Giles retires

[The Baconator]

Absolute gun tbh.

Think he deserves to go back in the avatar.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Great servant to English cricket & seems a genuinely nice guy too.

To criticise him for not being Warne or Murali misses the point. The simple fact is he was the best spinner we had available for the majority of his career, his batting was really just icing on the cake.

Enjoy your retirement, Ash.

 

[Anil]

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.

he was a useful bowler and a useful lower order bat, but by being england's no: 1 spinner for so long, he undeniably represented their mediocrity in the spin bowling department...

 

[Tom Halsey]

I agree with Richard and a few others tbh, Giles was a useful bowler. I don't think I remember him bowling badly on a turning pitch more than once (FTR that once was the second innings at OT in 2005). And I also agree that Giles didn't play on a whole lot of turning pitches - that's also evidenced by how much the opposition finger spinners turned it - Vettori, Boje, Harbhajan, and so on. I don't recall Giles ever being drastically outbowled by an opposition finger-spinner, and IIRC he outbowled Vettori quite handsomely in 2004.

I've seen a few pitches where Panesar hasn't been able to turn it either, though I do agree with Bowman to a slight extent - when given a turning pitch he has turned it more than Giles. However, sheer amount of turn is not what I see as relevant here - if a spinner bowls a delivery that turns a yard and a half it's still useless if the batsman expects it to turn a yard and a half. If the delivery turns half a bat-width more or less than the batsman expects, then that's when you're in business. This was why Giles invariably did well on turning pitches - he had a good arm-ball. His stock ball turned more than half a bat-width, and his arm-ball didn't (in fact it swung the other way, but it wouldn't have mattered if it didn't), creating uncertainties in the batsman's mind. Additionally, and this applies to all spinners, no two balls turn exactly the same amount, and for obvious reasons any variation in amount of turn is magnified on a turner.

 

[Richard]

TBH i think he would have struggled to adapt to Test Cricket, even on 'turning' pitches if he didn't play on those pitches that didn't 'turn.' The problem with only playing spinners on pitches that look like turners, is that quite often they don't turn and don't know what to do. Paul Wiseman is a perfect example, only got games on turners and still had a poor career, cus quite often those matches he played in didn't turn and he didn't know how to bowl on them. Then even on turners he didn't know how to get out Test batsmen, when a bit of extra turn made no difference. The other thing is plenty of Sri Lankan bowlers who only play at home have poor records, cus they match harden at Test level. There no bowlers who have ever really played well when just choosen on turners.

If there's one thing Giles categorically doesn't lack it's hardness. If you could fuse his ability and hardness with bowling regularly in typical Sri Lankan conditions, I simply refuse to believe he wouldn't have had a very successful career of the type of at the very least Eripalli Prasanna or Anil Kumble, if perhaps not as good as Bishen Bedi.

And Paul Wiseman had a nothing career because he is a terrible bowler. Full-stop, no other reason. Little better than Richard Dawson, Gareth Batty or Gary Keedy.

 

[Richard]

he was a useful bowler and a useful lower order bat, but by being england's no: 1 spinner for so long, he undeniably represented their mediocrity in the spin bowling department...

He reprisented the fact we don't have a Warne or Murali - nothing more IMO. If that's mediocrity to some people, so be it, but it's not to me.

 

[Richard]

I agree with Richard and a few others tbh, Giles was a useful bowler. I don't think I remember him bowling badly on a turning pitch more than once (FTR that once was the second innings at OT in 2005). And I also agree that Giles didn't play on a whole lot of turning pitches - that's also evidenced by how much the opposition finger spinners turned it - Vettori, Boje, Harbhajan, and so on. I don't recall Giles ever being drastically outbowled by an opposition finger-spinner, and IIRC he outbowled Vettori quite handsomely in 2004.

I've seen a few pitches where Panesar hasn't been able to turn it either, though I do agree with Bowman to a slight extent - when given a turning pitch he has turned it more than Giles. However, sheer amount of turn is not what I see as relevant here - if a spinner bowls a delivery that turns a yard and a half it's still useless if the batsman expects it to turn a yard and a half. If the delivery turns half a bat-width more or less than the batsman expects, then that's when you're in business. This was why Giles invariably did well on turning pitches - he had a good arm-ball. His stock ball turned more than half a bat-width, and his arm-ball didn't (in fact it swung the other way, but it wouldn't have mattered if it didn't), creating uncertainties in the batsman's mind. Additionally, and this applies to all spinners, no two balls turn exactly the same amount, and for obvious reasons any variation in amount of turn is magnified on a turner.

If I was the Afridi judge I'd probably pick this TBH, but sadly Akhil isn't of the same mindset as us. Will nominate anyway though.

The point about never being outbowled by an opposition fingerspinner is the most important thing yet mentioned, so important I think I'm gonna go and find some stats to demonstrate it.

 

[viktor]

Whilst you are at it, I'd be interested as to why you reckon Prasanna and Giles are in any way comparable.

 

[Richard]

I was planning to do this anyway, TBH. Here's Giles' Test career, match-by-match, with a pitch and any-other-fingerspinner (or wristspinner if that wristspinner doesn't really spin it much - ie Kumble, Chandana and Afridi) summary:

vs SA, Old Trafford, 1998 - very, very flat pitch, 1-106, Robert Croft the only other fingerspinner playing, who took 0-103.

vs Pakistan, Lahore, 2000\01 - turning, if slow, pitch, produced IMO the best ball of his career here to dismiss Inzamam-ul-Haq and ended with 4-113, a decent performance which Saqlain Mushtaq (a superior bowler due to his Doosra) only of the other spinners (the other 2 in that match were wristies, Mushtaq Ahmed and Salisbury, both of whom bowled terribly) bettered.

vs Pakistan, Faisalabad - same pitch as above game, took a good haul of 6-165 but became less effective as the pitch slowed through the game; outperformed both Saqlain Mushtaq and Arshad Khan.

vs Pakistan, Karachi - his greatest triumph IMO, pitch didn't turn much on the first day (on which he took 0-52) but started to, plenty, from the second; in the rest of the game he took 7-80 and played a bigger part than anyone in that famous victory, inclusive of once again outperforming Saqlain.

vs Sri Lanka, Galle - turning pitch, bowled poorly, with a calf injury

vs Sri Lanka, Kandy - as above

vs Sri Lanka, SSC - finally just about recovered, back to bowling well on another turning pitch, took 6-70, outperforming Dinuk Hettiarachchi and Sanath Jayasuriya easily, and bowling pretty well on par with Croft (5-74)

vs Australia, Edgbaston, 2001 - pitch didn't turn at all except for Warne, Giles was the only fingerspinner in the game.

vs India, Motera, 2001\02 - turning, if slow, pitch, took 5-124, performing about on par with Harbhajan if less than Kumble and certainly vastly better than Dawson.

vs India, Bangalore - seaming pitch with no turn, none of himself, Kumble, Harbhajan or Sarandeep could get the ball off the straight, though Sarandeep did get gifted a couple of wickets with balls that did nothing.

vs New Zealand, Christchurch - first seaming, then flat, pitch, 1-73, Vettori (only other fingerspinner playing) did nothing either, taking 0-127.

vs New Zealand, Basin Reserve - fairly nothing pitch, a bit of turn out of the footholds but nothing more, took 5-156, near enough exactly on par with Vettori (5-152).

vs New Zealand, Eden Park - bowled just 2 overs.

vs Sri Lanka, Edgbaston, 2002 - seaming pitch with no turn, took 1-64, should never, ever have been picked (no other fingerspinners were).

vs Sri Lanka, Old Trafford - very flat wicket, took 2-124 in most of the game then got 3 end-of-innings wickets for 0. I wasn't fooled, though, and once again no other fingerspinners were playing.

vs India, Lord's - very flat wicket, took 2-122, Kumble could manage 6-212, which really isn't much better.

vs India, Headingley - seaming wicket with little in it for the seamers, 1-134; Kumble and Harbhajan did take 11-255 between them but really didn't turn the ball at all, it was just poor batting.

vs India, The Oval - incredibly flat pitch, 2-98 (the last 2), neither Kumble or Harbhajan turned the ball or troubled top-order batsmen (Harbhajan got a few tailenders).

vs Australia, The 'Gabba, 2002\03 - very flat pitch, 6-191 (mostly end-of-innings wickets), no other fingerspinners playing.

vs South Africa, Edgbaston, 2003 - very flat pitch, 4-198, only other fingerspinner in Peterson took 1-90 barely turning a single ball.

vs South Africa, Lord's - yet another very flat pitch, 1-142, no other fingerspinners playing.

vs South Africa, Trent Bridge - just 10 overs, pitch was incredibly uneven and seaming, should never have played.

vs South Africa, The Oval - yet another incredibly flat pitch, 2-138, no other fingerspinners playing.

vs Sri Lanka, Galle, 2003\04 - turning pitch, 8-132, comfortably outbowling Dharmasena, Chandana and of course Gareth Batty.

vs Sri Lanka, Kandy - turning pitch, 8-217, decent if not oustanding game, again far better than Dharmasena and Batty.

vs Sri Lanka, SSC - incredibly flat pitch, 2-190, Chandana in taking 2-100 hardly did much better.

vs West Indies, Sabina Park, 2004 - no real turn, some seam and uneven bounce, 2-67 off just 12 overs, no other fingerspinners picked.

vs West Indies, Queen's Park Oval - pretty much as-above, 0-49 off just 10 this time.

vs West Indies, Kensington Oval - 3rd in a row really, 0-21 off just 9.

vs New Zealand, Lord's - very flat pitch, 3-119, no worse than Vettori who took 2-127.

vs New Zealand, Headingley - seaming pitch with no turn, 0-67, no worse than Vettori (2-83)

vs New Zealand, Trent Bridge - pitch turned increasingly as the game went on, 6-116, no other fingerspinners playing.

vs West Indies, Lord's - turning pitch, 9-210, made a total novice of Omari Banks (2-223)despite the latter turning the ball plenty.

vs West Indies, Edgbaston - pretty much as above, 9-122 this time (Banks 1-128).

vs West Indies, Old Trafford - fairly flat pitch, 3-113, no other fingerspinners playing.

vs West Indies, The Oval - very flat pitch, though WI still capitulated, though not to him (1-64), no other fingerspinners playing in the game.

vs South Africa, PE, 2004\05 - fairly flat pitch, 4-108 (poor first-innings, OK second), no other fingerspinners playing.

vs South Africa, Kingsmead - seaming then flat pitch, 1-84, pretty well same as Boje (2-181).

vs South Africa, Newlands - flat pitch, 3-146, 4-86 for Boje who really didn't turn it at all.

vs South Africa, Wanderers - flattish pitch, didn't really bowl well but got 2-49 off just 13 overs, Boje 0-101.

vs South Africa, Centurion - fairly flat pitch, 1-62, Boje 0-59.

vs Australia, Lord's, 2005 - seaming, uneven pitch with no turn, 0-56, no other fingerspinners playing.

vs Australia, Edgbaston - a bit of turn, 5-146, no other fingerspinners playing.

vs Australia, Old Trafford - some turn but only cashed-in in the first-innings, no other fingerspinners playing.

vs Australia, Trent Bridge - no real turn, 2-107, no other fingerspinners.

vs Australia, The Oval - very flat pitch, 0-76, no other fingerspinners.

vs Pakistan, Multan, 2005\06 - very flat pitch, 1-111, Shaun Udal (1-92) and Shoaib Malik (1-64) both got nothing either.

vs Pakistan, Faisalabad - very flat pitch again, 2-136, Udal (1-91), Malik (just 4 overs) and Shahid Afridi (got a couple of tailenders but caused no problems to top-order batsmen) were also wholly ineffective.

vs Australia, The 'Gabba, 2006\07 - very flat pitch, 1-113, no other fingerspinners playing.

vs Australia, Adelaide Oval - very flat pitch, 2-149, no other fingerspinners playing.

Which, to me, is not a fingerspinner who is clearly vastly inferior to many.

 

[Richard]

Whilst you are at it, I'd be interested as to why you reckon Prasanna and Giles are in any way comparable.

Both fingerspinners - nothing more.

 

[steds]

Rip.

 

[silentstriker]

Rip.

He isn't dead.

 

[silentstriker]

vs Sri Lanka, Galle - turning pitch, bowled poorly, with a calf injury

vs Sri Lanka, Kandy - as above

vs Sri Lanka, SSC - finally just about recovered, back to bowling well on another turning pitch, took 6-70, outperforming Dinuk Hettiarachchi and Sanath Jayasuriya easily, and bowling pretty well on par with Croft (5-74)

vs India, Bangalore - seaming pitch with no turn, none of himself, Kumble, Harbhajan or Sarandeep could get the ball off the straight, though Sarandeep did get gifted a couple of wickets with balls that did nothing.

vs India, Headingley - seaming wicket with little in it for the seamers, 1-134; Kumble and Harbhajan did take 11-255 between them but really didn't turn the ball at all, it was just poor batting.

Hmm, when others take wickets, its poor batting. When Giles takes wickets, its good bowling?

And just because there were no finger spinners playing doesn't give him an excuse to be crap. He is a bowler, and must be judged against other bowlers. At the very least, against all spinners.

vs India, Lord's - very flat wicket, took 2-122, Kumble could manage 6-212, which really isn't much better.

Sorry, but that's an average of 61 compared to 35. One is vastly superior to the other.

It is also dishonest of you to say repeatedly that 'no other finger spinners were playing.' That's because most other countries either do not have a spinner, or have a leg spinner instead. They don't have a fingerspinner that plays normally but was left out...

 

[Richard]

Hmm, when others take wickets, its poor batting. When Giles takes wickets, its good bowling?

Even though I gave several examples of where Giles was flattered by his figures?

If Giles has taken wickets without turning the ball, it's poor batting. It hasn't happened all that often, and nor has it with Harbhajan, for instance. But it has done occasionally.

And just because there were no finger spinners playing doesn't give him an excuse to be crap. He is a bowler, and must be judged against other bowlers. At the very least, against all spinners.

It's nothing short of utterly stupid to compare a fingerspinner to a wristspinner, TBH, or a seamer.

Good fingerspinnners are almost automatically lesser bowlers than good wristspinners or good seamers. It's only fair to compare a bowler to others of his own type and limitations.

Sorry, but that's an average of 61 compared to 35. One is vastly superior to the other.

They're both utterly insignificant hauls which have virtually no chance of influencing the match. If you'd watched that game you'd have seen both bowlers looked completely unthreatening.

It is also dishonest of you to say repeatedly that 'no other finger spinners were playing.' That's because most other countries either do not have a spinner, or have a leg spinner instead. They don't have a fingerspinner that plays normally but was left out...

And Giles should have been left-out many times when he played, which is what I've said all along...

 

[NUFAN]

So basically Giles was picked on numerous occasions that he shouldn't have been, whether he had an injury or the pitch offered nothing, but he performed on occasions quite well in the sub continent.

 

[Richard]

So basically Giles was picked on numerous occasions that he shouldn't have been, whether he had an injury or the pitch offered nothing, but he performed on occasions quite well in the sub continent.

And elsewhere on the occasions he got a turning pitch somewhere else.

It was rare for Giles to get a turning pitch and fail to take advantage. It was, sadly, not rare for Giles to be picked when he shouldn't have been, and it has always annoyed me no end when people pick spinners for the sake of it, rather than because they're the best bowlers available.

Giles was not worth a place unless a pitch was turning. He should only have been picked when it was clear a pitch was going to do so. This also applies to any spinner who doesn't spin the ball much.

 

[NUFAN]

And elsewhere on the occasions he got a turning pitch somewhere else.

It was rare for Giles to get a turning pitch and fail to take advantage. It was, sadly, not rare for Giles to be picked when he shouldn't have been, and it has always annoyed me no end when people pick spinners for the sake of it, rather than because they're the best bowlers available.

Giles was not worth a place unless a pitch was turning. He should only have been picked when it was clear a pitch was going to do so. This also applies to any spinner who doesn't spin the ball much.

But surely on some occasions picking Giles to tie up one end was a better option then picking another quick, especially in games with Flintoff at 6, so already 4 fast bowlers.

Also before the Test is played it can be hard to judge if the pitch is going to turn on the 4th or 5th day - always a lot easier in hindsight.

 

[Richard]

But surely on some occasions picking Giles to tie up one end was a better option then picking another quick, especially in games with Flintoff at 6, so already 4 fast bowlers.

Giles wasn't always capable of tying-up one end on a non-turner, though, not when batsmen chose to attack him.

In any case, I've always believed there's no point whatsoever in picking a bowler for a Test if he's not a wicket-taker. Sure, there have been some awful seamers going around England but even 1998-2003-period Flintoff was a better bet than Giles-on-a-non-turner.

Also before the Test is played it can be hard to judge if the pitch is going to turn on the 4th or 5th day - always a lot easier in hindsight.

Such pitches that start as non-turners and become turners are very rare indeed.

 

[NUFAN]

Giles wasn't always capable of tying-up one end on a non-turner, though, not when batsmen chose to attack him.

In any case, I've always believed there's no point whatsoever in picking a bowler for a Test if he's not a wicket-taker. Sure, there have been some awful seamers going around England but even 1998-2003-period Flintoff was a better bet than Giles-on-a-non-turner.

Such pitches that start as non-turners and become turners are very rare indeed.

That's not true. Don't you hear ground curators saying the pitch should offer a bit to the quicks on the first few days and the spinners should come into play on days 4 and 5 meaning it's not turning at the start then it starts to turn..