Panesar second spinner or key figure

[adamberry]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Hopefully Fletchers playing mind games! If not this shows why he should be coach but not a selector.

He's not doing a very good coaching job if he's saying Panesar is the second spinner, that would be at least the second time he has blatently undermined any confidence Monty has in his own ability. The sooner we ditch the [sarcasm]"wonder coach"[/sarcasm] of English cricket the better.

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Dalrymple simply isnt interantional class to be first choice spinner IMO he's our second spinner and sixth bowler.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Joyce with the gloves, Bopara over Dalyrmple, Bell opening, Flintoff as low down as possible.. your dream is my nightmare.

I would pick Bopara over Dalrymple, IMO he's a better bat and his bowling isn't any worse than Dalrymple's at the best of times. I know I've given Dally plenty of time, but I cannot think of a single worthy performance he's produced with the ball, and that's worrying.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by adamberry

He's not doing a very good coaching job if he's saying Panesar is the second spinner, that would be at least the second time he has blatently undermined any confidence Monty has in his own ability. The sooner we ditch the [sarcasm]"wonder coach"[/sarcasm] of English cricket the better.

I would pick Bopara over Dalrymple, IMO he's a better bat and his bowling isn't any worse than Dalrymple's at the best of times. I know I've given Dally plenty of time, but I cannot think of a single worthy performance he's produced with the ball, and that's worrying.

As a coach Fletcher is second to none. It would be a massive backward step IMO hiring an even bigger "wonder coach" like Bob Woolmer. Although I agree it wasnt the cleverest thing to say about your premier spinner, unless he was trying to take the pressure off him .

Originally Posted by Nostromo 132351

Are you sure? "Turn" certainly, but "low"? Yes, a low bounce might initially slow the scoring down, but batsmen from India, Pakistan & Sri Lanka are used to low, turning wickets and are likely to adapt to the conditions. Spinners rely on good bounce as well as turn to get wickets; somehow, I cannot see Panesar being that threatening to the likes of Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Yousuf, Jayawardane etc if the bounce is low. Even if the ball is 'pushed through', it might give the batsman enough time to come down the wicket since the low bounce reduces the risk of missing altogether and getting stumped.

I'm sure Panesar will be fine. So far in his fledgling international career he's bowled at plenty of great players of spin and gotten them all out! Yes spinners do like bounce but Monty can give the ball a rip and he got enough bounce on the subcontinent to trouble the bats so no worries with Monty. Its the likes of Lewis and Mahmood who worry me.

[acker]

I'm surprised dunc the doughnut dunker has'nt called his former favorite welding goggled tweeker Ashley Giles for some inspired advice on this subject.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by adamberry

I know I've given Dally plenty of time, but I cannot think of a single worthy performance he's produced with the ball, and that's worrying.

When we did the England WAT side this year I argued for Dalrymple's inclusion as a batsman that can bowl (to say nothing of field): if you judge him as a multi-dimensional batsman he's been a great success - no-one in the England side has looked as composed, as capable of adjusting to the match situation, as competent at scoring when the spinners are taking the pace off the ball on slow and low tracks and as confident of doing the right thing at the right time as the closing overs approach.

Now factor in Collingwood-like fielding, and bowling that is pretty passable at ODI level (and should be fine in support of Panesar at Test level for the next tour to the sub-continent).... and he's surely one of the recent success stories.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by Rachael

When we did the England WAT side this year I argued for Dalrymple's inclusion as a batsman that can bowl (to say nothing of field): if you judge him as a multi-dimensional batsman he's been a great success - no-one in the England side has looked as composed, as capable of adjusting to the match situation, as competent at scoring when the spinners are taking the pace off the ball on slow and low tracks and as confident of doing the right thing at the right time as the closing overs approach.

But during the winter in competitive games, I've seen nothing with bat or ball that has been even above average from him.

Originally Posted by Rachael

Now factor in Collingwood-like fielding, and bowling that is pretty passable at ODI level (and should be fine in support of Panesar at Test level for the next tour to the sub-continent).... and he's surely one of the recent success stories.

Please No. If we are to take 2 spinners to the sub continent take 2 "proper" ones. Surely even England can find 2 spinners to take to the subcontinent. Granted, if he learns to vary his flight and pace then yes he could make a passable 2nd spinner but until then he would be cannon fodder.

[greg]

Fletcher hasn't learnt from his almighty **** up in November then when he made Pansear 2nd choice behind Giles.Still what do you expect from someone who thought Geraint Jones should play ahead of Read.

[greatbear]

It's unbelievable! How can any one call Monty as a second spinner? What mind games can be here? I for one don't see any. Who is concerned about these mind games from the coach of a team which rarely wins a one-day match? The only thing it can lead to is unnecessary pressure on Monty or the undermining of his confidence. What's Fletcher thinking of? First of all, even if he thinks Monty so lowly, the guy is now a component of your World Cup squad - so what's the point of such a statement? Really, Fletcher, who was doing a good job till some time back, is going senile now, I think, with no disrespect meant to him.

Regarding Dalrymple, actually I would be happy to see him dumped for Bopara, but only if England would have played Bopara more in the CB series. Now, it would be risky. Maybe, what England can try is that it can try both Dalrymple and Bopara in the games against minnows, and see if it can make a judgement. Though, minnows might not at all lead to a fair judgement. Best now to retain Dalrymple, and look elsewhere after the World Cup. As a spinner, by the way, I had like Gareth Batty much - I don't know what happened to him. And he was an obdurate bat - and I thought could have been polished in a useful lower-order bat one fine day. Personally, I would be much happier than the big-hearted combination of James Foster and Gareth Batty replacing Nixon and Dalrymple after the World Cup.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by greatbear

It's unbelievable! How can any one call Monty as a second spinner? What mind games can be here? .

The mind game would obviously be in making the opposition think Panesar was the second spinner, only to play him as first spinner.
Even so - a fully fit Giles - a match fit Giles would be just as efective as Panesar in ONE DAY CRICKET.

[pie_chucker]

But would a better combination be a fully fit Giles in for Dalrymple and then still play Panesar?

[greg]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

But would a better combination be a fully fit Giles in for Dalrymple and then still play Panesar?

Is Giles fully fit though?