Giles retires

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Gloucefan

Well said.

A crap or useless bowler doesn't have a first class average of 29 and a list A average of 25. No he isn't a fantastic bowling talent but did a very good job for England to the best of his abilities.

His stats reflect the fact that he was asked to bowl defensively on none turning wickets many times. As Scaly said, not his fault.

You're dead to me, son.

[open365]

Pretty poor international bowler, but at least he was better than Croft,Batty, Dawson and co.

I must say i never realised his domestic stats are as good as they are before this thread.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

Crap player never should have played so many Test. Any bowler picked for his batting is just dire.

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.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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.

Abso-bloody-lutely, happens with all sorts of bowlers very often.

[pietersenrocks]

Giles was a very useful spinner.......N' he was da best in England..in his time......he dun well for England .. cos we dint had any other quality spinner......N' stats dun shows everything.....he has performed wen it matters.......he was fantastic in d Ashes2005 .. most glorious series for England...And boy he skored a pretty gud half-century...2 save da last Test too...

[umop 3p!sdn]

Originally Posted by Richard

My word some people don't have a clue.

Yes, he played many Tests he should not have done, but he was very, very far from a "crap" "useless" etc. bowler. As I've said ad nauseum, on a turning pitch he was usually a real handful, and you can't really ask too much more of a fingerspinner than that.

Giles played his part in successes many times, and to say he'll be best remembered for The Ashes is ignorant too - he played a small part in it compared to the Flintoffs and Joneses.

That he was picked on non-turning pitches so many times because of the "you need variation" rubbish does not, in my mind, reflect anything on him.

I think he was a good county player, I watched him play some home county games. He definately wasn't the strongest of spinners around, but who would say no to England selection? The selectors believed he was the best spinner in the country so he was picked for the job. To answer Richard, aren't most international spinners a handful on a turning wicket? I wouldn't call myself ignorant, and that is how I will remember him, people who do not follow English cricket or County cricket will probably remember him for that,

[jammay123]

shame he retired even though it was ludicris to pik him ahead of monty down under he was a solid performer for england through a vital perios which saw us climb from bottom of test rankings to 2nd in the world and without him we would never have toppled the aussies. he gave his all and before his hip mangled id say he was on a par with monty. its just that the people like monty more. i think the king of spain very good for england

[stumpski]

With 31 wickets, was England's second-leading wicket taker in home Tests as recently as 2004, not to mention the 17 he took in three Tests in Pakistan on his first tour.

[iamdavid]

Originally Posted by open365

I must say i never realised his domestic stats are as good as they are before this thread.

Damn straight, and if my memory serves me correctly his FC stats were even better for a lot of his carear (bowling average of around 26-27 up until last 3 years).
Compare his stats to those of the other spinners seriously challenging for a spot throughout his carear - Jason Brown (bat 7.09, ball 32.7), Robert Croft (bat 26.4, ball 36.3), Dawson (bat 21.1, ball 42), Keedy (bat 10.9, ball 30.9), Batty (bat 26.6, ball 32.4).
You get the picture he was not only the best batsman out of the candidates and offered the most at number 8, but he was also simply the best bowler.

His international figures may not be the best but he was never an easy bowler to face, he was very thoughtful with his field settings and variations and his height meant sweeping and playing confidently forward were never easy, he very rarely produced the jaffas Warne or Murali could and therefore didnt take a huge bag of wickets but on plenty of occasions he did his job, and given a turner he could be very potent.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by umop 3p!sdn

To answer Richard, aren't most international spinners a handful on a turning wicket?

Nope, Gareth Batty and Richard Dawson (to name 2) certainly weren't. And more importantly, no fingerspinner can really be too effective on a non-turning wicket.

[chaminda_00]

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.

[Richard]

No, he was no more crap than any number of other bowlers. It's just most fingerspinners don't play so often when the conditions don't suit them.

If Giles had only played when a fingerspinner should have played (ie, not on pitches which patently obviously didn't suit spin) his record would be considerably better and he'd not get this "worst to do blah-blah" rubbish he does.

[chaminda_00]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, he was no more crap than any number of other bowlers. It's just most fingerspinners don't play so often when the conditions don't suit them.

If Giles had only played when a fingerspinner should have played (ie, not on pitches which patently obviously didn't suit spin) his record would be considerably better and he'd not get this "worst to do blah-blah" rubbish he does.

If the pitches are so bad for finger spinning then how come Panesar has won matches on those pitches. How come Giles can bowl so well in domestic cricket on the same pitches. His a one trick pony that wasn't good enough for Test Cricket, regardless of the pitches.

[Richard]

Yes, he was good enough for international cricket on turning pitches, and he proved that many times.

How come Panesar has been effective on those pitches? He hasn't. Panesar has failed on pitches that don't turn many times (and also succeeded when West Indies decided to miss a load of straight balls). He's also succeeded on turners.

There's nothing Panesar has done in his career to date that Giles hasn't. Only difference is Panesar has played on turning pitches plenty so far.

[open365]

Originally Posted by Richard

No, he was no more crap than any number of other bowlers. It's just most fingerspinners don't play so often when the conditions don't suit them.

If Giles had only played when a fingerspinner should have played (ie, not on pitches which patently obviously didn't suit spin) his record would be considerably better and he'd not get this "worst to do blah-blah" rubbish he does.

That's like saying "If we only played batsman Z when conditions were easy his record would be a lot better" IE, complete crap.

You can't just take out performances when you say the pitches didn't suit him, that's patently not fair.