The Ashes 2006/07: The Perth Test Thread - Day One

[Harmy's Army]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

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.

I do so hope you are now one of the converted, as I am sure the Australian team are

[Mr Hutt]

You are spot on Harmy's Army. The Turbanetor has an aura, just like Warne does or Botham did. I would not give a damn if he got wickets with full tosses as long as he gets 5 wickets at such crucial stages. Although he had a fantastic day today, lets not forget the all important finding of Harmisons ignition today. I swear this guy is as Jeykell and Hide as it gets isnt he? Whens he is on he is on!!


We also need to realize that at Adelaide England did with the bat what they have achieved with the ball today and then gave it up. Their batting has to come through, already people are making a show of the 2 wickets falling but the way i see it, Englands real batting has been KP and Collingwood all series, now if Strauss can contribute and they can all get around 80, by all i mean all 3 then England will have a good chance. They really need to bat out tommorow. Yes i do mean the whole day, because that will scar Australia badly. Australia seem to underrate teams on the "if we couldnt do it they cant either principle" so in effect if England can get to around 400 for even 8 down by tommorow close of play, they will be in the driving seat with a whip in the right hand as well!!!

I just dont understand why Sajid Mahmood did not bowl more today, or Flintoff to finish it off earlier. However they can contribute some lusty blows in the end of the batting lineup for England.

Warne will IMO bowl badly tommorow, he has dropped a sitter and that will be playing on his mind, plus he got KP last time, i dont think he will succeed tommorow. There is only one bowler England have to watch out for and that is Clark.

& Greg England will win this test... you just watch it happen

[rineet]

Great bowling by Monty Panesar, to take 5 wickets on a day 1 pitch. Now we have to wait to see what the spin wizard Warne can do in this pitch.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Mr Hutt

The Turbanetor has an aura, just like Warne does or Botham did.

Good cricket players (like good competitors in any sport) don't compete with 'auras': the deal with what's infront of them... and treat it on its merits. That makes for a lousy narrative for supporters keen to divide the world into celebrities supposedly able to carry the world before them and also-rans who are merely washed along with the tide... that counts for diddly-squat in the middle - if you have doubts then ask Warne and McGrath, whose 'auras' are greater than any in the modern game and whose bad balls were dispatched with just as much contempt as we'd see displayed if Collingwood and Batty had served up those balls.

In fact... I'd go so far as to posit the opposite: Panesar has so little aura that the Aussie batsmen thought it worth trying to completely break him. Symonds and Warne certainly played as if determined to smash his confidence: virtually every shot they played was contemptuous... and the outcome suggests they paid him rather less respect than he deserves!

The only people currently influenced by Panesar's aura are those who attribute Panesar's wickets to brilliance where they would dismiss the same achievements by Giles as a matter of luck: I'm sure the Aussie batsmen are far less fickle in assessing the bowlers and recognise that the difference between Giles and Panesar is more one of age and the the scope for improvement (massively significant in the medium to long term) than current capacity to wreak havoc on a day one pitch offering the sort of bounce (and perhaps inconsistency) that Giles loves.

ps. having watched the highlights I've little to add to what went before... and nothing changes my view that Panesar has bowled better in virtually every previous Test outing. The sound on my freeview box is pretty screwed up (box got fried in the summer) but he was saying something along the lines of "all you can do is put the ball in the right areas" - admirable... but not the talk of a man convinced that he has (at this early stage in his career) the capacity to dismiss batsman who aren't keen to give their wickets away.

pps. I'm not (and no-where in this thread doubt) that Panesar has huge potential... and it's perhaps worth noting that I fought long and hard to get Monty into the WAT 'A' team after his first half-season in county cricket... but there's a difference, to my mind, between recognising potential and imaging that such potential is already bearing fruit - the current view of Panesar as Panecea (as it was put in this morning's Torygraph) is a classic case of putting someone on a pedestal (from which the only way is down) long before his/her time.

Edit: second time through the audio is working better.... and Panesar is not claiming to have out-thought Symonds: no suggestion that he succeeded with a plan... and a clear statement that he was actually trying to get the ball in the right areas and hope it paid off - which is quite probably all Warne was trying to do when he got Collingwood at the Gabba... but Warne never admits that he just got lucky with a long hop

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Rachael

In fact... I'd go so far as to posit the opposite: Panesar has so little aura that the Aussie batsmen thought it worth trying to completely break him. Symonds and Warne certainly played as if determined to smash his confidence: virtually every shot they played was contemptuous... and the outcome suggests they paid him rather less respect than he deserves!

One key component of a bowler's ability is how they react when a batsman tries to break them. The fact of the matter is that Symonds and Warne both tried to break Panesar, but failed to do so. They could try and treat any bowler with contempt, but if they're dismissed, then they have comprehensively failed to do so. A batsman (albeit a stupid one) could try a play Ambrose or Pollock at their peaks with contempt, but I would wager that if they tried it, their stay at the crease would be a short one.

Panesar ultimately succeeded in sticking to his guns despite the onslaught and took the rewards when the batsman attempting to treat him with contempt overreached themselves.

As for this paragraph:

Originally Posted by Rachael

The only people currently influenced by Panesar's aura are those who attribute Panesar's wickets to brilliance where they would dismiss the same achievements by Giles as a matter of luck

Well, i can only assume that you would include my assessment in that. An assessment that you comprehensively failed [so far] to come up with any discernable counter-argument to.

Once you've done that, I'll come back, but until you have the courtesy to do that I will assume that your comparison of Panesar in this test versus the warm up games is completely erroneous and based on your viewing of one day's highlights package and nothing else.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Good cricket players (like good competitors in any sport) don't compete with 'auras':

I think you wil find they do have an 'aura' - Warne has carried an 'aura' for years.

Mcgrath had an aura when viewed through Michael Athertons eyes, that explains why Atherton was McGraths bunny.

Originally Posted by Rachael

In fact... I'd go so far as to posit the opposite: Panesar has so little aura that the Aussie batsmen thought it worth trying to completely break him. Symonds and Warne certainly played as if determined to smash his confidence: virtually every shot they played was contemptuous... and the outcome suggests they paid him rather less respect than he deserves!

The Australian's tried to smash the confidence of Panesar (like I feared they would) - but Panesar took everything that was thrown at him, kept his nerve, his skill was in knowing he was being underestimated, a thinking bowler.

He faced that onslaught and got 5 wickets, not many in the England side - could have done that.

[Rachael]

I'm not in disagreement with you on most points: yes, "The ball to Langer was actually a bloody good ball" and yes "Giles can bowl the arm ball well, but he hasn't done it well this series" but you are speculating in suggesting "a lot of that dismissal was due to the reduced confidence Langer would have had facing the 'unknown' Panesar compared to the 'well known' Giles"... and the argument that Pansar's arm ball is more effective (because more different from the stock delivery and less frequently used) strikes me as true of the potential Panesar.. but not of the kid out there right now (who is remarkable in being as accomplished as Giles at a tender age, but who is not, as yet, bowling with hugely greater loop, drift or dip than his senior colleague).

You say "The ball to Lee was similar [...] The line was perfect and the length was perfect. What's wrong with that?" and I'm in agreement: I just don't see it as any better / worse than many, many balls Giles has delivered.

Originally Posted by Andy

If you'd listened to Tony Greig rather than Aggers, you may have heard the suggestion that the wide, short ball is a tactic that an attacking SLA bowler should be prepared to use against an attacking batsman. Lo and behold, the only times he deployed the wide, shorter ball was agains the attacking Warne and Symonds - and he got a wicket both times. Once again, bowling perfectly to the players he was attacking.

As other have noted elsewhere, it's a matter of guesswork when you suggest a wide long-hop is a deliberate ploy: I'm not convinced Panesar intended to deliver that ball... and more to the point... I'm pretty sure that Giles' more vociferous detractors would have sniggered at the thought that Giles had planned the dismissal if HE had done the same thing.

You end by noting that "The Gilchrist ball [...] was his stock delivery and something that a player of Gilchrist's ability should not have been out to" and my dispute is purely with your assessment of Gilchrist: I've never rated Gilchrist and was not in any way surprised - he's built his reputation by hitting powerfully through the line and riding his luck... and what he did today was push hard at a ball a decent batsman would have waited for and played with soft hands... but pushing hard is all Gilchrist ever did at his best.

The difference now is that it matters: no-one cared when Gilchrist's runs were just a nice bonus for a dominant team... but sloggers like the Aussie VC and Symonds are shown in their true light when their batting matters.

In short... I'm not arguing that Panesar sucks (far from it) and I'm not suggesting that Giles is superb (absolutely not): my argument has simply been that his performances on the first day of this Test do not warrant the sort of ludicrous her-worship that the "Giles is ****" brigade have been indulging in... and that Panesar's standard has, if anything, actually slipped from the standard he set in his first 10 Tests.

Edit... Greig in BBC interview... pleased with Panesar's selection but notes "he didn't bowl THAT well"... and Stewart... something along the lines of "England never planned to play Giles in the first two Tests, they just felt that Panesar was bowling too badly to be picked in the warm up games / nets.

[Andy Mellon]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Edit... Greig in BBC interview... pleased with Panesar's selection but notes "he didn't bowl THAT well"... and Stewart... something along the lines of "England never planned to play Giles in the first two Tests, they just felt that Panesar was bowling too badly to be picked in the warm up games / nets.

But correct me if I'm wrong, you said earlier that Panesar had been bowling badly in comparison with the warm up games. Make your mind up

As for the Langer and Lee balls, I think my second attempt at explaining why Panesar got these wickets when Giles wouldn't have is less subjective:

http://www.world-a-team.com/showthre...079#post123079

[TopperHarley]

Suggestion: Monty bowled well, with agressive intent, and got his reward.


We willnever know how giles would have bowled, so instead of comapring we congratulate Monty on his haul, and look forward, this Test match has a lot of miles in it yet