Monty ready for a 'Pane-starring' role...
I have it on fairly good information that after the Brisbane fiasco (otherwise known as 'Back to the mediocre days of the mid-90's again'), Monty will be playing in Adelaide.
This is a decision which should both delight and dismay in equal measure.
Delight?
That Monty is FINALLY going to get the chance to show the Australians that England finally have a spinner who can be mentioned in the same breath as Messrs Warne and McGill.
After a superb summer spent dismissing some of the world's elite batsmen, Monty is now presented with the ultimate challenge to both his technique and his temperament. I for one am sure that he'll come out of the experience with his disarming smile intact and clutching a 'turban-full' of wickets.
Dismay?
The decision to play Giles instead of Monty in the first Ashes test in Brisbane proved one thing above all else - that England had come to Australia not to win the Ashes again, but merely to retain them at all costs.
It is impossible to deny the fact that Giles is a sturdy lower order batsman. However, unless the old guard has changed, do we not pick bowlers because of their bowling attributes?
Fletcher has selection policy whereby bowlers with batting credentials tend to find greater favour. In reality however, this doesn't work in practice. Steve Harmison, although perfectly capable of biffing a brisk 20 does so on thankless few occasions. Matthew Hoggard for all his coal face grit and determination, is blessed with as little 'talent' as one could possibly imagine. Even when he does choose to stick around, he fails to inflict scorers with a dose of RSI.
In the Brisbane test England's five bowlers amalgamated only 74 runs and on that basis it must be said that Monty should have been hugely annoyed to have missed out on his first Ashes test based on the Mantra that his batting wasn't up to scratch.
Some months ago, Big Keith lauded young Mudhsuden as 'the best finger spinner in the world', he is then promptly whisked off to Australia only to find himself warming benches and making tea. In test cricket, Monty's bowling average is 10 runs per wicket better than Giles, and his strike rate is 2 overs better per wicket.
Putting this into context, had Monty taken 3 wickets in the first test, england would have had 30 runs and 6 overs to play with. This is a commodity that, should a match prove to be as tight as Trent Bridge or Edgbaston, would prove to be priceless. the difference between winning and losing - Without question.
Duncan, please stop the anachronistic, defensive selection policy and listen to the hearts of the millions of Britains who suprisingly know a thing or two about the game.
This is a decision which should both delight and dismay in equal measure.
Delight?
That Monty is FINALLY going to get the chance to show the Australians that England finally have a spinner who can be mentioned in the same breath as Messrs Warne and McGill.
After a superb summer spent dismissing some of the world's elite batsmen, Monty is now presented with the ultimate challenge to both his technique and his temperament. I for one am sure that he'll come out of the experience with his disarming smile intact and clutching a 'turban-full' of wickets.
Dismay?
The decision to play Giles instead of Monty in the first Ashes test in Brisbane proved one thing above all else - that England had come to Australia not to win the Ashes again, but merely to retain them at all costs.
It is impossible to deny the fact that Giles is a sturdy lower order batsman. However, unless the old guard has changed, do we not pick bowlers because of their bowling attributes?
Fletcher has selection policy whereby bowlers with batting credentials tend to find greater favour. In reality however, this doesn't work in practice. Steve Harmison, although perfectly capable of biffing a brisk 20 does so on thankless few occasions. Matthew Hoggard for all his coal face grit and determination, is blessed with as little 'talent' as one could possibly imagine. Even when he does choose to stick around, he fails to inflict scorers with a dose of RSI.
In the Brisbane test England's five bowlers amalgamated only 74 runs and on that basis it must be said that Monty should have been hugely annoyed to have missed out on his first Ashes test based on the Mantra that his batting wasn't up to scratch.
Some months ago, Big Keith lauded young Mudhsuden as 'the best finger spinner in the world', he is then promptly whisked off to Australia only to find himself warming benches and making tea. In test cricket, Monty's bowling average is 10 runs per wicket better than Giles, and his strike rate is 2 overs better per wicket.
Putting this into context, had Monty taken 3 wickets in the first test, england would have had 30 runs and 6 overs to play with. This is a commodity that, should a match prove to be as tight as Trent Bridge or Edgbaston, would prove to be priceless. the difference between winning and losing - Without question.
Duncan, please stop the anachronistic, defensive selection policy and listen to the hearts of the millions of Britains who suprisingly know a thing or two about the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment