Panesar second spinner or key figure

[flanflinger]

There have been some interesting public statements from the England Camp this week.

Fletcher claimed Panesar was the "Second Spinner" with Dalrymple being the major player. While Vaughan (after the game) claimed Monty could be the key factor in England doing well at the World Cup.

Now I know what most of you guys will be thinking, and I am of the same opinion. But surely Fletcher cannot be as blinkered as we like to think when it comes to Monty. Was Fletcher playing mind games, or is it his actual opinion?

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/wc200...ry/284732.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/...ies/article.do

[Rachael]

Today's Torygraph report on yesterday's ODI noted that Monty came on as 6th change. This was taken to indicate that Monty was NOT considered a first-XI player. I also heard / read elsewhere that Monty only got to bowl at 6th change because Vaughan and Flintoff left the field: Collingwood apparently made the change immediately!

Another observation I noted this morning was to the effect that Nathan Bracken had shown the way to bowl on the pitch in question... but that only Collingwood (hmmm, same "thinking" player) had shown the gumption to heed the masterclass: are the rest simply incapable of bowling cutters? I hope not!

[Nostromo]

Neither Panesar nor Dalrymple has been playing at the top level long enough to answer this question easily. If the team selection allows only one spinner, then Dalrymple would have to be the first choice because of his superior batting ability. With the current slowness of WI wickets, it might be tempting to consider playing both spinners but that might turn out to be an expensive mistake, particuarly against the subcontinental teams who are good in negotiating the turning ball. Moreover, the lack of bounce of the wickets would be a disadvantage to most spinners and someone like Panesar could go for runs on such surfaces.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Today's Torygraph report on yesterday's ODI noted that Monty came on as 6th change.

But when he did come on he was by far the best bowler on show (from an England point of view). Maybe they went into the game with an attack in mind, but some players (Lewis, Plunkett and in Australia's case Johnson) may have played themselves out of contention while others (Panesar and again in Aus's case Clark) may have made a very case.

Vaughan was always likely to leave the field early, and Flintoff was forced off, so it may have been the plan to get Monty on at that stage, and it just happened to be when Collingwood was in charge.

For me the big decision, and the one we are nowhere near settling, is who opens with Anderson, as none of the candidates covered themselves in glory.

[EllN]

i too would pick plunkett over lewis only because lewis will get no assitance from the pitch an due to his slow natural will be much more liable to go for runs whereas plunket has pace and bounce, though also can be quiet expensive so i dont think either will be ugh succces this world cup, where is stuart broad, he should be gaining valuble experiance in a tornement like this, surley he should have beenn brought in over lewis, my team for the game against new zeland
vaughan
bell- deffently good enough to open
pietersen- get him in early as possible
joyce-KEPPER lets try him in the middle order could be more effective against an older ball an cant be much worse than nixon with the gloves, with a bit of work
strauss- has showed ability to make runs in this position, much morw effective in the middle order9 showed it late in the comwealth series)
collingwood- good finisher
flintoff- the later for flintoff the better for england much more effective in the last 10 overs wher there is no pressure
bopara- beter bat than dalrymple and could be far more economical then dalrymple's right arm dobbers
plunket- potential match winner wicket taker and useful to bat lower down in the last 5 overs
anderson- opening bowler swing bowler an can be a wicket taker regualrly
panasar- if he slows down and gives it slightly more flight then really could be dangerous though regardless of flight very economical

I CAN DREAM CAN'T I

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by EllN

I CAN DREAM CAN'T I

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

There is no point talking about Broad, he isn't there, I doubt he would have played and the A tour is the better place for him. (better than carrying drinks in the Caribbean!!)

[Rachael]

Joyce needs to open: he is at his best using the pace and bounce of the new ball to work the gaps.. and once the ball goes soft on a slow and low pitch he's unable to play his natural game.

[pie_chucker]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

Fletcher claimed Panesar was the "Second Spinner" with Dalrymple being the major player. While Vaughan (after the game) claimed Monty could be the key factor in England doing well at the World Cup.

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

Panesar could well be our trump card if the pitches stay low and turn. Dalrymple simply isnt interantional class to be first choice spinner IMO he's our second spinner and sixth bowler.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

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

None of the England selectors should be selectors, we know just what Fletcher and Vaughan are capable of with the way they treated Read in the West Indies in 2004.

Originally Posted by flanflinger

and Flintoff was forced off,

Why was Flintoff forced off?, I knew he went off the park, but that's all.

Originally Posted by EllN 132302

i too would pick plunkett over lewis only because lewis

Yes so would I, Lewis is IMO a poor mans Hoggard - Fraser, take your pick.
[quote=EllNbell- deffently good enough to open[/QUOTE]Why? - he gets some good scores, but is not consistent enough to open, he may do well on these dead wickets.

Originally Posted by EllN

I CAN DREAM CAN'T I

Originally Posted by flanflinger

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

Says it all .

[Nostromo]

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

Panesar could well be our trump card if the pitches stay low and turn.

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.