England : Arrogance or Desperation?

First topic message reminder :

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?

GloriousEmpire wrote: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.

Probably shouldn't , but :
1/. In India , Monty did a great job, conditions suit. I would take him there again.
2/ England actually started on their rise to the top , not entirely coincidentally , when the much more effective all round cricketer , Swann , replaced Monty as England spinner. After Cardiff 2009 , he didn't play again until the UAE tour three years later. When they arguably started their slide...
3/ The last wicket stand with Jimmy was terrific stuff. But , like Onions in SA , you don't pick a number eleven for gutsy tail end efforts alone. Especially one-offs.
4/ That was it in his Ashes contribution. Has never played in a winning Ashes team.

Not to rubbish Monty , he is a decent bowler. But your points are total rubbish. Over and out.

Lunch for GE.

He is a reasonably ordinary spinner and god awful fielder and batsman, is it really that out of left field that Flower is loath to pick him. He is also at an age where he is as good as he is likely to get in all his various disciplines so personally I would not blame Flower for not returning to him until he is absolutely satisfied he has no other options.

Oops, didn't work out like I meant it to.

Rowley wrote:He is a reasonably ordinary spinner and god awful fielder and batsman, is it really that out of left field that Flower is loath to pick him. He is also at an age where he is as good as he is likely to get in all his various disciplines so personally I would not blame Flower for not returning to him until he is absolutely satisfied he has no other options.

More ordinary than Borthwick?

Monty is a better bowler than Borthwick, no doubt, and in truth is a little unlucky not to be playing in this test.

Possibly not, difference is Borthwick has time to improve, Monty is likely to be as good as he will get and is more likely to regress than improve, retrogressive step picking him now.

Well neither have certainly had the impact of Kiwi, Ben Stokes. A great day to day for the Cantabrian. A useful addition to England's foreign legion!

Galted wrote:

We'll have to wait until we see him bat tomorrow... but by all accounts Gary Ballance has been in brilliant County form.

Looking at Borthwick's recent form, I become more and more convinced that the bouncer Panesar urinated on is somehow related to management - The shifting continues.

kingraf wrote:Looking at Borthwick's recent form, I become more and more convinced that the bouncer Panesar urinated on is somehow related to management - The shifting continues.

Maybe he should stick to punching the opposition.

Hmm lets see now. Monty with all that experience in Adelaide his figures were 2 for 188 in 54 overs.

So far Borthwick is 1 for 49 in 7 overs so cannot say it is so much worse than Monty (quite the opposite).

Wow. Quite a few Monty haters. Even trying to draw invalid comparisons across totally different pitches.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Wow. Quite a few Monty haters. Even trying to draw invalid comparisons across totally different pitches.

No not haters just people who are highlighting a few facts that you are not listening to. You are clinging to form he produced six years ago as evidence that he should be playing. Adelaide (4th Test) is what form to measure him by. Plus I think most recognise now is the time to build for the future and since Monty is 31 he hardly falls into that category. England have their eyes on players in their early 20's.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Wow. Quite a few Monty haters. Even trying to draw invalid comparisons across totally different pitches.

No not haters just people who are highlighting a few facts that you are not listening to. You are clinging to form he produced six years ago as evidence that he should be playing. Adelaide (4th Test) is what form to measure him by. Plus I think most recognise now is the time to build for the future and since Monty is 31 he hardly falls into that category. England have their eyes on players in their early 20's.

Well he does have a point, I mean the green top at the SCG looks a spinners paradise   

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Wow. Quite a few Monty haters. Even trying to draw invalid comparisons across totally different pitches.

No not haters just people who are highlighting a few facts that you are not listening to. You are clinging to form he produced six years ago as evidence that he should be playing. Adelaide (4th Test) is what form to measure him by. Plus I think most recognise now is the time to build for the future and since Monty is 31 he hardly falls into that category. England have their eyes on players in their early 20's.

Well he does have a point, I mean the green top at the SCG looks a spinners paradise   

That may be the case but we will have to wait and see. Even if Lyon does out-bowl Borthwick that proves nothing as the same thing happened at Melbourne as in Monty got one wicket whilst Lyon got six wickets on the same pitch.

,

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Wow. Quite a few Monty haters. Even trying to draw invalid comparisons across totally different pitches.

No not haters just people who are highlighting a few facts that you are not listening to. You are clinging to form he produced six years ago as evidence that he should be playing. Adelaide (4th Test) is what form to measure him by. Plus I think most recognise now is the time to build for the future and since Monty is 31 he hardly falls into that category. England have their eyes on players in their early 20's.

I didn't say he should be playing. Merely pointing out that as someone else claimed, Monty is judged by a different criteria apparently, than anyone else. For example if swann hadn't retired disgracefully mid-series I doubt he would've been dropped for this new mediocre spinner,
Despite his lack of wickets or runs.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Wow. Quite a few Monty haters. Even trying to draw invalid comparisons across totally different pitches.

No not haters just people who are highlighting a few facts that you are not listening to. You are clinging to form he produced six years ago as evidence that he should be playing. Adelaide (4th Test) is what form to measure him by. Plus I think most recognise now is the time to build for the future and since Monty is 31 he hardly falls into that category. England have their eyes on players in their early 20's.

I didn't say he should be playing. Merely pointing out that as someone else claimed, Monty is judged by a different criteria apparently, than anyone else.  For example if swann hadn't retired disgracefully mid-series I doubt he would've been dropped for this new mediocre spinner,
Despite his lack of wickets or runs.

Perhaps the fact that Swann is amongst the top ten English wicket takers of all-time has something to do with it. plus that he has turned many tests with crucial wickets at crucial times. I suppose the same goes for Anderson who has similar standing in the side but his return of wickets in this series have been very disappointing but he kept his place whilst Tremlett and Bresnan have been axed. It is all down to their records which speak for themselves.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Wow. Quite a few Monty haters. Even trying to draw invalid comparisons across totally different pitches.

No not haters just people who are highlighting a few facts that you are not listening to. You are clinging to form he produced six years ago as evidence that he should be playing. Adelaide (4th Test) is what form to measure him by. Plus I think most recognise now is the time to build for the future and since Monty is 31 he hardly falls into that category. England have their eyes on players in their early 20's.

I didn't say he should be playing. Merely pointing out that as someone else claimed, Monty is judged by a different criteria apparently, than anyone else.  For example if swann hadn't retired disgracefully mid-series I doubt he would've been dropped for this new mediocre spinner,
Despite his lack of wickets or runs.

They dropped Prior. I wouldn't have been surprised to see Swann dropped/rested if he had another bad game.

CC - I'm not sure 1/49 after seven overs is much of an achievement bowling to the middle order and tail, and going at seven an over. Monty is 31, but he is a spinner - could easily go on for four or five more years. That's not short term. Monty has more fivers in Test cricket than Borthwick does in First-class. Leg-spinning isn't an easy business, in fact I think it's the hardest skill to acquire in sport, and if a guy like Imran Tahir, with successes all over the cricketing peninsula, has been called third-rate, I think reservations about a guy who went at seven an over, and took the wicket of a rampaging Haddin... are quite understandable

Don't forget his figures are harmed somewhat as he bowled during Haddin's blitz on all of the England bowlers and besides do you discard him after 7 overs of test cricket?? Monty was not to Swann's standards hence he never displaced him from the side. To opt for Monty now is England openly admitting they have gotten weaker in the spin department. Also when did we last see Monty produce a superb spell of bowling for England? Borthwick may not be the answer but at least he is being given a chance.

My point being if they don't feel Borthwick is worth persevering with then they can move on to look at other options. After all was Monty in the form to get a five wicket haul here anyway? I say certainly not.

I would however say Monty is more likely to get wickets in this test than a guy with five Pfeiffers against a team with right-handers form 3-7. I'm not using Borthwick's seven overs as the benchmark upon which I base my opinion of him - More that he has a rather flat FC record, and got pillaged on debut

That is fair enough king raf.  But similarly let's judge Monty on current form not 2007 form.  In his last two test matches he has three wickets in around 70 overs - hardly supports getting Monty in does it?

Perhaps if England selected him and let him play, he'd find some form. Look at the patience with guys like Cook and Anderson who just aren't performing and living on reputation. Both are liabilities so far in this series.

You are just not getting it are you?

Cook gets chances as he is in the top five England run scorer in history and youngest ever to reach 8,000 runs.

Anderson gets chances as he is in top five England wicket takers in history. You do not discard players with credentials like that so easily.

Besides have you not stopped to think there are other reasons Monty misses out here? England's batting is rank enough without adding to their woes with Monty in the side whereas Borthwick has decent batting credentials so bolsters the batting as well.

But according to Wisden he's the greatest cricketer ever, he's single-handedly won every game he's played for England and he's got a cool beard.

CaledonianCraig wrote:You are just not getting it are you?

Cook gets chances as he is in the top five England run scorer in history and youngest ever to reach 8,000 runs.

Anderson gets chances as he is in top five England wicket takers in history. You do not discard players with credentials like that so easily.

Besides have you not stopped to think there are other reasons Monty misses out here? England's batting is rank enough without adding to their woes with Monty in the side whereas Borthwick has decent batting credentials so bolsters the batting as well.

You realise, don't you, that it's impossible to get into the top 5 unless you are selected to play. Now Monty single handedly destroyed India, in India, helping England to the number 1 spot. An achievement celebrated more than any other. Sad to see he is seen as a one-continent wonder and not given the chances some other players get.

I wonder how English players are feeling about all these foreign players taking their positions. Ballance and Rankin, whose next?

Also how are Ireland suppose to ever improve if the best players are poached. I don't blame them as they will be offered far more money but surely England should be looking at capping ENGLISH players?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I wonder how English players are feeling about all these foreign players taking their positions. Ballance and Rankin, whose next?

Also how are Ireland suppose to ever improve if the best players are poached. I don't blame them as they will be offered far more money but surely England should be looking at capping ENGLISH players?

Both Rankin and Ballance are UK citizens, just like everyone else ever capped by England. Why should England not pick UK citizens?

That new kiwi bowler is doing well for you guys. Between him and KP your foreign legion is looking strong!

GloriousEmpire wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:You are just not getting it are you?

Cook gets chances as he is in the top five England run scorer in history and youngest ever to reach 8,000 runs.

Anderson gets chances as he is in top five England wicket takers in history. You do not discard players with credentials like that so easily.

Besides have you not stopped to think there are other reasons Monty misses out here? England's batting is rank enough without adding to their woes with Monty in the side whereas Borthwick has decent batting credentials so bolsters the batting as well.

You realise, don't you, that it's impossible to get into the top 5 unless you are selected to play. Now Monty single handedly destroyed India, in India, helping England to the number 1 spot. An achievement celebrated more than any other. Sad to see he is seen as a one-continent wonder and not given the chances some other players get.

He was not selected to play for a simple reason - Gramme Swan. He was just not in the same class as Swan who kept him out of the side. In recent times (apart from spinners paradise in India) when he has played due to Swann's absence due to injury or when they have played two spinners he has not delivered. He has had two chances in this series as well and not delivered. In short he has had chances but not taken them.

C'mon chaps : Stop feeding the Trolls !

The suggestion that MP is less celebrated than Swann for other 'reasons' is the sort of lame WUM phishing that the moronic OP often indulges in…i would like to thank the cricket posters for briefly having to deal with him as it gives the rugby boards a break from his galactic ignorance.

Geoffrey boycott in today's TMS podcast slays the debutants and questions selections in general asking sardonically "who was given an OBE for this?"

I can't be far from the mark when such a legend agrees with me.

Just listened to Trecothick - the man is deluded. The England set up is good.   So good 2 players bailed out mid tour. This lot are the biggest bunch of spineless cowards ever to tour - the only thing they beat Oz on - lack of backbones! Cook's captaincy is utterly woeful and embarrassing. As stated in The Observer his tactic is to have no tactics, Plan A or Plan B. Pietersen and Bell need binned. Anderson too. Carberry is not a test player. Prior is finished.

Very well played to the Aussies   

Now... if the set-up is good (I don't know, unlike KPF I don't particularly care about England's future), how did they pick a clueless captain, two players who need to be binned, a player with stress related illness, one on the verge of retirement, a player who isn't good enough, one who is finished? Sounds like a lot of incorrect selections from a management that's doing fine?

Well they all got honours in the New Years list - so there's no questioning them. Just like jimmy before them...

To the OP...any time in a test match is a big deal for a débutante, you can't ease them in, its deep end or nothing.

But I can see your point in that there was not going to be any kind of face saving in doing so, the Ashes were lost and the team were bogged down in depression, both physically and mentally. What advantage playing three young players would do, was only going to broaden the spectrum of pain.

To me the most worrying part of this whole Aussie leg, was that from the result of the first test, England had time between tests and during matches to find a way to play the fast ball.
What kind of batsmen doesnt have a clue how to play 95mph deliveries ?
How had they managed to accumulate so many runs from other teams ?

And more importantly, where has the collective experience of the top 4/5 batsmen and the coaching staff, in particular, Graham Gooch disappeared to ?

If a setup like that can not tactically sort out the fast ball, then they should be sacked as incompetent or at least not fit for purpose.