Giles retires

[open365]

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.
.

That's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard.

Ever thought the reason Panesar plays on more turning pitches is because he acctualy spins the ball?

Panesar is 20 times the bowler Giles ever was, every excuse you make for Giles just de-values your argument further,.

[Richard]

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.

I'm not "taking out" anything, I'm splitting the career into two parts - one on turning pitches, one on not.

Most spinners don't get picked too often on non-turning pitches, so don't take the volume of punishment Giles did. Batsmen tend to play regardless; spinners don't, most selectors have the sense only to pick spinners when they've got a chance of bowling well.

[open365]

I'm not "taking out" anything, I'm splitting the career into two parts - one on turning pitches, one on not.

Most spinners don't get picked too often on non-turning pitches, so don't take the volume of punishment Giles did. Batsmen tend to play regardless; spinners don't, most selectors have the sense only to pick spinners when they've got a chance of bowling well.

Care to post a few examples of these spinners that got dropped when it wouldn't spin

[Richard]

That's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard.

Ever thought the reason Panesar plays on more turning pitches is because he acctualy spins the ball?

Erm, no, because in case you missed it Giles spins the ball. Also, turning pitches aren't judged on how one spinner turns it, it's judged on how all spinners turn it. It's very simple to work-out what's a turning pitch and what isn't, it has nothing to do with either Giles or Panesar.

Panesar is 20 times the bowler Giles ever was, every excuse you make for Giles just de-values your argument further,.

Rubbish. Panesar is slightly better than Giles, nothing more.

[Prince EWS]

I'm not "taking out" anything, I'm splitting the career into two parts - one on turning pitches, one on not.

Most spinners don't get picked too often on non-turning pitches, so don't take the volume of punishment Giles did. Batsmen tend to play regardless; spinners don't, most selectors have the sense only to pick spinners when they've got a chance of bowling well.

I've always had problems with this theory. You say that finger spinners never (or rarely) succeed on pitches that don't turn - but that's probably because your primary method for determining if a pitch turns is how much success a finger spinner spinner has on it.

[Richard]

Care to post a few examples of these spinners that got dropped when it wouldn't spin

Pretty much every English fingerspinner to play the game since covered wickets, even Emburey and Edmunds.

Heck, even Lance Gibbs got dropped in the early 1970s.

[chaminda_00]

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.

The old Giles had a good game cus the pitch was turning arguement i see. Any match he had a poor match the pitch wasn't turning . Something you might have missed was the countless poor games Giles had on turning pitches as well. But regardless to be good enough to play Test Cricket as a spinner you have be able to bowl on both turning pitches and less responsive pitches.

The other thing is good Test spin bowlers don't take wickets cus the ball is spinning square, its cus they have subtle varation, which Giles never had. He just one way his whole career and on pitches that had a little bit extra support he had a bit of success (not a great deal though) or against crap batsmen like in domestic cricket. His crap bowler not because of the pitches he played on, because he didn't have the abilty to alter his game when conditions were tough. Panesar might have not acheived much more but atleast he shows the ability to alter his game in tough conditions.

[Richard]

I've always had problems with this theory. You say that finger spinners never (or rarely) succeed on pitches that don't turn - but that's probably because your primary method for determining if a pitch turns is how much success a finger spinner spinner has on it.

No, it's whether the ball turns or not. Batty and Dawson both achieved turn on turning wickets (the sort that Giles succeeded on) but weren't good enough to take wickets.

[NUFAN]

Richard you should take up debating and just go on the side that has no chance of winning all the time.

[Prince EWS]

No, it's whether the ball turns or not. Batty and Dawson both achieved turn on turning wickets (the sort that Giles succeeded on) but weren't good enough to take wickets.

You witness a small minority of matches though. How do you determine if the pitch turns or not if you don't see the game?

Furthermore, what if bowlers just bowl poorly on a pitch - getting their releases wrong and not turning the ball, despite the fact that it's actually a raging turner?

[Richard]

The old Giles had a good game cus the pitch was turning arguement i see. Any match he had a poor match the pitch wasn't turning .

Giles did have many good games when the pitches were turning, and many poor ones when it wasn't (when most fingerspinners wouldn't be picked).

Something you might have missed was the countless poor games Giles had on turning pitches as well.

No, there weren't many - 2 or 3 at best.

But regardless to be good enough to play Test Cricket as a spinner you have be able to bowl on both turning pitches and less responsive pitches.

Not fingerspinners. No fingerspinner has ever been much good on unresponsive surfaces.

The other thing is good Test spin bowlers don't take wickets cus the ball is spinning square, its cus they have subtle varation, which Giles never had. He just one way his whole career and on pitches that had a little bit extra support he had a bit of success (not a great deal though) or against crap batsmen like in domestic cricket. His crap bowler not because of the pitches he played on, because he didn't have the abilty to alter his game when conditions were tough. Panesar might have not acheived much more but atleast he shows the ability to alter his game in tough conditions.

No spinner takes wickets very often without turning the ball. Occasionally batsmen miss loads of straight balls like West Indies did at Lord's earlier this season, but that's very rare.

Mostly, if someone bowling at 50mph doesn't turn the ball, he hasn't got a hope in hell of taking wickets.

[Richard]

Richard you should take up debating and just go on the side that has no chance of winning all the time.

I'll win this one too, you mark my words.

[open365]

Erm, no, because in case you missed it Giles spins the ball. Also, turning pitches aren't judged on how one spinner turns it, it's judged on how all spinners turn it. It's very simple to work-out what's a turning pitch and what isn't, it has nothing to do with either Giles or Panesar.

Rubbish. Panesar is slightly better than Giles, nothing more.

Ok, which pitches are these, when were these situations that Giles's shouldn't have played, how has Monty Panesar managed to get all the square turners so far and Giles hasn't.

I have no idea how you deem yourself to be able to judge what it as turning wicket and what is not being an arm chair fan.

[Richard]

You witness a small minority of matches though. How do you determine if the pitch turns or not if you don't see the game?

Furthermore, what if bowlers just bowl poorly on a pitch - getting their release wrong and not turning the ball, despite the fact that it's actually a raging turner?

There are things called match-reports, y'know, I don't just read scorecards. And most match reporters will be capable of saying "despite getting appreciable turn, [insert name of bowler] took just 1 wicket all day".

[Matteh]

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...

You're not in the ghetto now son.