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

[War]

Not very respectful with your arguments.


And an open minded debate means you should be open to accepting you're wrong. You won't do that.


Monty has bowled well according to all the reports I've read so far. You're the only one who has said otherwise.

. Dear god where is all this coming from. Apparantley apologising for something i know i didn't do isn't good enough for you???. Now i'm not very respectful in my posts?. This is getting ridiculous now, what kind of foolish mischaracterisation of my posting is going on here now??

Secondly. I dont recall ever haven any of much debate with you on this forum with regardless to anything. So your suggestion that i dont admit i am wrong in debates or whatever is so blatantly false i wont even argue. I probably spend most of my time debating with a small group of AUS members & contructive debate on point is always present.

It seems like some of you has had this on your chest for a while.


Going back to Panesar deabte. The only way, one will be able to prove whether my assertion that Panesar will be useless if picked vs the assertion of others that he will be useful if picked. Is if the hypotetical scenario of Swann getting injured occurs & he has to play. Otherwise we are debating on conjecture based on the facts of current bowling form - which their certainly is right or wrong facts.

You might want to say "im the only one on planetcricket" who has said otherwise. Of course the world of cricket opinion does not evolve around this site & i know alot of smart cricket friends of mine who share my same question marks over the what use Panesar can have to ENG team currently.

Keeping things tight, flattish trajectory, that's Monty's style and brought him success last season. I'm sure the selectors knew that when they picked him. There aren't any better alternatives to a backup spinner at the moment, so Monty's on tour. If England need two spinners, or if the conditions call for some spin and Swann's injured, Monty will play and I'm sure England's plans will revolve around the fact that Monty contains better than he attacks.

It brought him success in county cricket in Divsion 2 - the lowest format in the county game. You ought to think about that & caution yourself, when you talk about his "success" last season.

That style also caused him to decline significantly as test bowler between IND 2007 - Cardiff 2009. When he went back to county cricket he was suppose to eradicate that & its quite obvious from the recent A-team vs ENG that nothing has changed.

They are indeed no better alternatives as back-up spinner. But you dont pick a spinner just for the sake of it. You pick one with the 100% assurance that if called upon - the spinner can do the main job of a test match spinner. Which is to be a wicket-taking force threat on turners/wearing 5th day wickets. Unforuntely Panesar, Tredwell, Rashid does not offer ENG that assurance. Which is why no other spinner other than Swann should have been in the Ashes squad.

If Swann gets injured as i said before. The best tactical replacement is to pick the 4th seamer.

Plus no way could ENG play 2 spinners & not ridiculously mess up the team balance. Swann on his own if he gets real turner can do a one man wrecking job againts AUS batsmen i'd say.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

England have a 4th seamer. Panesar is there pretty much if the pitch is a turner and they need 2 spinners or Swann isn't available.

A spinner is also very useful to get through overs quickly, or if conditions are hot and difficult to bowl in and you need someone to hold up one end while you rotate the quicks. I doubt Panesar would be picked for either reason -a specialist number 11 who isn't great in the field doesn't justify such a role, and they have Collingwood and KP to help with both jobs- but there is merit to picking a spinner even if he isn't going to rip through sides.

You simply don't always pick a spinner just to take wickets or run through sides. There is more tactical depth to that.

I didn't see him bowl live myself, but I remember the issue with him during his decline wasn't so much his style, but that he became really predictable. I even remember his problem being phrased as in the batsmen knew what to expect each and every ball. His pinpoint accuracy went from being his strength to his weakness, and his inability -due to form, lack of confidence, lack of skill, or whatever- to vary his bowling or to deceive the batsmen led to him being rather ineffective. He was very one-dimensional.

If he has fixed that and is varying his flight and pace more, even if it's with mostly a flatter trajectory, then I'd say he's done his job.

And Panesar has always been able to spin the ball. Maybe not as much as Swann, but certainly more than Hauritz, Ojha and the like. Flat, accurate and with a bit of turn is always useful on a turning wicket. Broad/Swann/Anderson/Panesar seems very reasonable on a turning wicket too, with Colly as third seamer if needed.

 

[War]

England have a 4th seamer. Panesar is there pretty much if the pitch is a turner and they need 2 spinners or Swann isn't available.

The 4th seamer should play if Swann gets injured.

ENG will never need to play 2 spinners, without it serious messing up the team balance. Swann himself on a turner can run through AUS batsmen.

A spinner is also very useful to get through overs quickly, or if conditions are hot and difficult to bowl in and you need someone to hold up one end while you rotate the quicks. I doubt Panesar would be picked for either reason -a specialist number 11 who isn't great in the field doesn't justify such a role, and they have Collingwood and KP to help with both jobs- but there is merit to picking a spinner even if he isn't going to rip through sides.

You simply don't always pick a spinner just to take wickets or run through sides. There is more tactical depth to that.

Regardless if condtions are hot or not or the need to get through overs. If the spinner isn't getting wickets or is being hit out of the attack. The captain attack will still be forced to bring back the fast bowlers to get him wickets or hold up and end for him.

I didn't see him bowl live myself, but I remember the issue with him during his decline wasn't so much his style, but that he became really predictable. I even remember his problem being phrased as in the batsmen knew what to expect each and every ball. His pinpoint accuracy went from being his strength to his weakness, and his inability -due to form, lack of confidence, lack of skill, or whatever- to vary his bowling or to deceive the batsmen led to him being rather ineffective. He was very one-dimensional.

If he has fixed that and is varying his flight and pace more, even if it's with mostly a flatter trajectory, then I'd say he's done his job.

Nah he hasn't fixed it based on what he bowled in the A-Team game. The same correct description you described above which made him one-dimentional between IND 2007 - Cardiff 2009 quite clearly still exists.

And Panesar has always been able to spin the ball. Maybe not as much as Swann, but certainly more than Hauritz, Ojha and the like. Flat, accurate and with a bit of turn is always useful on a turning wicket. Broad/Swann/Anderson/Panesar seems very reasonable on a turning wicket too, with Colly as third seamer if needed.

I'm sorry but thats crazy tactics. Such a bowling attack would be suicide.

Anderson/Braod aren't good enough as a new-ball attack on the level of Donald/Pollock, McGrath/Gilespie. WHo can bowl on flat wickets effectively (ability to reverse swing the ball), which would make them a useful asset on non seamer friendly wickets. It would be madness for ENG to play such a 4-man attack & i you dont even have to take my word for it. The last two times ENG played on flat/turners away from home:

- 5th Test: West Indies v England at Port of Spain, Mar 6-10, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

- 2nd Test: Bangladesh v England at Dhaka, Mar 20-24, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

As you can they significantly weakened their batting line-up even againts Bangladesh since they knew the bowling attack as a simple 4-man attack didn't have the ability to 20 wickets on flat/turning surfaces.

Thus if a similar surface appears in AUS this Ashes. Such as in Adelaide or Sydney, i'm fairly condifent ENG would not weaken their batting like than in AUS to accomodate two spinners.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Swapping Panesar for Finn really isn't weakening the batting too much.

And Anderson and Broad have both shown to be capable of reverse swing. If the pitch has nothing in it for the seamers, then I doubt Finn would make much of a difference anyways. Better off sticking with Panesar and seeing if he works.

And your examples are a bit contradictory. You say they didn't work, yet in both instances having 2 spinners proved very effective in the second innings. 5/47 between them against WI in 40.5 overs, and 6/155 in 64 overs against BD. Not the greatest strike rates, sure, but it's hard to say 3 seamers + Swann would have gone any better. And, as you said, the pitches were flat at first and then started to take turn. All the bowlers were poor in the first innings, can't use that as proof to show that they should have stuck with 3 seamers and Swann. For all you know it could have gone even worse if they did.

ZoraxDoom added 1 Minutes and 26 Seconds later...

Oh, and like I said, several reports say Panesar bowled well, bowled better than he used to. Why should those who didn't see the game take your word over all the other reports? How can you show us that Panesar hasn't changed? Just stating it doesn't make you right.

 

[angryangy]

Quality, not quantity.

 

[Themer]

Oh, and like I said, several reports say Panesar bowled well, bowled better than he used to. Why should those who didn't see the game take your word over all the other reports? How can you show us that Panesar hasn't changed? Just stating it doesn't make you right.

I don't see how War can say Monty bowled poorly. Yes there hasn't been much in the way of obvious changes/improvement but he varied his pace a bit, was accurate and took a few wickets on what wasn't even close to be a spinners track.

And War 4 seamers just isn't going to work, especially if its a flat pitch as its just going to ground the bowlers into the ground. Its a pretty basic cricketing principle that you have a bowler who can keep reeling off overs, keeping it tight and thus creating pressure at the other end all while allowing other bowlers to be rested. You also said that England should use Colly/KP in said situation to allow the bowlers to breathe a bit which would just end up with Australia getting all the momentum as they are whacked around; something that Monty will not be.

I refer you to the England attack of the 2005 Ashes where Giles played despite his very average figures he performed a very decent job for England keeping it tight (bar the first game) and allowing Jones, Harmison, Flintoff and to a lesser extent Hoggard (mainly because he was pretty awful with an older ball) to rotate

 

[War]

Swapping Panesar for Finn really isn't weakening the batting too much.

And Anderson and Broad have both shown to be capable of reverse swing. If the pitch has nothing in it for the seamers, then I doubt Finn would make much of a difference anyways. Better off sticking with Panesar and seeing if he works.

And your examples are a bit contradictory. You say they didn't work, yet in both instances having 2 spinners proved very effective in the second innings. 5/47 between them against WI in 40.5 overs, and 6/155 in 64 overs against BD. Not the greatest strike rates, sure, but it's hard to say 3 seamers + Swann would have gone any better. And, as you said, the pitches were flat at first and then started to take turn. All the bowlers were poor in the first innings, can't use that as proof to show that they should have stuck with 3 seamers and Swann. For all you know it could have gone even worse if they did.

ZoraxDoom added 1 Minutes and 26 Seconds later...

Oh, and like I said, several reports say Panesar bowled well, bowled better than he used to. Why should those who didn't see the game take your word over all the other reports? How can you show us that Panesar hasn't changed? Just stating it doesn't make you right.

Swaping Panesr for Finn certainly does weakening the batting. Since ENG would drop a batsman to accomodate 5 bowlers.

England would never play a 4-man attack of Anderson/Braod/Swann/Panesar because of the deficiences of the Anderson & Braod bowling on flat pitches. None of them are very good bowlers on flat wickets & none of them can reverse-swing the ball with to any degree (compared to a new-ball attack as i said before of Steyn/Morkel, McGrath/Gillespie, Donald/Pollock, Ambrose/Walsh in which a team can risk playing a simple 4-man attack with two spinners). I dont know what you have been watching if you are seriously are going to tell me - that Anderson & Braod can reverse swing the ball. Thats madness, neither of them have ever shown the ability to reverse swing the ball (duke, SG or kookubura) over a sustained period in their respective test careers to date.

As those two test in Port of Spain 2009 & in Bangladesh clearly showed. Without Flintoff in the attack as an all-rounder to aid in balancing things out. If ENG want to play 2 spinner they would have to weaken their top 6 & bat Braod @ 7 in order to have a 5-man attack. The fact that they did it in Bangladesh of all places pretty much proves that they would never try such a tactic in AUS, especially given ENG top 6 isn't exactly super strong. Its a terrible tactic.

Finally on Panesar i'm not even the only one in this thread who said Panesar hasn't changed. So it has nothing to do with taking my word for it, since other people have come to same conclusion as me:

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/1992214-post176.html

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.

http://www.planetcricket.org/forums/1992257-post181.html

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..

So thats good enough for me. I disagree with anyone esle who saw otherwise in Panesar's bowling (you yourself said you didnt even see the game) in the A team game.

War added 17 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

I don't see how War can say Monty bowled poorly. Yes there hasn't been much in the way of obvious changes/improvement but he varied his pace a bit, was accurate and took a few wickets on what wasn't even close to be a spinners track.

As i have said & others have said in this thread. It was the same old Monty that was struggling between IND 2007 - AUS 2009.

And War 4 seamers just isn't going to work, especially if its a flat pitch as its just going to ground the bowlers into the ground. Its a pretty basic cricketing principle that you have a bowler who can keep reeling off overs, keeping it tight and thus creating pressure at the other end all while allowing other bowlers to be rested. You also said that England should use Colly/KP in said situation to allow the bowlers to breathe a bit which would just end up with Australia getting all the momentum as they are whacked around; something that Monty will not be.

I refer you to the England attack of the 2005 Ashes where Giles played despite his very average figures he performed a very decent job for England keeping it tight (bar the first game) and allowing Jones, Harmison, Flintoff and to a lesser extent Hoggard (mainly because he was pretty awful with an older ball) to rotate

4 seamers of a certain quality will can certainy work even on flat pitch once they all have the ability the revese swing the old ball. I.e windies 4-man attack of the 70s n 80s, ENG 05 Ashes quartet etc

If the 4th innings of test match your spinner is just keeping it tight & not proving to be a wicket-taking threat. As was recently shown in the Pakistan vs South Africa series of the 1st test AUS vs IND (when Hauritz was smashed around). The spinner is usless because those are the conditions where he is supposed to step up & bowl out teams. If he is not doing that, the captain will have to bring back the quick men anyway & bowl them into the ground since, the spinner wouldn't be doing his job.

Of course an ENG 4-man pace attack of Anderson/Broad/Finn or Tremlett/Shazad. Is no where near past great 4-man attacks. But in the event of Swann getting injured, picking Shazad is the best tactical replacement since he can reverse the old ball & IMO he will be a far more likely wicket-taking threat than Panesar in a 4-man attack. Who (Panesar) based on recent evidence willl not be a wicket-taking threat on a turner nor will be able to tie AUS batsmen down, he will be hit off his lenght.


The difference between the Ashes 05 attack to now was the presence of Flintoff, who enabled us the play 5 bowlers. If we never had Flintoff, ENG & Fletcher may have considered playing 4 quicks fairly regularly.

But Giles was also a far more accomplised spinner than Panesar ever was on turning pitches shown by his record in the sub-continent & various turining tracks around the world (although Giles didn't spin out AUS on the 4th day @ OT 2005). So i'd be far more comfortable if Giles played in 4-man attack, since he has a record for one to trust he can be do a job in such a role. Although i still would consider playing an all-pace attack, since Giles always worked best in a 5-man attack.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Both your quotes are irrelevant. We were discussing whether Monty bowled well, not what his style is. The second one blatantly says he bowled well.

Well, only 1 quote is irrelevant.

So congrats, you have 1 person agreeing with you. Barely. I'm convinced.


I'm pretty certain Broad and Anderson could handle the job. Or rather, the selectors could have faith in them to do the job. That's all speculation, we won't know till the opportunity arises.

And I have seen Anderson reverse the ball, in India I think? Or was it in England?

Dunnow about Broad, but I'd guess he'd manage it. High 80s, bowls full and straight, can get regular late swing so no reason he shouldn't manage reverse swing.

 

[War]

Both your quotes are irrelevant. We were discussing whether Monty bowled well, not what his style is. The second one blatantly says he bowled well.

Well, only 1 quote is irrelevant.

So congrats, you have 1 person agreeing with you. Barely. I'm convinced.

For me that is not bowling well, since as i said before i was expecting to see improvments in his style which made him decline so significantly between IND 2007 - Cardiff 2009.

Obviously as others have highlighted like me that style which made him decline is still present. Thus he should not have been in the Ashes squad & if he plays in an Ashes test i expect him to struggle again.

I'm pretty certain Broad and Anderson could handle the job. Or rather, the selectors could have faith in them to do the job. That's all speculation, we won't know till the opportunity arises.

And I have seen Anderson reverse the ball, in India I think? Or was it in England?

Dunnow about Broad, but I'd guess he'd manage it. High 80s, bowls full and straight, can get regular late swing so no reason he shouldn't manage reverse swing.

You are pretty certain based on what?. Magic?.

The selectors dont have faith that that ENGs pacers currently can accomodate a simple 4-man attack with two spinners without Flintoff around on flat overseas pitches. The POS test vs Windies 09 & vs Bangladesh earlier actually did happen - thats not speculation sir, i didn't invent those test matches.

So again it is fairly obvious that if they didn't have the faith in them in weak countries in Windies & BANG to play a 4-man attack - they certainly would not do so in AUS if the possibility arises again.


Anderson have never reverse-swung the ball in ENG or IND my friend. Really you dont know what you are talking about. The only time i recall Anderson reverse-swinging the ball was the 2009 Trindiad test in the final innings for a short period. Otherwise never again for any sustained period. Anderson lack of being able to reverse-swing the ball is one of the reasons many people fear he may struggle in the Ashes if he doesn't get seaming conditions.

Plus Broad has never done it also. His strenght is back of lenght bowler like Johnson or Morkel who. Who hits the deck & looks to rush/test batsmen on the back foot, with a bit of seam movement. Such bowlers dont really pitch the ball up & thus struggle to reverse-swing the ball on flat pitches.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

No no, I do remember Anderson reversing the ball quite well.


You're now confusing Monty's style.

It was established what his problem was was that he was too predictable and 1 dimensional. ie, not varying flight and pace.

Not that he bowled flat as his default trajectory.

He bowled well in that he bowled in his style. Flat trajectory.

ZoraxDoom added 3 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...

James Anderson bowls reverse swing

He’s bowled well all series, in fact, in conditions which haven’t helped anyone. He’s swung the new ball, like he always does, but now he reverse swings the ball with the best of them as well. Not many bowlers swing the new ball both in and out, not many bowlers bowl reverse swing and even fewer reverse swing it both ways. James Anderson can do the lot.

Posted in 2009

Currently which bowlers are the best exponents of reverse swing ? - Yahoo! Answers

I have observed deeply being a big fan of cricket that natural action of bowler should also support he reverse swing, balls doesn't show this behavior only by techniques.

According to me

1. James Anderson
2. Muhammad Aamir
3. Pravin Kumar
4. Dale Stane

I'd take that with a grain of salt since Praveen Kumar's on the list and Steyn's last name is misspelled

James Anderson into the swing just in time for the Ashes | Cricket

He should be handed the new ball only for as long as it swings — usually half a dozen overs or so — and then kept fresh until the ball ages and swings in reverse. This should be the time that Anderson is at his most dangerous.

March 2010


Yea...so you're the one who doesn't know what he's on about.

 

[War]

You're now confusing Monty's style.

It was established what his problem was was that he was too predictable and 1 dimensional. ie, not varying flight and pace.

Not that he bowled flat as his default trajectory.

He bowled well in that he bowled in his style. Flat trajectory.

In the recent A-game is the one-dimentional predicatable style was still present. Which made him struggle between IND 2007 - Cardiff 2009.

His default trajectory was always flat with a bit of turn. Its just that in his first year of international cricket from IND 2006-Windies 2007. Batsmen didn't played him for a turn too much. As batsmen (started with the Indian in 07) starting playing him as a spinner with no turn - Monty failed to adjust & suddenly that successfull style became a problem.

No no, I do remember Anderson reversing the ball quite well.



ZoraxDoom added 3 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...

James Anderson bowls reverse swing



Posted in 2009

OMFG. Can't you read, did i not just say that ONLY time i ever saw Anderson reverse-swing the ball was the 2009 Trindiad test in the final innings????:

5th Test: West Indies v England at Port of Spain, Mar 6-10, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

So in your useless search on the net you found an article in March 2009 which says he did, when the Trinidad test was in March 2009. Thats proves my point.

However as i also said the reverse-swing he got then was for a very short period in one-spell. Since then in series after that vs AUS, SA, PAK when he has gotten flat pitches again he has replicated that reverse swing. Thus we can take the on spell performance as maybe a fluke/accident from Mr.Anderson. Since it is quite clear he is not great exponent of reverse-swing bowling.

Currently which bowlers are the best exponents of reverse swing ? - Yahoo! Answers


I'd take that with a grain of salt since Praveen Kumar's on the list and Steyn's last name is misspelled.

Steyn & Aamir definatey can & have reverse-swung the ball. Thats common cricket knowledge.

The wrtier is correct to include Anderson if as he suggests Anderson has the right bowling action to bowl reverse-swing. But he hasn't done it consistently enough.

The less said about Kumar the better.

Overall thats not a creditable article by any journalist or anything. Just random people stating opinions on yahoo forums where smart cricket discussion isn't its forte.

I find it quite weird that you have go through random internet searches to try & prove your point though. , if you had watched most of Anderson test since his debut in 2003 this would not be a debate.

James Anderson into the swing just in time for the Ashes | Cricket

March 2010


Yea...so you're the one who doesn't know what he's on about.

OMFG. This is insane now.

Where in that article did Mr.Agnew even suggest that Anderson bowled reverse-swing in the recent English home summer vs PAK??.

Dear god, the man was clearly complementing Andersons excellent control of conventional swing bowling in one the test - not reverse swing bowling.

He also also is suggesting what he hopes as most ENG do what Anderson may be able to accomplish with the old ball in AUS & hopefully reverse-swing that ball. But the same hope was casted last winter in S Africa & he struggled when the ball wasn't swinging. So clearly the jury is still out on him.

 

[shravi]

I'm sorry, what are you guys arguing about again? I seem to have forgotten...

 

[Themer]

That's odd. Anderson's got it reversing swinging here and yet War assured me that he could do no such thing. Odd.

 

[War]

That's odd. Anderson's got it reversing swinging here and yet War assured me that he could do no such thing. Odd.

Where is "here"?. Your imagination?

 

[Themer]

Yes, I'm imagining the 1st test match of the Ashes. Sorry for that.

Themer added 8 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

Anderson's definitely got it going a bit here War. Looking forward to see how you claim that you've watched Anderson play and he can't reverse swing it from here.