Giles retires

[Richard]

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 .

Giles did have many good games when the pitches were turning, and many poor ones when it wasn't (when most fingerspinners wouldn't be picked).

Something you might have missed was the countless poor games Giles had on turning pitches as well.

No, there weren't many - 2 or 3 at best.

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.

Not fingerspinners. No fingerspinner has ever been much good on unresponsive surfaces.

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.

No spinner takes wickets very often without turning the ball. Occasionally batsmen miss loads of straight balls like West Indies did at Lord's earlier this season, but that's very rare.

Mostly, if someone bowling at 50mph doesn't turn the ball, he hasn't got a hope in hell of taking wickets.

 

[Richard]

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

I'll win this one too, you mark my words.

 

[open365]

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.

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

Ok, which pitches are these, when were these situations that Giles's shouldn't have played, how has Monty Panesar managed to get all the square turners so far and Giles hasn't.

I have no idea how you deem yourself to be able to judge what it as turning wicket and what is not being an arm chair fan.

 

[Richard]

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 release wrong and not turning the ball, despite the fact that it's actually a raging turner?

There are things called match-reports, y'know, I don't just read scorecards. And most match reporters will be capable of saying "despite getting appreciable turn, [insert name of bowler] took just 1 wicket all day".

 

[Matteh]

Giles was a very useful spinner.......N' he was da best in England..in his time......he dun well for England .. cos we dint had any other quality spinner......N' stats dun shows everything.....he has performed wen it matters.......he was fantastic in d Ashes2005 .. most glorious series for England...And boy he skored a pretty gud half-century...2 save da last Test too...

You're not in the ghetto now son.

 

[open365]

Mostly, if someone bowling at 50mph doesn't turn the ball, he hasn't got a hope in hell of taking wickets.

Which is why Giles was pretty crap.

He didn't spin the ball anywhere near as much as Monty does and didn't have the variations to counter for it, hence Gile's bad record and Monty's good one.

 

[Richard]

Ok, which pitches are these, when were these situations that Giles's shouldn't have played, how has Monty Panesar managed to get all the square turners so far and Giles hasn't.

I have no idea how you deem yourself to be able to judge what it as turning wicket and what is not being an arm chair fan.

How is it hard to see whether bowlers turn the ball from your armchair.

When I get the time, I'll give a breakdown of the Test careers (in full) of both Giles and Panesar, stating which wickets turned and which didn't.

 

[open365]

Giles was a very useful spinner.......N' he was da best in England..in his time......he dun well for England .. cos we dint had any other quality spinner......N' stats dun shows everything.....he has performed wen it matters.......he was fantastic in d Ashes2005 .. most glorious series for England...And boy he skored a pretty gud half-century...2 save da last Test too...

He scored a good half century at the Oval but apart from that was even worse than he normaly is.

 

[Richard]

Which is why Giles was pretty crap.

He didn't spin the ball anywhere near as much as Monty does and didn't have the variations to counter for it, hence Gile's bad record and Monty's good one.

He did spin the ball - sideways at least - pretty well as much as Panesar, though. And he had a very good arm-ball, and he could actually flight the ball from time to time.

The only thing Panesar has over Giles is a bit more overspin and slightly more skill with loop and drift.

The reason for Panesar's currently-OK (no more than that) record and Giles' poor one is that Panesar hasn't often faced good batting-line-ups on flat wickets yet. Giles did - plenty.

 

[Matteh]

Giles to Martyn

Wasn't too bad at times really...

 

[open365]

How is it hard to see whether bowlers turn the ball from your armchair.

When I get the time, I'll give a breakdown of the Test careers (in full) of both Giles and Panesar, stating which wickets turned and which didn't.

Because as Giles spins the ball less than Panesar does, when Giles bowls and it doesn't turn you automaticaly say it's because the pitch is un responsive whereas a spinner like Panesar who gets more revs on the ball would have got more turn and more wickets.

You can only tell a wicket from the bowlers that bowl on it, and as each wicket is different from the next and Giles was always the sole spinner (i think) you have no way of knowing whether the pitch was condusive to spin or not.

 

[Richard]

Giles to Martyn

Wasn't too bad at times really...

And he bowled a couple of even better balls to dismiss Inzamam-ul-Haq in Pakistan in 2000\01 which I can't seem to find anywhere.

 

[Gloucefan]

You're dead to me, son.

ooohhppss

Apologies.

Edited.

 

[Prince EWS]

There are things called match-reports, y'know, I don't just read scorecards. And most match reporters will be capable of saying "despite getting appreciable turn, [insert name of bowler] took just 1 wicket all day".

That is far from a foolproof method though.

From my experience, even "non-turning" pitches do turn a little bit. I'm yet to see a pitch that literally offers no turn at all throughout the whole game - even if it isn't consistent turn. Hence, while it obviously helps to be a pitch that's a classified "turner" as a finger spinner, it's not a complete requirement. The odd ball will turn a little regardless of what the pitch is like, and a good bowler will use this in combination with his drift, flight, variation and accuracy to get wickets anyway. Not every pitch is going to suit you all the time as a bowlers, but the best bowlers overcome this a lot of the time anyway.

 

[Richard]

Because as Giles spins the ball less than Panesar does, when Giles bowls and it doesn't turn you automaticaly say it's because the pitch is un responsive whereas a spinner like Panesar who gets more revs on the ball would have got more turn and more wickets.

You can only tell a wicket from the bowlers that bowl on it, and as each wicket is different from the next and Giles was always the sole spinner (i think) you have no way of knowing whether the pitch was condusive to spin or not.

But, as I've already said about 3 times, Giles and Panesar are not the only 2 spinners ever to bowl. You judge a pitch on other bowlers, not just those 2.

 

[open365]

Giles to Martyn

Wasn't too bad at times really...

Am i the only one that recognises the ball barely turned of straight in that video?

But again, they're good batting line ups because Giles makes them look good.

IE, 2006/7 ashes, Giles got hammered in the first two games, Monty comes in and does a hell of a lot better against the same team.

 

[Richard]

ooohhppss

Apologies.

Edited.

Wouldn't have been so angry if it'd been anyone else, TBH.

 

[Richard]

Am i the only one that recognises the ball barely turned of straight in that video?

But again, they're good batting line ups because Giles makes them look good.

IE, 2006/7 ashes, Giles got hammered in the first two games, Monty comes in and does a hell of a lot better against the same team.

But he didn't. On non-turning wickets (ie, everything except at The WACA) Giles and Panesar were both completely and totally ineffective.

 

[open365]

But, as I've already said about 3 times, Giles and Panesar are not the only 2 spinners ever to bowl. You judge a pitch on other bowlers, not just those 2.

But rarely in test matches are you ever going to have more than 3 spinners in any one game, spinners which i'm pretty sure outperformed Giles.

 

[open365]

But he didn't. On non-turning wickets (ie, everything except at The WACA) Giles and Panesar were both completely and totally ineffective.

Again, there's no way you can accurately judge that the only turning wicket in the series was the WACA, especialy as Warne took 6 for in the second test.