Test Players Having To Be Good At Two Disaplines

[Goughy]

Giles' average is 20, Panesar's is 10, so the difference is ten. Didn't know that about Giles having more wickets/game at the equivalent point of his career though

The point was runs per game not average. And Giles scores over 25 runs per game and Monty 5.

 

[harrowdrive]

Putting the stats aside, Giles vs. Monty is poetry in motion vs. a wheelie bin.

I know who I would rather watch.

 

[Goughy]

Putting the stats aside, Giles vs. Monty is poetry in motion vs. a wheelie bin.

I know who I would rather watch.

I agree with you. I have never said anything good about Giles in my life. I was just trying to put Panesar in perspective due to all the people going overboard at the moment.

And I also commenting directly regarding the data presented in a previous post.

 

[GIMH]

The point was runs per game not average. And Giles scores over 25 runs per game and Monty 5.

Right, I'll crawl back into my hole, sorry!!

 

[Goughy]

Right, I'll crawl back into my hole, sorry!!

Its ok. I take your confession into consideration.

Obviously, I'm an idiot,

 

[Sanz]

The point was runs per game not average. And Giles scores over 25 runs per game and Monty 5.

And that's such an objective point, isn't it ? Panesar has hardly got a chance to bat and it's not like Giles was breaking batting records for a no. 8 batsman at this point in his career.

http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...1;.cgifields=cplayerid;.cgifields=comparetype

 

[PY]

Putting the stats aside, Giles vs. Monty is poetry in motion vs. a wheelie bin.

I know who I would rather watch.

Welcome to CW

Are you saying that Gil-o is poetry in motion and the Python is a wheelie bin?

 

[aussie]

Lets say England have all their players fit especially in the bowling attack, once Panesar continues to bowl well i'd pick him over Gilo because it would make the bowling attack stronger and i wont mind sacrificing a few runs from Gilo for that once the top 6 bat well most of the time along with the keeper.

When you look a Hoggard, Harmison & Jones you got three tail-end batsmen who have the capability to produce runs like Gilp down the order consistently, so if they work on their batting & Panesar continues to work on his it won't be such a huge problem in the near future at all.

 

[marc71178]

It's a vicious circle, if they don't work on their bowling, they won't be thrown the ball

But where can they do the work though?

Bell tends to bowl fairly regularly for Warwickshire (often as first change), but when's he next goign to play for them?!

 

[marc71178]

When you look a Hoggard, Harmison & Jones you got three tail-end batsmen who have the capability to produce runs like Gilp down the order consistently

If you add all 3 together maybe.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Where is the evidence that Panesar is worth 2-3 more wickets a game?

Panesar averages 3.1 wickets per game

Giles averages 2.7 wickets a game

Giles averaged 3.25 wickets per game at the same stage of his career as Panesar ie after 8 tests.

So in fact after 8 tests Monty averages less wickets per test than Giles after 8 tests.

Impressively selective use of statistics there!

It is true to say Giles had taken 1 more wicket after 8 tests, but he'd also played 6 of his first 8 tests in subcontinental conditions & averaged nigh on 36 (35.88 to be precise, according to cricinfo) per wicket too.

I think better judges than me see more in Monty's bowling than the brute stats show. It's very early days yet, of course, but it is nice to see a young English spinner doing well, so it's understandable people are maybe getting a bit carried away.

 

[Goughy]

Impressively selective use of statistics there!

This is getting a little annoying now. The post was in relation to an earlier post that Monty was worth 2-3 wickets more per test than Giles.

It certainly is not selective use of stats. It is applying the stat directly to the statement made. Average was never part of the original statement.

Same as Sanz complaining about me using total runs per game when they bat in different positions. THE ORIGINAL POST WAS ABOUT TOTAL RUNS. Batting position has nothing to do with it.

I make a post refuting the claims in another and suddenly things are taken out of context.

Again, there is nothing selective about my use of stats as the original post refers to wickets per game and I applied the criteria defined in the original post.

 

[BoyBrumby]

This is getting a little annoying now. The post was in relation to an earlier post that Monty was worth 2-3 wickets more per test than Giles.

It certainly is not selective use of stats. It is applying the stat directly to the statement made. Average was never part of the original statement.

Same as Sanz complaining about me using total runs per game when they bat in different positions. THE ORIGINAL POST WAS ABOUT TOTAL RUNS. Batting position has nothing to do with it.

I make a post refuting the claims in another and suddenly things are taken out of context.

Again, there is nothing selective about my use of stats as the original post refers to wickets per game and I applied the criteria defined in the original post.

The point I was making is that without some qualifying context statistics can give a misleading impression. By using the first 8 games of Giles's career in which he took one more wicket than Panesar it could look as if you are attempting to paint the latter in a less favourable light.

 

[Goughy]

The point I was making is that without some qualifying context statistics can give a misleading impression. By using the first 8 games of Giles's career in which he took one more wicket than Panesar it could look as if you are attempting to paint the latter in a less favourable light.

No qualifying statement is needed. It has nothing to do with Panesar but to do with the original post- see below.

Okay Giles may be worth 10 or 15 runs more a match, but Panesar is worth 2 or 3 wickets a match more at least.

There are 2 ways to prove or disprove that point. Either it could refer to Giles career or to a comparative stage in their careers.

I pointed out that there is no proof at all for the statement which ever way you try to analyse it or from which angle you look at it. I tried to view the statement from a couple of angles and presented the data for both. If anything I was very inclusive as opposed to selective.

I could not care less where Giles took his wickets or if I am supposedly painting Monty in a bad light, I was just illustrating that what ever way Oli's original statement was meant that it was wrong.

Again, I fail to see how I should have to repeatedly justify using plain and undoctored stats that others have taken out of context.

Quite frankly, I do not think Mony is worth 2-3 wickets more every test than Giles. If you disagree fine but please show me why I am wrong.

 

[UncleTheOne]

We played Giles and Udal in Pakistan

SilentStriker said spinners though.

 

[Anil]

Quite frankly, I do not think Mony is worth 2-3 wickets more every test than Giles. If you disagree fine but please show me why I am wrong.

he is just starting his career, don't you think he has the potential to be a much better bowler than giles ever could be...?

 

[Goughy]

he is just starting his career, don't you think he has the potential to be a much better bowler than giles ever could be...?

Of course I think he can be better than Giles. That was never the point. My statements were regarding another post rather than Panesar in general. He is certainly not capable of being 2 wkts per game better though.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

That's crap, Monty is almost definately worth a wicket an innings more than Giles. You're just all ****y because of the bandwagon. The same way shallow people stop liking their "favourite band" when everybody starts listening to them.

But I guess it doesn't matter though, you're the God of the Bowlers.

 

[Goughy]

That's crap, Monty is almost definately worth a wicket an innings more than Giles. You're just all ****y because of the bandwagon. The same way shallow people stop liking their "favourite band" when everybody starts listening to them.

But I guess it doesn't matter though, you're the God of the Bowlers.

??? is that a serious post. WTF? Why are you getting all aggressive for no reason. I am pointing out non-subjective analysis on a topic people are getting overly emotional about. You get all ****y and angry defending a stupid and incorrect point. Save it for when you are talking sense.

As for you analagy. The less said the better. How can I get upset that people are juming on the bandwagon when I was never on it in the first place.

Monty is not worth over 1 wicket per innings more than Giles (the original post was 2-3 per game). Its stupid to say so and the above post is even dumber.

Its got nothing to do with bandwagons or picking a contradictory point to they an prove I know more than others. It has to do with reality and cricket.

For Monty to take a wicket more an innings than Giles then he would have to be taking 5 wickets per Test.

That is not going to happen. Warne, Kumble, etc average under 5 wickets per test. If you think Panesar is going to put up Warne-like numbers then people are crazier than I thought.

Rather than act like a 'whatever' and post stuff like in the last post, please prove me wrong as I asked in a previous post.

Quite frankly, I do not think Mony is worth 2-3 wickets more every test than Giles. If you disagree fine but please show me why I am wrong.

Its not good enough to shout. Show me why I am wrong and I might listen.

 

[Jono]

When Monty bowls he should wear Giles' sunglasses. Not only would he look awesome with it, it'd be a nice gesture by Giles to say "I've had my time in the sun, now its yours"

To which Monty would reply "What time in the sun?"