Giles retires

[umop 3p!sdn]

My word some people don't have a clue.

Yes, he played many Tests he should not have done, but he was very, very far from a "crap" "useless" etc. bowler. As I've said ad nauseum, on a turning pitch he was usually a real handful, and you can't really ask too much more of a fingerspinner than that.

Giles played his part in successes many times, and to say he'll be best remembered for The Ashes is ignorant too - he played a small part in it compared to the Flintoffs and Joneses.

That he was picked on non-turning pitches so many times because of the "you need variation" rubbish does not, in my mind, reflect anything on him.

I think he was a good county player, I watched him play some home county games. He definately wasn't the strongest of spinners around, but who would say no to England selection? The selectors believed he was the best spinner in the country so he was picked for the job. To answer Richard, aren't most international spinners a handful on a turning wicket? I wouldn't call myself ignorant, and that is how I will remember him, people who do not follow English cricket or County cricket will probably remember him for that,

 

[jammay123]

shame he retired even though it was ludicris to pik him ahead of monty down under he was a solid performer for england through a vital perios which saw us climb from bottom of test rankings to 2nd in the world and without him we would never have toppled the aussies. he gave his all and before his hip mangled id say he was on a par with monty. its just that the people like monty more. i think the king of spain very good for england

 

[stumpski]

With 31 wickets, was England's second-leading wicket taker in home Tests as recently as 2004, not to mention the 17 he took in three Tests in Pakistan on his first tour.

 

[iamdavid]

I must say i never realised his domestic stats are as good as they are before this thread.

Damn straight, and if my memory serves me correctly his FC stats were even better for a lot of his carear (bowling average of around 26-27 up until last 3 years).
Compare his stats to those of the other spinners seriously challenging for a spot throughout his carear - Jason Brown (bat 7.09, ball 32.7), Robert Croft (bat 26.4, ball 36.3), Dawson (bat 21.1, ball 42), Keedy (bat 10.9, ball 30.9), Batty (bat 26.6, ball 32.4).
You get the picture he was not only the best batsman out of the candidates and offered the most at number 8, but he was also simply the best bowler.

His international figures may not be the best but he was never an easy bowler to face, he was very thoughtful with his field settings and variations and his height meant sweeping and playing confidently forward were never easy, he very rarely produced the jaffas Warne or Murali could and therefore didnt take a huge bag of wickets but on plenty of occasions he did his job, and given a turner he could be very potent.

 

[Richard]

To answer Richard, aren't most international spinners a handful on a turning wicket?

Nope, Gareth Batty and Richard Dawson (to name 2) certainly weren't. And more importantly, no fingerspinner can really be too effective on a non-turning wicket.

 

[chaminda_00]

Don't care what his FC stats were. Don't care if he serviced his purpose in the NT and balanced out the side. He still was one of the worst spinners to play Test Cricket in the last decade. Yeah they maybe have been worse spinners in England, but the point is he was one of worst spinners to play Test Cricket. He failed more often then he succeed and if it was for his batting the poor selection of England selectors to pick a bowler at number 6, he would have never got so many games. His crap which ever way sugar coat his performance. But oh his got a good FC record, he did well on turning pitches, he balanced a side, he got asked to bowl defensive. Simple put he was crap nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Richard]

No, he was no more crap than any number of other bowlers. It's just most fingerspinners don't play so often when the conditions don't suit them.

If Giles had only played when a fingerspinner should have played (ie, not on pitches which patently obviously didn't suit spin) his record would be considerably better and he'd not get this "worst to do blah-blah" rubbish he does.

 

[chaminda_00]

No, he was no more crap than any number of other bowlers. It's just most fingerspinners don't play so often when the conditions don't suit them.

If Giles had only played when a fingerspinner should have played (ie, not on pitches which patently obviously didn't suit spin) his record would be considerably better and he'd not get this "worst to do blah-blah" rubbish he does.

If the pitches are so bad for finger spinning then how come Panesar has won matches on those pitches. How come Giles can bowl so well in domestic cricket on the same pitches. His a one trick pony that wasn't good enough for Test Cricket, regardless of the pitches.

 

[Richard]

Yes, he was good enough for international cricket on turning pitches, and he proved that many times.

How come Panesar has been effective on those pitches? He hasn't. Panesar has failed on pitches that don't turn many times (and also succeeded when West Indies decided to miss a load of straight balls). He's also succeeded on turners.

There's nothing Panesar has done in his career to date that Giles hasn't. Only difference is Panesar has played on turning pitches plenty so far.

 

[open365]

No, he was no more crap than any number of other bowlers. It's just most fingerspinners don't play so often when the conditions don't suit them.

If Giles had only played when a fingerspinner should have played (ie, not on pitches which patently obviously didn't suit spin) his record would be considerably better and he'd not get this "worst to do blah-blah" rubbish he does.

That's like saying "If we only played batsman Z when conditions were easy his record would be a lot better" IE, complete crap.

You can't just take out performances when you say the pitches didn't suit him, that's patently not fair.

 

[open365]

Yes, he was good enough for international cricket on turning pitches, and he proved that many times.

How come Panesar has been effective on those pitches? He hasn't. Panesar has failed on pitches that don't turn many times (and also succeeded when West Indies decided to miss a load of straight balls). He's also succeeded on turners.
.

That's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard.

Ever thought the reason Panesar plays on more turning pitches is because he acctualy spins the ball?

Panesar is 20 times the bowler Giles ever was, every excuse you make for Giles just de-values your argument further,.

 

[Richard]

That's like saying "If we only played batsman Z when conditions were easy his record would be a lot better" IE, complete crap.

You can't just take out performances when you say the pitches didn't suit him, that's patently not fair.

I'm not "taking out" anything, I'm splitting the career into two parts - one on turning pitches, one on not.

Most spinners don't get picked too often on non-turning pitches, so don't take the volume of punishment Giles did. Batsmen tend to play regardless; spinners don't, most selectors have the sense only to pick spinners when they've got a chance of bowling well.

 

[open365]

I'm not "taking out" anything, I'm splitting the career into two parts - one on turning pitches, one on not.

Most spinners don't get picked too often on non-turning pitches, so don't take the volume of punishment Giles did. Batsmen tend to play regardless; spinners don't, most selectors have the sense only to pick spinners when they've got a chance of bowling well.

Care to post a few examples of these spinners that got dropped when it wouldn't spin

 

[Richard]

That's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard.

Ever thought the reason Panesar plays on more turning pitches is because he acctualy spins the ball?

Erm, no, because in case you missed it Giles spins the ball. Also, turning pitches aren't judged on how one spinner turns it, it's judged on how all spinners turn it. It's very simple to work-out what's a turning pitch and what isn't, it has nothing to do with either Giles or Panesar.

Panesar is 20 times the bowler Giles ever was, every excuse you make for Giles just de-values your argument further,.

Rubbish. Panesar is slightly better than Giles, nothing more.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not "taking out" anything, I'm splitting the career into two parts - one on turning pitches, one on not.

Most spinners don't get picked too often on non-turning pitches, so don't take the volume of punishment Giles did. Batsmen tend to play regardless; spinners don't, most selectors have the sense only to pick spinners when they've got a chance of bowling well.

I've always had problems with this theory. You say that finger spinners never (or rarely) succeed on pitches that don't turn - but that's probably because your primary method for determining if a pitch turns is how much success a finger spinner spinner has on it.

 

[Richard]

Care to post a few examples of these spinners that got dropped when it wouldn't spin

Pretty much every English fingerspinner to play the game since covered wickets, even Emburey and Edmunds.

Heck, even Lance Gibbs got dropped in the early 1970s.

 

[chaminda_00]

Yes, he was good enough for international cricket on turning pitches, and he proved that many times.

How come Panesar has been effective on those pitches? He hasn't. Panesar has failed on pitches that don't turn many times (and also succeeded when West Indies decided to miss a load of straight balls). He's also succeeded on turners.

There's nothing Panesar has done in his career to date that Giles hasn't. Only difference is Panesar has played on turning pitches plenty so far.

The old Giles had a good game cus the pitch was turning arguement i see. Any match he had a poor match the pitch wasn't turning . Something you might have missed was the countless poor games Giles had on turning pitches as well. But regardless to be good enough to play Test Cricket as a spinner you have be able to bowl on both turning pitches and less responsive pitches.

The other thing is good Test spin bowlers don't take wickets cus the ball is spinning square, its cus they have subtle varation, which Giles never had. He just one way his whole career and on pitches that had a little bit extra support he had a bit of success (not a great deal though) or against crap batsmen like in domestic cricket. His crap bowler not because of the pitches he played on, because he didn't have the abilty to alter his game when conditions were tough. Panesar might have not acheived much more but atleast he shows the ability to alter his game in tough conditions.

 

[Richard]

I've always had problems with this theory. You say that finger spinners never (or rarely) succeed on pitches that don't turn - but that's probably because your primary method for determining if a pitch turns is how much success a finger spinner spinner has on it.

No, it's whether the ball turns or not. Batty and Dawson both achieved turn on turning wickets (the sort that Giles succeeded on) but weren't good enough to take wickets.

 

[NUFAN]

Richard you should take up debating and just go on the side that has no chance of winning all the time.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, it's whether the ball turns or not. Batty and Dawson both achieved turn on turning wickets (the sort that Giles succeeded on) but weren't good enough to take wickets.

You witness a small minority of matches though. How do you determine if the pitch turns or not if you don't see the game?

Furthermore, what if bowlers just bowl poorly on a pitch - getting their releases wrong and not turning the ball, despite the fact that it's actually a raging turner?