Giles or Panesar

[Scoffers]

They chose Giles over Panesar because the Gabba doesnt suit finger spinners

f*** OFF

Panesar is twice the bowler that Giles is, and you are supposed to pick your BEST players

Rant Over

 

[tedebear]

I would have been more worried if you'd chosen Panesar - so you#ve made the right choice in my view... Strange decision though, to play someone unplayed...

 

[Barrel of Fun]

The Gabba is a notorious batting track and a bad first test for Monty, may have set the tone for the rest of his tour. The Aussies said they were going to target him....

I am not too upset that they are playing Giles - this test match was never going to be a winnable game.

Although....Why couldn't we play both?

 

[Simster]

Everyone is moaning at Fletcher but rumour has it that Flintoff actually wanted Giles in instead of Monty.

 

[Gritt23]

The Gabba is a notorious batting track and a bad first test for Monty, may have set the tone for the rest of his tour. The Aussies said they were going to target him....

I am not too upset that they are playing Giles - this test match was never going to be a winnable game.

Although....Why couldn't we play both?

Check out Warne's stats in Brisbane Tests if you think it's a spinners graveyard.

Warne - Test Matches at Brisbane

FFS, Pietersen was turning it on day 1, Monty would have been a real threat.

 

[Pavilionaire]

If England were ever going to win this test then Panesar would have been a key ingredient. I cannot for the life of me believe what Flintoff and Fletcher have done here.

By picking Giles they've gone for containment, and when the Aussies smell fear they usually capitalise.

The selectors seem to have missed the point about Giles - yes, he was there in 2005 matching up against Warne but he was only ever a bit-part player in that triumph.

The reason England won the series is because we more than matched the Aussies with fire and aggression - witness Simon Jones aggressive bowling and body language, Pietersen's confident batting, Vaughan's focus and Flintoff's heroics.

Giles will probably do OK in this test, he always seems to do OK but when you've lost Vaughan, Trescothick and Simon Jones you need more than people who will do "OK".

The one big plus for England as compared with the 2005 team is that this time they actually have a potential matchwinner spinner in Panesar - and they didn't select him.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Check out Warne's stats in Brisbane Tests if you think it's a spinners graveyard.

Warne - Test Matches at Brisbane

FFS, Pietersen was turning it on day 1, Monty would have been a real threat.

I was trying to paint a positive picture. I would have played them both and not played either Anderson or Harmison. We have already conceded victory, but hopefully we can salvage a draw.

 

[Gritt23]

If England were ever going to win this test then Panesar would have been a key ingredient. I cannot for the life of me believe what Flintoff and Fletcher have done here.

By picking Giles they've gone for containment, and when the Aussies smell fear they usually capitalise.

The selectors seem to have missed the point about Giles - yes, he was there in 2005 matching up against Warne but he was only ever a bit-part player in that triumph.

The reason England won the series is because we more than matched the Aussies with fire and aggression - witness Simon Jones aggressive bowling and body language, Pietersen's confident batting, Vaughan's focus and Flintoff's heroics.

Giles will probably do OK in this test, he always seems to do OK but when you've lost Vaughan, Trescothick and Simon Jones you need more than people who will do "OK".

The one big plus for England as compared with the 2005 team is that this time they actually have a potential matchwinner spinner in Panesar - and they didn't select him.

It's also a massive switch in emphasis from 2005, where the selectors were prepared to take the chance. Back then we dropped Graham Thorpe who had been a hugely talented Test player, but was coming to the end, in favour of the new kid on the block, and at the time completely untried at Test level, Kevin Pietersen.

We stood up to the Aussies, fought toe-to-toe and came out on top. they never smelt the fear they do now, and therefore never had that chance to capitalise. Whereas this time we have gone into the first test and shouted from the rooftops, that we have no confidence that out top order will get the job done. Madness.


However, day 1 hasn't proved anyone right or wrong - I can't believe I'm about to type this - as Giles (and Jones) selection is all about batting. No-one in their right mind says Giles is the better spinner, he's there for what he can contribute with the bat. So the proof of the pudding will come in a day or so when he marches out with a bat. That - incredibly - is why he's been picked!

 

[Gritt23]

I was trying to paint a positive picture. I would have played them both and not played either Anderson or Harmison. We have already conceded victory, but hopefully we can salvage a draw.

I am usually VERY positive about Test cricket, but we just seem to have shot ourselves in the foot time after time here.

Salvage a draw? Yeah, possible, because if Day 1 is anything to go by, then it's a belting track. They could well score 500+, but if we go out and do the same, then we've got a draw.

My concern is that Pietersen was getting rather useful turn on the pitch already, which makes me worry what Warne will get out of it. His figures do suggest there is plenty in this pitch for the spinners. There appeared to be no moisture in the pitch at the start, and the forecast is for baking weather for 5 days. We just have to pray the pitch doesn't crack up badly in the heat.

 

[Brovion]

f*** off Fletcher...

You were good a while ago but this 'jobs for the boys' rubbish is toss.

Good point. He's going the way of Clive Woodward when he took the Lions to New Zealand: "Hey, I'll just stick in all the English players who won the World Cup regardless of form and injury. They were good once so it stands to reason they must be the right choices now."

 

[Gritt23]

Good point. He's going the way of Clive Woodward when he took the Lions to New Zealand: "Hey, I'll just stick in all the English players who won the World Cup regardless of form and injury. They were good once so it stands to reason they must be the right choices now."

From what Athers and Hussain were saying last night it sounded like the selection of Giles was something that Freddie was pushing for more than Fletch.

Doesn't make it right, it just makes me question Freddie as a captain.

 

[sten_super]

The most non-sensical part of this whole debacle is the fact that until Trescothick went home, Panesar was going to play. That's why he played in the only first-class match we played on tour. But all of a sudden, Tresco is off home, and now we need another 10-20 runs down the order? Hardly a confidence booster for Cook/Bell/Collingwood is it? Besides which, I would have backed any of those three above Trescothick on current batting form anyway. Unfortunately, as has been stated above, form has very little to do with this selection. 4 years ago when we took a squad full of injured players to Aus, and got the beating we deserved for such stupidity, the mantra was 'never again will we make this mistake'. Yet it's Giles first game for a year, Flintoffs first game in several months, and Harmison does not look fully fit. Talk about bloody deja vu.

 

[Brixtaan]

I think we'll get such a bloody nose in this 1st Test that it'll be a rare case of galvanising us for victories in the other 4.I think.

 

[gwpdylan]

as i never got to see him bowl, how was giles? i see he got a wicket but did he trouble anybody...i did read that petersein actualy looked the more likely..was that right

 

[Brovion]

as i never got to see him bowl, how was giles? i see he got a wicket but did he trouble anybody...i did read that petersein actualy looked the more likely..was that right

To be honest - he wasn't that bad. Good economy rate and the 2nd best bowler today IMO after Flintoff - not that that's saying much.

Dare I say it might prove to have been the right choice? It's highly unlikely that we'll win now so packing the team with people who can bat (a bit) and also do other things like keep wicket or bowl spin might actually help salvage a draw and might have been the right decision. Negative I know, the cricket equivalent of playing with five at the back and one up front but there you go.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

If we lose the game we are still level as regards the Ashes. And there is "still plenty of cricket left in this one" ...............

 

[Pavilionaire]

If we go 1-0 down I cannot see us coming back for the simple reason that we don't have sufficient confidence.

Personally I think Flintoff has too much weight on his shoulders as captain and all-rounder.

The problem is that Fletcher is not backing his team as he should be - he's already admitted the loss of Tresco has meant the batting has become weaker (which is debatable at best, untrue at worst).

I also believe that he should have made Strauss captain - his stats are great, he has all the experience and there is a real need not to lump too much responsibilty on Freddie's shoulders.

My prediction for Day 2 is Australia all out for 600 and England 60-3 at the close.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I don't mind if the Aussies are just better, but you have to give yourselves a chance - and the fact is that with the Panesar thing we had surrendered the initiative even before Harmy launched his first ball towards cover point. Which compounded matters.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Re the Flintoff captaincy, by the time he brought himself on he was the 4th bowler to be used and the Aussies were already 50-0 in double quick time.

Any other captain would have had Flintoff bowling first change. This is a direct consequence of Freddie being captain.

 

[Scoffers]

Giles or Panesar, well, why dont we take a bit of each, the batting from Giles, and the bowling from Panesar, so who do we want?

It's gotta be PILES

..
..
..
..
..
I'll get my coat