Giles retires

[DaViet]

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

[chaminda_00]

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

[DaViet]

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

[chaminda_00]

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.

[DaViet]

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!

[Richard]

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.

[chaminda_00]

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.

[Richard]

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")?

[chaminda_00]

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.

[Richard]

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).

[chaminda_00]

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.

[GIMH]

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

[Richard]

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.

[GIMH]

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

[shankar]

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.