Just for the record, Panesar has a better average, strik rate and rpo than Vettori. I'm not which Singh your on about so can't compare. Murali is more of a wrist spinner if anything. Regarding your second sentence just because the England management thinks something is true does not necessarily make it right.

You can not talk about Panesar being better than Vettori because he has a better average and strike rate. Yes but he has only played 10 matches.

It would be the same as saying Stuart Clark is a better bowler than Bond, McGrath, Flintoff, Lillee, Vaas, Pollock, Donald, Akram, Younis, Garner, Holding, Walsh, Ambrose and Hadlee. Just because his career bowling average is 17.

Muralitharan is an offspinner so he is in the same catagory as Monty. The Singh I am talking about is Harbhajan Singh.

__________________
Bill Ponsford - The only one who could play in Bradman’s company and make it a duet.

OK Quag. I didn't say he was better. You said he wasn't in the same class, it is my assertion he is. He has only played 10 games but to be fair they were against India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka who you would imagine would be pretty good players of spin.

I agree with you about relying on stats over a small sample range, I was just using them as a guide as I'm not sure how much of him you've seen.

Let me take you back to 2005. The English media and every English member of this forum was stunned that Mike Hussey wasn't in the Aussie team - based on what he showed for Durham and stacking that up against how the actual team were performing (he could have replaced Hayden, Martin or Clarke). Had he been the Ashes outcome would more than likely been different. It wasn't rocket science (but obviously beyond the ability of Buchanan to recognise) and as far as Hussey is concerned the rest is history.

We have a similar situation in 2006. Everyone in the English media (and the vast majority of English members on this forum expressing their judgement) are familiar with the talent of Panesar, having watched him closely over the past year, and cannot comprehend that he isn't playing. The point is, we all know what Giles will deliver on the bowling front in Aussie conditions (not a lot) and we are all well aware of what Panesar can potentially deliver, as he has done on the subcontinent and at home. Until he is given a chance to show what he's got (or hasn't) on Aussie wickets, please don't prejudge him.

It is either nepotism or overcaution with their (Fletcher and Flintoff's) fear of a long tail. However Panesar for Anderson would not have altered that dynamic so I guess the former applies.

The two are intrinsically linked. If England fail to retain the ashes I think the deselections of Panesar and for different reasons Read will lead to Fletcher's demise, particularly after events at Adelaide. Flintoff will also have to take his share of the critisism as joint selector on tour.

Giles so far has offered zero threat, even to the extent that Pietersen has looked more threatening (it wasn't great bowling that got Gilly's wicket). In the field he has looked lethargic and cumbersome - I won't dwell on the Ponting dropped chance and what it may have cost. His batting has been ok. Point is, if we wanted a non-threatening spinner to hold up an end who can bat a bit and who's fielding at best is average wouldn't Dalrymple have been a better option? Better batsman, better fielder and, from what Giles has shown so far, no worse a bowler.

Apart from the Hogster's and Stu Clark's sterling work, both attacks have looked toothless - the one plus from an English perspective is Harmison looking like he is returning to some kind of form. OK, so the wicket has been a batsman's paradise and a well-publisised graveyard of the likes of Warne and McGrath. However, Anderson for Panesar was to everyone's mind (except Fletcher's) a dead cert. Anderson's performance, ordinary at best, merely proves what a howler Duncan made. Can anyone honestly say that England wouldn't have posed far more questions with Panesar in the attack at the expense of Anderson than they have been able to without him?

The problem now is that if he does select him for Perth and Monty performs, Duncan (who, lest we forget, claimed that Panesar is currently the world's premier finger spinner) will be made to look foolish for his reservations prior to the third test. Therefore he will probably stick with Anderson and Giles. Panesar may get a shot at Sydney, by which time it may be too late. Please please please prove me wrong Duncan.

On the Chris Read issue it's more an issue of politics than performance. How many at the ECB did Fletcher aggravate with his switch to Jones, the minute he has control of selection? Geoff Miller and David Graveney pull a lot of weight there and I can't imagine them having Duncan on their Xmas card list (if the team return without the Ashes) after Fletcher ditched Read and the abysmal manner in which it was done. I have an idea knives are being sharpened back home right now.

To be fair to Jones he has done ok, and I would have given anything to have heard the detail of that altercation with Warne when Pietersen was bowling - Warnie getting upset at being sledged after what he has dished out over the years was just hilarious .

Having said all of the above things could be worse...we could have Buchanan as coach and Boon and co doing the selection, in which case Boycott would be opening the batting and the attack would be spearheaded by Bob Willis.

Nice post Harmy's Army. I was actually shocked Anderson wasn't replaced, maybe not even by Panesar, by at least somebody. Fletcher cocks it up, and we scream for his blood, or his head on a pike. It's what we do.

__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"