• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Giles in PWC top Ten!

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Richard said:
What's "natural" about Tufnell's spin and accuracy that isn't "natural" about Giles' then?
Tufnell DID NOT spin the ball any more than Giles - Giles spins it as much as you can with your fingers, and they're about as accurate as each other so far as I can tell.
And Giles is surprisingly good at loop and dip, not in any way inferior to Tufnell.
Sorry, I meant Tufnell had more 'natural' ability.

If Tufnell had more self confidence, and more self discipline, I have no doubts that he would have been better than Giles. That said, Giles has taken advantage of his discipline and has got the rewards - as has been shown in the last 2 Tests.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Richard said:
Anyone who defends Giles, or more accurately fingerspinners in general, WRT selection on wickets that turn less than these last 3 have done remain incorrect.
Not sure I agree with you here.

I agree that finger spinners aren't going to be as handy as wrist spinners on non turning wickets, but I do reckon that if they bowl accurately, using flight and guile, and have decent field settings, they can still take wickets. Not to mention the odd subtle variation.
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Tom Halsey said:
Not sure I agree with you here.

I agree that finger spinners aren't going to be as handy as wrist spinners on non turning wickets, but I do reckon that if they bowl accurately, using flight and guile, and have decent field settings, they can still take wickets. Not to mention the odd subtle variation.
yea, dont bag fingerspinners!! they rock IMO... just look at BOJE. oh dear... GILES!?! no... VETTORI!?! Lord help me!! haha...
in saying that i like all 3 players.
 

Tim

Cricketer Of The Year
I cannot believe that before the NZ series, Giles was considered a certainty to be dropped. Yet by the end of the 2nd test v the West Indies he's worked his way into the top 10? thats insane..either the system is flawed or the standard of bowling really is poor.

This isn't a knock on Giles because he has actually bowled very well..but I cannot believe 2 solid series pushes him into the top 10.
 

Craig

World Traveller
Tom Halsey said:
Even though it's just been proved wrong in pretty spectacular fashion?
Well I disagree, I do not think I have been proven wrong about Giles in what I have said in the tatic to let Tendulkar get himself out. Yep great bowling 8-)
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Craig said:
Well I disagree, I do not think I have been proven wrong about Giles in what I have said in the tatic to let Tendulkar get himself out. Yep great bowling 8-)
it WAS!! far out, you cant please everyone...
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Tim said:
This isn't a knock on Giles because he has actually bowled very well..but I cannot believe 2 solid series pushes him into the top 10.
well it took harmison less than 2 series to get to number 2......
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Tom Halsey said:
No side with Lara, Chanderpaul, and Sarwan in it can be a bad batting line up. That said, the WI tail is one of the longest in World cricket.
yeah, it starts at 5! :D

Sorry, I couldn't resist...................
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
tooextracool said:
well it took harmison less than 2 series to get to number 2......
If the system truly works like this, then Kasper can't be far away from a top 10 spot either.
 

superkingdave

Hall of Fame Member
Son Of Coco said:
If the system truly works like this, then Kasper can't be far away from a top 10 spot either.
Why he's played 5 tests in the last 3 years!

He's had two good sets of figures in these 5 tests - 7-39 on an absolute shocker and 4-83

He has recently had his best ever rating but he followed it up with 1-147 so its no surprise he's 38th
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
The reason for these high rises are the rating becoming fuller (owing to 100 wickets), dismissal of high ranked batsmen and lots of wickets in a bat-dominated game.
 

badgerhair

U19 Vice-Captain
Richard said:
What's "natural" about Tufnell's spin and accuracy that isn't "natural" about Giles' then?
Tufnell DID NOT spin the ball any more than Giles - Giles spins it as much as you can with your fingers, and they're about as accurate as each other so far as I can tell.
And Giles is surprisingly good at loop and dip, not in any way inferior to Tufnell.
I take it you never watched Tufnell bowl, then, since what you say about Giles turning it as much as Tufnell could is about as accurate as saying that Robert Key is as relentlessly excellent a batsman as Bradman.

Not that degree of turn is a particularly useful measure of a spin bowler, as it would lead one to praise the dreadful Stuart MacGill over the excellently subtle Anil Kumble, and anyway Tufnell was as different a slow left-armer from Giles as McGrath is a different pace bowler from Gillespie, but in the interests of a little accuracy it seems worth correcting you.

Cheers,

Mike
 

Nate

You'll Never Walk Alone
Craig said:
Relying to get a batsman out then rather try and get them out?
thats not how it works. you still need to bowl well, and giles did.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
zimbabwe arent an official test team anymore so that leaves just b'desh......
Yes, they are - they've just had Tests suspended for the rest of the year. No "any more" about it.
The best thing would be to strip both of Test-status but there is no provision in the Laws for that.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
The reason for these high rises are the rating becoming fuller (owing to 100 wickets), dismissal of high ranked batsmen and lots of wickets in a bat-dominated game.
Yet more inconsistencies.
The system is a waste of time and worth sod-all, as I've always said.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
mmm. i agree with most of what you say here Richard, but I do think Tuffers gave the ball more of a tweak than Giles (esp. in the early days)
I think Giles spins it as much as you can spin it.
As demonstrated by some of the extraordinary deliveries he's produced in the last 4 years.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Tom Halsey said:
Sorry, I meant Tufnell had more 'natural' ability.

If Tufnell had more self confidence, and more self discipline, I have no doubts that he would have been better than Giles. That said, Giles has taken advantage of his discipline and has got the rewards - as has been shown in the last 2 Tests.
But what is this "natural" ability to which you refer?
As far as I can see, the natural ability with regards bowling is a fast arm and accuracy.
To spin the ball is something you can teach yourself to do by practising.
Both bowlers spin the ball with their fingers, and spin the ball as much as you can do. Why people regarded Tufnell's accuracy as "natural" and Giles' not so is rather beyond me.
The only explanation I can think of is because of character and personality.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
badgerhair said:
I take it you never watched Tufnell bowl, then, since what you say about Giles turning it as much as Tufnell could is about as accurate as saying that Robert Key is as relentlessly excellent a batsman as Bradman.

Not that degree of turn is a particularly useful measure of a spin bowler, as it would lead one to praise the dreadful Stuart MacGill over the excellently subtle Anil Kumble, and anyway Tufnell was as different a slow left-armer from Giles as McGrath is a different pace bowler from Gillespie, but in the interests of a little accuracy it seems worth correcting you.
IMO Tufnell and Giles are as accurate as each other, and Giles is far more adept at loop and drift than anyone gives him credit for.
I watched Tufnell bowl plenty, and I've watched Giles bowl plenty, and believe me Giles spins it as much as anyone can spin it with the fingers. Just because Tufnell might have had some performances that people got more excited about than Giles ever has doesn't mean Tufnell must have been able to turn it more.
Both of them need\needed a turning pitch to be dangerous and that's borne-out in their averages. Tufnell had very poor averages on wickets that didn't turn.
And IMO Robert Croft is a better bowler than either.
 

Top