Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 187

Thread: Giles retires

  1. #151
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    25
    i agree he wasnt test quality, first class level is a different story, he along with Kasper had the first class game to themselves, fine tuning their art very well, bichel had his best and worst really, i wont forget the 5/14 he got, they needed that soo badly

  2. #152
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Don't agree, Bichel wasn't a Test-class bowler IMO. He's probably rather better than the David Gilberts and Tony Dodemaides of this World but he's not a patch on the Reiffels, Flemings, Gillespies, Hugheses etc. and certainly not on the McDermotts, Reids and McGraths.
    Post 2000 Bichel was on par with the Reiffels and Hugheses IMO, easierly Test Class:
    - 56 wickets @ 28, s/r 50
    The man, the mountain, the Mathews. The greatest all rounder since Keith Miller. (Y)

    Jaffna Jets CC (Battrick & FTP)

    RIP WCC and CW Cricket

    Member of the MSC, JMAS and CVAAS

  3. #153
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    25
    on par? almost around the late 90's, Reifel & Fleming easily took the 3rd/4th seamer spot

    i'd say bichel was better than nicholson and jo angel at that time however

  4. #154
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    Quote Originally Posted by DaViet View Post
    on par? almost around the late 90's, Reifel & Fleming easily took the 3rd/4th seamer spot

    i'd say bichel was better than nicholson and jo angel at that time however
    Meh late 90s Reffiel and Fleming were at the peak, well maybe earlier. But im talking about when Bichel was at his peak Post 2000.


  5. #155
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    25
    there were bracken and *shudder* brad williams too though who i remember one time during a one day tour in india, were said to be the future fast bowling pairing instead of mcgrath and gillespie, how wrong the commentator was!

  6. #156
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00 View Post
    Post 2000 Bichel was on par with the Reiffels and Hugheses IMO, easierly Test Class:
    - 56 wickets @ 28, s/r 50
    That was only from 14 Tests, though, 4 of which were against two of the most wretched and downtrodden sides in history (WI in 2000\01 and Pak in 2002\03). He offered little against England in 2002\03, West Indies in 2003 or against India in 2003\04.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  7. #157
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    That was only from 14 Tests, though, 4 of which were against two of the most wretched and downtrodden sides in history (WI in 2000\01 and Pak in 2002\03). He offered little against England in 2002\03, West Indies in 2003 or against India in 2003\04.
    The old taking out someone best performance and a player looks poor. Lets do that to Giles, or wait they were the only matches he played on so-called useful pitches.

  8. #158
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    If there's a good reason to treat something as separate (not take it out - treat it as separate) I'll do it. Got any reason I shouldn't (other than "you've got to treat every game exactly the same")?

  9. #159
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    If there's a good reason to treat something as separate (not take it out - treat it as separate) I'll do it. Got any reason I shouldn't (other than "you've got to treat every game exactly the same")?
    Cus those West Indies and Pakistan side were still Test standard, there have been plenty worse sides in World Cricket. If they weren't Test Standard then fair enough. Got no real problem if those sides were below Test Standard, not just below average.

  10. #160
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    I'm not saying they weren't Test standard, they clearly were. However, taking wickets against them wasn't all that notable if you can't also do it against better sides, and Bichel couldn't (as I mentioned - he subsequently failed against England, West Indies at home and India).

  11. #161
    Hall of Fame Member chaminda_00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Murali CG
    Posts
    16,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    I'm not saying they weren't Test standard, they clearly were. However, taking wickets against them wasn't all that notable if you can't also do it against better sides, and Bichel couldn't (as I mentioned - he subsequently failed against England, West Indies at home and India).
    If you actually look back at that series against England, he actually bowled very well just didn't have much luck. Also 10 wickets @ 35, is not great but not bad and not a failure in my book.

    He only had one poor series against West Indies at the start of his career when he wasn't ready, also his first series against South Africa he wasn't ready either. So really he only failed once against India at home against a very good batting line up, when he was at his peak. Apart from that he showed he was a good Test bowler, when he got a chance.

  12. #162
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    How often exactly was he picked because of his batting, though?

    It has been much publicised that this was the reason for his selection in the 2006-07 Ashes series (and although anyone who saw the tour matches will actually tell you otherwise - ie. how Panesar was looking completely innocuous and how Giles was actually bowling quite well - I'll concede it as a truth for the sake of argument), but how often other than that was it true? AFAIK, he was selected, for the most part anyway, because he was England's best spinner at the time. He was never consistently outperformed by any spinners in English first class cricket during his test career to my knowledge, and those who called for his head generally wanted another batsman or another fast bowler to take his place.

    Secondly, this business of "bowlers picked for their batting" became a neccessary evil the day Alec Stewart retired. England locked themselves into picking a batsman - that is, someone selected in a specialist batsman's position - for his bowling: Andrew Flintoff. Flintoff has never in his test career ever been a justified selection in the England test team on his batting alone, so if England were to persist with him batting 6, a counter-balancing player at 8 was required. All the talk of Giles balancing the side all those years wasn't just a Fletcheristic idea focused on multi-skilled players - it was simply common sense once England had decided to pick only 5 batsmen.

    I was never a fan of Giles, but his role in balancing the side was often a key one, and the quality of his bowling has been far-too-often played down simply because he can bat a bit.
    Gun post, Afridi up IMO
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  13. #163
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00 View Post
    If you actually look back at that series against England, he actually bowled very well just didn't have much luck. Also 10 wickets @ 35, is not great but not bad and not a failure in my book.

    He only had one poor series against West Indies at the start of his career when he wasn't ready, also his first series against South Africa he wasn't ready either. So really he only failed once against India at home against a very good batting line up, when he was at his peak. Apart from that he showed he was a good Test bowler, when he got a chance.
    I don't think he bowled all that well against England or West Indies myself, really. Guess it's an agree-to-disagree situation really.

  14. #164
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,441
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00 View Post
    Don't care what his FC stats were. Don't care if he serviced his purpose in the NT and balanced out the side. He still was one of the worst spinners to play Test Cricket in the last decade. Yeah they maybe have been worse spinners in England, but the point is he was one of worst spinners to play Test Cricket. He failed more often then he succeed and if it was for his batting the poor selection of England selectors to pick a bowler at number 6, he would have never got so many games. His crap which ever way sugar coat his performance. But oh his got a good FC record, he did well on turning pitches, he balanced a side, he got asked to bowl defensive. Simple put he was crap nothing more, nothing less.
    Depends what you class as failure really. He spent the majority of his international career playing in a successful side, and was fundamental to the balance of that side. His bowling in the 05 Ashes was below-par but his part in winning at Trent Bridge and his 59 at The Oval will always be remembered fondly. There's a whole lot of negativity in this thread, ah well who cares, he will look back at his career with pride I am sure.

    Enjoy your retirement Ash, and thanks for the work you put into English Cricket

  15. #165
    International Debutant shankar's Avatar
    3 Card Poker Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    vs India, Motera, 2001\02 - turning, if slow, pitch, took 5-124, performing about on par with Harbhajan if less than Kumble and certainly vastly better than Dawson..
    Giles massively flattered by his figures in the Motera match. He got only 1 non-tail-ender (wicket Laxman was slogging with the tail) and was inferior to Kumble and Harbhajan. Dawson got 2 top-order wickets in the final innings while Giles had none.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 389
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 10:25 AM
  2. Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 413
    Last Post: 26-07-2011, 03:58 AM
  3. Sim a match
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 342
    Last Post: 31-12-2006, 03:03 PM
  4. "Attacking" \ "Defensive" fingerspin
    By Richard in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 15-03-2006, 05:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •