All Out Cricket's Discussion of the Week - Should England pick two spinners in Abu Dhabi?

In his new regular column, All Out Cricket's editor Phil Walker looks at the tough task faced by solitary spinners in subcontinental conditions:

http://www.alloutcricket.com/blogs/comment/the-grubber-graeme-swann-and-monty-panesar

As England prepare for the crucial second Test against Pakistan, we want to know whether you think Monty should play alongside Graeme Swann.

A good read, that, and funny that the Salisbury episode should be mentioned, given that a few of us were discussing it only last week!

I think Monty should probably play in this Test, yes. Anderson and Broad are very fit lads, likely to be able to bowl their fair share of overs, so I don't foresee a struggle in that sense. Jonathan Trott's able support bowling may nudge the selectors in to making the change of Tremlett for Panesar.

It is a risk, for sure, given that Trott would end up taking the new ball if one of Anderson or Broad were to get injured, but that would be rather unlucky.

A lot, again, will depend on the Abu Dhabi pitch. I hear it is a dead track, which made me wonder whether the additional pace of Steven Finn may indeed be the best way to go - attempt to take the pitch out of the equation.

A left arm, right arm spin combination could be very effective though, for sure.

The problem with this question is that it only asks half a question - Monty can't come in as the twelfth member of the team, so who should give way, if anyone?

Options:
1 - Swap for Tremlett, who bowled with good economy but little threat in Dubai and for whom the AD wicket is reputedly likely to be even less helpful.
2 - Drop a batsman (presumably Morgan).

The first would definitely be my preferred option of the two, but leads to the situation of only having two front line seam bowlers with Trott as the first change. Imagine if Jimmy broke down and we had Trott as the new ball bowler? Oh, and if it isn't a real spinners track (especially in the first innings), we'd be placing a huge demand on Broad particularly to bowl the Pakistani's out - Pakistan aren't going to get themselves out to well flighted but non-turning deliveries from Swann and Monty.

Second option just seems a bit daft after the abject failure of our batting in the first match - OK, if Cook and Bell had both got double hundreds, backed up by KP with 150, we could have considered weakening the batting line-up, but after two sub 200 scores, the idea of a line-up with Broad and Swann at 7 and 8 followed by 3 bunnies just doesn't fill me with optimism.

I'd be more tempted to keep the balance of the side the same, but perhaps see if Finn (with his extra pace through the air) could be more effective than Tremlett. Our seam bowling has been a big strength in the last couple of years, and we actually did a pretty good job with the ball in the first match - getting Pakistan out for under 350 was about a 7.5/10 performance from the bowling and fielding unit. Problems weren't with that side of the team.

England bowled ok but I would swap Tremlett for Monty. Risky given we will only have Anderson and Broad as the seamers/swingers but Trott can fill in.

In my opinion, No. I think that Anderson, Broad and Tremlett did OK without being spectacular in Dubai and that without the double batting debacle would have put England in a position to win the Test. England's bowling strength is the seam attack and so I believe a 2 and 2 seam and spin attack wouldn't work for England as we wouldn't want to just leave the spinners going all day. Also, the Pakistani batsmen are good against spin. I don't think leaving out a batsman is an option, particularly after Dubai, so see 2 and 2 as the only way to get a second spinner in. Should it become clear that more overs of spin are needed KP can always do a decent job in support of Swann. Although the pitch flattens out it should also be noted that seamers have had a fair bit of success in the two Tests at Abu Dhabi so far (Steyn, Tanvir Ahmed, Junaid Khan and Umar Gul have all taken 4+ wickets in an innings)

As I funny as it would be to see Trott opening the bowling we have to agree with the comments above - ie too much of a risk to take. As such, it seems unlikely that Monty will play. However, drastic times do call for drastic measures...

Pakistan took the very same risk in the first Test, we have to remember. At the same time, though, their seam bowling isn't their strong suit, and to think of England with only one available seamer sends a shiver down my spine!

It is worthy of discussion, but in short if the batting doesn't perform then this conversation will fast become redundant again!

I remember the Aussies having Symonds as a first change seamer on a few occasions.
Ok, he's a better bowler than Trott but still, hardly more than a test match filler in.

I think we should go into this game simply picking our first choice XI, which would be the same as the one that played in Dubai other than maybe Finn for Tremlett. However, if it doesn't work for us again, then the third match is defintely the time to try something different - in that context I could see us possibly playing a 5 man attack and just telling the batsmen to do their job properly.

Stella wrote:I remember the Aussies having Symonds as a first change seamer on a few occasions.
Ok, he's a better bowler than Trott but still, hardly more than a test match filler in.

I can remember Martin Crowe opening the bowling in a test in Sri Lanka back in the late '80s. Shudder.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Stella wrote:I remember the Aussies having Symonds as a first change seamer on a few occasions.
Ok, he's a better bowler than Trott but still, hardly more than a test match filler in.

I can remember Martin Crowe opening the bowling in a test in Sri Lanka back in the late '80s. Shudder.

Better than Sneddon, I suppose

Younis Khan has taken the new ball for Pakistan in the past

For Pakistan its a bit different in that ideally they have Gul (new ball and reverse swing later), Cheema (new ball), Hafeez (new ball against left-handers and when turning, part-timer later), Ajmal (comes on after about 20/25 overs and bowls the bulk of the overs from one end up until almost the new ball) and Rehman (holding bowler throughout the innings).

I can't imagine England playing like this. They will want Anderson and Broad on at regular intervals if they have only two seamers and therefore will feel the gap in their side at times, particularly if Pakistan start to put runs on the board.

All Out Cricket wrote:As I funny as it would be to see Trott opening the bowling we have to agree with the comments above - ie too much of a risk to take. As such, it seems unlikely that Monty will play. However, drastic times do call for drastic measures...

AOC - I don't actually buy - certainly not yet - the setting that we are in ''drastic times''.

Sure, we lost the first Test badly. That was mainly down to the batsmen batting badly. I'm not close enough to the action to know why that was. However, it was and for now remains one Test. We've generally done pretty ok in others recently.

Any drastic shift is more likely to accentuate drastic times than rid us of them or their perception. I certainly had that in mind over the weekend concerning some 'TalkSport' type calls for Strauss's head. Playing Monty would not be nearly so drastic a move but it certainly still would not be without risks.

As Dummy says above, clearly someone would have to make way for Monty. It seems unlikely to be a batsman. Six batsmen couldn't make enough last time, so what hope would there be with five. The bowler most likely to miss out must surely be Tremlett. Whilst he wasn't too bad in the first Test, he didn't appear too threatening either.

Leaving Tremlett out would leave us with two seamers and two spinners. It could work - Monty might really enjoy his time in the sun and pick up 5 for 30 off 18 first innings overs. However, it certainly can't be assumed. If the Pakistan batsmen successfully target him and he has figures of 0 for 60 off 9 overs, what next? Broad and Anderson are going to then be very busy, increasing the chances of at least one breaking down.

Nothing is without risk. I'm just not convinced this risk is necessary at this stage. Like others, I would probably bring in Finn for Tremlett but leave it at that at this stage.

The one other thing that could be considered (although it won't!) would be to play Steve Davies now purely as a number six batsman and drop Morgan.

1-0 down with two to play?

I say it's do or die time.

Stella wrote:1-0 down with two to play?

I say it's do or die time.

Do what, pick two spinners and lose by more?

Or do pick the side you think is best suited to win?




Plan A:

Ostriches, same team

Plan B

Panesar will sort out Englands batting problems. Its quite clear Pakistan have no problem playing spinners when theres no turn ( unlike England) so he'll come is as a batsman all rounder at 11. Drop Morgan, or the third seamer if we want to make sure Anderson and/or Broad get injured from overbowling

Plan C

Use Steve Finns pace and lack of accuracy to fool the Pakistanis into thinking they arent playing on slow low wickets. Maybe hope a few will get themselves out playing wild shots off him.

Plan D

Panic!
Strauss out for Davies, Morgan out for Bopara, Tremlett for Panessar, Anderson for Finn.

Plan E

Just play better.

PSW
My suspicion is we will see plan A, but I have nothing against Plan C and hope that plan E is in operation.

Peter - although you express it in your usual ''no prisoners taken'' manner, our thinking seems very similar.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Stella wrote:1-0 down with two to play?

I say it's do or die time.

Do what, pick two spinners and lose by more?

Or do pick the side you think is best suited to win?




Plan A:

Ostriches, same team

Plan B

Panesar will sort out Englands batting problems. Its quite clear Pakistan have no problem playing spinners when theres no turn ( unlike England) so he'll come is as a batsman all rounder at 11. Drop Morgan, or the third seamer if we want to make sure Anderson and/or Broad get injured from overbowling

Plan C

Use Steve Finns pace and lack of accuracy to fool the Pakistanis into thinking they arent playing on slow low wickets. Maybe hope a few will get themselves out playing wild shots off him.

Plan D

Panic!
Strauss out for Davies, Morgan out for Bopara, Tremlett for Panessar, Anderson for Finn.

Plan E

Just play better.

Why would we lose by more by playing Monty?

I think Monty is more likely to take wickets and have an effect on the game than Morgan will by scoring runs.

Stella - we lost the first Test mainly because we didn't score enough runs. Unfortunately for anyone hoping to get in the side as a fifth bowler, that suggests we're going to still need six batsmen.

I think the above argument is pretty sound. The one possible weakness is that it rather assumes the sixth batsman will actually score some runs.

As I said earlier, nothing is without risk.

Yes, six good batsmen.

Morgan doesn't convince me, hence my Monty option.

Stella - yep, I follow that. Still don't go along with it but never mind.

IF Monty were to play, I agree it should be at the expense of Morgan rather than Tremlett (or Finn).

As mentioned before - if Monty were one of only four bowlers and the Pakistan batsmen successfully target him, the consequences could be horrendous.

Playing Monty though as you suggest considerably increases the tail. Broad at 7, Swann at 8 and then 3 ferrets as far as run scoring goes at Test level. If the 3 seamers and Swann bowl as well as they can, how much will Monty be needed? Even as part of a 5 man attack, Pakistan might still try to target Monty and hit him out of the game.

I do though share your concern about Morgan. In addition, Bopara has more than shown himself ''not fit for purpose'' at Test level. That's why I would seriously consider Davies as a pure batsman at number 6. I know Peter was characteristically lacking in optimism about the idea but it's Davies's preferred batting position and the lad can actually bat.

Stella,

I sort of explained my reasoning in "Plan B". Picking Monty soplves none of the problems England had. They didnt really struggle that badly to take wickets, they bowled on day two on an unhlepful pitch against a Pakistan batting line up with a bit of steel in it and comfortable in those conditions.
Theres very little to suggest they would be anymore troubled by Panessar than they were by other bowlers. A straight swap for Tremeltt to me makes a lot more sense if we insist on having him in the side, coupled with bring Bopara in for Morgan to give the slightly better support bowling option and at leats try and do something about the batting.
Of course that course has it own pitfalls, but does more to address the real failings England had than taking out a batsman ( albeit a struggling one) for

I honestly dont think theres a right answer for England, other than plan E. All line up changes ( or not) have as many down sides and new weakenesses to add to the team. For every gap they try and plug they will just be opening up a new one.

I don't think Monty should play. Nothing against him, he bowled well in the warm up game and has been bowling well all summer for Sussex, but sub continent sides are known for their ability to play spin well (unlike England) and playing two spinners on a pitch that is low, slow but not turning much would be foolhardy in my opinion, especially against a team that plays spin well. The only change I would make would be to bring Finn in for Tremmers. Raw pace and a knack of getting wickets at good times, mark my words, I'm sticking my neck out and saying Steven Finn will be be spearheading England's attack for years to come, I think he is that good.

Obviously all this is academical really. Does Finn come in for Tremlett? Does Monty play? If Monty plays, does he come inf or Tremmers or Morgan? It won't matter if we lose 20 wickets for 350 runs again.

We need to take 20 wickets and Monty will give us some variety.

I know playing six batsmen can create scoreboard pressure but I don't rate Morgan that highly. If we had Thorpe at six then my thoughts may be different.

It's may have already been said but:

Bowling wasn't the issue, batting was.

Of far more interest should be the question about dropping Eoin Morgan. Who for? Bopara. He wouldn't do any worse with the bat than Morgan and would certainly be a better part-time bowler than Trott or KP.

So, sounds like Strauss made the call very late to include Panesar. A brave move, but one that I believe was correct in hindsight. Monty took the key wicket of Hafeez in the first session, and bowled with great control throughout the day. Misbah launched a couple of assaults on him, clubbing him for two sixes in a row, twice, but Monty was very unlucky to see Misbah dropped by Anderson when he was in his 30's.

You could argue it either way. Look at the scorecard and its " yeah sure two spinners of course"
Look at Montys figures, second worst economy rate of the 4 proper bowlers and one wicket ...and you wonder what three seamers could have done with Swann who was the danger man.

The wickets mainly came with the new ball, the spinners didnt really offer much of a threat when it was old which is when youre really relying on your two spinners. Panessar did get clubbed, and swann milked , relieving the pressure the tight seamers kept at the other end.

Had England being batting first then absolutely 100% it was the right call. given how flat it is it probably still is, and come the second innings youd certainly think the two spinners would be better than 3 seamers. But I dont think the case is as clear cut as the scorecard suggests, it might have been better ..and this might not have gone as well as it did.

I'd disagree there, and suggest that Monty bowled almost every bit as well as Swann. He was very unlucky to not have Misbah back in the hutch, remember. Swann, on the other hand, whilst he picked up the three wickets, he was also very loose at times and allowed himself to be milked for plenty of singles in that 100 partnership.

Either way, we are splitting hairs, and I think the England bowling unit as a whole did a fine job. I don't believe that 3 seamers would have worked any better, as some of the wickets were as a result of the control shown by Monty and Swann. Two spinners worked very well, for me.

Fof ...sure he bowled fine but doesnt that suggest that even bowling well he wasnt that effective?

Like you say i dont think it wouldve made a deal of difference really. England restricted Pakistan to a similar total to what we assume they will get here last time.

Im just playing devils advocate and trying to avoid this myth that somehow Panessar came into the team and has transformed them back into the killer pack of rabid cricket gods they were 6 months ago and that his inclussion was a masterstroke of genius selection. That is far from proven yet

Oh I don't feel that strongly about his inclusion, PSW, I just feel that it was a brave move and one that has been rewarded to an extent.

not sure about this, i think england may be tempted into playing 2 spinners

i am really not convinced we got it right with panesar tbh , i am not sure how figures of 33-9-91-1 have got people so excited , wasn't even that you could say he had the batsmen struggling to play him either.

compare that to broad who was outstanding today and constantly troubled the basmen and even anderson who wasn't great with the first new ball was unlucky a few times in the afternoon.

i think if we had finn in the side instead of panesar we might have managed to bowl them out yesterday, at the very least with finn's extra pace and the improved control he showed in the ODIs against india, he would have caused alot more problems than panesar did.

Monty may prove his inclusion second up.

Lets not judge quite yet.

i thought monty bowled very well, but didnt get his reward, only went at just under 3 an over, did turn the ball quite a bit, and im sure he will bag some in the 2nd innings

Monty is justifying his selection, unlike Morgan.

Time for 5 bowlers???

Stella wrote:Monty is justifying his selection, unlike Morgan.

Time for 5 bowlers???

Why ? We dont seem to need 5.

If Bresnan were fit I suspect they may have done that for this game but not long term.

Instead England need to be looking at options to repalce Morgan with a batsmen, that means Bopara and Taylor.

I did mean for the next game only.

I prefer six batsmen but not if one looks like scoring single figures.

Well Englands problem is still the batting so Id prefer to see Bopara tried out than a bowling option we may not use.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Well Englands problem is still the batting so Id prefer to see Bopara tried out than a bowling option we may not use.

Oh for Graham Thorpe.