England : Arrogance or Desperation?

Borthwick, Ballance and Rankin look set to be a trifecta of debutants in England's latest Ashes calamity personell meltdown following the likely withdrawal of yet another experienced servant in the form of Monty Panesar.

Is throwing three youngsters to the wolves in Australia helpful to England's chances of winning? Is it helpful to the careers of the players concerned? is it a damning indictment of their senior colleagues that new blood is seem as the only option?

In short: is the preposterous notion of fielding three fledglings in the final ashes rubber, with England's reputation already in dissarry an act of desperation? or ludicrous arrogance?

desperate to show they can do "something"

like dumping Prior......let him sit in the dressing room and bring him back next game

I don't think that its either arrogance or desperation, I think that the management realise that they have been soundly beaten and are simply looking at other options with an eye on the future. It may be a tad kneejerk but something needed to happen to try and get some sort of result.

It's probably the best they can do in the current situation, GE.

They are banking on young Borthwick adding something different in the spin department and perhaps a contribution with the bat - compared to Tredwell.

Throwing Ballance into the mix at the expense of Carberry is perhaps an act of desperation but it will be very hard to score big on debut at the SCG... it can be done though, I suppose, but I don't like his chances.

To me, Rankin could have possibly come in for the Perth Test but now the horse has bolted.. ah, what the heck... may as well give him a go. Bresnan (if picked) could bag a few wickets as well but it seems as though the selectors will put him aside again.

How can a team be arrogant by bringing in replacements when getting thumped? Bizarre suggestion. You can either view it as desperation (trying something different in the hope it might do better) or sensible rotation/planning (given the series has already gone it makes sense to blood some new players on a big stage). Personally, I would view it as the latter.

Well the arrogance for me is the suggestion that a team containing three debutants is acceptable in an ashes game. Can you just throw in three guys with no experience against a dominanting Aussie side, at home, whilst 4-0 down and not be seen to be insulting your opposition? It's suggesting that the existing players are so out of form, that a guy with no experience can do better.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well the arrogance for me is the suggestion that a team containing three debutants is acceptable in an ashes game. Can you just throw in three guys with no experience against a dominanting Aussie side, at home, whilst 4-0 down and not be seen to be insulting your opposition?  It's suggesting that the existing players are so out of form, that a guy with no experience can do better.  

It suggests Monty has a calf strain, and Carberry and Bresnan haven't been that impressive.

However, it was reported he was bowling fine in the nets this afternoon "without obvious discomfort". So, some people are suggesting if he isn't selected it will have nothing to do with his fitness.

Linebreaker wrote:However, it was reported he was bowling fine in the nets this afternoon "without obvious discomfort". So, some people are suggesting if he isn't selected it will have nothing to do with his fitness.

Maybe the slight strain was the excuse they needed to drop him?

It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality.

You can't be arrogant, when down 0-4. Desperate , maybe...crazy even.

But more likely just trying to get fresh blood in hopes it may lift the spirit in the team...at least they will have been spared being battered all around the country already.
In practical terms they would probably still expect the more experienced players to do most of the heavy lifting ; those likely to be omitted have hardly been tearing down trees in any case.

Not expecting miracles , but who knows ? Might learn something about a couple of new players at least.

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

I think GE is just stirring , Stella.

I understand , from some rugby types , he is quite skilled at it   

alfie wrote:I think GE is just stirring , Stella.  

 

  

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India. Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award. It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

Yes the reason being he is better. Quite obviously better.

alfie wrote:I think GE is just stirring , Stella.  

I understand , from some rugby types , he is quite skilled at it   

He could be? Either way, Monty has had a inconsistent career, whilst Swann had a very good, but short one.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

You see, its comments like this that really put me off posting on this site. We all know what you are trying to allude to and trying to do. Just try to stick to discussing cricket and leave comments like that out of it.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

Yeah Monty cant bat, cant field , cant play limited over cricket and has a worse test record. Hes not as good a player although did have a breif period of success.
Since his recall his figures have been even worse.

Id assume thats something to do with why hes gone from a figure of fun, to a folk hero, to the forgotten man in the eyes of the British public. And Flintoff was at least a funny drunk rather than an actual urine artist.

If you followed cricket rather than just googling players youd know that.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

First English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul? Monty?
Really?
Never heard of Laker or Underwood or Verity or a number of others?

I have no real issue with them making changes now. The current team have collectively failed in this series so trying something new cannot hurt and the experience of even one Ashes Test should serve the young up and comers well. Would seem one of those situations where the management are a bit damned if they do, damned if they don’t scenario. Make changes they are accused of desperation, don’t and will inevitably questioned as to why people who have failed to deliver keep getting opportunities they clearly do not deserve.

As for the Panesar question I am very much with Duncan Fletcher on guys like him. Fletcher always argued he wanted multi dimensional players, folk who could do at least two things to at least competent level. Panesar simply cannot do that, is a reasonably average spin bowler, but a complete liability with the bat and in the field. Given this if he is not taking wickets what does he contribute to the team. At least with Swann if he does not take wickets he may weigh in with a couple of decent catches or some vital tail end runs.

 

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

And New Zealand

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

Yeah Monty cant bat, cant field , cant play limited over cricket and has a worse test record. Hes not as good a player although did have a breif period of success.
Since his recall his figures have been even worse.

Id assume thats something to do with why hes gone from a figure of fun, to a folk hero, to the forgotten man in the eyes of the British public. And Flintoff was at least a funny drunk rather than an actual urine artist.

If you followed cricket rather than just googling players youd know that.

 
Sorry, I didn't realise the Ashes was a limited overs cricket contest.  
 
So you write off the portion of his career where he was the Wisden cricketer of the year as "a brief period of success" and then compare a portion of his career where he was out of form with Swann's record?  
 
At least Panesar didn't baulk on the tour and let his team-mates down in the middle of a series. That's inexcusable in my mind.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

Yeah Monty cant bat, cant field , cant play limited over cricket and has a worse test record. Hes not as good a player although did have a breif period of success.
Since his recall his figures have been even worse.

Id assume thats something to do with why hes gone from a figure of fun, to a folk hero, to the forgotten man in the eyes of the British public. And Flintoff was at least a funny drunk rather than an actual urine artist.

If you followed cricket rather than just googling players youd know that.

 
Sorry, I didn't realise the Ashes was a limited overs cricket contest.  
 
So you write off the portion of his career where he was the Wisden cricketer of the year as "a brief period of success" and then compare a portion of his career where he was out of form with Swann's record?  
 
At least Panesar didn't baulk on the tour and let his team-mates down in the middle of a series. That's inexcusable in my mind.

So you're saying that England should select Panesar because he was quite good in 2007 and because he hasn't retired?

Cook said after Melbourne that a number of players confidence was shot. That being the case what does the OP suggest? That they try the same old players whose confidence has gone who have lost the last four tests? No for me trying out new players now is the way to go as England now have to start looking to the future. Now it is clear they need a young spinner option and they should look at Borthwick. Ballance is a batsman to look at the logical choice to miss out is Carberry who is NOT one for the future and whose scoring shots have become highly sporadic the longer this series has gone on. Bresnan failed to deliver in Melbourne so let's have a look at another pace option although I'd sooner they went for Finn.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

Yeah Monty cant bat, cant field , cant play limited over cricket and has a worse test record. Hes not as good a player although did have a breif period of success.
Since his recall his figures have been even worse.

Id assume thats something to do with why hes gone from a figure of fun, to a folk hero, to the forgotten man in the eyes of the British public. And Flintoff was at least a funny drunk rather than an actual urine artist.

If you followed cricket rather than just googling players youd know that.

 
Sorry, I didn't realise the Ashes was a limited overs cricket contest.  
 
So you write off the portion of his career where he was the Wisden cricketer of the year as "a brief period of success" and then compare a portion of his career where he was out of form with Swann's record?  
 
At least Panesar didn't baulk on the tour and let his team-mates down in the middle of a series. That's inexcusable in my mind.

So you're saying that England should select Panesar because he was quite good in 2007 and because he hasn't retired?

 
I'm not saying they should select him at all. Read the thread.

Linebreaker posted "some people are suggesting if he isn't selected it will have nothing to do with his fitness." and I agreed that he seems to be judged by a different set of standards to a guy like Swann who bailed on the series mid-way through and for some reason is still treated like some kind of hero. Wasn't Swann one of the guys who said Australia wouldn't send them home in tears? and that England were too mentally strong? Interesting how things pan out isn't it?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

Wouldn't get too excited about the Wisden Cricketer of the Year, GE. Apart from being highly subjective:
1 - It's not the cricketer of the year but one of five cricketers of the year
2 - a player can only be named as one of the five once thus in any given year thus the five are not necessarily the top five players
3 - the player concerned has to have played in England in the preceding season which does narrow the pool quite drastically

It's about as relevant to cricket as the Oscars are to cinema.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Cook said after Melbourne that a number of players confidence was shot. That being the case what does the OP suggest? That they try the same old players whose confidence has gone who have lost the last four tests? No for me trying out new players now is the way to go as England now have to start looking to the future. Now it is clear they need a young spinner option and they should look at Borthwick. Ballance is a batsman to look at the logical choice to miss out is Carberry who is NOT one for the future and whose scoring shots have become highly sporadic the longer this series has gone on. Bresnan failed to deliver in Melbourne so let's have a look at another pace option although I'd sooner they went for Finn.

Is now really the time, or environment to drop three new players in the deep end? It's a tough ask to expect three rookies to not only debut, but turn around a team culture! Usually new players look to the experienced players for guidance, not the other way around. Is it not likely that these three debutants will merely have their confidence shot too? and get the wrong idea about what the England team should be all about?

Well Ben Stokes has done well enough in the Ashes environment (certainly better than regular starter Bresnan) as an all-rounder so that argument doesn't hold up. If these three debutant are to make it at test level then this is the best way of seeing if they are up to it.

Galted wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

Wouldn't get too excited about the Wisden Cricketer of the Year, GE. Apart from being highly subjective:
1 - It's not the cricketer of the year but one of five cricketers of the year
2 - a player can only be named as one of the five once thus in any given year thus the five are not necessarily the top five players
3 - the player concerned has to have played in England in the preceding season which does narrow the pool quite drastically

It's about as relevant to cricket as the Oscars are to cinema.

Exactly. I compare it to school sports day, when everyone's a winner   

GloriousEmpire wrote: Is it not likely that these three debutants will merely have their confidence shot too? and get the wrong idea about what the England team should be all about?

In all fairness any player who is weak minded enough to be ruined on the back of spending one test match in a poor side and downbeat dressing room is probably not cut out for test match cricket to start with.[/quote]

Rowley please unquote me from your previous post as I never said that.   

Done mate, would not want to blame you for that one!

Cheers Rowley.

Rowley wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote: Is it not likely that these three debutants will merely have their confidence shot too? and get the wrong idea about what the England team should be all about?

In all fairness any player who is weak minded enough to be ruined on the back of spending one test match in a poor side and downbeat dressing room is probably not cut out for test match cricket to start with.

[/quote]

Looks to me like England might've been wasteful when they were in good form. They didn't make hay when the sun was shining. Should've been blooding these debutants back then instead of rolling out the same starting side month-in month-out against weak opposition.

Incidentally, the last time England debuted three players in a test was eight years ago in India when Alastair Cook, Monty Panesar and James Treadwell all debuted. Hasn't harmed two of them who have went on to have successful test careers. So who knows what Borthwick, Ballance and Rankin may blossom into.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Stella wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:It certainly seems that Monty is judged by a different set of standards than the mediocre Swan, who was often praised despite average performances for his "changing room personality". I can only shudder at the thought of what that euphemism might translate to in reality

Swann is arguably England's best spinner in the last 30 years. Mediocre?

Dont' know about that. Monty was Wisden Cricketer of the year in 2007, and the first English spinner to take a 10 wicket haul, a feat he repeated in 2012 against India, in India.  Swann has only managed that feat against such opposition as Bangladesh. Swann has only ever received a national cricketer of the year award.  It's interesting that Swann is celebrated more than Panesar. But perhaps there are "reasons" for that.

Yeah Monty cant bat, cant field , cant play limited over cricket and has a worse test record. Hes not as good a player although did have a breif period of success.
Since his recall his figures have been even worse.

Id assume thats something to do with why hes gone from a figure of fun, to a folk hero, to the forgotten man in the eyes of the British public. And Flintoff was at least a funny drunk rather than an actual urine artist.

If you followed cricket rather than just googling players youd know that.

 
Sorry, I didn't realise the Ashes was a limited overs cricket contest.  
 
So you write off the portion of his career where he was the Wisden cricketer of the year as "a brief period of success" and then compare a portion of his career where he was out of form with Swann's record?  
 
At least Panesar didn't baulk on the tour and let his team-mates down in the middle of a series. That's inexcusable in my mind.

So you're saying that England should select Panesar because he was quite good in 2007 and because he hasn't retired?

 
I'm not saying they should select him at all.  Read the thread.

Linebreaker posted "some people are suggesting if he isn't selected it will have nothing to do with his fitness." and I agreed that he seems to be judged by a different set of standards to a guy like Swann who bailed on the series mid-way through and for some reason is still treated like some kind of hero. Wasn't Swann one of the guys who said Australia wouldn't send them home in tears? and that England were too mentally strong? Interesting how things pan out isn't it?

In what way is Panesar judged by a different standard to Swann?
IF Panesar quit in similar circumstances and was universally criticised then you might have a point. Until that happens you don't.
Personally I, like a few others on this board, was critical of Swann for quitting halfway through the series, but that shouldn't detract from the fact that he was a very good player for England.
If Panesar isn't selected, even if fit, it'll be because England don't feel he's the right man for the job and/or they want to have a look at alternatives. Don't see what the problem is.

Adding to what Hoggy Bear said Monty is now 31 and like Carberry can hardly be considered as one for the future. Besides England know what he brings to the team so they want to look at other options as they have to do now.

Regarding Monty and the Alluded to " Other Reason"...I do believe that there is the other reason...though I do not think it's one with "political incorrectness"

It's the comfort level.....of Flower with the personality..the brash, street-smart, talking and writing smart and knowing how to big-up and appease Flower.....personality of Swann

that gelled better than the seemingly uncouth, unsophisticated, grovelling, bumbling, not capable of talking the intellectual talk....... and having nothing but his spin bowling to offer Monty.

Should pleasing the intellectual-sense and appeasing the management  for reasons other than cricket be a factor ??

Ideally not.

but we do not live in an egalitarian world.....real humans have real weaknesses

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

In what way is Panesar judged by a different standard to Swann?
IF Panesar quit in similar circumstances and was universally criticised then you might have a point. Until that happens you don't.
Personally I, like a few others on this board, was critical of Swann for quitting halfway through the series, but that shouldn't detract from the fact that he was a very good player for England.
If Panesar isn't selected, even if fit, it'll be because England don't feel he's the right man for the job and/or they want to have a look at alternatives. Don't see what the problem is.

Hoggy - spot on as regards both Swann and Panesar.

Panesar is not alone but he has been near dreadful on this tour. He and his supporters can have no complaints about him being left out.

KP_fan wrote:Regarding Monty and the Alluded to " Other Reason"...I do believe that there is the other reason...though I do not think it's one with "political incorrectness"

It's the comfort level.....of Flower with the personality..the brash, street-smart, talking and writing smart and knowing how to big-up and appease Flower.....personality of Swann

that gelled better than the seemingly uncouth, unsophisticated, grovelling, bumbling, not capable of talking the intellectual talk....... and having nothing but his spin bowling to offer Monty.

Should pleasing the intellectual-sense and appeasing the management  for reasons other than cricket be a factor ??

Ideally not.

but we do not live in an egalitarian world.....real humans have real weaknesses

Jaysus, KP would have been dropped long ago if this was Flowers reasoning for selection.   

KP_fan wrote:Regarding Monty and the Alluded to " Other Reason"...I do believe that there is the other reason...though I do not think it's one with "political incorrectness"

It's the comfort level.....of Flower with the personality..the brash, street-smart, talking and writing smart and knowing how to big-up and appease Flower.....personality of Swann

that gelled better than the seemingly uncouth, unsophisticated, grovelling, bumbling, not capable of talking the intellectual talk....... and having nothing but his spin bowling to offer Monty.

Should pleasing the intellectual-sense and appeasing the management  for reasons other than cricket be a factor ??

Ideally not.

but we do not live in an egalitarian world.....real humans have real weaknesses

What a pile of twaddle.

Guys, why are we feeding the WUM(s)?

Panesar has been pretty poor for a while apart from a few tests on tailor made pitches in the sub-continent. He was poor at Adelaide (overlooked because he was slightly less rubbish than Swann), rubbish at Melbourne (I have never seen Swann just put the ball there like he did in the second innings, he looked less threatening than Ashton Agar), and mediocre to poor in New Zealand. His fielding is atrocious still.

Not to say he's a poor cricketer, but he's someway short of international class at the moment.

I suggest stopping feeding the WUM and having our usually eminently sensible discussions independently, on the plethora of other threads.

Nachos Jones wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Regarding Monty and the Alluded to " Other Reason"...I do believe that there is the other reason...though I do not think it's one with "political incorrectness"

It's the comfort level.....of Flower with the personality..the brash, street-smart, talking and writing smart and knowing how to big-up and appease Flower.....personality of Swann

that gelled better than the seemingly uncouth, unsophisticated, grovelling, bumbling, not capable of talking the intellectual talk....... and having nothing but his spin bowling to offer Monty.

Should pleasing the intellectual-sense and appeasing the management  for reasons other than cricket be a factor ??

Ideally not.

but we do not live in an egalitarian world.....real humans have real weaknesses

Jaysus, KP would have been dropped long ago if this was Flowers reasoning for selection.   

Not that Flower did not try........just that KP was a much bigger personna for Flower to dislodge than Monty

Hmmm, must be a slow rugby month for GE to venture onto the cricket section, the topic though hasn't changed and the target remains the same.

I am going to lock this thread, GE, I suggest you evaluate your new year's resolution to contribute better topics to the forum.

KP_fan wrote:Regarding Monty and the Alluded to " Other Reason"...I do believe that there is the other reason...though I do not think it's one with "political incorrectness"

It's the comfort level.....of Flower with the personality..the brash, street-smart, talking and writing smart and knowing how to big-up and appease Flower.....personality of Swann

that gelled better than the seemingly uncouth, unsophisticated, grovelling, bumbling, not capable of talking the intellectual talk....... and having nothing but his spin bowling to offer Monty.

Should pleasing the intellectual-sense and appeasing the management  for reasons other than cricket be a factor ??

Ideally not.

but we do not live in an egalitarian world.....real humans have real weaknesses

It seems that some players drift out of form, efforts are made to rehabilitate them, find the old spark.

For some reason, other players, such as Monty, go out of fashion when they go out of form and there is an awkward discomfort about their continued presence on the fringes.

Perhaps because some players are seen more as a stop-gap player - as in can fill in as and when required but seen as no more than that. Monty also does himself no favours by the standard of his fielding and batting.

The Wisden player of the year? Stop gap? Ten wicket hero in the Indian series win? Propelling England to #1 Stop gap?

As for batting. Panesar's batting heroics in 2008 features in the fox sports "greatest ashes moments in history".

The guy was a star in reclaiming the ashes.

Stop gap my foot.

There is no great mystery to Panesar and his ongoing inclusion/exclusion from the team as far as I can see. He has been out of the team on occasion because Swann is simply a better player. Arguably a better bowler, I certainly believe him to be, and undoubtedly a sharper fielder and more accomplished batsman. Given this Panesar is second choice and so is only likely to get a game if Swann is injured or we choose to go with two spinners. He is simply McGill to Warne. Do not see any conspiracy or shadow play here no matter how hard we look for one or try to create one.

Aparently Flower sees Monty as second best to pretty much anyone. I can't see him having done a worse job than that by his "superior" drafted in following Swanns disgraceful mid-series retirement.