Articles about Monty lack variety

When Luton’s Champion, Monty Panesar, burst onto the international cricket scene, commentators praised the young genius as the saviour of English spinning.

“No more boring, defensive Ashly Giles to “hold up an end”, now we have a proper aggressive bowler.”

There was much rejoicing. Everyone prefers an offensive spinner. Just look at Shane Warne.

Then, nothing changed.

This, for the writers, was sin. Pieces began to suggest that Monty was boring. That he lacked personality. Some insinuated that he was just a dull git that the rest of the team hated.

The journalists looked at their construct of Monty – the people’s lovable hero, capable of winning any match armed with only a reasonably aged ball and a pearl of close fielders – and then they compared this to the reality.

The reality of Monty is just this sort of bloke, you know. In the media world, “normal” means “mind-numbingly, suicidally, OMG BORING!!!1!”

Monty was nothing like his media image. The journalists had sweated greatly in pubs during their conspiracy to “make cricket more interesting” and this effort was unravelled by the Real World.

And they hated him for it.

“Damn you Panesar”, they said

Starting with the removal of his charismatic name, the hacks began to denude Monty of his charm. This allows them to attack the hell out of him without looking like total bastards.

“A bloke called Monty should be more interesting. Dear reader, I demand that you completely change you mind about him. He has not lived up to the potential that his name suggests. You must loathe him now. Do it! Do it because I say!”

Now, the journalists have decided, en masse and without exception, that Monty “lacks variety” this means that he bowls at the same pace. All of a sudden, the world of cricket is gripped by the spinners pace. “Too fast” is the gospel truth of Monty’s bowling speed.

The only variable that affects a spinner’s ability to take a wicket is pace. Fizz, dip, bounce, strategy, or, god forbid, spin are now irrelevant factors in a spin bowlers armoury. If you bowl at 55 mph you go 27 overs without a wicket, if you bowl at 50 mph you will take nine wickets whilst conceding only seven runs.

This seems easy. But, leading on to our next point, they tell us that Monty “lacks guile”. This means that he’s a thicko. Every ball, apparently, is the same as the last. Duh.

Of course, this is the standard’s English spinner’s tactic: bore them out. It worked for Giles and the Great E’s, but, for some reason, when Monty deploys this time-worn approach, we decide that he’s a complete bastard.

So now, the press has decided, en masse and without exception that Monty is boring, predictable and stupid.

With a discipline as subtle and diverse as spin bowling, you think that opinion would vary regarding current exponents. Perhaps they’d be some alternative suggestions: Monty is bowling too slow, for instance?

But no. Everyone knows exactly what the problem is. The journalists know all. Shame they are shit at cricket, really.

(“…but hell, it ain't over till the slim man zings.” Ahem.)

Boogie Woogie England’s woozy

Today’s blog combines moaning about the England cricket team, with a review of a gig I saw recently in an unspecified barn in rural Essex, the most unspecific of all the counties.

England’s innings got off to a bad start, consisting of an over-jazzed set reliant on a shouting, screaming, bellowing lead singer who unsuccessfully sought to drown out the happy-go-lucky rhythm section. Also, his hat was rubbish.

The New Zealand innings, rather like the women standing in front of me for much of the night, saved a doubtful performance with an impressive rear action. How the Kiwis managed to pack in such a lively and cheeky little number into such a small pair of jeans was mystifying. But Ross Taylor’s excellent effort certainly shared the same hypnotic qualities.

Hearing that a “burlesque” performer occupied the next billing, I began to feel increasingly nervous. Much like when the announcer heralds a new spell from Daniel Vettori, I feel the need to hide in the toilets.

I’ve never understood this burlesque thing. Reminiscing the debauchery of the 1930s through the power of nudey women is a bizarre art-form. Not entirely displeasing though.

Obviously.

But it’s a strange beast, nevertheless. I once saw a fairly generously-sized women perform with two flaming torches and minimal clothing. She faffed about for approximately three minutes and left the audience in a state of titillated confusion.

The following act was an Australian stand up. His opening remarks were:

“Er… I’m not sure what I’m going to do now. I was planning to get my tits out and arse about with some fire.”

So anyway, the evening looked lost until a final hoorah by England’s foremost spinner, Monty Panesar. We all cheered when he took the stage. We roared when he revealed a new player – a flutist with stripy trousers. We lost the plot when his accompanying guitarist feigned masturbation with his ancient instrument.

Now the evening is delicately balanced. Will Strauss creep home to another century after a painful and heady session at the bar? Should I buy another burger? Why do the girls like that obnoxious South African? Why can’t I stop drinking this god-awful wine? Can England recover the game after fowling it all up by throwing up over the girl in blue?

The answer to all these questions is: Flip yeah!

(Apparently, there’s a picture online of me dancing the “twist” with a leggy brunette. Anyone that finds this image will win a prize of a savage beating.)

England, forward!

Yes, it’s an exclamation mark post.

The England have managed to overturn the flabby beetle that is New Zealand. With their legs dangling helplessly in the air, Ryan Hairybottom stuck the boot in and finished them off with 5-105.

However, as angry George pointed out, the main reason for England’s win, was their fortunate choice of useless opponents. The Kiwian batting simply disintegrated when faced with the moving ball.

The New Zealand top-order showed a woeful technique when James Anderson began to swing the ball both ways. Perhaps it’s because swing bowling is so rare these days, but they didn’t appear to have the basics right. They were thrusting at the ball as if was an armed pirate – “en garde!” said the Kiwis. “Touché,” said Jimmy. “AAAAAIIII!”

The England batsmen showed a little more application, although their main amusement was getting out for 40 after a “promising start”. Except for that young Australian keeper, Tim Ambrose, who cut his way to a century. Come on Tim!

Perhaps the most worrying development for England is Kevin Pietersen. At the moment, he’s like the shopping at the back of the car. You’re pleased you have the shopping, you bought nice things. But, every time you go around the corner, you can hear chaos unleash itself in the boot: liberated wine bottles roll heavily over bread; livid cans rampage over fresh fruit. You really should stop and sort the mess about, but you keep going anyway.

England should find the nearest disabled parking bay, and take a look at how damaged their bought-in Saffer is.

Some people are angsting over Monty Panesar. I’m not. He’s more like the dog at the back of the car. He always stands up and looks at the window, only to be flattened by inertia when you career around a bend. “Just sit down, you daft mutt,” you think to yourself. But he gets back up again for more treatment.

Soon, we’ll get to the park and then it will be doggy time. Monty time is coming.

Monty: I’m not a sex symbol

In frankly unbelievable news, Monty Panesar, the sexiest man in Britain, has proved what a modest and nice young man he is.

The Sunday Times do a little “Day in the Life of…” feature, where an interesting person reveals how mind-numbingly boring their life is by writing a piece of Their Average Day. Monty has recently given us an insight into his domestic yet fascinating life.

He still lives with his parents, but that’s ok, because they get up early and give him nice breakfasts. You know, yoghurt, fruit, that sort of thing.

“I love it when the whole family sits down for dinner. My mum is a wicked cook. The best! She’s great at all the traditional Indian food, but she does fantastic Italian stuff too. Her lasagne is brilliant.”

He likes to play on the Playstation with his little brother. And chess.

He uses “Herbal Essences” shampoo on his long hair. I would take the piss, but, I used Herbal Essences this morning. There was some sort of special deal going – so that makes being a girl ok.

“My religion is effortless. It’s just there.”

Which, I think, is a fine way to describe his bowling too. He also likes to listen to “Diverse FM”

“They have some serious, serious R & B on there.”

I don’t doubt it, Monty. I don’t doubt it at all.

He, like me, buggers about the house. Or, as he likes to call it, “practices his bowling.” He also reveals that his muscles were too big at one point, but had to tone-down – “huge shoulder muscles and biceps get in the way of bowling.” Exactly the same happened to me.

Anyway, the greatest controversy since the eruption of the argument regarding the precise location of Suriname at this weekend’s pub quiz came with Monty’s following revelation:

“People ask if I get more interest from girls now I play for England. Um, to be honest, not really. The cricket takes up all of my time.”

This is obvious lying. If I had a sister, I’d immediately get her hooked-up with the Sikh of Tweak.

Unless she was under-age or something. Then I’d have to beat up Mr Puny-Muscles. But otherwise, she wouldn’t be able to keep her hands off him. Although, if she went for any one on the England squad, I’d be fine with that too. However, she’d obviously be hounded from the family if she went anywhere near KP. Or Matt Prior.

In fact, Monty’s fine. You go girl.

Harmison: oh go on then

I have repeatedly campaigned for Steve Harmison to be dropped and forgotten forever. Sometimes the ECB listens to the first part of my advice, but, crucially, ignores the latter.

However, in my old age, and the festive spirit, I have deemed to allow Harmison to play one more game. He did alright at the Sinhalese Sports Ground, I suppose. He didn’t take many wickets, but he did provide the English attack with the “cutting edge”.

Never mind the fact that bugger all was cut, and we spend most of the time collecting balls from the boundary.

I have accepted that my Chris Tremlett fantasy is a bit of a pipe dream. Plus, he’d probably not add too much to the equation. We have all accepted that we need three swingers and one bouncy bowler. And Monty.

Although, this deranged observer reckons we should drop the Sikh of Tweak for Graeme Swann! Graeme Swann!

I’m worried about Monty

There is something wrong. This is an innate, perhaps even distant, anxiety. Like unwittingly putting a jumper on the wrong way around – you are vaguely aware of the world being disrupted, but it’s not worth going to the doctors about. Eventually, a mocking friend points out your mistake and the universe is brought into order. Today, I am that friend.

One component of England’s seemingly ineffective attack is Monty Panesar. Although he is England’s leading wicket-taker (with 8 (Hoggard has 6; Murali has 14)), if we are to be honest without ourselves, the Sri Lankan batsman are untroubled by the Luton spinner. Those wickets he did take were, in the main, tail-enders (I count 5/8).

Moreover, even though he has been generally economical (going for three an over) he has only bowled 16 maidens. By my calculations, he bowls a maiden every 6.8 overs (Murali takes 3.4 to do likewise; Hoggard takes 4). In conditions where you seriously consider deploying two spinners, this is not good enough.

We all love Monty; he’s great. But there is much to criticise. His batting and fielding are just about passable.

But these weaknesses reveal a wonderful quality in Monty: his ability to improve his game. When he first entered our consciousness, his batting was appalling and his fielding derisible. But now, after working incredibly hard, he is now able to support an upper-order batsman in a handy late partnership and even effect match-changing run-outs.

But now Monty needs to slow down, and perhaps think a little more deeply about his game. Undoubtedly, he has an admirable work ethic, but his bowling doesn’t lack effort, he just needs to put some more thought into his deliveries.

He has always emphasised the importance of getting the ball “in the right areas”. He is very good at achieving this objective– just look at this. But, at this level, accuracy is not enough; you need to outfox your opponent. Vary your pace, change the loop, alter the spin or Warne the hell out of the batsman.

He is doing these things, obviously, but it is lacking direction and predatory intent. Rather, there is something mechanical about his approach. He has heaps of talent, but, if we look at lesser bowlers, like Stuart Clark, we notice that talent is not everything.

Monty needs to integrate these other, more crafty sides of bowling into his arsenal. Once he does (and he will ECB, you hear? Leave him alone) he’ll be better than free pens.

Thanks to all contributors to yesterday's party. Sometimes, I wonder if it is the links to other blogs are the best thing about Ayalac.

England seal the deal with a kiss.

By “kiss” I mean a convincing victory, not that, you perv. In perhaps the most boring match of the series so far, England’s fiery bowlers skittled the Indian batsmen for not-much, and half-centuries from Kevin Pietersen and Paul Collingwood saw England home comfortably.

To be honest, this match didn’t really interest me much. I was left rather exhausted by the seven-match series, which has produced some spectacular performances from both sides. But as I was painting doors in the garden, whilst vaguely listening to the absent-minded TMS commentary, I briefly consider ed tuning in to the Afternoon Play.

Rest assured that the moment of madness quickly dissipated, but it is saying a lot when an obsessive and slightly sad cricket fan like myself is getting tired of the great game. But it was a bit deflating, really.

Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t a walk over. India tried hard. But a combination of tour fatigue and general lethargy ensured the defeat in the game, and ultimately the series. Gautam Gambhir looked good with the bat and in the field, but his name was too much like a country for him to hold much influence in the game.

Cricketers whose names sound like countries:

Gautam Gambhir.
John Holland.
Malcolm Marshall Islands.
Bruce French.
Monty Panama.

Team England beat Indian galacticos

England strangled India by 42 runs in Edgbaston last night. (Edgbaston is the posh bit of Birmingham, in case you didn’t know.)

Ian Bell top-scored for England again for England – third time in a row. A lot of people have been muttering about the England clique, that the same people are selected despite strong performers at the county level. Bell’s recent success is surely due to the selectors backing his ability over the long term. Long live the exclusive England club!

Anyway, England won principally because they were the stronger team. Bell aside, England’s batsmen contributed small, punchy innings in a selfless contribution to the England effort. Moreover, their reasonably high score was only enabled through having batters well down the order – look at Chris Tremlett’s 19 off 9.

India lacked the same cohesion. England took this attitude onto the field, bowling and fielding as a tightly organised unit. Monty Panesar stunned us all with another run out, without even looking.

Sourav Ganguly (72) and Rahul Dravid (56) looked especially dangerous. And Yuvraj Singh (45 off 35) looked ominous towards the end of the Indian innings. But no one else chipped in. Although there were flashes of individual brilliance, it seemed the Indians struggled with the sharp England fielding and the restrictive formations that surrounded them.

Dougie Brown on TMS made an interesting comment. In his opinion England’s superior fielding earned them 30-40 run difference between the two sides. More or less the difference in runs. A genuine case of fielding winning the match?

India’s efforts on the field still look shoddy, but they also missed many run opportunities of turning singles into twos. It seems as though India lack the commitment.

However, in the true Ayalac spirit of taking negatives out of victory, there are still apparent weaknesses in the England set-up. They still lack the ability for sustained slogging. Both at the start and death of the innings, the 8-, 9-, or 10-run overs were wanting. England are still using the “playing is slow” tactic that was such a failure at the World Cup. Bell is building an innings, which is fine, but you need a few biffers around him.

Test match cricket is great

What a high-quality end to a game that has been a little frail around the edges.

Viv Richards thought the second day’s play was the worst he’d ever seen in test match cricket. But the enthralling developments towards in the second innings produced an absolute cracker.

In fairness, this was mainly due to England’s wayward bowling. Although Steve Harmison seems to be pulling himself together, only Monty Panesar looked like finishing the Windies off. However, the boys in red took the fight to England, and really knuckled down.

Unfortunately, their bowling didn’t reflect this toughness. They leaked 77 extras in England’s innings, and gave away lord knows how many runs in misfields. Coupled with the numerous drop catches and dodgy umpiring decisions, this game could have been a lot closer.

Secretly, I wanted them to win. Shivnarine Chanderpaul’s typically gritty 116 not out off 257 was a splendid effort. If he had one more competent tailender then he could have taken his side home, and his innings would have been one of the all-time greats. Sadly, it was not to be.

Cricket has this great capacity for making heroes out of those who may not have the ability, but put their all into the moment. A stodgy, stubborn knock by a tail-ender could have been the decisive innings of the match. Test match cricket has the faculty of drawing out greatness from good players, and Chanderpaul excelled in this arena. Even Panesar filled his boots. A top quality match.

In other news, Aleem Dar had evidently been pondering the question I posed yesterday, by having a few words with Monty about his over-keen appealing. A fair comment and exactly the sort of way that the player-umpire relationship should be managed. You don’t really need this technology malarkey, or a Daryl Hair-like aggressive adhesion to the rules. Just a couple of blokes that can rub along well and enjoy the cricket.

West Indies recover some pride

The Windian batsman showed a lot of character, to end yesterday’s play on 301 for 5. Shivnarine Chanderpaul led the way with 81, with solid support from the middle order.

Everyone thought that Brian Lara was the West Indies’ best player. This may have been right. However, my favourite was always Chanderpaul. Mainly because everything about him is a bit weird. You watch him in the out-field; he’s not quite all there, is he?

His crabby batting stance and his barely co-ordinated movements exude incompetence. It’s a wonder he manages to hit the ball at all sometimes. But Chanders is a genius. A weird genius.

He works for his runs. He nurdles, nudges and weirds runs out of the bowling. What was most noticeable out of yesterday’s innings was his stunning ability to time the ball so well. Lara, with his high backlift, was all about power, over-awing the opposition. Chanderpaul quietly accumulates singles, and occasionally extends himself and sweetly timing stray deliveries to the boundary.

Just look at the shot in the picture. Getting well underneath the ball, he deliberately edges a sneaky single to fine leg. All without looking at the ball. That’s talent.

Regular readers may have noticed that I have a soft spot for the steady battlers, the boring batsman, but they will also know that I an affection for spinners. My champions excelled yesterday.

Monty Panesar once again betrayed the one-dimensional nature of England’s attack. With Steve Harmison still inconsistent, the refusal of the ball to swing for Ryan Sidebottom and Liam Plunkett’s amateurism, I would rather fancy the Windies’ chances of chasing down the 400.

Monty, however, generated his own pressure, and constantly threatened the batsman with spin and bounce. However, I rather think his enthusiasm got the better of him at some points, putting the umpire under a lot of pressure.

English fans used to oppose this rather vulgar element to the game that originated overseas. It’s as if you actually want to win, which is, of course, a base objective. Now the intimidation of the umpire is creeping into the English game, I think that the ECB should try to nip it in the bud. Maybe limit appeals to two an over – but even this seems a lot. Tricky one, that.

I’ll try and think of an answer. If I do, you’ll be the first to know.

Lords, day four: the hope lingers

Well well. A West Indian fight-back has increased my hopes of watching a few overs on Monday. A traditionally gritty half century by Shiv Chanderpaul, a blistering knock from Dwayne Bravo and a refined 60 from Denesh Ramdin ensured that the Windies were in a reasonable position to play for the draw.

The bowling from England was indifferent. Money Panesar, the favourite of the nation, carried the attack single-handedly by taking 4-108. What a star. Steve Harminson, after a decent enough morning session, fell apart after lunch. Wides galore.

How hard is it to pitch it in the right area? The Ayalac conducted a little test last night. With a toy-hedgehog, I practiced some away-cutters in my hall – or corridor of uncertainty, as it were. All the balls pitched in or around the door region. Right on the money.

I also practiced my Jonny Wilkinson drop-kicking. All but one hedgehog sailed gloriously over the posts (the door frame). Clearly I am a wasted talent.

Why can’t Harminson be as good as me? Why indeed.

Anyway, with Plunkers looking inoffensive and Hoggy out, it could be another long-day in the park for the England boys. I could be in Lord’s yet.

Viva la resistance!

Ian Salisbury agrees with me

After reading Muttiah Muralitharan’s savage attack on me, former England spinner, Ian Salisbury comes to my defence. In a recent interview, he states that Monty Panesar will be a big player in the World Cup and that “spin may play a big part in the tournament.” Take that Murali!

Moreover, he goes on to support another thesis of mine:

“…why is that a fast bowler can get away with being a No. 11 but a spin bowler can’t? Spinners are always expected to bat at seven, eight or nine. You look at Glenn McGrath, he’s in the Australia side for his bowling but he can’t bat to save his life. So why was Monty given stick for his batting when he was in the side for his bowling?”

Hear, hear! Spinners are indeed oppressed. Spinning is an important discipline in itself, and should not be sullied by the demand for batting skills. In fact, rubbishy fast bowlers should be the ones expected to swan around with the willow, and keep wicket.

Monty: says the right things

In a recent interview, Monty Panesar has said that although Michael Vaughan is very important to the team, Andrew Flintoff will be just as good. The justification being:

"Michael Vaughan likes everyone to be captain out on the field"

So, it doesn’t really matter who is captain, as Vaughan has ingrained leadership onto the entire team. Apparently, the best test of a manager (in the business world) is someone whose loss isn’t noticed, as they have created a stand-alone, functioning outfit that doesn't require mirco-management or constant crisis control. Presumably, Vaughan has constructed a similar framework. Anyway, Monty goes on.

"He's got a lot of experience and led England to an Ashes win. He's very excited about going to the World Cup and it's great to have him.”

Vaughan is good.

"But if Andrew Flintoff replaces him then we are still in a very good position because he's a very good captain who leads from the front. Andrew is an inspiration on and off the field."

But Flintoff is also good.

A fine piece of PR: he said the right things and didn’t put his foot in it. And complied with the normal rules of remaining blindly positive, humble and open. I am wondering whether the spinning superstar might be taking over from Paul Collingwood’s media duties. If so, this paradigm shift would certainly make him into a multi-dimensional cricketer, who is well-adjusted to the information economy and human resourcing through a sustainable holistic synergy strategy.