The Cricket Thread 2013

[bertlambshank]

If you talking about Monty - when things are working for him he's fantastic, when they aren't he offers very little else to justify his selection.  He has too many innings where to bowls 40-50 overs for 0-1 wickets.  Yes he's only going for 3 an over but it's difficult to build

To clarify, he's one of the worst batsmen i've ever seen at international level and his fielding is worse.

He is not an international class spinner either.

Nonsense. He'd still walk into most of the ten test teams and is better than any spinner England had throughout the 1990s and for most of the 2000s, off the top of my head.

We're lucky to have him as more than able cover for Swann.

He doesn't spin it enough.Yet again a part time spin bowler was getting it to turn more than him.

[PaulWinch again]

Sorry that's just not true, yeah he didn't spin it much on flat decks. But Panesar is comfortably international class.

[taylorsworkrate]

Monty Panesar:

47 test matches played with 161 wickets at a very respectable average of 33.31

12 five wicket hauls and 2 ten wicket matches. Of the 12 5-fers, 8 have been taken outside of the subcontinent.

For anyone to say he isn't an international class spinner is quite clearly absurd.

[cdbearsfan]

He has roughly the same bowling average as Harbajhan, but will have played far fewer games on a spin-friendly surface.

He's definitely international class. He's unlucky to be playing at the same time as Swann who is the best spinner we've had during my lifetime. He still has plenty to offer England when Swann is out or when conditions suit a two-spinner approach.

[paul_e]

Yeah as others have said, his bowling is fine (I still think the stats cover up for a lot of innings where he is largely ineffective though) like all of our bowlers but the others get away with it by offering decent lower order runs and/or excellence in the field (swann for example averages 23.5 with the bat and is an international class slip fielder).

Finn is another who has failed to nail down a place because of his problems when he's not bowling.  The difference is Finn has worked really hard on his batting and it's starting to show.

[cdbearsfan]

Every bowler, even the likes of Warne, has innings where they are ineffective.

He has worked on his batting, we would probably not have won the Ashes in 2009 but for his tenacity with the bat in Cardiff.

Did you not rate Murali either? His batting was pretty shit.

[bertlambshank]

Sorry that's just not true, yeah he didn't spin it much on flat decks. But Panesar is comfortably international class.

Only when 2 spinners are playing.

[cdbearsfan]

So if Swann was unavailable, who would you pick ahead of Panesar? Or would you go with no spinners?

[spangley1812]

So if Swann was unavailable, who would you pick ahead of Panesar? Or would you go with no spinners?

Treadwell.............

[bertlambshank]

So if Swann was unavailable, who would you pick ahead of Panesar? Or would you go with no spinners?

Treadwell,but picking Bairstow was a big mistake.At least Woakes had swung a bat in anger this calender year.And they knew Anderson was struggling.

[paul_e]

Every bowler, even the likes of Warne, has innings where they are ineffective.

He has worked on his batting, we would probably not have won the Ashes in 2009 but for his tenacity with the bat in Cardiff.

Did you not rate Murali either? His batting was pretty shit.

There's little point discussing cricket with you if you don't see there's a difference between the 2 most effective spinners of all time and a guy who can't hold on to a central contract.

Monty isn't special enough to build a team around, Murali was.

I don't dispute that every bowler has bad sessions/innings/matches, my point is to get away with those you need to be 1 of 2 things:

A good all round cricketer (lets use Stuart Broad and Graham Swann as examples)
An absolute machine when things are going your way (lets go with Jimmy Anderson here)

The 3 people I've named there are the core of the england attack that has seen us at the top of the rankings recently, Monty isn't in the same class as them unfortunately, but is a very useful option if Swann is out or we need an alternative spinner.

[bertlambshank]

Murali was a cheat.

[PaulWinch again]

Monty Panesar:

47 test matches played with 161 wickets at a very respectable average of 33.31

12 five wicket hauls and 2 ten wicket matches. Of the 12 5-fers, 8 have been taken outside of the subcontinent.

For anyone to say he isn't an international class spinner is quite clearly absurd.

Completely agree, you can debate his other attributes all you want but his bowling is good enough. I rate Swann very highly but he has been through some pretty ineffective times as well.

[peter w]

I also do not rate Panesar. When he bowls well he looks great. But when things aren't working for him he doesn't try to mix things up to change it. No change in pace, no flatter delivery, no change in angle, rarely over the wicket etc etc it becomes processional and international teams know that. One end isn't tied up and pressure cannot be properly applied. That, more than attacking batting got us to number one. Our batting has had many failure over the years but our attack usually win us games. That attack is not usually with Panesar in the team.

[bertlambshank]

Monty Panesar:

47 test matches played with 161 wickets at a very respectable average of 33.31

12 five wicket hauls and 2 ten wicket matches. Of the 12 5-fers, 8 have been taken outside of the subcontinent.

For anyone to say he isn't an international class spinner is quite clearly absurd.

Completely agree, you can debate his other attributes all you want but his bowling is good enough. I rate Swann very highly but he has been through some pretty ineffective times as well.

I would like to his figures when he is the only spinner in the side,I bet his average rocket's up.