The Ashes

Originally posted by boarman
Yes he has bowled good only once ,go through and look at his figures ,just because he has 32 wickets and a low economy doesnt mean he has bowled good on more than one occasion (one test match)
If Giles has been out for a year how can Panesar take more wickets ,you just said Panesar 32 wickets ,Giles 140 wickets.
You are failing to see that India,Pakistan and Sri Lanka are on the weaker side these days.

- Giles has 140 wickets because he's been playing for England since 1998.

- Which of 5-78 (Sri Lanka at Trent Bridge) and 5-72 (Pakistan at Old Trafford) wasn't a good performance? Plus there's his performance at Headingley last year on a pitch that wasn't remotely suited for spin, which was arguable more impressive (that's the match after which even Ducan Fletcher managed to accept he'd played well). They're the ones that stand out, but others showed good control.

Or put it another way. Remove his "one good match" and his average is still lower than Giles'.

And Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka are currently 3rd, 4th and 5th in the ICC Test Rankings. Just because they're not Australia doesn't mean they're not above average opposition.

Originally posted by dan182
The next thing to consider is the batting order.

Strauss (Solid player)
Cook (Very good prospect - untested)
Bell (Competant - but poor last ashes)
Collingwood (Competant - but probably will not win a game with the bat)
KP - (Eng best batter ?)
Freddie - (Great player, but skipper + bowling + batting Mmm)
Jones - (I have no idea why Read is not play ...[text shortened]... hat batting line up YOU HAVE to choose Giles to extend it. Lets not mention Monty's fielding.

It's always the spinners that people are worried about, isn't it? The fast bowlers never get dropped because they can't bat, and the batsmen never get dropped because they can't field. Monty was our top wicket taker last summer.

Oh, and the reason Read isn't playing? The same reason Monty isn't. I'd agree with you - daft decision.

Originally posted by boarman
plus if they need variety in the bowling he can turn his arm over also.

You tell me to stick to tiddlywinks then make a statement like this?

Clarke was out with a back injury which means he cannot really bowl.
I'd be very suprised to see him bowling at all for fear of injuring himself.
Anyway, Ponting can turn his arm over - he got Vaughan last year.

Originally posted by mtthw
- Giles has 140 wickets because he's been playing for England since 1998.

- Which of 5-78 (Sri Lanka at Trent Bridge) and 5-72 (Pakistan at Old Trafford) wasn't a good performance? Plus there's his performance at Headingley last year on a pitch that wasn't remotely suited for spin, which was arguable more impressive (that's the match after which even Ducan ...[text shortened]... st because they're not Australia doesn't mean they're not above average opposition.

Do you really believe in the ICC rankings ,if so you are a bigger fool than i thought .The rankings are a farce because they are worked out over several years where teams are ranked when they have played each other at home and away .
You then have Bangladesh and Zimbabwe ,who Australia hardly ever play.
To Englands credit i rated them the second best team after the ashes last year but have slipped .
I still do not rate Panesar ,i really hope the English selectors pick him so he can be proved that he is not a good bowler at all .The West Indiand and South Africans will also prove this.
For all our arguing on the subject we will just have to see what he can do if selected which wont come until the Adelaide test where you will play Giles and Panesar

Originally posted by Varg
You tell me to stick to tiddlywinks then make a statement like this?

Clarke was out with a back injury which means he cannot really bowl.
I'd be very suprised to see him bowling at all for fear of injuring himself.
Anyway, Ponting can turn his arm over - he got Vaughan last year.

He has had his back fixed and bowled for NSW since it was hurt and it was only a muscle strain ,pretty easy to overcome .

Originally posted by mtthw
It's always the spinners that people are worried about, isn't it? The fast bowlers never get dropped because they can't bat, and the batsmen never get dropped because they can't field. Monty was our top wicket taker last summer.

Oh, and the reason Read isn't playing? The same reason Monty isn't. I'd agree with you - daft decision.

And your point is ?

You have failed to counter any of the arguments i put forward and continually go back to 'top wicket taker last summer'.

If Monty was a strike spinner (like Warne or Murali - WHICH HE IS NOT) then I can guarantee you it would not matter is he could bat or field.

Originally posted by dan182
And your point is ?

You have failed to counter any of the arguments i put forward and continually go back to 'top wicket taker last summer'.

If Monty was a strike spinner (like Warne or Murali - WHICH HE IS NOT) then I can guarantee you it would not matter is he could bat or field.

Which is where we disagree. He's far more of a strike bowler than Giles. You could use the same argument to leave out Anderson, Hoggard or Harmison, but noone is talking about that, which is my point - I think Monty is as important as any of them.

The reason Read isn't playing is because they think Jones is a better bat. Personally I think the specialism is far more important. The same argument applies to Monty.

But boarman is right, continuing the argument is pretty pointless for now, so I'll drop it.

Originally posted by mtthw
Which is where we disagree. He's far more of a strike bowler than Giles. You could use the same argument to leave out Anderson, Hoggard or Harmison, but noone is talking about that, which is my point - I think Monty is as important as any of them.

The reason Read isn't playing is because they think Jones is a better bat. Personally I think the specialism ...[text shortened]...
But boarman is right, continuing the argument is pretty pointless for now, so I'll drop it.

THAT IS THE POINT - NEITHER OF THEM ARE STRIKE SPINNERS....

Here is another point. In Aus a finger spinner is not going to spin it a mile, where they get their wickets is bounce. Who will get more bounce probably Giles on account of being taller.

I have not heard 1 convincing argument for Monty.
As for hiding behind other player selection - well that is different argument all together, this one Giles v Monty.

I would have gone with this team in batting order.

1. Strauss
2. Cook / Bell (Just because of right left).
3. Bell / Cook
4. KP
5. Colly
6. Freddie
7. Read / Prior (Prior for me is the best batter / wicky)
8. Gilo
9. Hoggy.
10. Mahmood (Bounce and pace + better bat than Jimmy).
11. Harmy.

DRINKS BOY - Monty.

Originally posted by mtthw
Which is where we disagree. He's far more of a strike bowler than Giles. You could use the same argument to leave out Anderson, Hoggard or Harmison, but noone is talking about that, which is my point - I think Monty is as important as any of them.

The reason Read isn't playing is because they think Jones is a better bat. Personally I think the specialism ...[text shortened]...
But boarman is right, continuing the argument is pretty pointless for now, so I'll drop it.

Oh and you can't apply the same argument to Hoggard, why I hear you say ?

Because 4 left handers in the Aus batting line up and Hoggy is the best bowler in the world to left handers barr NONE.

Originally posted by dan182
Because 4 left handers in the Aus batting line up and Hoggy is the best bowler in the world to left handers barr NONE.

100% correct.
Yet he barely seems to get a mention in discussions.
It's all "we will rely on Freddie/Harmison".
Hoggy is the man.

Originally posted by boarman
I still do not rate Panesar ,i really hope the English selectors pick him so he can be proved that he is not a good bowler at all .The West Indiand and South Africans will also prove this.

Are the WIndians and Saffers better players of spin than India and the Lankans?
Because Monty did pretty well against them!

Originally posted by Varg
100% correct.
Yet he barely seems to get a mention in discussions.
It's all "we will rely on Freddie/Harmison".
Hoggy is the man.

He did get a mention Mtthw wants to use the argument he can't bat to drop him ;-)

Originally posted by dan182
He did get a mention Mtthw wants to use the argument he can't bat to drop him ;-)

No I don't! Hoggard's class (although probably not as effective as in England). He plays, because we need our best bowlers...😉

Originally posted by mtthw
No I don't! Hoggard's class (although probably not as effective as in England). He plays, because we need our best bowlers...😉

Having just seen the highlights I see Gilo gets Martyn with a ball that BOUNCED a bit.

Gilo bowled pretty well I thought, I aint sure Monty could have done any better the way Ponting, Langer & Hussey were batting.

KP looks pretty good with offies to the left hander as well, Eng 3rd best bowler on the day behind Freddie & Gilo.

The rest of the attack were about as useful as c0ck flavored lollipops.
If Hoggy can't get that 2nd new cherry to swing I fear the English will be chasing a first innings Monster.

Originally posted by dan182

One thing the stats do not show is that only 7 of those wickets are against left handers, Aus are rich in lefties 4 of them against 3 right handers.
So the left arm spinner is going to have to work harder to get the left hander out (obviously not impossible).

7 wickets out of 32 were left handers, but only 1 people in 10 are left handed. That means he's particularly good at getting leftys out doesn't it? 😕