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

[Richard]

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.

Yet I'd say he's near enough exactly the same bowler now as he was in 1998 when he made his debut, and I've seen every one of his 43 proper Tests and his 2 games against Bangladesh. He's been a brilliant bowler on a turner as far back as 2000\01 and he's no more effective on a non-turner now than he's ever been.
The only thing he's changed is his approach to the crease, and in all honesty I really don't feel that made the slightest difference, all it did was force him to suffer the humiliation of taking 1-112 against Bangladesh on turners.

 

[social]

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

English f-c form is irrelevant - the depth is minimal and the overrall strength substantially below Pura Cup.

Australia has just had 5 tests vs Vettori (at least Giles' equal) and apart from a few scares, he had minimal success.

The problem for Giles will be the Aus left-handers - on a good wicket, he'll bowl into their strengths, on a turning wicket, Warne and McGill are bot better bowlers anyway.

England's seam attack (which composes 80% afterall) is the key.

 

[Richard]

On a turning pitch MacGill is certainly NOT a better bowler than Giles, or even close.
On a pitch that doesn't allow Giles to turn it, yes, you could make a case for MacGill being a more worthwhile pick - in that he's slightly more likely to take wickets, while almost certain to give away more runs.
Where Giles will probably make little impact on 10 Tests on non-turners, MacGill will probably make a negative impact on 9 and turn the 10th on it's head with a brilliant spell that no fingerspinner could ever bowl - such as Bridgetown Barbados 2003, a Test which could not possibly have had a result but for MacGill.

 

[social]

On a turning pitch MacGill is certainly NOT a better bowler than Giles, or even close.
On a pitch that doesn't allow Giles to turn it, yes, you could make a case for MacGill being a more worthwhile pick - in that he's slightly more likely to take wickets, while almost certain to give away more runs.
Where Giles will probably make little impact on 10 Tests on non-turners, MacGill will probably make a negative impact on 9 and turn the 10th on it's head with a brilliant spell that no fingerspinner could ever bowl - such as Bridgetown Barbados 2003, a Test which could not possibly have had a result but for MacGill.

Hold on, Richard.

You constantly state that MacGill is "rubbish" unless he plays on a turner such as Sydney.

Given that their records dont even compare (need I remind you that MacGill has the best strike-rate of any spinner since 1900), where is MacGill getting all these wickets if not on turners?

At the end of the day, their respective records indicate that off 20 overs, in any given conditions, MacGill will take 3-80 and Giles 1-40.

Giles' job is to keep things tight whilst the seamers rest - a couple of wickets each innings are a bonus (that he rarely achieves, mind you). MacGill is a match-winner than can bowl ordinarily at times.

 

[marc71178]

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?

If he has really played 90 games on turners it actually mean the rest of his career is worse than useless.

 

[marc71178]

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

So Saqlain hasn't played on many non-turners then, with a career average of 22.96 - that would suggest that in the time he was in County Cricket he must have had a lot of turners, but at the same time other bowlers didn't - how likely is that?

 

[marc71178]

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.

One think he most definitely is is mentally tough - after some of the things he's put up with in recent times.

 

[marc71178]

Giles' job is to keep things tight whilst the seamers rest - a couple of wickets each innings are a bonus (that he rarely achieves, mind you).

He's bowled in 73 innings, and done it 32 times.

In the 41 times he's failed, on no fewer than 17 occasions has he bowled 10 or fewer overs.

So not as rare as you make out.

 

[badgerhair]

Australia has just had 5 tests vs Vettori (at least Giles' equal) and apart from a few scares, he had minimal success.
.

It is demonstrable nonsense that Vettori in 2004 was at least Giles's equal.

They were on view in a series head-to-head, and it was quite apparent that Giles was a league above Vettori.

I know that Vettori used to be a great deal better - such as on his previous tour of England, but the injuries have taken their toll and he is nowhere near as potent as he used to be, whereas Giles is great deal better than he used to be.

And, if you recall, in his one match of the 2002-3 Ashes, he did cause significant problems and had the Australian TV commentators saying that he could be quite a handful as the series went on. As it was, he had a broken hand instead.

None of which is supposed to be a claim that he will rip through the Australian batsmen like a knife through butter. It's merely pointing out that your current estimates of his potency or otherwise seem to be based on inaccurate information and if correct, are only so by coincidence.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[social]

It is demonstrable nonsense that Vettori in 2004 was at least Giles's equal.

They were on view in a series head-to-head, and it was quite apparent that Giles was a league above Vettori.

I know that Vettori used to be a great deal better - such as on his previous tour of England, but the injuries have taken their toll and he is nowhere near as potent as he used to be, whereas Giles is great deal better than he used to be.

And, if you recall, in his one match of the 2002-3 Ashes, he did cause significant problems and had the Australian TV commentators saying that he could be quite a handful as the series went on. As it was, he had a broken hand instead.

None of which is supposed to be a claim that he will rip through the Australian batsmen like a knife through butter. It's merely pointing out that your current estimates of his potency or otherwise seem to be based on inaccurate information and if correct, are only so by coincidence.

Cheers,

Mike

Vettori carried an injury during the northern summer of 2004 that culminated with him missing the final test. By all accounts, he bowled poorly in the first 2 anyway.

Apparently his recuperation went well and, as a result, he was back to something like full fitness by the start of the Australian tour.

He bowled extremely well in 3 of the 4 tests that he played vs Australia but, at the end of the day, never looked like bowling Australia out.

Karthik bowled well against Aus in India BUT was aided by the conditions.

I have seen most of Giles performances over the past year (by virtue of pay-tv coverage) and have been impressed by some and not others. His performance in SA proved to me that he is not a demonstrably better bowler than the version Aus has played in the past. He remains economical for the most part but hardly threatening.

He will, however, play an important role in the series. English fans should have been disappointed by the form of Harmison and Jones AND the stamina of all your seamers (with the possible exception of Hoggard at times) in SA. Unless Giles can bowl a lot of overs economically (something he was not able or trusted to do in SA), England could be in serious trouble unless Harmy, etc improve substantially.

 

[marc71178]

English fans should have been disappointed by the form of Harmison and Jones AND the stamina of all your seamers (with the possible exception of Hoggard at times) in SA.

Oh yes, because 15 wickets @ 26.66 is such a terrible return isn't it (!) - and in terms of stamina, Flintoff bowled more than any other Englishman, so how come you ignore him?

 

[social]

Oh yes, because 15 wickets @ 26.66 is such a terrible return isn't it (!) - and in terms of stamina, Flintoff bowled more than any other Englishman, so how come you ignore him?

Simon Jones, with the exception of 1 innings, bowled utter rubbish in SA (obviously the selectors agree with me as they dropped him)

I apologise for Flintoff (who I believe is England's best bowler by some distance) but overall I could not believe how quickly the English bowlers got tired.

Australia routinely plays 4 bowlers and, as a result, their front-liners have each to bowl 20 overs plus per day just to make quota. Virtually every Enlish bowler was stuffed after 10 overs. You can make the excuse of high altitude, heat, whatever but SA didnt flag nor did the Aussies in similar conditions with less bowlers.

 

[Jnr.]

yet his average fell to 33 the last time he played in SL. hes had one dominant series in SL. thats it

Did you watch the series TEC? It wasn't the spinners who were troubling him, in fact, he looked good against them, Murali didn't look like getting him out. It was Vaas who kept troubling him.

While his recent ability against spin is relatively weak, I think people make it out to be worse than it actually is. I don't believe he is poor against all spin, but I do think he has a big weakness against Slow Left Arm Orthodox spin. Accordingly, Giles v Ponting will be an interesting contest this year.

 

[aussie]

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

that may be true, but since you are an english supporter why dont you just back the lad to come good soon, cause most likely he will continue be in the ENG ODI setup for a while to come

 

[social]

Did you watch the series TEC? It wasn't the spinners who were troubling him, in fact, he looked good against them, Murali didn't look like getting him out. It was Vaas who kept troubling him.

While his recent ability against spin is relatively weak, I think people make it out to be worse than it actually is. I don't believe he is poor against all spin, but I do think he has a big weakness against Slow Left Arm Orthodox spin. Accordingly, Giles v Ponting will be an interesting contest this year.

Ponting has only failed consistently in India.

At one stage or another, he has dominated virtually every spinner he has played against either at home or away.

Given that he is without peer against quicks, it is easy to say that he is relatively weak against spin but to say that he is "poor" or anything like it is nonsense (as his record shows).

 

[aussie]

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

i'm not so sure if saqlain mushtaq was useless on non-turners, but i cant remember much cases where saqlain bowled well or poorly on pithces that didn't give him assistance. But show me some facts to back up ur statement

 

[aussie]

On a turning pitch MacGill is certainly NOT a better bowler than Giles, or even close.
On a pitch that doesn't allow Giles to turn it, yes, you could make a case for MacGill being a more worthwhile pick - in that he's slightly more likely to take wickets, while almost certain to give away more runs.
Where Giles will probably make little impact on 10 Tests on non-turners, MacGill will probably make a negative impact on 9 and turn the 10th on it's head with a brilliant spell that no fingerspinner could ever bowl - such as Bridgetown Barbados 2003, a Test which could not possibly have had a result but for MacGill.

i would say its pretty even the effect both MacGill & Giles had had on turning pitches. Giles has played in about 14 test of turning pitches (3 vs Pak in 2000, 3 vs SRI in 2001, 1vs India in 2001, 2 vs SRI in 2003, 2 vs Bangladesh in 2003 & 3 in 2004 vs NZ & WI repectively) while MacGill has played 13 test on turning tracks ( 3 vs Pak in 98, 6 at the SCG vs ENG twice, WI, IND, SA & PAK, 2 vs WI in 2003 at barbados & trinidad & 2 vs SRI in 2004 at Galle & Kandy).

MacGill had some effect on all except Adelaide in 2000 vs WI were he was roughed up by Lara, Kandy 2004 & IND 2003. Giles on the other hand has had a positve effect on all the matches he has played on a turner except the 2 vs BAN but that was because he remodeled his action & approach to the crease a bit & he was struggling for a bit of . That would show that maybe Gilo is a bit better, but i think thats is because he is a finger spinner, but its not a huge difference.

So that say that they are not even close is a rough call richard

 

[archie mac]

The problem for Giles will be the Aus left-handers - on a good wicket, he'll bowl into their strengths, on a turning wicket,

I agree with this statement, left hand finger spinners are a bit like right handed wrist spinners, they tend to struggle against left handed batsman.
I think it was O'Reilly who said Lefthanders should be shot at birth. After having trouble with Leyland and to a lesser extent with Paynter

I think it important that the speedman dismiss one of the openers before Giles comes on to bowl, regardless of this ridiculous suggestion about Langer having problems with spin.

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

Anomaly-sckwamaly. You cannot pick and choose the players who you decide to take out tests, grounds, whether they were ill or not or whether they had one less weet bix or not. You can only take players for their records, you cannot take out certain test matches to make a player seem better or put in test matches to make players seem worse.

 

[social]

Im not sure why we are even talking about turners when this thread is about the Ashes.

In all likelihood, given its' timing, this series will be played on very good wickets and certainly not on anything remotely resembling a sub-continent wicket.

In any case, if it is Australia will have a big advantage with our seamers and Warne being better equipped to handle such conditions than Harmison, Flintoff and Hoggard - Jones and Giles, it will be argued, can reverse-swing and spin repectively as well as anyone in these conditions