Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 187

Thread: Giles retires

  1. #31
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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,.

  2. #32
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by open365 View Post
    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.
    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

  3. #33
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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

  4. #34
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by open365 View Post


    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.


  5. #35
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  6. #36
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by open365 View Post
    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.

  7. #37
    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
    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.
    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

  8. #38
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,089
    Richard you should take up debating and just go on the side that has no chance of winning all the time.

  10. #40
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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?

  11. #41
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by chaminda_00 View Post
    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.

  12. #42
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    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.

  13. #43
    International Vice-Captain open365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    liverpool
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.

  14. #44
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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".

  15. #45
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Matteh's Avatar
    Boredmeeting Champion!
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Midlands
    Posts
    22,939
    Quote Originally Posted by pietersenrocks View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by cpr View Post
    3. Although Cow Tipping is a hilarious student game in backwater towns such as Bangor, there really is no need for Mitchell to cover one side of the cow in superglue

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear
    By SJS in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 415
    Last Post: 02-09-2014, 04:13 AM
  2. Replies: 389
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 10:25 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
  •