Lots of speculation over who is to blame for playing Giles before Panesar.

First IMO why should there be any blame at all, Giles in a way was the logical choice, Panesar has little experience of the big time, let alone bowling to the likes of Ricky Ponting in his own back yard.

So let's read what Fletcher has to say Here .

Well we all know that Fletcher is obsessed with his spinners and keepers being able to bat, so this to me rings true.
Well this is true enough, Australias win was remarkable, and Giles did drop the catch - that cost England the match, but even the best players drop catches.
What ???Safe???
He mentions (I) more than once - then he says (We) - reading this article it would seam that Fletcher consults his senior players - before making up his mind.
Full story Here

__________________
Ern

What was clear from one thing I read today is that the Giles decision really was last minute... hence Bell getting trained up as a gully fielder... and then retaining that position for the test despite the fact that Giles (a good gully fielder) was eventually included.

Of course... that meant Giles fielding in an unfamiliar position out in the deep. Great stuff

He has said before that he is more of a consultant than a coach. If he knows so much about cricket and his players then he should pick the team on his own. The only idea that sounds like his is batting down to 8. Then Strauss, Collingwood, Jones and Flintoff decide on who? I always thought Fletcher got what he wanted but he wanted Lewis instead of Plunkett and Dalrymple instead of Giles for the 16 man squad. Probably had to give in to Graveney to get Trescothick and Jones.

Its Clear Read and Monty are not part of the in crowd as I guess Mahmood isnt either, who else is on the selection Panel Harmison and Jones!! Would Australia play a bowler who had not played in 12 months ? I could understand if Giles had been playing for Warks back end of last year and showed form but he didnt, Read did ok in tests whilst Jones was not scoring for Kent, Flintoff as good as he is has to much power, Strauss did a supurb job against Pakistan and yet they did not want to upset Flintoff so gave him the captancy back even though he is clearly not 100% fit

Fletcher got Jones on tour but wanted Lewis and dalrymple from what I've heard, but apparently he was persuaded against his better judgement to take trescothick.

I dont think either lewis or dalrymple woudl have been a good pick, but neither is plunkett.

Such discord in the English camp can only be karma coming back on Fletcher. He perpetrated enough to sow discord into the Aussie camp in 2005 and now his chickens are coming home to roost.
The Aussies, and in particular Warne, are getting the last laugh now. I must say i am enjoying his demise as well.

P.S. - Panesar is hardly one of the greats of world cricket and it is likely he would have recieved a hammering as well. The fact that England's hopes fall on the shoulders of a stripling that averages over 30 for the tiny amount of test wickets he has taken shows the absolute dearth of talent England has waiting in the wings.

__________________
The thought police are everywhere..............

If anything, this series highlights the need for a selection system that can make tough decisions when required to win a series. If Flintoff is Harmison's best mate how can we expect Flintoff, as captain, to drop Harmison when he's obviously not in form? If Fletcher has to make that decision then you have selection disagreements between Captain and Coach. Is that a good idea?

I think the best system is for the coach to consult with the captain and senior players. Senior players who are themselves at risk of being dropped can be consulted individually. For example, Fletcher couldn't discuss Harmison with Flintoff if Harmison was present. Then the coach and a selector on tour should then pick the side for the match.

This system allows the coach to consult with senior players individually and in specific groups and make recommendations to the selector on tour. Both the selector and coach must decide if a Test match loss requires hard selection changes in persuit of a win in the next Test match.

It was evident that hard selection decisions were required after the Gabba loss but the selection system wasn't independent or robust enough to facilitate that. One could argue that Harmison was just underdone at the Gabba but, at the very least, Giles should have been replaced by Panesar for Adelaide. The Adelaide match proved that Harmison wasn't just underdone - he's seriously out of form. He should be immediately dropped until he shows some form in a few domestic matches. Vaughan is obviously out of form and he isn't getting selected so why is Harmison? It just doesn't make sense. Any out of form player should be dropped immediately until they find form in domestic cricket.

The recent tour match showed that Strauss is okay but G Jones and Harmison are still struggling. Drop them. Come on England management - make some tough decisions for a change.

What makes Panesar so special I have seen him bowl throughout his short test career and he has not shown me anything extraordinary. He’s not a massive turner or the ball, he does not get much drift, he bowls very flat which does not encourage the batsman to leave there creases and he gets no dip. I can't see anything amazing about him, he bowls a decent line and length which every off spinner does.



What has Jones done wrong? He has been good with the gloves but has failed with the bat, Read would have most likely done the same thing.

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

I would disagree with your comments that Panesar doent turn the ball. Granted he has bowled on some spin friendly pitches but the ball that got Yusuf out at Headingly certainly turned! If you look at the list of batsman he's got out:

Inzi, Tendulkar, Dravid, Yusuf and Younis Khan are all very good batsman and are all good players of spin (ask Warne and Murali!) Monty also beat their defensive strokes when he dismissed them so there must have been some drift, dip and turn present.

I'm not saying Monty is the answer to our prayers but he is certainly a decent young bowler with bags of potential and playing against this great Aussie side on flat pitches would IMO help his development greatly, as I think mentally he's a far stronger bowler than Tuffers who went hiding if he got a bit of stick.

__________________
Mark.

Quaggie - I don't think we're trying to make Panesar out to be amazing, or a mystery bowler - just that he should be a far, far better option than Gilo. He does spin the ball, gets flight and dip, and mixes it up a bit. He's certainly no worse than Vettori and the theory is that whilst no Warne, he should take wickets at test level, and get good players out (which he's already proved).

__________________
I'll have the Mouseburger please, with a side of Goldfish.