I thought everyone knew that the Sub-Continent is famous for producing spin bowlers of all kinds, off, leg, wrist, fingers – whatever. It does this because its wickets are, by and large, very receptive to spin bowling.
It seemed the England selectors had got wind of this when they selected Panesar alongside Swann backed up by Patel and Pietersen as necessary. So why on earth is Panesar ‘on the subs bench’ while we play three seamers/swingers in Anderson, Broad and Bresnan? The consequence of this folly is that England are now following on, having let India make well over 500, exhausting A, B and B in the process, then getting bowled out by India’s spinners for 191. All the Indian wickets to fall bar one went to Swann. Good for Swann’s figures, no doubt – he’s now topped Laker’s total, I believe. However, in his glory days with England, Laker bowled with a partner in GAR Lock. Would we not have done better to partner Swann (off) with Panesar (leg) with aggressive fields early in the Indian first innings?
The question answers itself really!
PaulJ's bench.......... 