***Official*** England in Pakistan

[luckyeddie]

LE,

if you havent read the relevant parts of the thread, there's not a lot of point in commenting.

I read yours - and seeing as the title of the thread is "England in Pakistan", I think you ought to bear that in mind and review your own posts before you try to get a bit ****ier than usual.

 

[social]

I read yours - and seeing as the title of the thread is "England in Pakistan", I think you ought to bear that in mind and review your own posts before you try to get a bit ****ier than usual.

Ok, a quick review.

To paraphrase TEC and many others - "Giles is a brilliant bowler on turners and rubbish in all other conditions."

My response - whilst the former may be true, a better indication of someone's real quality is how they perform when not everything is in their favour. I then provided an example of this undeniable fact.

TEC responded with an highly selective comparison and I pointed out the anomalies in that.

Sorry for offending you red, white and blue sensibilities by speaking the truth.

 

[wpdavid]

And I can back that up. We've not had pitches resembling seamer-friendly in the West Indies for years. When England came, it seemed that the attempt was to finally assist our bowling attack, and the pitches did that. Unfortunately, it also exposed that current West Indian batsmen are so spoiled by flat pitches that they can't handle bounce and pace. In short, it backfired.

That surprises me a bit. I remember there being enough in the pitches during England's tours in 1998 & 1994, but obviously WI had far more effective fire power in both of those series.

 

[superkingdave]

That surprises me a bit. I remember there being enough in the pitches during England's tours in 1998 & 1994, but obviously WI had far more effective fire power in both of those series.

Jamaica was pretty flat in '98

 

[sqwerty]

and how many times must it be said? ODIs have no direct relation to test match cricket except when it comes to determining form. hes had 1 good series, which would have been ordinary if australia could catch.

I actually agree with you for once. Until the last test Pietersen had a deadset ordinary series. He wouldn't have made a combined XI if it wasn't for the Oval.....and 9 times out of 10 Warney at first slip would have made it look even more ordinary.

 

[tooextracool]

Those stats hide a big injury though, barring which he would undeniably finished off with a better average.

try lou vincent, who still averages 40 against australia.

 

[tooextracool]

Tell that to bowlers of the highest quality e.g. McGrath

try putting mcgrath in dead flat conditions like antigua and hed struggle to get wickets too.

 

[tooextracool]

No, before having an inexplicable loss of form, Gillespie had been performing for years in all conditions (reflected by test figures of 250 wickets @ 25). Jones, on the other hand, had the first decent series of his career.

Giles, apart from the odd performance in conditions made-to-order for him, averages 40 in test cricket. Warne is one of the world's greatest ever spinners.

The comparison is not valid in the first case because it may well be that both performances were nothing more than anomalies.

In the second case, the comparison is valid because their performances were representative of their entire careers.

no the comparisons are not valid because you dont have to be anywhere near warnes class to succeed in test match cricket. you can compare bowlers like vettori to warne, and then come to the same conclusion but thats again besides the point. Giles is picked because hes the best spinner in england, and hes picked to bowl well when the conditions suit him. when it doesnt he by and large manages to keep things tight. i'd much rather have that than have some other pace bowler in the side and then have nothing to offer when the ball starts to turn.

 

[tooextracool]

Look up the name Vinod Kambli and then maybe you'll understand TEC's point.

actually vinod kambli has never played against australia

 

[social]

try putting mcgrath in dead flat conditions like antigua and hed struggle to get wickets too.

His record suggests that he bowls well in all conditions.

 

[social]

actually vinod kambli has never played against australia

Ho, ho, ho. Very droll indeed.

 

[Hanuma]

despite the fact that im supporting england and despite the fact that i have no idea about this "sami" guy...i hope he tears it up in this series.

it would be brilliant to see him come out as one of the best bowlers of the tour just to hear you all squirm

but judging by your complete and thorough critique of him, i very much doubt you will suffer that ignomy.

 

[honestbharani]

Fair enough.

i would agree with what you are saying for most other new players,but i think Pietersen is a class above
most batsmen.

We will have to wait and see about that one. AT the moment, he is a "potentially" great batsman, not a great batsman yet.

 

[tooextracool]

His record suggests that he bowls well in all conditions.

nope his record merely suggests that he bowls well in conditions that arent extremely favorable for bowlers. fact is that every bowler needs help(minor or major) either of the wicket or in the air to be able to be effective against a half decent batting lineup.

 

[tooextracool]

Ho, ho, ho. Very droll indeed.

umm what? kambli has never played a test match against australia.

 

[social]

nope his record merely suggests that he bowls well in conditions that arent extremely favorable for bowlers

fact is that every bowler needs help(minor or major) either of the wicket or in the air to be able to be effective against a half decent batting lineup.

Really?

Youre simply dismissing the skill and temperament factor.

The reason why Murali, Warne, McGrath, Walsh, Imran, etc get so many wickets under so many conditions is because they have the skill and mind-set that doesnt allow the conditions to beat them.

Giles is good when conditions suit him. I say, so what?

The true test comes when not everything is in your favour.

 

[social]

no the comparisons are not valid because you dont have to be anywhere near warnes class to succeed in test match cricket. you can compare bowlers like vettori to warne, and then come to the same conclusion but thats again besides the point. Giles is picked because hes the best spinner in england, and hes picked to bowl well when the conditions suit him. when it doesnt he by and large manages to keep things tight. i'd much rather have that than have some other pace bowler in the side and then have nothing to offer when the ball starts to turn.

So youre trying to tell me that Colly/Tremlett/etc couldnt have taken 10 wickets @ 50 in the Ashes?

Vaughan could have done the same job!

 

[marc71178]

So youre trying to tell me that Colly/Tremlett/etc couldnt have taken 10 wickets @ 50 in the Ashes?

And you're going to still overlook the FACT that Giles was part of the 5 man unit who all stood up and took the lead at one time or other?

 

[Choora]

I think S Afridi should play the first test against England at every cost, i'm tempted to try him as an opener Though i know he's not ideal for it) keeping in mind Pak doesn't have good openers atm.

Malik
Afridi
Younus
Inzi
Yousuf
Hassan Raza
K Akmal
Akhtar
Sami
Naveed
Danish.


I think Raza should play the test match.It will be harsh on Asim Kamal, but really how can we fit both in one batting lineup??

 

[social]

And you're going to still overlook the FACT that Giles was part of the 5 man unit who all stood up and took the lead at one time or other?

No, what I've been trying to say forever is that a no. of people could have done the same job, and probably a whole lot better!

Winning the Ashes does not excuse the fact that Giles bowled poorly.