Giles retires

[Richard]

Again, you only assume it's a non turning pitch because the bowler isn't turning it, watching on tv is no way accurate enough to tell the qualitites of a pitch.

It's not hard to see whether a ball turned or not, watching on TV.

And like you said, it's a consistent scale, meaning Panesar who spins it more than GIles will turn it on more pitches than Giles will.

But he won't turn it sufficiently once you go below a certain point on the turning scale to be able to offer any real threat.

 

[open365]

Giles was a better bowler than both in his sleep.

Well considering Mark Waugh had a slightly worse average but would only be bowling at times when it wasn't turning (because otherwise Warne would be on) and times when pitches were flat i'd say there was a case for him being better.

 

[Richard]

Vettori has taken wickets on non turners, none of pitches that he took 5-fer against Australia were on turners. Anyone who watched the games would know they hardly turned at all.

They were actually, pretty much the lot of them.

The I was making about Pakistan and Sri Lanka, was that all those spinner would have turned the bowl on those pitches. But they still wouldn't have taken many wickets cus you need more then turn to be a good spin bowler. It doesn't matter if you can turn the bowl a foot, you need more then just turn to be a good bowler.

I know that. Not every pitch in Pakistan turns, though, very far from it. If Giles had been Sri Lankan I'm absolutely certain he'd have been one hell of a good compliment to Murali.

 

[Richard]

Well considering Mark Waugh had a slightly worse average but would only be bowling at times when it wasn't turning (because otherwise Warne would be on) and times when pitches were flat i'd say there was a case for him being better.

Quite the opposite, he'd only have been on when it was turning ragingly, because otherwise only Warne would have been any use.

And Waugh only became a fingerspinner midway through his pro career, too, Giles became one before he got a contract.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well considering Mark Waugh had a slightly worse average but would only be bowling at times when it wasn't turning (because otherwise Warne would be on) and times when pitches were flat i'd say there was a case for him being better.

Mark Waugh as an offspinner would probably have a test bowling average over 150 though. Nearly all his wickets came in his early seam-up-bowling days.

 

[Richard]

I think the concept of "no turn" is a myth, though, really. I've been watching cricket for quite some time and I'm yet to see a pitch that offers absolutely 0.

As I say to Bowman somewhere up there, though, if a pitch only lets a bowler turn the ball a couple of cm, that's not going to offer any threat. And those pitches are very common.

 

[Gloucefan]

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.

Exactly, an example is that India learnt very early that Harbajan Singh should not be played anywhere where the pitches don't suit him i.e. outside of India.

 

[iamdavid]

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

Hmm agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread upto this point, the ball was definately turning at Adelaide, not what you'd call a raging turner but certainly offered something for a finger-spinner worth his salts (as evidence of this Pieterson and Michael Clarke bowled 30 overs in the match).
In fact I dont think it turned any more in Perth than Adelaide or any other wicket in that series tbh (bar Brisbane), cricket is a funny game and luck plays a huge part in things, I dont think Giles bowled too badly really in the first two tests, in fact in the first innings at Brisbane he bowled quite well and the commentators were full of praise, and in the tour matches all reports were that Giles outshone Panesar.
TBH I dont really know that Panesar bowled any better in Perth than Giles had in the previous two tests, I think Flintoff just handled him much better and luck went his way when it clearly hadnt with Giles.
In the next two tests Flintoff handled him very poorly and luck didnt smile upon him so things changed. Imagine how different things might have been at Perth if Symonds had kept it in his pants and been happy with hitting Panesar for that big six, his figured read 1-55 or so and he was certainly not looking on top, next minute Symonds plants his feet in concrete and has an ugly swipe at a nothing ball, Jones just holds the catch and an hour later Monty is everybodys hero and Giles' carear is over.

 

[Matteh]

Well considering Mark Waugh had a slightly worse average but would only be bowling at times when it wasn't turning (because otherwise Warne would be on) and times when pitches were flat i'd say there was a case for him being better.

However his FC average is still up at 41 compared to Giles' 29, so there's clearly a difference in class.

 

[Gloucefan]

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

See above

 

[Prince EWS]

As I say to Bowman somewhere up there, though, if a pitch only lets a bowler turn the ball a couple of cm, that's not going to offer any threat. And those pitches are very common.

I disagree, really. Combined with other tools a bowler has, the inconsistent nature of this small turn and the mere threat of turn to the batsmen (as they don't intrinsically know how much the pitch is offering at all times), this turn is enough for finger spinners to be useful if they bowl well.

 

[Richard]

Hmm agree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread upto this point, the ball was definately turning at Adelaide, not what you'd call a raging turner but certainly offered something for a finger-spinner worth his salts (as evidence of this Pieterson and Michael Clarke bowled 30 overs in the match).
In fact I dont think it turned any more in Perth than Adelaide or any other wicket in that series tbh (bar Brisbane), cricket is a funny game and luck plays a huge part in things, I dont think Giles bowled too badly really in the first two tests, in fact in the first innings at Brisbane he bowled quite well and the commentators were full of praise, and in the tour matches all reports were that Giles outshone Panesar.
TBH I dont really know that Panesar bowled any better in Perth than Giles had in the previous two tests, I think Flintoff just handled him much better and luck went his way when it clearly hadnt with Giles.
In the next two tests Flintoff handled him very poorly and luck didnt smile upon him so things changed. Imagine how different things might have been at Perth if Symonds had kept it in his pants and been happy with hitting Panesar for that big six, his figured read 1-55 or so and he was certainly not looking on top, next minute Symonds plants his feet in concrete and has an ugly swipe at a nothing ball, Jones just holds the catch and an hour later Monty is everybodys hero and Giles' carear is over.

I can barely remember a ball turning (for Panesar, not Warne) at The MCG either.

However, I think Giles would have had a very good chance of success at The WACA. Adelaide did turn, a bit, occasionally, yes, but it was so desperately slow (unlike Perth) that it was little use. I don't really think it turned as much as Perth either.

 

[Richard]

I disagree, really. Combined with other tools a bowler has, the inconsistent nature of this small turn and the mere threat of turn to the batsmen (as they don't intrinsically know how much the pitch is offering at all times), this turn is enough for finger spinners to be useful if they bowl well.

How can a couple of cm make any difference? All it means is a thick outside-edge rather than right smack in the middle of the bat - and that's if the batsman doesn't have time to adjust (which he does). A ball needs to turn at least the width of a bat to start offering real threat, TBH.

 

[chaminda_00]

They were actually, pretty much the lot of them.

I know that. Not every pitch in Pakistan turns, though, very far from it. If Giles had been Sri Lankan I'm absolutely certain he'd have been one hell of a good compliment to Murali.

I don't care what match reports said, i watced all the games and none of pitches turned.

If he was Sri Lankan he would have been listed as another bowler who takes plenty of FC wickets, but 'probably' wont do anything outside FC level. There are plenty of similar spinners around Sri Lanka with similar bowling styles and FC records. He may have made the side as all rounder going by the early selections of Chandana, Lokuarachchi and Samaraweera.

 

[Prince EWS]

How can a couple of cm make any difference? All it means is a thick outside-edge rather than right smack in the middle of the bat - and that's if the batsman doesn't have time to adjust (which he does). A ball needs to turn at least the width of a bat to start offering real threat, TBH.

Not every shot is originally on path to be right out of the middle of the bat, though - shots originally on path to be slightly wrong become chances and thick outside edges turn into genuine edges. Furthermore, a thick outside in the first place gives the batsman little to no control of the stroke he's playing, which could itself lead to a chance anyway. And, to cap it off, shots are not always played with the full face of the bat, especially to spinners, so that few centimetres could be infinitely valuable.

And, of course, there's all the other things I mentioned in my last post.

 

[Richard]

I don't care what match reports said, i watced all the games and none of pitches turned.

Without wanting to get into a tec-style "the pitch turned"; "no it didn't" trade-off - I watched one of the three games (and that's all it is) in question, too, and the pitch did turn. And it was so obvious, almost without even reading match-reports, that this pitch turned.

If he was Sri Lankan he would have been listed as another bowler who takes plenty of FC wickets, but 'probably' wont do anything outside FC level. There are plenty of similar spinners around Sri Lanka with similar bowling styles and FC records. He may have made the side as all rounder going by the early selections of Chandana, Lokuarachchi and Samaraweera.

Except unlike all of those 3, he has (as his Test record very clearly shows) the ability to take big hauls on turning pitches.

 

[Richard]

Not every shot is originally on path to be right out of the middle of the bat, though - shots originally on path to be slightly wrong become chances and thick outside edges turn into genuine edges. Furthermore, a thick outside in the first place gives the batsman little to no control of the stroke he's playing, which could itself lead to a chance anyway. And, to cap it off, shots are not always played with the full face of the bat, especially to spinners, so that few centimetres could be infinitely valuable.

And, of course, there's all the other things I mentioned in my last post.

As long as the bat is pointed downwards (which it should be and almost invariably is), a leading-edge or thick outside-edge is rarely harmful.

Sorry, I just haven't seen any examples of a bowler offering any real danger by turning the ball only a couple of cm - bats are too wide and batsmen have enough time to adjust to be able to cover it all bar a tiny number of occasions.

 

[chaminda_00]

Except unlike all of those 3, he has (as his Test record very clearly shows) the ability to take big hauls on turning pitches.

I was referring more to be given a first chance in the national side. The reason why he was give a chance in the England side was that his FC record was so good compared to others. Whereas in Sri Lanka it would have been par for course. Also Chandana got a decent run in the Test side, im sure he would have taken as many big hauls, even though he was a poor bowler as well.

 

[chaminda_00]

Without wanting to get into a tec-style "the pitch turned"; "no it didn't" trade-off - I watched one of the three games (and that's all it is) in question, too, and the pitch did turn. And it was so obvious, almost without even reading match-reports, that this pitch turned.

It didn't turn a great deal TBH, it was just a slow, low pitch.

 

[adharcric]

Can't say I'm too disappointed. Hope he enjoyed his career.