Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > England
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2nd December 2007, 18:35   #21
Minor Maggie
Buttleresque
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Lancashire, England
Posts: 26,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer View Post
She'll come back later and tell us how the serialisation is untrue to the book and there are glaring errors.
Well there is a significant difference between the book and the TV series. The series was originally title Cranford Chronicles as it is a story drawn together from three of Gaskell's works. Cranford, Doctor Harrisons confessions and My Lady Ludlow.
Minor Maggie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2007, 20:41   #22
Minor Maggie
Buttleresque
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Leeds
Team(s): Lancashire, England
Posts: 26,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archimandrite Herring View Post
It's the same style as Fletcher's serialisation was written in, using only one sentence paragraphs- is it a Daily Mail thing?
Steve James receives a credit in the Fletcher book so I would envisage that he was the ghostwriter. However he writes for the Telegraph so he can't have ghostwritten that.

I can understand why even a university educated player would employ a ghostwriter but I don't quite understand why they can't write their own columns. How had can it really be?
Minor Maggie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2007, 20:47   #23
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minor Maggie View Post
Steve James receives a credit in the Fletcher book so I would envisage that he was the ghostwriter. However he writes for the Telegraph so he can't have ghostwritten that.

I can understand why even a university educated player would employ a ghostwriter but I don't quite understand why they can't write their own columns. How had can it really be?
It's not so much the difficulty as the minor amount of time and effort involved. They can't be arsed and I can't say I blame them too much. Their priorities aren't ours.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2007, 21:03   #24
Joe Diddly
Posting God
 
Joe Diddly's Avatar
Mark Nicholas' Lawyer's Pall Bearer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SW17
Team(s): Northants
Posts: 13,522
They have to make a living, but they also have to play cricket. It's easy money releasing autobiographies at the start of your career...even international cricketers aren't particularly well paid and I can't say I blame them for trying to make money while they can, nobody's place in the side is guaranteed.
Joe Diddly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd December 2007, 21:09   #25
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minor Maggie View Post
Steve James receives a credit in the Fletcher book so I would envisage that he was the ghostwriter. However he writes for the Telegraph so he can't have ghostwritten that.

I can understand why even a university educated player would employ a ghostwriter but I don't quite understand why they can't write their own columns. How had can it really be?
Steve James is the ghost writer on Fletcher's book, and has also written his own autobiography and possibly ghosted another one. He writes his own column in the Sunday Telegraph.

Weren't we talking about Monty Panesar in the Daily Mail re one-line paragraph stuff? The serialisation of Fletcher's book in the Mail does use accurate extracts from the book but is obviously edited for relevance by one of the Mail's own staff, and thus has that look of tabloidese about it.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th December 2007, 00:49   #26
Baron von Death
World Class
 
Baron von Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,305
Badly written article. Tells us what we knew i.e. Fletcher: good batting coach, useless at other things and clueless about spin. What did he teach Monty? Well he's proud of trying to teach him a batting shot (his own version) and appears to have spent time teaching England's most promising spinner in 15 years how to bowl negatively. Terrific.
Baron von Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2007, 18:13   #27
GloriousGloucesters
World Class
 
GloriousGloucesters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chippenham, Wiltshire
Team(s): Gloucestershire CCC, Swindon Town FC
Age: 36
Posts: 6,592
Monty down to third in 'beard of the year' poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7162740.stm
__________________
"You want the moon on a stick"
GloriousGloucesters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2007, 19:19   #28
Psyduck
Posting God
 
Psyduck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Manchester
Team(s): England, Lancashire, Man Utd
Posts: 15,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloriousGloucesters View Post
Monty down to third in 'beard of the year' poll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7162740.stm
Further evidence that his star is on the wane.
Psyduck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2007, 22:52   #29
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,907
I actually think Monty's done OK in SL considering. He took 8 out of the 33 wickets that England bowlers took in the series. That's very nearly a quarter of them; and he was very nearly a quarter of the bowlers England picked. And when you consider that England played only one spinner out of four bowlers, that would suggest that England expected seamers to do better than spinners anyhow.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2007, 23:54   #30
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I actually think Monty's done OK in SL considering. He took 8 out of the 33 wickets that England bowlers took in the series. That's very nearly a quarter of them; and he was very nearly a quarter of the bowlers England picked. And when you consider that England played only one spinner out of four bowlers, that would suggest that England expected seamers to do better than spinners anyhow.
Or that there weren't any other remotely adequate English spinners available.

He bowled the most overs; went for the most runs and took the most wickets. If he was going to be so unpenetrative then I think he needed at least to be more economical. I suppose his poor series didn't necessarily stand out from a number of other players who also had poor series but 8 wickets at 50.6 is still a poor return, even on unhelpful tracks.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2007, 23:57   #31
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 30
Posts: 8,823
Anyone else feel like the name 'sanskritsimon' screams out 'autistic spectrum disorder'?
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2007, 23:58   #32
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 30
Posts: 8,823
I'm allowed to make these jokes because I are one innit.
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th December 2007, 23:59   #33
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark nicholas' lawyer View Post
I'm allowed to make these jokes because I are one innit.
Just means "slightly odd kid" though doesn't it? Mind you, it still applies.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 00:00   #34
Shah's bitch
County Pro
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
I actually think Monty's done OK in SL considering. He took 8 out of the 33 wickets that England bowlers took in the series. That's very nearly a quarter of them; and he was very nearly a quarter of the bowlers England picked. And when you consider that England played only one spinner out of four bowlers, that would suggest that England expected seamers to do better than spinners anyhow.
I think taking less than a quater of the wickets in a 4 man attack is not actually that big of an achievement. Especially considering the importance of spin in SL, Monty should of done better.
Shah's bitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 00:00   #35
mark nicholas' lawyer
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London/Cambridge
Team(s): Worcestershire FC and Charlton Athletic CCC (well, they might as well be on current form)
Age: 30
Posts: 8,823
But snark aside, that post of SS' demonstrates a key and worrying ability to distort facts and evident truths in favour of statistical propaganda. In some circles you'd call it trolling.
mark nicholas' lawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 00:07   #36
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark nicholas' lawyer View Post
But snark aside, that post of SS' demonstrates a key and worrying ability to distort facts and evident truths in favour of statistical propaganda. In some circles you'd call it trolling.
Okay, you've sucked me in. I can't work out how to take a large proportion of Sans' posts, hence the several protracted and tedious debates we've had in which I've attempted to pin him down and he's got irritated with me either for being wrong headed (in his view) or failing to understand that he was saying something different from what I interpreted his post to mean. It might be a bit strong to call it trolling though and probably extended discussions of other posters' styles is a bit bad mannered. I would imagine that the Panesar post above was not intended to be entirely serious.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 02:33   #37
Michelle Fivefer
Posting Goddess
 
Michelle Fivefer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North West England
Team(s): England, Lancashire
Posts: 41,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shah's bitch View Post
I think taking less than a quater of the wickets in a 4 man attack is not actually that big of an achievement. Especially considering the importance of spin in SL, Monty should of done better.
Well as I see it, if you have four main bowlers and each one takes one quarter of the total wickets, that shows they are well matched, doesn't it? As sans says, if you expected the wickets to fall mainly to spin, they'd have picked a second spinner. Spin is important in SL but the seam bowlers on both sides had conditions to suit them at times. Murali took more than half the SL wickets, I think, but he is a world beater and way out of Panesar's league.

Having said that, Panesar was England's highest wicket taker by a very narrow margin, and it is true that he did have a rather poor series.
Michelle Fivefer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 03:45   #38
3hard
International Material
 
3hard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Adelaide
Team(s): The mighty redbacks.
Posts: 1,892
Panesar may be a little unfortunate, in that his early results raised expectations that he would be a world beater from day one. Terry Jenner has often said that most spinners don't really know their craft well until their mid to late twenties, and often don't reach their peak until after 30. The key thing for Monty is that he is able to continue to develop his craft in a supportive team atmosphere, both at international and domestic level. Unfortunately it is quite a bit harder at international level, particularly in a struggling team, because of the need for instantaneous results. He needs to be able to bowl to the right fields and be able to experiment and develop. If he is forced to bowl flat darts to defensive fields he won’t have the opportunity to learn. Perhaps he needs more domestic cricket?
__________________
Quote:
"Yet your argument is that of a retarded 11 year old, who is also crippled."
3hard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 10:00   #39
sanskritsimon
Legendary
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Team(s): Arkholme Bees, Hackney Grasshoppers, Holy Cross Academicals
Posts: 9,907
MF has me best.

MNL, doubly odious concept that you are, nice new trick with the disorder thing! Very original. I believe there are many other disorders with interesting-sounding names that you might mention in future. You may proceed without malice because, for my part, I will try to understand "disorder" in the sense of "non-ordinary", with the implication that, if the norm is held to be desirable, this will often only be so in the eye of the beholder. But please, what is "trolling"? I think I've done it to the ancient yuletide carol, but that was at a Christmas party and yeah you know I was really drunk at the time... If perchance you want to invent an category of castigable behaviour that I might be found guilty of, may I suggest you simply name it after me?

I was just trying to point out that much of the down on Monty at the mo is because expectations are very high, and that in fact, although he has done badly by his own and possibly our high standards, there are ways of putting it which might offer a salutary corrective thought.

(Strangely it is apparently possible to decry Monty's being allegedly hailed as the next messiah and also to think he sorta is the next messiah. Indeed, there seems to me to be very little hailing him as the next messiah except within the discourse of those who decry such hailing. Perhaps here we see why some people so often have it in for obviously literally absurd beliefs -- they only have one level of truth in their minds, and so they know they are vulnerable, dangerously vulnerable...)

Anyway, FS is of course right (as previously mentioned, I agree with everything Todd says) that part of the reason England may not have played their second spinner is because they think that, irrespective of what the pitch might offer either type of bowler, their second spinner is not nearly as good a bowler as their third seamer. But if this is the case, England obviously is a pitifully dire graveyard for spinners, which rather accentuates the extraordinariness of its having yielded Monty, even being as good (or bad) as he has been in this series. If our second spinner is that bad, it's extraordinary that our best spinner is good enough to take his full share of wickets.

Also it should be remembered that there is a sense in which "overs bowled" can be a false figure for spinners. Although there is a nominally minimal daily quota of overs, it is honoured in the breach, and the curtain is called on a test match when its allotted time has expired. And if a certain seam bowler takes (say) on average twice as long to bowl an over as a certain spin bowler, then to have the same effect on the match in terms of wickets per hour, he has to take twice as many wickets per over as his spin-bowling counterpart.

"Wickets per hour" is only one kind of measure, though (which might be prioritised in e.g. a happy situation of pressing for victory with a thousand in the bank). Of course the spinner, if he gives away the same number of runs per over as the seamer, can give away twice as many runs in an hour as the seamer can. Which is partly why maidens are so important for spinners. (Resists final troll joke.)

Last edited by sanskritsimon : 30th December 2007 at 10:06.
sanskritsimon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2007, 11:07   #40
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 41
Posts: 43,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanskritsimon View Post
MNL, doubly odious concept that you are, nice new trick with the disorder thing! Very original. I believe there are many other disorders with interesting-sounding names that you might mention in future. You may proceed without malice because, for my part, I will try to understand "disorder" in the sense of "non-ordinary", with the implication that, if the norm is held to be desirable, this will often only be so in the eye of the beholder. But please, what is "trolling"? I think I've done it to the ancient yuletide carol, but that was at a Christmas party and yeah you know I was really drunk at the time... If perchance you want to invent an category of castigable behaviour that I might be found guilty of, may I suggest you simply name it after me?
I could offer an explanation but I'm sure you'd already have googled if you really wanted one. It does have to be said, as you imply, that "spectrum disorders" are pretty much by definition not that abnormal and that like all psychiatric diagnoses in particular, lie very much in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:
I was just trying to point out that much of the down on Monty at the mo is because expectations are very high, and that in fact, although he has done badly by his own and possibly our high standards, there are ways of putting it which might offer a salutary corrective thought.
I see your point but it's hard not to conclude that you're distorting things at least a little to make that point. Not a good series all round strikes me as a better explanation / excuse for Monty than contortions on total wickets.

Quote:
(Strangely it is apparently possible to decry Monty's being allegedly hailed as the next messiah and also to think he sorta is the next messiah. Indeed, there seems to me to be very little hailing him as the next messiah except within the discourse of those who decry such hailing. Perhaps here we see why some people so often have it in for obviously literally absurd beliefs -- they only have one level of truth in their minds, and so they know they are vulnerable, dangerously vulnerable...)
Err, okay. I think I know what you mean and I rather suspect your recurring dig at my literal mindedness is rearing its ugly head again. Or perhaps that's too literal an interpretation. Let me know if I'm wrong either way, won't you? Certainly Monty is not the messiah and if IGHOLS is right about his swearing then he is a very naughty boy instead.

Quote:
Anyway, FS is of course right (as previously mentioned, I agree with everything Todd says) that part of the reason England may not have played their second spinner is because they think that, irrespective of what the pitch might offer either type of bowler, their second spinner is not nearly as good a bowler as their third seamer. But if this is the case, England obviously is a pitifully dire graveyard for spinners, which rather accentuates the extraordinariness of its having yielded Monty, even being as good (or bad) as he has been in this series. If our second spinner is that bad, it's extraordinary that our best spinner is good enough to take his full share of wickets.
Todd? Cricketer is he? Or barber surgeon?

This is an interesting interpretation of Panesar's place in English cricket. I have to say that in my usual literal minded way I'm more interested in Panesar's merits or otherwise as an England cricketer than I am in just how extraordinary it is that England has produced a competent test spinner (I'm not calling him more or less than that, at present). On the whole though, yes England is a bit of a graveyard for home grown spin, which is especially odd given the success that foreign spinners enjoy in the county game. Obviously it isn't that the wickets do nothing for the spinner, more that the structure of the game doesn't encourage learning the spin bowling trade to a level that allows international recognition.

Quote:
Also it should be remembered that there is a sense in which "overs bowled" can be a false figure for spinners. Although there is a nominally minimal daily quota of overs, it is honoured in the breach, and the curtain is called on a test match when its allotted time has expired. And if a certain seam bowler takes (say) on average twice as long to bowl an over as a certain spin bowler, then to have the same effect on the match in terms of wickets per hour, he has to take twice as many wickets per over as his spin-bowling counterpart.

"Wickets per hour" is only one kind of measure, though (which might be prioritised in e.g. a happy situation of pressing for victory with a thousand in the bank). Of course the spinner, if he gives away the same number of runs per over as the seamer, can give away twice as many runs in an hour as the seamer can. Which is partly why maidens are so important for spinners. (Resists final troll joke.)
While spinners certainly don't bowl twice as fast (in time, not speed, which really would be an absurd notion) as pace bowlers, they certainly do get through overs faster. Perhaps the ratio is 4 to 3 or some such literal minded thing. It remains a good point though and one which does to an extent make up for spinners generally having inferior strike rates to fast bowlers. Inferior averages are more difficult to explain away, however.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:22.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Cricket247.org