The Panesar debate
I was as surprised and disappointed as anyone not to see Monty Panesar selected for the second Test, which began today in Adelaide with England posting a solid 266-3 by the close.
England are desperately short of match-winning bowlers, so the left-arm spinner's continued absence is hard to understand.
I don't want to be an apologist for England's selection policy, but several factors may have influenced the decision not to pick Panesar.
When Duncan Fletcher, the coach, and skipper Andrew Flintoff sat down to discuss team selection, they must have wanted to avoid a knee-jerk reaction to the humbling at Brisbane.
And by changing the team dramatically, they would have been admitting they got it wrong to start with.
If they genuinely believe they selected the right team at Brisbane, it follows that that is the best side to continue England's defence of the Ashes.
Let's not forget they adopted the same policy after Australia comfortably won the first Test of 2005 at Lord's.
However, Australia's omission of Stuart MacGill, the experienced leg-break bowler who remains two short of 200 Test wickets, may have persuaded Fletcher and Flintoff further.
If the Australians, with their local knowledge, believed Adelaide would not prove the spinners' paradise expected, perhaps England are right not to go in with two spinners.
Of course Shane Warne made the ball spin on day one, but he could make a snowball turn on a sheet of ice, so his performance gives little indication as to whether or not Panesar should have played.
Warne ended day one with no wicket for 85 runs from 27 overs and it is highly unlikely Panesar - or MacGill, for that matter - would have fared better than the great man.
Given the lack of batting talent among England's bowlers, it is also hardly surprising Ashley Giles kept his place, especially after performing well with the bat at Brisbane.
Despite the selection debate, England have made an excellent start to the second Test, one which suggests we might just get a real Ashes contest after all.
Let's hope the outstanding Paul Collingwood and Kevin Pietersen can continue their fine form on day two.
In the meantime, I would be interested to hear readers' opinions on the Panesar debate.
You can post your comments by clicking on the link below.
posted by Rob Wightman @ 1:24 pm
2 comments
2 Comments:
At the end of day three with Australia needing only 40 runs to make England bat again, I feel that a draw is the likely result.
The two innings to date have been similar in the aspect that the bowlers have failed to take wickets after the initial burst with the new ball and a substantial stand for the forth wicket has been the major contribution.
Giles for me today was ordinary, this could not have been more apparent when, at times, the ‘part time bowling’ of Pietersen appeared to be turning more than that of Giles.
However, we can take some encouragement from the much improved performances of Harmison and Anderson, and Hoggard looked as good as anyone in the match with the new ball. But, if England is to retain the Ashes they need to take wickets.
The debate may move on to selection between Giles and Panesar for the Perth test. Traditionally spinners have not taken a great number of wickets at the WACA. England have not won there since 1978 (by 166 runs) and even in 1986/87, when England won the Ashes series 2 – 1, they could only manage a draw at Perth in a match where they played both Emburey and Edmonds.
I feel it is unlikely that they will elect to play two spinners on this occasion so selection is a straightforward choice and England may be reluctant to change a side that has shown so much promise when faced with a pitch that will offer the bowlers much more.
A day later, your prediction of a draw looks absolutely spot on. Read today's blog to see my thoughts about Matthew Hoggard and why he has been successful in this match.
I just wonder if England are adopting a safety-first approach. Let's remember that they only need to draw the series to retain the Ashes. I don't think there really is a great deal to choose between the two sides, even though England got a hammering at Brisbane.
The reason why they are playing Giles seems to be so that they are solid and don't get blown away. But as you so rightly say, this is quite a negative approach. I'm sure Monty Panesar would've been a greater threat at Adelaide then Giles.
I would still like to see Panesar play in the series, even if England end up losing. What worries me is the Panesar will never get the chance to show what he can do in this series, and there will always be a sense of what if for England.
Keep your thoughts coming.
Post a Comment
<< Home