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

[marc71178]

Dont fool yourself TEC, Giles ave in winning games is still 32 and of the 25 tests won he has only 2 yes two 5 wicket hauls.

It's hard to take 5fers when you've regularly got 4 or 5 bowlers sharing the attack and picking up 2 or 3 each.

 

[marc71178]

Vettori averages 23.17 when his team wins, now that a major contribution to victories, add to that 4 5-fers and 10-fer

The number of 5fers and the 10fer is helped by all but 1 of them coming against Bangladesh though.

 

[marc71178]

also Vaughan handled ball wicket did count to his wickets.

Since when has handled the ball been creditted to the bowler? :S

 

[badgerhair]

Here is a list of slow bowlers who have bowled more than 80 overs in Tests in the last 12 months (excluding matches involving the Bangles and Zims):

Bowler        W    Ave     SR

Kartik       14  21.43   55.50
Gayle        18  24.89   65.78
Harbhajan    44  25.98   55.82
Jayasuriya   12  26.17   73.08
Warne        66  26.26   53.83
Giles        42  30.00   62.86
Herath       17  30.18   64.12
Kumble       54  30.93   61.70
Kaneria      49  31.00   58.94
Sarwan        8  33.50   69.00
Afridi        8  35.63   69.50
Vettori      22  42.86   86.23
Chandana     15  45.13   71.47
Banks         9  53.11   82.67
Boje         21  58.00  109.90
Wiseman       6  80.67  154.50

In that period, Giles has bowled on pitches which will mostly resemble the ones he bowls on this summer. Warne and Harbhajan clearly have better figures, but Giles's are very comparable with Kumble's and Kaneria's, with slightly lower average but slightly worse strike rate.

I would suggest that Giles's bowling has taken a big leap forward in the last 12-18 months, in that he now bowls at least competently nearly all the time, whereas in 2003 and before he was only effective on helpful pitches and was often a joke on unhelpful ones.

Those who get their jollies quoting career averages all the time will no doubt have an explanation why people should be interested in Giles's figures from 2002 (or whenever) when considering what sort of bowler Giles is today, but it seems to me that the above figures are a bit more relevant to the discussion.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[social]

Here is a list of slow bowlers who have bowled more than 80 overs in Tests in the last 12 months (excluding matches involving the Bangles and Zims):

Bowler        W    Ave     SR

Kartik       14  21.43   55.50
Gayle        18  24.89   65.78
Harbhajan    44  25.98   55.82
Jayasuriya   12  26.17   73.08
Warne        66  26.26   53.83
Giles        42  30.00   62.86
Herath       17  30.18   64.12
Kumble       54  30.93   61.70
Kaneria      49  31.00   58.94
Sarwan        8  33.50   69.00
Afridi        8  35.63   69.50
Vettori      22  42.86   86.23
Chandana     15  45.13   71.47
Banks         9  53.11   82.67
Boje         21  58.00  109.90
Wiseman       6  80.67  154.50

In that period, Giles has bowled on pitches which will mostly resemble the ones he bowls on this summer. Warne and Harbhajan clearly have better figures, but Giles's are very comparable with Kumble's and Kaneria's, with slightly lower average but slightly worse strike rate.

I would suggest that Giles's bowling has taken a big leap forward in the last 12-18 months, in that he now bowls at least competently nearly all the time, whereas in 2003 and before he was only effective on helpful pitches and was often a joke on unhelpful ones.

Those who get their jollies quoting career averages all the time will no doubt have an explanation why people should be interested in Giles's figures from 2002 (or whenever) when considering what sort of bowler Giles is today, but it seems to me that the above figures are a bit more relevant to the discussion.

Cheers,

Mike

To be fair, Giles' figures are distorted by one decent series vs the fragile Windies.

He has improved but remains an economical rather than wicket-taking bowler.

 

[badgerhair]

Everyone's stats have been distorted by a good series against some poor batsmen, if you really want to be picky about it.

But consider how you would be viewing Giles if he didn't have all the historical baggage. Consider that he was obviously working on and getting used to a newish action on the tour to Bangladesh and SL 18 months ago. Try viewing that tour as his debut series, consider what he has done since then, and see what you come up with.

The bowler I see if I try that exercise is clearly at least adequate as a frontline spinner. The fact that he has started the English f-c season better than any spinner in ages that I can recall is at least evidence that he's too good for county batsmen, which would also indicate that he ought to be at least adequate at Test level.

I'll be interested to see how he does against Australia.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Top_Cat]

Let us also not forget that Ash Giles hasn't always been a spin bowler; he started his FC career as a pace bowler but injuries put paid to that. Just the fact that he got back playing FC cricket as a spinner should be applauded but the fact that he's made the Test side, started as a not-so-great spinner but has improved out-of-sight since is just amazing. He's had to not only work on his bowling (learning all of the nuances associated with spin bowling) but his fitness and batting have had to improve to make the Test side. Ash Giles is a perfect example of a guy who has had to fight hard for everything which has come his way and far from being content to just make the Test side, he's made the spinner's spot his own. I admire him for that if nothing else.

I certainly was not a fan when I first saw him but I get the feeling he's about to peak and as I've stressed on several occasions, if he peaks for the Ashes series, he could very well expose the Aussies. It's a style of bowling they don't encounter very often in Australian FC cricket or at international level and when they have, they've been found wanting by left-arm orthodox spinners (Vettori and Karthik). It's been a while since Australia has picked a leftie orthodox spinner (Ray Bright?) and I think if there's a genuine weakness, it's there.

So again I say this; the three key players for the English side are (in my view) Giles, Harmi and Trescothick. If those three have good series, England may well challenge for an Ashes win.

 

[Richard]

look at andrew symonds richard, he didn't produce anything in the first 4 years of so in AUS ODI side 1998 - 2002/2003, it was until the WC when he really warranted his place. Look i'm a patriotic supporter i agree that he hasn't really done much with the BAT but has i stated before duncan fletcher is the kinda coach that will persist with players like him.

You must agree that he has potential, why not let us back him do be more consistent & hope for better in the future. Ponting abcked Symo in because he knew he ahd potential & look at his results since the WC

Yes, and Symonds was an exceptionally rare case - hardly anyone fails for 4 years then succeeds.

 

[Richard]

So he's played about 90 games on turners has he?

Don't think so.

Not at all inconceivable, his home ground produces quite a few of them, and he's played a number of tour-games away from home.
So the figure is massively lower than you estimated - how does pointing-out that it may be even lower than I estimated help your case?

 

[Richard]

Nathan Hauritz has played one test against India and taken 5 wickets @ 20.

Can you explain how that makes him a poor bowler.

Giles has played 5 tests against India for 11 wickets @ 50
2 tests in India for 6 wickets @ 33.

Richard its you who speaks absolute rubbish.

Nope, it's you - if Giles had played on the pitch Hauritz played on he'd probably have taken 10 or 11 for 70 or 80. As always, you will do everything you can to find something that will make the Australian look the better player. I can explain how Hauritz is a poor bowler, by mentioning that his First-Class average, over a long period and not in a single game where circumstances conspired in his favour about as much as it's possible to do (and he still managed to play a big part in costing his side the game). I can explain how Giles is massively better by mentioning Giles' First-Class average.
In Giles' 1 Test on a turner against India he took 5 wickets at 24.8; in Hauritz's 1 Test against India on a pitch helping spinners about as much as is possible he took 5 wickets at 20.
It's not at all surprising that you'd bring in the total irrelevancy of Giles' Tests against India on non-turners.

 

[Richard]

only one person said that, despite me contradicting him.and he obviously had no clue what he was talking abt

No, I had every clue - anyone will tell you that Martyn used to be poor against spin - he isn't any more.

 

[Richard]

Let me rephrase. You take out Giles' bad tests but take out MacGill's good tests, not a fair indication AFAIC. You have to judge players on what they have done during their careers, not what they have/haven't done 'here, here and here' and don't count what they have/haven't done 'there, there and there.

You take-out anomalies, simple as. On turners, Giles not doing well is an anomaly, and there's even more right to remove it when he was hampered by injury in both games. Since 2000\01, MacGill having a decent Test-match is an extremely rare occurrance, and as such it can be taken for what it is - an anomaly.

 

[Richard]

Saqlain may have not been as effective after people picked his doosra, but he was still more effective then Giles would ever be. Giles is a rubbish bowler outside turners and a ok bowler on turners, but Saqlain is a better bowler on turners and not on turners.

Saqlain is better on turners than Giles is on turners, yes - but both are useless on non-turners.

 

[Richard]

Okay so basically this is just based on your opinion? I have seen games where one player can NOT turn the ball, where another player CAN, turner or not?
So again when Giles bowls well you are calling it a turner and when not its not a turner, I think it is all far to subjective.

No fingerspinner can turn the ball except on a pitch which is generally described as a "turner" - that's the way the human body works.
The only time one spinner will be able to turn the ball and another won't is if one is a wristspinner and the other is a fingerspinner.
If both bowlers are fingerspinners it's almost certain that both either will or won't be able to turn the ball significantly.

 

[Richard]

The obstructing fielder didn't count to his wicket, did read my post, his three wickets were Ramprakash, Flintoff and Giles. What does the sun have to do with a pitch turning or not. There no doubt that it didn't turn as much as some pitches in the sub-continent, but it turned more then your average pitch outside the sub-continent.

It did not turn in the slightest, the Flintoff wicket was a terrible shot from a terrible batsman, chipping a nothing delivery to mid-wicket; the Ramprakash wicket was a poor decision again off a delivery that didn't turn; the Giles wicket was another very poor shot.
Not 1 of the wickets invovled a turning delivery - in fact neither did any of the other deliveries that didn't take wickets.

 

[Richard]

Hardly any pitch fails to take turn at sometime in a Match, so there fore all pitches are turners? Or it has to take turn on the first day? Or it has to take turn in the second innings? You will have to explain it to me because at the moment it sounds like crap

Pitches that offer no significant turn at any time in the match are very regular in all countries outside the subcontinent, in fact it's very rare to see any pitches that do offer significant turn in Australia (excluding The SCG), New Zealand, England or South Africa.

 

[Richard]

And let me guess in those 13 games he averages is mid 20s or something, you seem to have this belief that the only wickets that are turners are the ones he takes wickets on. There have been more pitches that have offered extra assitants to spin then just 13.

No, there haven't - Giles has played 13 Tests against Test-class teams on turning pitches (all 6 in winter 2000\01; Ahmedabad 2001\02; Galle and Kandy 2003\04; Trent Bridge, Lords v WI and Edgbaston 2004; and St.George's Park 2004\05), and in those he's bowled well or pretty well 11 times. Only twice (in consecutive games - in which he was hampered by injury) has he bowled poorly (Galle and Kandy 2000\01).
So whenever Giles has bowled well on turners he's been very, very effective, and he's had a large impact on the outcome of the game on almost every occasion.

Not every wicket in the sub-continential is a absolute turner, but majority provide addition support to spinners then found else where

The majority do indeed - but Bangalore 2001\02 and SSC 2003\04 are certainly not part of this majority, neither offered any assistance to fingerspin whatsoever.

 

[archie mac]

No fingerspinner can turn the ball except on a pitch which is generally described as a "turner" - that's the way the human body works.
The only time one spinner will be able to turn the ball and another won't is if one is a wristspinner and the other is a fingerspinner.
If both bowlers are fingerspinners it's almost certain that both either will or won't be able to turn the ball significantly.

Yes that makes much more sense and I am happy to agree with this


I also agree with Top_Cat that Australians can be exposed by quality left arm finger spin. Which is why England have hardly ever toured Aus. Without one.

I agree Giles is in form, I just wonder how mentally tough he is? I am sure the Aussies will be out to target him.

 

[Richard]

And his only played SL twice in SL he had one dominant series and one average series.

No, on normal Lankan pitches (ie excluding SSC 2003\04) he's had 3 very good games and 2 poor ones in which he was hampered by injury.
And he's played 1 game in normal Indian conditions and done very well there too.

 

[Richard]

Yes that makes much more sense and I am happy to agree with this


I also agree with Top_Cat that Australians can be exposed by quality left arm finger spin. Which is why England have hardly ever toured Aus. Without one.

I agree Giles is in form, I just wonder how mentally tough he is? I am sure the Aussies will be out to target him.

Rest assured he's very mentally tough, he's been on the verge of retirement at least twice, and while we're better off if he doesn't play on non-turners we'd be lost without him when we come-up against a turner.
If the Aussies go after him on a turner I'm 90% certain they'll pay for it.