the pitch wasn't that helpful, but I would have expected him to grip a few.

I would have gone for Rashid. He gives England more options with batting and fielding, plus he's been the leading English spinner over the last 2-3 years. But he seems, of no fault of his own, to be completely out of favor.

At the very least, as Sureshot said, he could do a job for England, which is more more than you could say for Australian spinners recently.

 

[MUFC1987]

Rashid was never in contention. He needs a break, his coach at Yorkshire lead the calls for that, so he was never going to make the squad. That's why he's not in the Performance program either.

Panesar is an experienced backup, with the variety of turning the ball the other way, if we want to play both spinners. Yes, he didn't rip through Australia A, but he did a decent job on a pitch offering him very little. I think he did well personally.

 

[RoboRocks]

Rashid was never in contention. He needs a break, his coach at Yorkshire lead the calls for that, so he was never going to make the squad. That's why he's not in the Performance program either

Why would he need a rest? He's played as much cricket as Panesar has. England just don't seem to want to pick him. They haven't given him a fair chance to prove himself.

I did hear a rumor that Rashid fell out with Andrew Strauss, although I'm not sure whether that's true. For some reason they haven't given him a single chance, whilst Monty's had plenty of chances.

 

[MUFC1987]

He's played cricket 12 months a year for 4 or 5 years practically. An Ashes series is not the time to blood a young player, no matter what talent he may have. The selectors went with the experienced option and a player that is in decent form the past year. It's not like they picked somebody useless just to spite Rashid.

 

[RoboRocks]

He's played cricket 12 months a year for 4 or 5 years practically.

Not really. He went on tours to West Indies and South Africa and just carried drinks. He played as much cricket as Panesar from what I can see.

 

[pcfan123]

I thought Monty bowled well but he bowled the same ol Monty style. Flat and fast and if he is hit for a boundary, then flatter and faster for the next few deliveries.

 

[Sureshot]

Why would he need a rest? He's played as much cricket as Panesar has. England just don't seem to want to pick him. They haven't given him a fair chance to prove himself.

I did hear a rumor that Rashid fell out with Andrew Strauss, although I'm not sure whether that's true. For some reason they haven't given him a single chance, whilst Monty's had plenty of chances.

As a back-up you should go with someone with experience. Monty has bowled in Australia before, you know what you get. He'll keep it tight, get a few wickets here and there and possibly pick up some 5 wicket hauls.

I think Rashid is a great prospect, but lets not destroy another leg-spinner before his career has started. Give Monty his dues, he bowled well at Sussex this year and has got over 100 wickets and was our #1 spinner for a couple of years and had decent results.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

I thought Monty bowled well but he bowled the same ol Monty style. Flat and fast and if he is hit for a boundary, then flatter and faster for the next few deliveries.

I didn't get to see the match, but from what I read he didn't do too bad a job. As long as he's performing better than hauritz, england should feel safe