***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[Scallywag]

Giles has been got after of times. Only, of course, on non-turners; you go after Giles on a turner, especially when you're as poor against spin as so many of the Australians are, you'll pay for it most likely sooner rather than later.

Giles is poorer at bowling spin than Australian batsmen are at playing spin.

Dont fool yourself Richard, Giles is a pie chucker.

 

[Pratters]

The key role of Giles in the English squad is that of the stock bowler. There are 90 overs in a day and some one is required to hold one end up while the English pacers (the 4 of them including Flintoff) are tired or block one end up when the Aussies or any other team are on a role.

The role of Giles should never be under estimated. He does his job very well and is one of the key reasons for the success of the side.

According to me a key deciding aspect of the series will be how Flintoff bowls. Every one is more concerned about how Harmison would fare but if Flintoff is not consistent, England would struggle to compete as the pressure will be off once the three main faster bowlers have finished their spells.

Flintoff has been very useful as a batsman but the role he has played as a bowler has been much more vital for the squad's success.

 

[age_master]

Giles is poorer at bowling spin than Australian batsmen are at playing spin.

Dont fool yourself Richard, Giles is a pie chucker.

Indeed Giles is certainly nowhere near as good, even on a big turner, than Kumble, Murali etc who the Aussie lienup have had sucess against in the last 12-18 months on far bigger turning tracks

 

[marc71178]

According to me a key deciding aspect of the series will be how Flintoff bowls. Every one is more concerned about how Harmison would fare but if Flintoff is not consistent, England would struggle to compete as the pressure will be off once the three main faster bowlers have finished their spells.

Flintoff isn't the 4th seamer in that attack though - he's a more main than Jones.

 

[Slats4ever]

Giles will be a flop... no doubt... Hoggard is pretty sweet but so we gotta watch out for him.

 

[tooextracool]

Ball was called in to replace Croft when his wife made him pull-out, and is certainly a better bowler than Dawson.

yes he was, AFAIR he got one warm up game, and outbowled dawson, and then didnt get a chance to bowl again.
its also amazing how a number of commentators during that series went high on dawson and thought he was 'impressive', even though he was especially poor.

 

[tooextracool]

Name the Australian batsman who are poor against spin...

the ones who are especially poor against good spinners on turners are ponting, gilchrist and langer to an extent.
martyn, clarke,hayden and katich are all brilliant against spin.

 

[tooextracool]

Giles will be a flop... no doubt... Hoggard is pretty sweet but so we gotta watch out for him.

all i will say is watch out for simon jones(assuming hes fully fit).

 

[age_master]

the ones who are especially poor against good spinners on turners

a) England dont have any good spinners.

b) Wont produce any turning tracks anyway.

 

[Richard]

Giles is poorer at bowling spin than Australian batsmen are at playing spin.

Dont fool yourself Richard, Giles is a pie chucker.

Total and utter rubbish.
Giles is a fingerspinner and as such is a poor bowler on a non-turner.
On a turner, though, Giles will oust pretty much anyone, including the several poor Australian players of spin - Langer, Ponting and Gilchrist.

 

[age_master]

England will not produce a turner though, cause if they do Warne will dominate

 

[Richard]

'thank god he's not in the team' . to win ODI matches you need a balance of players, some players get rewarded more for their more apparent roles. Collingwood's role is to play around the big hitters and rotate the strike. I can’t remember how many times ive seen him come in and rotate the strike without wasting too many balls. his average probably does not pay testament to his ability because when he comes in, he has to sacrifice his wicket.

Yet the good players (eg Bevan) don't lose-out on a good average just because they often bat in the slog overs.
Collingwood has very, very rarely played good innings that have influenced matches... in terms of England winning when otherwise they would not have: 69 vs India at Cuttack; 38 vs SL at Headingley; 66* vs Pak at Newlands; possibly 79* against India at The Oval; 39 vs SL at The Rose Bowl.
That's 5 innings out of 56, and an average of 26.
Very, very poor.

 

[Richard]

As I keep saying the fact that Motson and tooextracool dislike Collingwood means he has to be a worthy addition to the team.

Keep telling yourself that - no-one else is taking the slightest notice.

 

[Richard]

England will not produce a turner though, cause if they do Warne will dominate

Us producing turners will not make Warne much more likely to dominate; he'll very probably do so whether the pitch is a turner or not.
Producing turners will give us a chance of having someone come close to matching Warne, something we'll not have if we produce non-turners.

 

[Richard]

IIRC Croft's first retirement was after he wasn't selected to tour Pakistan in 2000, but he was talked out of it when Salisbury was such a disaster and subsequently went to SL.

EDIT
Yup, the Cricinfo overview of his career says much the same. And then he retired for a second time after not getting a game in 2003/04. India in 2001/02 had nothing to do with it.

Now you mention it that rings a bell... as DB says it's a bit toys-outta-pram-ish, and quite frankly a real shame.
Not exclusively his fault, of course - terrible selection plays a part, but it has deprived England of success they may otherwise have had.

 

[Richard]

interesting point, and for that matter of course he is valuable, hell i might have to find space in my signiture, someone has to show some apperciation.

Cape Town 2003, England v Pakistan...... Anderson yes..... but also Collingwood we are indebted to you great knock, kept us in the game

And it's one of very, very few.

 

[Richard]

The key role of Giles in the English squad is that of the stock bowler. There are 90 overs in a day and some one is required to hold one end up while the English pacers (the 4 of them including Flintoff) are tired or block one end up when the Aussies or any other team are on a role.

The role of Giles should never be under estimated. He does his job very well and is one of the key reasons for the success of the side.

That may be his role on a non-turner - a role I don't feel has much point or merit in doing so, and a role that good batting can and have of times hit out of the attack - but on a turner Giles most certainly becomes a very, very potent strike-force as shown quite clearly by the number of times he's influenced matches played on turners.

 

[Richard]

Indeed Giles is certainly nowhere near as good, even on a big turner, than Kumble, Murali etc who the Aussie lienup have had sucess against in the last 12-18 months on far bigger turning tracks

Bigger than what?
Giles may not be quite as good as Kumble and obviously nowhere near as good as Murali, but he certainly isn't massively inferior.

 

[Richard]

Giles will be a flop... no doubt...

Plenty of doubt... judging by last season there's a chance of some turning tracks.

 

[Richard]

its also amazing how a number of commentators during that series went high on dawson and thought he was 'impressive', even though he was especially poor.

Not really amazing - certainly not like it's unusual - very, very rarely will commentators label a young player as "very poor" when he's been so, it's just not the accepted thing in cricketing (and sporting as a whole) circles.
Poor performances by young players are almost invariably supposed to be blamed on inexperience and nothing else. Criticising a young player breaks the unwritten commentators code of conduct.