brilliant idea

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Do you believe Giles is a better test bowler Marc?

I don't think it's fair to ask him to compare apples and oranges. One is an offspinner, the other a legspinner. One has the Aussie confidence/arrogance, the other has the milder English variety. One has support that allows him a four-ball per over, the other quite simply does not. One is utilized in an attacking capacity, the other generally is not.

 

[marc71178]

Do you believe Giles is a better test bowler Marc?

I would pick Giles ahead of MacGill if both were available for England.

 

[chaminda_00]

I would pick Giles ahead of MacGill if both were available for England.

So would i but that cus England lower order would be too weak, but if was bowler for bowler then i would pick MacGill, but have them both playing in the sub-continent.

[EDIT] Think about it again i would probably have him in the side if it was changed a little bit and have Giles come in for Hoggard when they go to the sub-continent.
1. A Strauss
2. M Tescothick
3. I Bell/M Butcher
4. M Vaughan (c)
5. G Thorpe
6. K Pietersen
7. A Flintoff
8. C Read (wk)
9. M Hoggard/A Giles
10. S Harmison
11. S MacGill

 

[Prince EWS]

I think people dwell too much on this "four ball an over".

Even if it is true, does it matter? He takes wickets...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think people dwell too much on this "four ball an over".

Even if it is true, does it matter? He takes wickets...

It doesn't matter because he has a superb bowling attack around him. If he played for the West Indies, I'm almost certain he would not be as successful and he would receive a lot more criticism for those "four balls".

 

[Prince EWS]

It doesn't matter because he has a superb bowling attack around him. If he played for the West Indies, I'm almost certain he would not be as successful and he would receive a lot more criticism for those "four balls".

I disagree.

He bowls unplayable balls through his spells - and it wouldnt matter who was bowling at the other end, he would still bowl them.

 

[marc71178]

So how come when he's not backed by a decent attack his figures take a rapid turn for the worse?

 

[Prince EWS]

So how come when he's not backed by a decent attack his figures take a rapid turn for the worse?

Coincidence and selective averages.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I disagree.

He bowls unplayable balls through his spells - and it wouldnt matter who was bowling at the other end, he would still bowl them.

Here's an example for you. Fidel Edwards bowls a lot of unplayable deliveries too. They don't always take wickets though. Edwards bowls a lot of four balls. They generally go for fours.

 

[Prince EWS]

Here's an example for you. Fidel Edwards bowls a lot of unplayable deliveries too. They don't always take wickets though. Edwards bowls a lot of four balls. They generally go for fours.

Nevertheless, Edwards gets picked for West Indies whenever fit, and is rated by some to be a very good bowler.

Anyway, Ive seen Edwards completely lose the plot with the ball - very slow days with no swing or accuracy - and you ca hardly say that about MacGill. Sure, he has the odd bad 3 or 4 over spell, but he often responds with a wicket, and never looks like hes completely lost it ala Fidel.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nevertheless, Edwards gets picked for West Indies whenever fit, and is rated by some to be a very good bowler.

Anyway, Ive seen Edwards completely lose the plot with the ball - very slow days with no swing or accuracy - and you ca hardly say that about MacGill. Sure, he has the odd bad 3 or 4 over spell, but he often responds with a wicket, and never looks like hes completely lost it ala Fidel.

The point is that Fidel Edwards does not play for the Australian cricket team. He does not have the likes of McGrath, Gillespie and co. alongside him.

 

[marc71178]

Coincidence and selective averages.

Coincidence that when he bowls in what is the weakest of the attacks he's been in, he doesn't take many wickets and concedes at a higher rate per over?

 

[Prince EWS]

The point is that Fidel Edwards does not play for the Australian cricket team. He does not have the likes of McGrath, Gillespie and co. alongside him.

I do not think it would make much of a difference.

Coincidence that when he bowls in what is the weakest of the attacks he's been in, he doesn't take many wickets and concedes at a higher rate per over?

Bingo!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I do not think it would make much of a difference.

Well then you clearly miss my point entirely.

 

[chaminda_00]

Coincidence that when he bowls in what is the weakest of the attacks he's been in, he doesn't take many wickets

What are you on about when he bowls with weaker bowlers his S/R is lower, 54 (Test) and 51 (Non Test). Their is no evidence that his ability to take wickets drops down when his play with weaker attacks.

 

[marc71178]

There is, because the weakest attack he's been in is the County attack, and his numbers have ballooned in that form against a weaker set of batsmen - double whammy.

 

[chaminda_00]

There is, because the weakest attack he's been in is the County attack, and his numbers have ballooned in that form against a weaker set of batsmen - double whammy.

Ah NO, his S/R over his 32 games there is 51.64, once again better then in his Test Career. Bowling Average 30.7, only two runs higher (not really bolloned)

 

[marc71178]

Look at it year on year, it gets worse and worse, hence the term ballooning.

 

[chaminda_00]

Look at it year on year, it gets worse and worse, hence the term ballooning.

Looking at year to year to year is only looking at selective stats and you doesn't get the overall picture. Looking at 15 games, or whatever, for a guy who played 148 FC games doesn't give you the over picture. Only way it seems that your theory can be provide is by looking at selective stats.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Looking at year to year to year is only looking at selective stats and you doesn't get the overall picture. Looking at 15 games, or whatever, for a guy who played 148 FC games doesn't give you the over picture. Only way it seems that your theory can be provide is by looking at selective stats.

yeah, i agree. you definently wouldn't want to take a deeper look at statistics. why do that when you can look at them at face value and make conclusions?