Why Isn't Mark Butcher in the ODI side?

[tooextracool]

rik say whatever u want abt giles but the fact is he was the best bowler for england in SL and seems to deliver on pitches that do suit him as is the case in the WI. i fail to see how u could go for an all pace attack on those slow turning WI pitches especially when giles has been ur best bowler in the warm ups while anderson has done nothing special at all.
i will not argue though that giles is far from world class particularly on conditions that dont suit him but he is the best spinner in england at the moment and im sure hes good enough to get these west indian batsmen out.

 

[Rik]

rik say whatever u want abt giles but the fact is he was the best bowler for england in SL and seems to deliver on pitches that do suit him as is the case in the WI. i fail to see how u could go for an all pace attack on those slow turning WI pitches especially when giles has been ur best bowler in the warm ups while anderson has done nothing special at all.
i will not argue though that giles is far from world class particularly on conditions that dont suit him but he is the best spinner in england at the moment and im sure hes good enough to get these west indian batsmen out.

When your best spinner takes 2-190, it's nothing to shout about. Especially when he ends the series averaging all but 30...in perfect conditions for his style of bowling.

 

[Rik]

Point to me where I have, in this thread, said Giles is good or Giles is bad then.

You won't be able to because I haven't.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that "And given the right conditions, he is up there with the best in the World" means that he's got to be good in your eyes. "The best in the world" usually means the subject in question must be good, or it wouldn't be anywhere near the best, especially not the best in the World! But if it suits your agrument I'm sure you will allow that meaning to slip, because, of course, the "best in the world" like Murali and Warne, arn't very good at all are they? There are huge inconsistancies in what you say, and the longer it goes on it just keeps getting more and more jumbled. Already in this arguement you have stated that you don't think Giles is very good yet you post something stating that he must be. Every time I come back to this, you've changed your mind, you post something then claim I've got it wrong because you've just changed your mind again. Doesn't stop me from finding it quite hillarious though.

 

[tooextracool]

When your best spinner takes 2-190, it's nothing to shout about. Especially when he ends the series averaging all but 30...in perfect conditions for his style of bowling.

yes but he also took 4/69 ,4/63,5/116 and 3 for 101
who would u replace him with...anderson???the guy who averaged 40 odd against SA in conditions that suited his bowling or the same guy who went wicketless in SL???

 

[Rik]

yes but he also took 4/69 ,4/63,5/116 and 3 for 101
who would u replace him with...anderson???the guy who averaged 40 odd against SA in conditions that suited his bowling or the same guy who went wicketless in SL???

That's the problem, the only person I can think of to replace him is Jason Brown who the Selectors have an infuriating habbit of ignoring. Giles totally lost it in the last game of the series in tandem with Batty and lost England the game and the series. Certainly you cannot defend a bowler going for 190 in perfect conditions.

 

[marc71178]

It doesn't take a genius to work out that "And given the right conditions, he is up there with the best in the World" means that he's got to be good in your eyes.

No, it means that when conditions suit him, he's a good bowler - says absolutely nothing about when conditions don't suit him, but by all means think that if it makes you feel better

"The best in the world" usually means the subject in question must be good, or it wouldn't be anywhere near the best,

Yes, but where have I claimed him to be anything like that? I haven't, merely said that when conditions do suit, he is up there alongside them, which he has shown on more than the odd occasion in Asia (compare his Asian figures with those of Warne for example)

Already in this arguement you have stated that you don't think Giles is very good yet you post something stating that he must be.

No, nowhere on here have I posted my opinion on him specifically, you've decided to twist what I say to have a personal go at me...

Every time I come back to this, you've changed your mind

As I've just said, how can I change my mind if I've never stated it in the first place?

I challenged you to:

Point to me where I have, in this thread, said Giles is good or Giles is bad then.

And you were unable to - because I haven't.

 

[marc71178]

Giles totally lost it in the last game of the series in tandem with Batty and lost England the game and the series. Certainly you cannot defend a bowler going for 190 in perfect conditions.

So that's Giles' fault then is it?

What about the other bowlers, who hardly covered themselves in glory - he bowled about 50% more than did Batty because Batty was bowling poorly, but blame Giles.

The whole team (with the exception of Flintoff with bat and ball and Trescothick in the first innings) played badly, so why single out one player?

 

[Rik]

Interisting that you chose to start a post claiming that you never said Giles was a good bowler with:

No, it means that when conditions suit him, he's a good bowler

You state: "And you were unable to - because I haven't." Well, well, missed dancing classes lately? Your twisting is getting sloppy.

 

[marc71178]

Interisting that you chose to start a post claiming that you never said Giles was a good bowler with:

Yes I did, but that is not saying anything about what I think of Giles as a bowler.

You state: "And you were unable to - because I haven't." Well, well, missed dancing classes lately? Your twisting is getting sloppy.

Go on then, show me where I have said either Giles is good or Giles is bad...

You won't be able to, because I haven't...

 

[marc71178]

That's the problem, the only person I can think of to replace him is Jason Brown who the Selectors have an infuriating habbit of ignoring.

Wonder if it's because of 2001 (28 wickets @ 50.25) or 2002 (28 wickets @ 40.64) ?

 

[Rik]

Yes, but where have I claimed him to be anything like that? I haven't, merely said that when conditions do suit, he is up there alongside them, which he has shown on more than the odd occasion in Asia (compare his Asian figures with those of Warne for example)

Here:

Originally posted by marc71178
And given the right conditions, he is up there with the best in the World.

Conditions don't come into it. If you say someone's up there with the best the world, it means you feel they are up there with the best in the world. The best in the world in Giles' field are Murali and Warne. Therefor you would be saying Murali and Warne are poor, or that Giles is good. You can't be up there with the best in the world if you are poor, that is why your arguement makes as much sense as Monty Python's Hungarian Phrase Book.

 

[Rik]

Wonder if it's because of 2001 (28 wickets @ 50.25) or 2002 (28 wickets @ 40.64) ?

Look at the pitches, not even opposing pace or seam bowlers took wickets on them. The fact is that Brown bowled superbly on England's A tour of the West Indies and was ignored on the tour of Sri Lanka.

Giles' averages for those years?

2001: 12 at 35.75 from 4 FC games (Tests and CC), 5 at 48.20 from 2 CC games.

2002: 36 at 33.94 from 9 FC games, 25 at 27.12 from 4 CC games.

So far, not amazing

So what about Giles in 2003?

2003: 22 at 52.09 from 12 FC games, 13 at 44.38 from 6 CC games.

So, Giles is allowed bad years while Brown isn't? Giles has been slipping badly of late, he can't even take wickets in county cricket. And if your International 1st choice spinner can't do that, then it's pretty obvious how much he's fallen away.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Very good point well made Rik.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yet again...

Where do people get the idea that conditions are so great for spinners in the West Indies? The West Indian batsmen aren't exactly notorious for their mastery of spin bowling, yet Shane Warne averages 39.64 here. He's taken just 17 wickets in 7 matches. MacGill also averages over 30. The pitches may be slow, but that doesn't mean their spin friendly.

 

[Rik]

Yet again...

Where do people get the idea that conditions are so great for spinners in the West Indies? The West Indian batsmen aren't exactly notorious for their mastery of spin bowling, yet Shane Warne averages 39.64 here. He's taken just 17 wickets in 7 matches. MacGill also averages over 30. The pitches may be slow, but that doesn't mean their spin friendly.

And Liam follows up with another very good point. Jimmy Adams, Chanderpaul and Lara aside, I can't think of any batsmen who have been good against spin for a while. Warne and MacGill's averages are due to Lara's mastery.

 

[marc71178]

Conditions don't come into it.

Seeing as I specified that, I would think I'm the one to judge whether something comes into it or not.

Do I need to ask a third time or are you accepting that I've never expressed my opinion on Giles as a player?

 

[Rik]

Yes I did, but that is not saying anything about what I think of Giles as a bowler.




Go on then, show me where I have said either Giles is good or Giles is bad...

You won't be able to, because I haven't...

Lessons in how to twist a post round:

Deny what you said was true, keep repeating that the other person can't prove that you said something you have just admitted you said.

What more proof do you need? You just said he's good, you started a post off saying as much. Have your really stooped so low that you are willing to argue, twist your arguement, then argue that you never changed that arguement in the 1st place? Because that is exactly what you've done. And what makes it even better is you've done it so obviously everyone can see it. Of course, I have no problem with you arguing your case further, since so far all you've managed to do is dig a hole for yourself, and to be fair, that hole is getting pretty big. Get out while you still can.

 

[Rik]

Seeing as I specified that, I would think I'm the one to judge whether something comes into it or not.

Do I need to ask a third time or are you accepting that I've never expressed my opinion on Giles as a player?

Digging Digging Deeper...

To be fair Marc, your arguement is so twisted and makes so little sense, it's not beyond most to wonder if you are even telling the truth about your name, let alone your views.

The added comment: "Seeing as I specified that, I would think I'm the one to judge whether something comes into it or not." Just shows your need to be in charge and also contains your only support in this arguement, without it, you would surely lose. Unfortunately for you, conditions don't matter, if you say a bowler is as good as the "best in the world" in suitable conditions, then they must be good, since when has a poor player been as good as the "best in the world"?

 

[marc71178]

Deny what you said was true, keep repeating that the other person can't prove that you said something you have just admitted you said.

What more proof do you need? You just said he's good, you started a post off saying as much.

Have your really stooped so low that you are willing to argue, twist your arguement, then argue that you never changed that arguement in the 1st place? Because that is exactly what you've done. And what makes it even better is you've done it so obviously everyone can see it. Of course, I have no problem with you arguing your case further, since so far all you've managed to do is dig a hole for yourself, and to be fair, that hole is getting pretty big. Get out while you still can.

I have never stated my opinion of Giles as a bowler in this thread - if I had you'd surely by now have produced the post.

I have said that in certain conditions he is very good, but that is nothing about what I think of him as a bowler, merely repeating something that is obvious from figures.

Since I've never stated my opinion on him, how on Earth have I changed an argument when the argument doesn't even exist.

Yet again you are showing incredible hypocracy by accusing me of twisting words.

Every time I ask you to show where I've said the accused words, you cannot show me, but can point to something which I've repeatedly told you is nothing like what you're saying.

AFAIC, I'm not stopping low or digging a hole since the fact is I have never said what you say I have said.

 

[marc71178]

The added comment: "Seeing as I specified that, I would think I'm the one to judge whether something comes into it or not." Just shows your need to be in charge and also contains your only support in this arguement, without it, you would surely lose.

No, it shows that I made a distinct specification which is based on one particular part of the game - therefore that is relevant to my argument - that you choose to decide that it doesn't come into it is irrelevant because I have used it as an example of one aspect of the game, therefore, it does come into that specific aspect of the argument.

Unfortunately for you, conditions don't matter, if you say a bowler is as good as the "best in the world" in suitable conditions, then they must be good, since when has a poor player been as good as the "best in the world"?

If conditions are right, players can perform well, irrespective of how well they perform at other times - that ias the case I was showing, and it says nothing about his ability in any other conditions, and hence nothing about my views of him as a player.