Giles retires

[chaminda_00]

I'm not saying they weren't Test standard, they clearly were. However, taking wickets against them wasn't all that notable if you can't also do it against better sides, and Bichel couldn't (as I mentioned - he subsequently failed against England, West Indies at home and India).

If you actually look back at that series against England, he actually bowled very well just didn't have much luck. Also 10 wickets @ 35, is not great but not bad and not a failure in my book.

He only had one poor series against West Indies at the start of his career when he wasn't ready, also his first series against South Africa he wasn't ready either. So really he only failed once against India at home against a very good batting line up, when he was at his peak. Apart from that he showed he was a good Test bowler, when he got a chance.

 

[GIMH]

How often exactly was he picked because of his batting, though?

It has been much publicised that this was the reason for his selection in the 2006-07 Ashes series (and although anyone who saw the tour matches will actually tell you otherwise - ie. how Panesar was looking completely innocuous and how Giles was actually bowling quite well - I'll concede it as a truth for the sake of argument), but how often other than that was it true? AFAIK, he was selected, for the most part anyway, because he was England's best spinner at the time. He was never consistently outperformed by any spinners in English first class cricket during his test career to my knowledge, and those who called for his head generally wanted another batsman or another fast bowler to take his place.

Secondly, this business of "bowlers picked for their batting" became a neccessary evil the day Alec Stewart retired. England locked themselves into picking a batsman - that is, someone selected in a specialist batsman's position - for his bowling: Andrew Flintoff. Flintoff has never in his test career ever been a justified selection in the England test team on his batting alone, so if England were to persist with him batting 6, a counter-balancing player at 8 was required. All the talk of Giles balancing the side all those years wasn't just a Fletcheristic idea focused on multi-skilled players - it was simply common sense once England had decided to pick only 5 batsmen.

I was never a fan of Giles, but his role in balancing the side was often a key one, and the quality of his bowling has been far-too-often played down simply because he can bat a bit.

Gun post, Afridi up IMO

 

[Richard]

If you actually look back at that series against England, he actually bowled very well just didn't have much luck. Also 10 wickets @ 35, is not great but not bad and not a failure in my book.

He only had one poor series against West Indies at the start of his career when he wasn't ready, also his first series against South Africa he wasn't ready either. So really he only failed once against India at home against a very good batting line up, when he was at his peak. Apart from that he showed he was a good Test bowler, when he got a chance.

I don't think he bowled all that well against England or West Indies myself, really. Guess it's an agree-to-disagree situation really.

 

[GIMH]

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.

Depends what you class as failure really. He spent the majority of his international career playing in a successful side, and was fundamental to the balance of that side. His bowling in the 05 Ashes was below-par but his part in winning at Trent Bridge and his 59 at The Oval will always be remembered fondly. There's a whole lot of negativity in this thread, ah well who cares, he will look back at his career with pride I am sure.

Enjoy your retirement Ash, and thanks for the work you put into English Cricket

 

[shankar]

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..

Giles massively flattered by his figures in the Motera match. He got only 1 non-tail-ender (wicket Laxman was slogging with the tail) and was inferior to Kumble and Harbhajan. Dawson got 2 top-order wickets in the final innings while Giles had none.

 

[kata505]

I don't even really like the guy.

He has done a lot for English cricket but i have never liked his bowling though.

Panisar provides more for the team with his bowling.

 

[Richard]

Giles massively flattered by his figures in the Motera match. He got only 1 non-tail-ender (wicket Laxman was slogging with the tail) and was inferior to Kumble and Harbhajan. Dawson got 2 top-order wickets in the final innings while Giles had none.

I see to remember we've had this one before. Yes, the last 2 wickets were tailend shots from tailend batsmen or batsmen batting with tailenders, but the Kumble ball was as good as any he's bowled and the one to Harbhajan was a perfectly decent bit of bowling.

 

[shankar]

I see to remember we've had this one before. Yes, the last 2 wickets were tailend shots from tailend batsmen or batsmen batting with tailenders, but the Kumble ball was as good as any he's bowled and the one to Harbhajan was a perfectly decent bit of bowling.

But they're still tail-ender dismissals. Tailenders make deliveries look good than they are . A good top order batsman would've prevented Giles from bowling balls like the one to Kumble by attacking him, coming down the track etc.. Dawson got 2 top-order wickets in the 4th inning while Giles got none. So would you agree that he bowled better than Giles in the 4th inning when India were looking to save the match?

Also, you qualified Harbhajan's wickets at the Oval as those of tail-enders. Weren't they 'perfectly decent bits of bowling'?

 

[iamdavid]

That was only from 14 Tests, though, 4 of which were against two of the most wretched and downtrodden sides in history (WI in 2000\01 and Pak in 2002\03). He offered little against England in 2002\03, West Indies in 2003 or against India in 2003\04.

Fair enough excluding the West Indies series (not that he did a huge lot in that, there was a 5/60 at Melbourne but I dont recall anything else), but I dont think its fair to discredit his performance against Pakistan, they may have been made to like one of the "most wretched and downtrodden sides in history" however they actually had a perfectly reasonable batting side in that series, plenty of players good enough to aquit themselves well at test level, and the fact they looked so bad should be credited as much to Australia's (and Bichel's) excellent bowling in conditions that werent particularly helpful as to their own ineptitude.

I felt that he bowled well against England in 02/03 (particularly at Adelaide) and indeed in the West Indies aswell (against what at that stage was a good batting lineup in very unhelpful conditions), didnt get the figures to show for it but certainly wasnt a waste of space.
Looked a wee bit out of his depth against India in 03/04 though I'll give you that

 

[Langeveldt]

He was an adequate bowler and a fighting batsman.. Not the kind of guy who was going to win you a test single handedly, but he always seemed to strike at the right time with the bat or ball.. Yeah he had a poor average, but I think he was worth more than his average suggested.. Kind of like the same principal that wins New Zealand cricket games, leaving people wondering why when the averages are analysed.. It's often more about timing

 

[Pup Clarke]

A very decent cricketer tbh. Good bowler when the pitches assisted him, provided useful runs at 8 and was an excellent gully fieldsman and by all account a team player and a good guy.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Thank you, Ashley, for everything that you contributed far beyond the numbers.

 

[Richard]

But they're still tail-ender dismissals. Tailenders make deliveries look good than they are . A good top order batsman would've prevented Giles from bowling balls like the one to Kumble by attacking him, coming down the track etc.. Dawson got 2 top-order wickets in the 4th inning while Giles got none. So would you agree that he bowled better than Giles in the 4th inning when India were looking to save the match?

Yes, I was hugely disappointed with Giles in the second-innings, he bowled over-the-wicket far too much for one thing, and I was hoping he could win the match on that final day, even with the slow surface.

I've seen him bowl balls as good as the Kumble one to top-order batsmen - he actually bowled an identical one to Inzamam the previous winter.

Also, you qualified Harbhajan's wickets at the Oval as those of tail-enders. Weren't they 'perfectly decent bits of bowling'?

Only one - Tudor's, IIRR.

 

[Richard]

Fair enough excluding the West Indies series (not that he did a huge lot in that, there was a 5/60 at Melbourne but I dont recall anything else), but I dont think its fair to discredit his performance against Pakistan, they may have been made to like one of the "most wretched and downtrodden sides in history" however they actually had a perfectly reasonable batting side in that series, plenty of players good enough to aquit themselves well at test level, and the fact they looked so bad should be credited as much to Australia's (and Bichel's) excellent bowling in conditions that werent particularly helpful as to their own ineptitude.

I felt that he bowled well against England in 02/03 (particularly at Adelaide) and indeed in the West Indies aswell (against what at that stage was a good batting lineup in very unhelpful conditions), didnt get the figures to show for it but certainly wasnt a waste of space.
Looked a wee bit out of his depth against India in 03/04 though I'll give you that

Re: Pakistan in 2002\03; Hasan Raza, Faisal Iqbal, Imran Farhat, the old Younis Khan, Taufeeq Umar, Imran Nazir, Misbah-ul-Haq and Abdur\l Razzaq are your idea of reasonable batsmen good enough to acquit themselves at Test level?

Not for me.

 

[iamdavid]

Re: Pakistan in 2002\03; Hasan Raza, Faisal Iqbal, Imran Farhat, the old Younis Khan, Taufeeq Umar, Imran Nazir, Misbah-ul-Haq and Abdur\l Razzaq are your idea of reasonable batsmen good enough to acquit themselves at Test level?

Not for me.

Misbah and Razzaq no....Nazir and Iqbal had talent aplenty but no brains so not really, Imran Farhat not particularly, but I believe Umar and cerainly Younis Khan and Raza have/had all the tools to suceed at that level and the fact they looked so poor in that series is a credit to Australia.

Granted they were without their two obvious batting supermo's in that series which I overlooked (silly me I thought Inzy was missing bout Yousef had played ), but that is still not an awful batting side and certainly better than the Windies one in 00/01

 

[Richard]

Hmm...

For me, Campbell, Ganga, Hinds, Lara, Chanderpaul, Adams, Jacobs, Sarwan (some combo of those played all the games IIRR) is >>>>>>>>>>> all those Pakistanis. Several of them might have had some of the tools required, undoubtedly, but none of them have made careers of any note (to date...) apart from Younis who finally discovered the something he required after a year out of the side, and have\had failed against most people, not just Australia.

IMO, they were both awful, despite the West Indian one containing quite a few good players.

 

[iamdavid]

Chanderpaul was injured in the first test and missed the rest of the summer, Bichel never bowled to him.
Sarwan and Ganga both looked so far from the finished article it wasnt funny, Ganga averaging 13 and Sarwan making 3 runs in 5 innings before a 51 at Sydney gave him a tour average of 9.
Campbell and Adams were both so terrible they were never seen again (both averaging 18).
And Lara was clearly well below his best, his innings at Adelaide providing a glimpse of what he was capable of but in his other 9 innings he avergaged 15 and didnt pass 50.
The only batsman to emerge with any credit for the way they played were Jacobs and 19 year old Samuels who both finished with low-30's averages.

Dont think I can ever recall a batting lineup being dominated so comprehensively in a series, at one point Sarwan broke down crying at the crease over how hopeless things were and had to be comforted by the close in fielders

Australia bowlers - McGrath 21 wickets @ 17, Gillespie 20 @ 18, Miller 20 @ 18, Bichel 7 @ 17, Lee 11 @ 16 and MacGill (who had a terrible series then a very good last test) 16 @ 31.

I know the Pakistani's carear records are inferior but I feel they were a better batting side at the time, there were notable contributions in that series from Younis Khan, Taufeeq, Faisal, Latif and especially Raza. Pakistans batting nearly won them the first test when they were 4-230 chasing 315 or so.
History may show Australia wiped the floor with them but they werent thaaat bad a side. Nothing on the West Indians who would've lost to pretty much anyone they way they played in 2000/01.

 

[Richard]

I honestly think Campbell and Adams (aside from being harshly treated by being dropped and never - apart from a couple of useless games at three in Campbell's case) were treated harshly, and were not bad players, just were made to look so by the McGraths and Gillespies. If I had the choice around about 2002 of those two or, say, Taufeeq Umar and Hasan Raza - give me the West Indian pair.

And yeah, I know Chanderpaul was injured after 1 Test (same thing happened in England the previous series - no coincidence the side fell apart after that in both cases) and Lara was hardly at his best, but hadn't heard that about Sarwan. indeed, and indeed

As I say, though, I never really rated any of those Pakistani batsmen and can't fathom why you think so much of Hasan Raza, I've never thought anything much of him since I saw him fall to the most basic trick from the most average of bowlers, being Bouncer-Yorkered out by Harmison. Terrible batsman IMO.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Terrible batsmen?. This was the guy who got consecitive 50s against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne in 2002.

 

[iamdavid]

I honestly think Campbell and Adams (aside from being harshly treated by being dropped and never - apart from a couple of useless games at three in Campbell's case) were treated harshly, and were not bad players, just were made to look so by the McGraths and Gillespies. If I had the choice around about 2002 of those two or, say, Taufeeq Umar and Hasan Raza - give me the West Indian pair.

And yeah, I know Chanderpaul was injured after 1 Test (same thing happened in England the previous series - no coincidence the side fell apart after that in both cases) and Lara was hardly at his best, but hadn't heard that about Sarwan. indeed, and indeed

As I say, though, I never really rated any of those Pakistani batsmen and can't fathom why you think so much of Hasan Raza, I've never thought anything much of him since I saw him fall to the most basic trick from the most average of bowlers, being Bouncer-Yorkered out by Harmison. Terrible batsman IMO.

In Raza I see a very solid technical game and the sort of application to his task and work ethic that several of his team mates have never looked like exhibiting. Im sure you could find a very ugly and deamening dismisal for all the great batsman of our era (eg Thorpe bouncer/yorkered out by an out of sorts Lee at Lords in 2001) but one innings does not maketh a man. Its not asthough I think Raza is a world-beater, I just have respect for him and I think he deserves a prolonged run to prove himself. Furthermore I think he in 2002 was a better player than Adams in 2000.

The funny thing about that West Indian tour is that the Australians in the most part really didnt do anything exceptional, there were no really big hundreds from the batsman or unthinkable spells of bowling, they were just far too good even when playing within themselves and it was the Windies who looked terrible rather than the Australians looking amazing. McGrath had a blinder at Brisbane but was subdued for the rest of the series, Gillespie was reasonable throughout and if anything I think Collin Miller looked our best bowler
I know that Adams up until about late 1999 was a very comendable player but by the time this series began he was mentally all at sea and his batting looked sluggish and a bit of a liability. As for Campbell, to be fair he was never really much chop, could be stylish and effective on his day but he was terribly inconsistent at the best of times, thus the low-30's average, would never have got near test cricket were he from England, Australia, South Africa, India.