**Official** 2004 Natwest Series (Eng, NZL, WI)

[Tim]

Quite frankly..Giles bowling leg-side has a strong resemblance to England's pre RWC 03 tactics, but you could say they've been very effective & there's nothing in the rules to say they can't do it.
Obviously it's not going to go down well with opposition players or fans..but you're out there to win so you use whatever is effective.

 

[luckyeddie]

Quite frankly..Giles bowling leg-side has a strong resemblance to England's pre RWC 03 tactics, but you could say they've been very effective & there's nothing in the rules to say they can't do it.
Obviously it's not going to go down well with opposition players or fans..but you're out there to win so you use whatever is effective.

To say 'theres's nothing in the rules to say they can't do it' seems to imply that there OUGHT to be - that there's something morally reprehensible about a left-armer bowling over the wicket. What next - ban left-hand bowlers full stop?

Giles bowling over the wicket was an attacking ploy, and the New Zealand batsmen just weren't good enough to counter it. I hardly saw a single player prepared to use his feet.

It wasn't as if Giles was firing darts into the batsman's pads - he was using flight and guile - something we seldom see from Giles, so I'm going to hang on to that lest I forget in future.

 

[marc71178]

Always said flighted spin was better than flat spin!

 

[luckyeddie]

Always said flighted spin was better than flat spin!

(shouts) Marc, Chris is using your sign-on

 

[badgerhair]

Quite frankly..Giles bowling leg-side has a strong resemblance to England's pre RWC 03 tactics, but you could say they've been very effective & there's nothing in the rules to say they can't do it.
Obviously it's not going to go down well with opposition players or fans..but you're out there to win so you use whatever is effective.

You appear to be under the misapprehension that Giles was bowling the way he did in India when the entire emphasis was on preventing Tendulkar scoring at his normal rate. I note that you don't have any strictures to issue about Vettori doing the same thing.

It's only Giles who gets stick for this: nobody ever has a go at Warne for bowling round the wicket at right-handers because he's deemed to be a bowler who attacks all the time whereas Giles is branded as a total defensive nut, simply because a bunch of Indian teenagers got annoyed that their darling SRT couldn't whack Giles all round the park on one of the few occasions when he was entirely bent on throttling the batsman rather than getting him out.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[luckyeddie]

As usual, perception is everything.

Butcher can't play one-day cricket (despite the fact that he often bats in one-day mode in test matches), Harmison is wayward, Trescothick is, well, let's not go there and Giles is a defensive bowler.

 

[Tim]

I hardly saw a single player prepared to use his feet.

Thats because a number of NZ players got out when they tried to use their feet!

 

[Tim]

Well now you're just trying to mince my words mate. I never said there ought to be a rule that says: "NO legside bowling". From an entertainment point of view, it does little to enhance positive play in test cricket..but from a team point of view it is a very good tactic to try & bore the batsmen to give up his wicket.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well now you're just trying to mince my words mate. I never said there ought to be a rule that says: "NO legside bowling". From an entertainment point of view, it does little to enhance positive play in test cricket..but from a team point of view it is a very good tactic to try & bore the batsmen to give up his wicket.

I'm not trying to mince your words at all, and I fully appreciate that you didn't say what you are suggesting I implied that you might have mentioned in passing (!) - just that you seemed to be implying that it wasn't cricket.

You in all likelihood never found it boring at all - frustrating perhaps because your side lost, but that's ok. I'm English, I've been there many times, and suffered. Now it's your turn, you have my sympathy.

(yeah, right).

It doesn't augur well for Kiwi cricket if it's easy to 'bore' a batsman like Cairns out, though, especially when he only faced a handful of balls from Giles.

 

[Tim]

Thats what i've exactly been on about during this tour...there are too many attacking batsmen in the NZ order who want to dominate from ball 1.
We need some stability at #5 & #6...with Cairns retiring & McMillan hopefully on the outer, Bracewell should start looking at some batsmen who like to build an innings, rather than bash from the very first ball they face.

I think Oram & McCullum would have been much more value for money at #7 & #8 in the series just gone if the top #6 had layed a platform of at least 350. Usually #7 & #8 were having to come in at 280/300..a good 60 or 80 runs less than where they should have been coming in at.
I think NZ need to look at Peter Fulton & perhaps Rob Nicol. Nicol suffered from 2nd season blues this year but his record is still fairly good & he likes to mix up his batting with a bit of attack & defence...in other words he's probably more solid.
I wouldn't rule out Hamish Marshall either..for all we know he could do just as well in test cricket as he has in ODI cricket.

 

[Tim]

Sides in NZ like Northern Districts & Otago don't particulary help the cause when their batting lineup ends at #4 and the rest are all all-rounders at that level...if they played international cricket they'd either be bowlers who bat or batsmen who bowl.

Wellington & Canterbury contested the State Championship final this year which was no surprise considering they had 6 specialist batsmen..1 or maybe 2 all-rounders & a couple of strike bowlers.

 

[Piper]

I want New Zealand to win the series and i dont think they deserved to lose the 3 test series against England 3-0 either

 

[Tim]

I've said it before but NZ did deserve to lose the match 3-0 because they lost every key moment in the series. However in some ways 3-0 was flattering because at times NZ did play good cricket & certainly didn't look like a team that was being thumped.

It was just one of those series where if you didn't take your chances, the other team was going to punish you severely...so it's obvious who did more than the other.

 

[Loony BoB]

Makes me wonder if we'll see a repeat of the VB series, with each side winning 3-1 over one team and losing 1-3 to the other. Will the rest be decided by run rates, as usual?

 

[marc71178]

I've said it before but NZ did deserve to lose the match 3-0 because they lost every key moment in the series. However in some ways 3-0 was flattering because at times NZ did play good cricket & certainly didn't look like a team that was being thumped.

I think it's a bit like the way Australia play - teams can match them for a day or 2, but when the chips are down, they step up a gear for long enough to win the game.

England have won 6 of the last 7 Tests by doing that sort of thing (but note I'm not comparing us to Australia in terms of ability)

 

[anzac]

Ah, expected to recover in time for the ODIs. Jolly Good.

That means we might see them come back when the test series vs Australia starts.

completely off topic - regarding the great Bonecrusher - who / what was the name of the other NZL horse that he used to run against in his AUS campaigns?????????

I remember the pair of them were streets ahead of the rest of the fields going hammer & tongs at the line, & Bonecrusher would usually end up winning by a long neck or something..............but I can't remember the name of the other horse........

 

[anzac]

So you think bowling his style isn't negative bowling or the correct method of getting a wicket?

not having seen any coverage I'm a bit confused as to what the debate is about..........left arm spin over the wicket...............or is it that his line was outside leg to find the rough & then turn into the batsmen?????????

my understanding is that unless you bowl over the wicket it is difficult to get an LBW...........however if your line is outside Leg then the batsman can not be given out LBW...........

IMO I see nothing 'defensive' or 'negative' about bowling over the wicket, but it would depend upon how far outside Leg his line was & how much turn he was getting both with & without hitting the rough..............eg if he missed the rough as much as he got it and there was little turn to be had unless he got it, then you could say it was boring, defensive & 'negative'.....

by the same token it is then up to the batting side to counter those tactics if they are intent on scoring...........

I don't remember too many people complaining when Warne goes around the wicket (which happend fairly regularly).........and he pitches quite a bit outside Leg depending on how much turn & bounce he is getting..........

 

[anzac]

Thats what i've exactly been on about during this tour...there are too many attacking batsmen in the NZ order who want to dominate from ball 1.

you and I are of an accord re the batting lineup, although perhaps I would like to see some stability at the top of the middle as well as the lower middle......depending on where Fleming plays.......as I don't think Styris is a genuine #4 & is vulnerable when coming in early..................and I think Astle at #6 provides both options regarding scoring capability & 'sensible cricket' partnerships..........

I also think there is a case for 'horses for courses' regarding both the position and types of wickets..........accordingly Fulton gets my nod for a higher position, whereas Marshall would come into consideration for a lower position on tracks where the ball comes onto the bat with good bounce & carry..........

the other 'suspects' have to include Sinclair re his domestic resurgance & Vincent (as they could bat in either position), and Nicol used to bowl as well didn't he - they could prefer someone in the Lehamn / Katich type role.........

 

[anzac]

I wouldn't rule out Hamish Marshall either..for all we know he could do just as well in test cricket as he has in ODI cricket.

well from his 1 innings v RSA in 2000 he did do just as well.........40 n.o. from 119 balls & 7x4s (2nd top score behind Richardson's 46) v Pollock, Ngam, Kallis, Ntini, Klusener & Boje at the New Wanderers.....

 

[Piper]

I've said it before but NZ did deserve to lose the match 3-0 because they lost every key moment in the series. However in some ways 3-0 was flattering because at times NZ did play good cricket & certainly didn't look like a team that was being thumped.

It was just one of those series where if you didn't take your chances, the other team was going to punish you severely...so it's obvious who did more than the other.

Yeah they did let it slip when the important moments. Like when Brendon McCullum (who is totally hot) in the last test went the smash Giles out of the ground and he nicked it to first slip. He really should have waited for the right ball to come and with that they might have won the test match. But i still don't think they deserved to lose the series 3-0. I think they will do well in the one dayers. But the thing is with England they are starting to play really well and if you give them just one chance they will take it and run away with the game. The thing that made me angry was how many wrong decisions the umpires made. Like the one with Styris saying that it was caught behind, he was at least two inches away from the ball!