I agree with Tim here. I am always surprised that england are wary of playing two spinners in one side. I frankly believe that Jamie dalrymple and monty panesar are good enough to be in the english test side. Dalrymple is a good off spinner and someone that will get better with more match practise. Giles, on the other hand, is my third spinning option, primarily because he is not an attacking bowler. giles is a good bowler, no doubt, but monty and dalrymple must go ahead of him right now, especially since he is coming back from an injury lay off. Can he bowl forty overs in a day? Hell no.

As for ian bell for graham thorpe, i thought duncan fletcher got a "get out of jail" card thanks to pietersen's sterling performances at 5 and also england's bowlers' brilliant performance. Otherwise, he would have had to cop it for dropping graham thorpe, who was, at the time, easily the best middle order batsman in the country.

I find fletcher's tactics in the one day internationals to border on the abysmal (yardy who?) and his test tactics to be passable. I think troy cooley, flintoff, pietersen and michael vaughan had more to do with england's win last summer than fletcher ever did.

And also, if warne thinks panesar should play, then panesar should play. Remember? he was the needle for the english selectors to pick pietersen last year, and we all know what happened then! Warne may be a fool when it comes to his personal life, but i rate him very highly as a captain, and as a thinking cricketer. He will make an excellent future selector for australia, if not coach.

Spot on Tim - I had the same sinking feeling that it was all about finding a way to play Giles.
Am I the only one who feels there is something unseemly about Fletcher's obsession with the likes of Giles and Jones ? To even contemplate not playing Monty is beyond belief - he is the best left arm spinner in the world by a mile and can tie up an end, take top order wickets and stop the scoring rate. I think Graveney and co will have to step in and stop this silly plan otherwise I can see the unthinkable happening - an entire nation agreeing with Geoff Boycott !

if monty isn't picked i may find myself agreeing with boycott's assertion that it's time for fletcher to go...

100% right - Monty must play ahead of Giles. Fletch also needs to heed Warne about the wicketkeeper - Read should play if Monty is to be most effective (how many missed stumpings Geraint?) and anyway, Read has batted better for the last 18 months.
It's right that England should go with 5 bowlers, but not just to shelter Freddie - if he was fit and they go with 4 bowlers it shows a very negative approach. You need 5 bowlers to defeat Australia - like Vaughn said, we must be positively aggresive.

Couldn't agree more, Tim. DF can be prey to negative thinking at times, and this appears to be one of them. Even to contemplate replacing Monty with Giles is worryingly negative, and evidence of unsound thinking.

I'm also concerned that he's thinking of dropping Chris Read to bring back another of his favourites, Geraint Jones. We need the best gloveman in the country behind the stumps, and that's Chris Read. Jones's failings as wicketkeeper in the 2005 Ashes were legion, and could so easily have cost us the series.

Fletcher needs to hold his nerve, play the best men for the job and turn his back on last year's 'favourites'.

I can't agree more with you Tim. Points very well made and i hope to be echoed when selection for brisbane comes to pass. What remains to be seen is how certain individuals are shaping up during the practice matches to come. A great deal depends, as usual, on Freddies bowling fitness. If the confidence is there that he can do his regular job then why not play the 2 spinners, but i also say this not knowing exactly where Giles is at yet and with i believe understandable worries over Harmisons form too. i think it would be criminal not to play young Monty, but believe England should entertain the use of giles as 2nd spinner if freddie and harmy are firing. The confidence in our seam attack is in slight disarray for me at the moment with Fred recovering, Harmy wavering and Hoggy hoping to get what he can out of the Aussie pitches. Add to this the relative blooding of a fourth seamer against a wealth of talent and experience in their own backyard! We can be sure that the Aussies know exactly what's coming and in comparison their so called ageing attack begins to look fearsome. So for goodness sake why on earth would we drop our main "surprise" package and talent when the rest is unsure?! i hope all will come good and the England team play their socks off. I spare a thought for Colly who i think will be left out, of course a lot can happen in 2 weeks, and wonder will Anderson or Plunkett be called on at all. Should we have taken a lefty in young Broad? Lacking in experience maybe, but a good option to have certainly when with something to prove, and i think the lad can bat. For me the keepers position depends on what happens next but i would prefer Jones as he's proven his combative skills in the thick of it. Come on Dunc! Let's go at them with the positive outlook we had circa 2005. Monty should for my money be the first bowler on the teamsheet at the moment, i just hope you think so too.

Terrible retrograde step if they take it. If Flintoff isn't fit, then he shouldn't play.

I dont agree with the point u made about two spinners playing when england last won against australia in australia after looking at the scorecards for the series.i extend this argument based on the assumption that you were not refering to their mere presence but their contribution. In the 1st test emburey got none in the 1st and 5 in the 2nd innings,while edmonds scalped none in the 1st and 1 in the 2nd inngs.so the two spinners had did nothing together towards this victory. looking at the fourth test there was no contribution from the two spinners in the 1st innings with one bowling only a couple of overs and the other not bowling at all.in the 2nd they got 5 together and that is the only sizable contribution towards england's victory by the both the spinners together in the same match.there had been other occasions in the series when one had performed well and the other hadn't.so i dont think its a good example to cite. it would be a good idea for a team that has two world class spinners in their ranks, say like india, to play two spinners. if england has won the ashes with one spinner they can do it again. i would say england should go in with the extra batsman or a seamer than go with an extra spinner.

Your analysis is spot-on. If Fletcher drops Monty for Giles, it'll cause the biggest uproar since Gower wasn't picked for the tour of India. And we know what happened there. Even if Giles (average 20) contributes 20 more runs a match than Panesar (average 10), your bowling stats suggest Giles will concede at the very least 30 more runs per match AND take fewer wickets--which means still more runs. In other words, Giles would have to average, say, 40 with the bat to justify the dropping of a bowler as effective as Monty. And then there's the question of how Giles could possibly bat & bowl as well as ever given his lay-off. Fletcher's being completely irrational here.

I'm really hoping that this is just a ruse from Fletcher to keep the Australians guessing and that England will field just four bowlers for the first test: Harmison, Hoggard, Flintoff and Panesar.

The side has six batsman of which none deserve to be left out and, in the absence of Simon Jones, there isn't really a fourth seamer who's worthy of a place in the side: Plunkett and Mahmood have both done an OK job as injury cover and Anderson is still on the comeback trail.

Panesar vs Giles ought to be no contest in terms of their respective performances or lack of them. Going with six batsmen would take concerns over their potential contribution with the bat out of the equation though.

Also Flintoff's bowling is arguably a lot less critical now than it was in the previous Ashes series where he was the man to go to once the shine had come off. Hoggard has shown that he is more than just a new ball bowler, and Panesar is a genuinely attacking option which ought to take a lot of the heat off. With Collingwood now a regular and Pietersen's spin coming along England also have a couple of potential partnership breaking options that they didn't have last time around too.

The only caveat, I suppose, is if Flintoff really isn't fit, in which case I'd argue that he shouldn't be playing at all.

I'm pretty sure it's a head-fake. I don't see any reason why we should believe anything Fletcher has said about the possible team.

Apparently Hoggard is swinging the ball quite nicely down here though...

Couldn't agree more, not only about Monty and Giles but also the pretty disgraceful way Graham Thorpe was dropped just after playing his 100th test and having done nothing wrong, to make way for Ian Bell on the grounds that he'd just made a big hundred against the might of Bangladesh. Fletcher's done a hell of a lot of good for England in tests but dropping Monty for Giles would be his biggest clanger yet.

Monty also has the advantage of being a relatively unknown to the Aussies, the video analysis of today notwithstanding.

it is important that England go in with the mind-set of trying to win every game, that is the only way the are going to give Australia a decent run. Being defensive and looking at defensive options will only result in playing into the Aussies hands

The English plans are conservative as always. You can only win Test matches by taking 20 wickets. So why would you play a defensive spin bowler instead of an attacking one? Just because the former was in the winning squad last year? Things have changed since then as everybody knows, and its high time Flethcer's mind-set changes as well.

Couldn't agree more. I've been telling everyone who will listen for the past few months that if England are to hang onto the urn, then Panesar is as key a player this time as Flintoff was last year. Aside from Monty's already astonishing record (by recent English spinners' standards), he will revel in the more helpful Australian conditions. Also, Ricky Ponting is none too clever against quality, attacking spin bowling, as his dismal record in India attests. He certainly won`t fancy facing Monty and any dents that can be inflicted on the current run-machine`s confidence will give Flintoff some help in the tactical captaincy duel. Unfortunately, I fear that we may well also see the return of Geraint Jones as wicketkeeper in Brisbane. Fletcher`s thinking is that he can`t trust Read to make runs at 7. He also believes that Giles is his best hope of runs at 8. Apart from the fact that neither of the pair really inspire confidence in this regard (check their averages) they reveal Fletcher`s curious, and probably fatal, refusal to attack Australia. If you want to beat Australia, I believe that you must back your top 6 batsmen to make significant runs (as Nasser Hussain infamously didn`t at Brisbane last time around) and you must select the remaining 5 players most likely to take 20 wickets. Whilst Read and Panesar are both palpably fallible with the bat, Jones and Giles aren't that much better. When it comes to fulfilling the wicket-taking criterion, I don`t think that there is too much of a contest.

There are a lot of ifs regarding England beating Australia (this time around) and if they make any defensive decision it will contribute more to their loss than victory. I am an optimistic person and going with defensive options while knowing that one of your major seamers from the last series is missing (Jones-simon, not Indiana), Flintoff is not fully available, Harmisson is otherwise occupied or rather preoccupied....Oh well if we are going to loose, let us at least give Giles a run yea?

Isn't this article built on something of a false premise? Fletcher has always stressed that he sees himself as more a management consultant than the wielder of absolute power that you see in football. There are plenty of difficult decisions to be made before the first Test, of which the Panesar/Giles issue is one of the easier (though not perhaps quite as easy for those who have to actually implement the decision rather than just comment on it). There's the matter of Read or Jones (and the knowledge that whoever gets the nod will be under horrendous scrutiny); which batsman to leave out, all of whom had good summers; whether Mahmood or Anderson plays as third seamer... However, you can be fairly sure that the team Flintoff leads out at Brisbane won't have been foisted on his unwilling shoulders. If the game goes well, he'll take the credit; if it goes badly, he's quite big enough to handle the brickbats. And I think that's a situation Fred will be more than happy with.

You've summed up exactly my own fear. It would be a massive tactical mistake for Fletcher not to trust in Monty - even if he takes a test or two to deliver. But I agree, I would go so far as to say that I do not see England winning, since I don't think they will be able to bowl Australia out, without Panesar. And Giles has played no cricket since the last Ashes, it would be foolhardy to thrust him straight back in. Like many others, my enthusiasm for the 1st test would definitely be dimmed without Monty's presence - and Fletcher, for me, oh, I just hope he is not going to be stubbornly disappointing. But perhaps I shouldn't confuse him too quickly with our manager from the World Cup. Heaven forbid. Playing Monty would signal to everyone, most of all Australia, that we are serious about winning. Anything less, well I don't believe in that kind of luck

absolutely spot on, no way should Giles play, england need wicket takers and as has been pointed out, none of the seamers will be quite as capable as they were last ashes.

Gilo has given great service and may yet have a role to play in this series if England go for a 2-spinner approach on turning pitches but with the best will in the world, he must be rusty and even on song is nowhere near as good a spinner as Monty. The No. 1 spinners role must be more important than the No. 8 batsman's place. And while Gilo's batting will be missed if he doesn't play, I don't believe England's tail is as long as it is made out to be. Read is much improved with the bat (although it would still not surprise me if Jones gets the nod from Fletcher on account of his supposedly better batting); Saj Mahmood is a good striker of the ball and has a decent defensive technique (and if you're worried about the tail, swapping the supposedly-superior Plunkett for Mahmood is less daft than Gilo for Panesar); Hoggard is durable, Harmy is a clean hitter who has form for applying himself to the task when required (staying with Thorpe for his 100 against the West Indies in the Carribean; staying with Flintoff while he flayed the South Africans) and Monty himself is by no means a rabbit; already he has held his end up in support of an established batsman (Collingwood's hundred v. Pakistan) and (b) scored quite freely himself, and against Murali no less. Conservatism has served Fletcher well and I understand why he is loathe to abandon it but in this case the bold decision is the only sensible one.

I can't believe that dropping Monty for Giles is even an option!? The fact that you're discussing it fills me with horror, fear and loathing, frankly.

I'm a fan of Ashley Giles (honestly). But Monty has such potential as a potent weapon in the Ashes, the only real surprise package we have this time around, it seems incomprehensible that any strategic thinking would fall back on the potential 30 runs that Giles might make in an innings and ignore the 150+ runs that Monty might save by taking four top- and middle-order wickets cheaply.

If Fletcher picks Giles ahead of Monty, they might as well have stayed in Britain and saved the greeenhouse emissions on their return flights. It's tantamount to throwing in the towel and handing over the urn before a ball has been bowled.

I hope you're just scaremongering (or perhaps Fletcher is....)

Well Tim, I sincerely hope you were wrong in decoding fletch's hint ... England just cant do without Monty. His performances show it. His stats show it. He has probably been england's no.1 bowler last season, not just because of the wickets he took, but cos of other reasons as well. His intensity on the field, his ability to hold his own against the best (He bowled 42 overs under 2 an over in India against India!!!, and its fair to say he bamboozled the Pakistani middle order batsmen quite a few times on English pitches), and most important of all, his consistency at such a young age. Bob Woolmer reckons he should do better in Australia cos he'll get more bounce there compared to the English wickets.
I wouldnt be too surprised if the Aussies make the mistake of underestimating him. Ponting has already declared that his left-handers will go after him ... Well, the Indians couldnt do it, so I'll be interested in seeing how successful the Ozzies r gonna be. But one thing is for sure, England just cannot do without him ... True, with Monty in, the balance is affected and the tail is pretty long, but it is a risk worth taking because if it does work out well, the positives will be enormous, and I believe that could change the series. Michael Slater said at the last Ashes that england gave themselves a chance by playing guys like KP, and if they learnt any lessons from that win, then they would certainly play Monty here. If Fletcher does go in with Giles ahead of Monty, it will be a negative move (It will be ranked alongside Hussain's great Brisbane Blunder on the 2002-03 tour), going against the attitude and energy that this england team has displayed for the last 2-3 years, and Australia wont let go of that initial psychological advantage.
No Monty, No Ashes, its as simple as that. People might think its no big deal dropping one spinner to pick another who bats and fields better. Its much more than that. It would be a sign of fear, lack of faith in the batsmen, lack of self-confidence and most importantly, an erosion of the courage and bravery that won England the Ashes in 2005.

It might actually work out well for Monty & England if he doesn't play at Brisbane. At the Gabba, seamers usually do better & Giles will be thrashed with Monty playing the rest of the series. It worked that way for India in 2003 when an unfit Harbhajan was preferred to a fit Kumble at the Gabba. Zaheer took a fifer, Harbhajan was wicketless & out of the tour. Kumble picked up 24 wickets in the next 3 tests!

I read your article with a lot of interest, Tim, and couldn't find much to disagree with. However, I think the reasoning behind Fletcher's thinking isn't given enough emphasis: Fletcher wants to play Giles because he is the best no.8 in the squad. A 678 of Flintoff, Read, Mahmood doesn't look very solid, especially since it is those positions which can really take a game away from a side (or vice versa if they go quickly/cheaply). He'll want to play Giles for the same reason he'll want, if he can, to pick Geraint Jones. Both allow the team to really attack tired bowling, and also both have beaten Australia.
For this reason I agree most whole-heartedly with the penultimate paragraph: play Panesar and not Mahmood. Why are two spinners a crime? This leaves the team with a very similar look to the Ashes winners, with Cook for Vaughan and Monty for Simon Jones. Put that way, the injury worries don't look so bad.

Everything you say is right. And the balance of the team is seriously improved by having an attacking slow bowler who bowls lots of overs for not too many. But we all have that sinking feeling that Giles has been wheeling away in those subcontinental nets because Fletcher wants him back. If he does it will be of the same order of mistake as Hussain's decision to put them in when he won the toss last time out. Dumb.

completely and totally agree, dead right about the Thorpe issue that arose in 2005. If the top order fail to make enough runs, it cannot be expected that the lower order should do so, and if they do this should simply be regarded as a bonus. It would be similar to dropping Cook instead of Collingwood because Collingwood can bowl, completely ludicrous.

Absolutely right Tim! I'm a great fan of Giles but selecting him ahead of Monty for the first test would send out completely the wrong message. I'd rather bolster the batting (a huge Duncan Fletcher concern, of course) by selecting Jones ahead of Read. Let's go out to win two of the first three tests and then look at consolidation...either by playing two spinners or picking an extra batsman. It really is all about positve thinking. It's not the 1990's...they won't blow us away like in the past!

Why does Fletcher continue to prefer jacks of all trades to masters of one? Suppose that Monty takes one more wicket per Test than Gilo, and suppose further that it's one of Australia's top order (which is quite likely, since he's made a habit of dismissing top order batsmen). If he can dismiss, say, Ponting, for 50 runs fewer than Gilo might have done, that's 50 which Gilo would have to outscore Monty by to merit selection ahead of him. It's no contest.

You are spot on: Monty must play. If England are to play 5 bowlers, Giles must play at 8, and Mahmood must drop out, as again suggest. Giles offers control, and that's all you need as a 5th bowler - Hoggard might well be devasting at Brisbane given conducive weather, and together with Monty, Flintoff and Harmison gives England more than enough potency to get 20 wickets. Please England don't be afraid to be unorthodox, and pick both Giles and Monty!!!

Like you say, Tim; don't do it. Monty is England's number one. Last season, he got the big scalps. I just can't understand why they don't play him in ODIs, too.

If you were Private Ponting or Matty Hayden, who would you rather face: rusty, long-serving Gilo, just back, or Monty?

I sometimes wonder if all this talking down of Monty by Fletcher is a piece of psychological wizardry, to make him come out and take five-for.

Utter insanity to leave such a prodigious talent out of the team. In fact, it's reminiscent of Hussain's decision to bowl first in Brisbane - and Ponting's at Egbaston - a form of self-defeatism that is sourced from the realms of illogic.

It's better for us in Australia if Monty doesn't play, but I'd rather see the best cricketers in action; even if that means a decline in fortunes for my team.

Well put Tim. In this age of statistics and computer modelling, if those figures don't convince Duncan Fletcher, I'm afraid nothing will. Duncan seems to be living in the past; not only will Monty provide excellent value in the current Ashes series but also for many series to come. How many more is Giles expected to play? But the problem is also that the coach bears too much influence on selection issues for English tours. There should always be an official selector on tour, because hopefully they can analyse the issues without blinkers on. No doubt that the Australians will be more happy to be facing Giles than Monty.

Mr. de Lisle.

I totally agree with all of that, i am moderator on a cricket forum board - on there all the hype is being played down by the Australians. They believe (on the board not in general, you understand) that Monty is going to be hit all over the park this series. Now correct me if i am wrong, but didn't that happen Giles in 2005? Averaging around 50 a wicket, not good enough in my opinion. Although he did have some good performances with the bat, his job was to bowl and bowl well, which he didn't do.
Monty so far, has the wickets of like Inzamam Ul-Haq, Mohammed Yousuf, Sachin Tendulkar to his name - in your first year of International Cricket, that isn't that bad is it?
Monty seems a dead certainty over Ashley as much as it kills it me to say it (being a Warwickshire fellow).
All in all, Monty has been the people's champion this year, i think he deserves the chance to finish the year the way he started. Positive and full of enthusiasm. Bringing back Ashley would be a crime against Monty, i'm sure not many Englishmen would argue with that.
Regards,
Mathew

Tim - spot on.

I like Ash - we all do. He's a top bloke.

However, Monty will win us games - and with the old ball we will miss Simon Jones attacking options Monty is a proper turning - old ball spinner.

Giles is a tall spinner, and if anything is a "bounce" spinner.

His height means the old classic of "get the batsman to lift his chin then lower his eyes" will rarely work for Ash, if he loops it any higher thn his already enormous frame it comes down with ice on.

So Panesar it is ;
A ball spinner with a classic action, a real wicket taker , and no-where near as bad with the bat as people think.

- Monty's your man.

Spot on again Tim !

I feel the England teams coach Fletcher has far to much influence on team selection, far more that I feel Buchanan, his Australian contempory has.
This would be the mistake that costs them the series, there is no way Giles should play in exchange for Panesar. England are already "carrying" a few others post injury/illness ie Trescothik, Flintoff and do they really need Giles on top of that. Also if Flintoff is still not match fit and thats the reason he is not going to ball much in Brisbane, then make sure he gets significant overs under his belt in NSW and SA

As a diehard Aussie, please England, don't stuff this up. This series has the potential to offer some excellent cricket, and Ashley Giles is not going to help you win or entertain.

Panesar is the best spinner england have seen for years, and he should be the first man picked for every test down under. Spinners can still have a role on the unfriendly pitches such as the Gabba, and he certainly has the quality. He is no Warne or Murali, but isn't that far behind provided his game is allowed to develop.

I don't know what Fletcher is thinking - is this merely mind games before the first ball is bowled? I for one hope so.

Agree entirely Tim, but sadly i can't see it happening.

I think Fletcher is probably having nightmares of carrying a long tail on the last tour (anyone remember the failures of Craig White at No 7). This is where the absence of a wicketkeeper batsman of Gilchrist's ilk really hurts England, because they do carry a tail if they play Monty.

For that reason i expect Chris Read to Miss out too, which is a travesty, but will probably happen.

Unfortunately England don't really have any bowlers in their squad who can bat, so they have next to no options.

In fact, the Giles option only makes any sense (and then, still little), if England are playing for a draw, which is probably the case.

It's sad, because i remember watching Sachin bat on the last tour in 04, and apart from being clearly out of form (you want to see class, try scoring a double hundred like the little master while out of form) it was clear he was batting slowly in that innings, as it was clear with how long Ganguly let them bat in the second innings, that despite having the chance to press for victory with their spinners, they were petrified of setting Australia a target (to quote Richie, it was a closure not a declaration). We don't want to see that kind of cricket, we want the caution to the wind stuff Vaughan showed when he made a name for himself here in 03. Then again, the Indians did set us well over 400, and if Tugga hadn't played chicken and told Gilchrist and Gillespie to shut up shop at the last drinks break, we would have got there too.

So maybe there is some logic then to playing Giles. But i still don't like it.

Why does everyone assume that choices won't be forced by injuries in the warm-up matches? I'm expecting at least two, although not necessarily bowlers...

If everyone stays fit, the logic of the "five bowlers" line is that Flintoff should bat at five or even four. It might help remind him to ration himself if everyone else gets tonked around.

Intesting that. But I can understand why such an open tail would frighten Flethcer, especially against a team like Australia. The faintest hint of a collapse and they would simply tear throught the last four or five batsmen.
But yes, Panesar is in much better form, and i agree that Giles perhaps would be better as a second spinner, although it would be sad to watch his miss a Test.

Sound speech whose facts cannot be condemed.
Those who have ears to hear, can go on play deaf.

It seems like, Giles is being picked over Monty, for his batting qualities. On the face of it, if England are indeed going to play 5 bowlers, then any coach or captain would be faced with an unenviable task of choosing between a decent slow bowler, and a decent bat, than with a good slow bowler, and horrible bat.
But, if my hunch is right, these are just mind games being played by Duncan, and come November 23rd, you will see Flintoff in a better position to bowl longer, though I think, Giles would still be picked over Monty.

as an aussie fan i agree with duncan supercoach fletcher here.

please don't play monty we need those ashes back as easy as possible.

For my money he's the biggest reason england have dipped since the last ashes, you shouldn't be writting books and pontificating on your tactical genius when you are only half way through a job and especally not when you want to drop a fit match winner for a half fit donkey work bowler who average nearly 60 with the ball in the 05 ashes.

Tim may be underselling Monty's case a bit.
Aside fact Monty is visibly improving as a batsmen, and no longer an out and out 11 in my book, he and Gilo are herdly in the same position in terms of form. Panesar is the incumbent and possibly in the form of his young life, whereas the king of Spain is coming back from a long lay off, possibly even a fitness risk still. Ashley has a great pair of hands - the thing against Monty may still be his catching, but I'm hoping that has improved too. Whatever, I would have thought Fletcher should need to see a lot from Gilo in the warm up games for him to get a look in on a seamers's pitch.
Ultimately as an Engishman it is just great to have the problem of two spinners who are obviously test class.

Well said, Tim. However, my guess is that your strategy is very different from Duncan's. You are assuming that England is playing the series to win it. I would think that Duncan is playing the series to draw it. If you follow that train of reasoning, then one would play Giles instead of monty as he will add runs lower down the order as well as hang in there to frustrate the Aussie bowlers. What may be more interesting for an article is to prepare two alternate teams (one for winning the series and the other for drawing the series). Closer to the first match, one will realize which strategy Duncan is taking towards this series with his actions, as obviously he will state that he wants to win. I think, England has to try to draw the series, as even if England draws, the Ashes remains with them. Obsession with victory can back-fire spectacularly. That worked in India, and no reason why it should not work in Australia as well.

"Fletcher is thinking: Brisbane is mainly a seamers’ pitch". This is not correct. Look at warne's bowling figures on this pitch before one would make a decision on selecting their bowlers. Fletcher is making another mistake by selecting Giles instead of going for Panesar. Panesar is a left arm bowler and aussies have history of not takling well against bowler's like panesar style. Simply, if england wants to defend their ashes they should put faith on Panesar.

you got it exactly right!!!

If - and its a BIG if - Fletcher drops Monty for Giles, then it has to be considered that Fletcher is indeed reaching the end of his shelf life. It would be a decision made for all the wrong reasons, enforcing a mindset opposite to the aggresive one which won us the urn last time round.

Couldn't agree more. If England decide to with Giles you'd be able to hear the cheers and laughter from the Aussie dressing room in Sydney. 10 runs in an innings will rarely make the difference between winning and losing a test, a few wickets will.

Yes, well written. Monty will play the first test.

added to which, giles averages under 15 with the bat against the aussies. so i don't know how much he'll bolster the batting line up. i think that the australian team would hope that giles plays, which is another strong indicator to play monty

Powerful arguments that most will agree with. Unfortunately in this age, despite all the 'modern' methods and thinking, clarity of thought and priorities is rare, even among accomplished men like Fletcher. They typically follow methods they are comfortable with and so, repeat their mistakes.

I really couldn't agree more. Any one can see that there is a vast difference in class between the two spinners. Monty is far better in every way, be it control, spin, or deception. If one spinner has to play, it just has to be Monty. PLaying Giles would be a defensive move, and the Aussies would know that in an instant.

Also, changing yoour entire tactic just to accomodate Flintoff's "injured" shoulder is tosh. If he is still injured that he should not play! But if he's playing, then he should jolly well take up his share of bowling. This is the reason Strauss should've been captain. Flintoff, only as a batsman, is just not fearsome enough in the longer version of the game. Sorry.

I totally agree that Monty has to play!!! I am an aussie and would really like to see him play here, whether it be as the one spinner or two spinners in the attack, it would be a great shame if he did not play as I think the series would be robbed of a great contest as there is alrady some banter about how the aussies are going to go after him but i think the ageing top order may find him a difficult proposition as their footwork is not as nimble as it once was...

Dead right! How can england be thinking, really, of playing giles over panesar? Tim, another point you have failed to mention is that giles is only just recovering from injury, not to mention the fact that giles was largely unused in last year's ashes series.

You're right Tim, but possibly the most frightening thing about this selection issue is the idea that with Panesar instead of Giles, the tail is too long. The fact is that even with Giles, palpably the better batsman, at eight, England still have a long tail, and are just as likely to biff 40/50 runs between them as they are to get rolled over for 10. Playing Panesar and therefore having Mahmood at eight doesn't change this possibility- in fact, Mahmood has shown plenty of composure with the bat in recent one-dayers. Whatever the team picked, the pressure is on the top six to score big runs, as it rightly should be. Playing a half-fit Giles (to take the burden off a half-fit Flintoff) is what the Aussies would want us to do- the only thing that could be more negatie would be winning the toss and electing to bowl....

Nice use of stats to point out the bleeding obvious (to anyone but the England coach apparently). Namely that Panesar MUST play as the first choice spinner. Both for his attacking qualities, and as you point, out his better defensive record than Giles. It will be a HUGE retrograde step for England if they opt for safety-first Giles. England MUST believe in themselves, fear no-one and play with total aggression (in all aspects) if they are to have a snowball's chance...Its a horrible cliche but fortune really DOES favor the brave. Fletcher's comments (if they are to be believed) are a worrying sign that he thinks England should just sit back and let Australia try and take back the Ashes. A big mistake. They have to go out and seek to try to DOMINATE Australia in all aspects of the game including spin bowling

Geez i'm going to laugh if Giles comes ambling in on November 23rd while Monty chews his fingernails back in the pavillion. Is it just me or is it patently obvious that Panesar should be picked?? I know it's a cliche, but put yourself in Australia's shoes- who would we rather face...

Duncan Fletcher said that Monty was the best finger spinner in the world a few weeks ago. What coach would drop a player with that kind of tag...! Giles actually played a more important role than given credit for last year with the bat contributing not only to winning at Trent Bridge and 'arguably' just as vital a role as Pietersen at the Oval but he also contributed to partnerships in other games too. However...lets remember Panesars bowling against Pakistan, didn't it get you excited about English spinners again?

Agree entirely... not only with the fact that Monty is the better option, but there is a real danger that Fletch might not see it that way... If Giles is good for 20-odd runs batting, and Monty gives away 10 runs in the field, I still believe he'll go for 30 less runs, bowling more overs than Giles, giving the quicks longer recuperation time, AND he'll take more wickets... They have to go with Monty!! Also, I think picking Monty gives the Aussies all the right sort of signals about how we're going to attack them... Having said that, I'd be considering playing 2 spinners & leaving out Mahmood.

Fletcher would be crazy to pick Giles and not Panesar though I wouldn't be surprised if he did. I have before written on this blog that Fletcher should be sacked. He has become a liability and should go before the Ashes!!

I couldn't agree more Tim. Giles is and has been an admirable worker for England over the past few years, but his time has gone. We have been crying out for a top class spinner for so long and one with real potential comes along and Fletcher's first instinct is to play safe and go for the old Wheelie-bin. Surely its more of a risk to play a guy who hasn't played for a whole season rather than the one who was Englands leading wicket taker over the Summer? Its a no-brainer to me.

You see Boycott's comments on Fletcher were not so off-the-hook after all! 90% cricket lovers around the world would pick Monty ahead of Giles. Its such a no-brainer.

Panesar was never going to get picked once Flintoff was appointed captain. Remember the Lord's draw against Sri Lanka. While Sri Lanka piled up 537 in their second innings following on 359 behind, Panesar bowled just 27 overs for 2 top order wickets (81 per wicket), the seamers 172 overs for 7 wickets (147 per wicket). Panesar was ignored almost throughout the last day: Flintoff doesn't understand or trust his spinners. Even in last night's one day game MP got just 3 overs, while Flintoff's pal Mahmood is slammed around the park. I agree Monty should play, and I agree he won't. But you have to see the captain's influence in this too.

I would rest Flintoff for the 1st test possibly even the 2nd. Eng should look to draw the 1st test. They r the away side, they need to get used to Ausie conditions first. If they go on the attack to early they could lose the first 2 tests and posibly lose key players like Flintoff & Harmison to injuries

Maybe Fletcher wants some batting depth...Brisbane isn't exactly a belter. Still, I'd pick Monty over Giles any day

Thank you for an insightful analysis and you have presented very recent stats to insinuate what should be the decisive factor in selecting the best XI to play Australia.

If England shows a degree of pessimism and want to avoid loss then they may opt for Giles but in doing so they wont be able to prevent an inevitable defeat because to play well against Australia and to have the remote possible chance of victory against Australia you must take 20 wickets. As we all know, Harmison, Hoggard ( the ball wont swing for him in Australia) and Mahmood suggest a formidable lineup only if the radars work for them. With Monty however he is always on target, there is no doubt he exemplifies in him the best left arm spinner if recent stats are anything to go by and his control will be tested by Australian batting lineup trying to unsettle his rythm to set the tone for the series. But if you try to hit a spinner out of the park for 40 overs you can not always have success and a risk too many will mean that Australia will lose a few wickets to Monty. In a nutshell its safe to conclude that Monty will be a pivotal part in bowling long spells thus keeping the fast bowlers afresh and will give them the respite they need at times and thus by taking wickets and freezing run scoring from one end it will give enough incentives for the fast men (Harmison, Flintoff and Mahmood) to take few wickets. Australia's aging top order and middle order with the exception of Michael Clarke will fall for the sheer pace. Provided that umpiring standards dont fall below expectation, English bowlers will definitely have some success and its their batsmen who will need to play the short ball well to keep this contest even. Giles will not be able to long spells and Flintoff should not do the same like he did last year so picking Monty is inevitable. What Giles offered with the bat, Mahmood can offer better so we should think of Monty as Simon Jone's replacement and without a shadow of a doubt he will get a few wickets and for England's sake he will get them quickly. As viewers of Channel Nine, all we anticipate is an even contest for which umpires cant succumb to any pressure. I for one wont read too much into the recent debacle England suffered in the hands of PM XI which was virtually a game against Australia A team.

Based on England's performance yesterday, I think they'd be better off going with both spinners. And Jones might be a better bat than Read, but his dropping of Jaques yesterday effectively meant that the PM's XI were playing with 12 batsmen- and that Jones would have to get about a hundred more runs than Read to justify his place.

monty should be a certanty for any englishman and so should g jones.read is by no means a great keeper in the mould of knott or taylor so why is he rated so highly when in the champions throph his balls ups where their for all to see,

As an Aussie i wonder why all the comparison between the batting abilities of Giles and Monty , surely it comes down to who is the best bowler??

You can hardly justify monty's stats, hes played what, two or three series, thats not enough to say hes "more economical", no matter who they pick expect the english spinner to cop an absolute hammering by the aussies, we've seen it in the past, tuffnell, croft etc.
Having said that you must pick monty ahead of giles. Giles is a useless bowler

Hey guys, this is what I think the England team should be for the 1st test:

Strauss
Trescothick
Cook
Pieterson
Collingwood
Flintoff
Bell
Read
Hoggard
Harmison
Panaser

The one to miss out has to be Mahmood. Out of Cook, Bell and Collingwood, you can't leave any of them out because they've all been in good nick. And I think Flintoff's batting looks a bit lazy at times, as shown by the way Tait cleaned him up yesterday.

You've got 4 aggressive bowlers there, and Bell, Collingwood and Pietersen can bowl some part-timers in between.

England have no chance of winning the Ashes, Australia's bowlers are better than England's, ans so are our batsman. As an Australian, i would rather seeing our batsman facing Giles than Monty. If fletcher doesnt pick Monty he is mad.

You have to ask yourself who out of the two in question is going to help England get 20 Australian scalps, the guy who naturally would attack or the guy who would naturally defend. Monty would be the answer for a majority.

Duncan seems to be hell bent on proving Boycott right! Panesar is a terrific spinner and he did very well against India in India, which is a recognition in itself.

yea very true monty is better than giles siply because iles isn't fit enough and monty look energetic.

I think England have options, but it will depend on how they want to play it. Problem is:-

1. The best bowlers cannot score enough runs
2. The best bowlers who can bat can't pose a serious threat with the ball

Therefore you can go one way or the other or take the 3 route down the middle - which is what we are discussing here.

One option not seriously explored is playing collingwood as the 4th seamer (5th bowler). How many overs will a fifth bowler get in reality? Another option sadly missed by the selectors was to take broad instead of plunkett - surely a better bet with ball and probably bat?. Since this issue has been around all summer, I'm surprised that Mahmood, Harminson, Panesar and Hoggard haven't been at a 24/7 batting clinic for the last 6 months!

Of course Plunkett could break the habit of a lifetime and score aload of runs and turn into a geniune quickie in the next 10 days....

Giles for Panesar hahahaa
Are we looking to draw already????

Interesting to see some people already crediting Monty with 20+ Australian wickets before the series has even begun. He is talented and has had an impressive start to his career, but that is no guarentee of success in Australia. What if England's secret spin weapon fails to deliver?

Unfortunately Fletcher is confirming with great aplomb that he is a complete imbicile. The Aussies will be quaking in their Boots that Giles is playing - NOT - we won the Ashes with four fast bowlers and unless we can get them all firing this time we will lose heavily. Panesar has an important role as an attacking spinner but Giles quite frankly wouldn't make a club side in Australia and should be carrying the drinks. Whilst he has bottle he doesn't have talent. Playing two spinners would be great if they could take wickets, Giles Ashes 2005 average of 58 shows that he doesn't do that. Test matches are won by taking 20 wickets and if Giles plays we will not do that in even one of the test, the warm up games are showing that in spades
The other think of course is the utter madness of playing Jones not Read. Neither keeper can bat - there is only one Gilchrist - so you play the better keeper. Jones cost us hundreds of runs in the last Ashes and quite frankly is a joke, so if fletcher carries on with this folly, the only thin that will happen is losing 5-0 and him losing his job.
Very very worrying developments on the cusp of the series, lets hope Vaughan can really do a Lazarus job and get fit for the 3rd test (we will be 3-0 down then)
Utter incompetence by Fletcher, get rid of him now

Well I just sat down at the SCG yesterday to watch both Giles and Panesar bowl... and while Giles seemed to get his wickets by simply boring the batsmen to death, neither of them were looking particularly good.

Then again, neither did Harmison, Hoggard or Anderson.... this Ashes could easily turn into a complete anti-climax if England don't make a rather rapid turnaround...