Giles in PWC top Ten!

[Richard]

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.

Of course they'll take the odd wicket, but they're not going to take them at a good average (or even a remotely good one) when pitches don't suit.
You can have as much skill with flight and variation as you want, the best field, but if the batsmen play well fingerspinners still won't take many wickets.
If they use these tools in addition to as much spin as you can get (which most fingerspinners do anyway) on a turning pitch, it's a different matter.

 

[Richard]

Even though it's just been proved wrong in pretty spectacular fashion?

Not so.
Craig has never claimed Giles cannot bowl well on a turning wicket.
He's just said Giles couldn't get Tendulkar out in Bangalore in 2001\02, he had to hope Tendulkar would get himself out. Which is true.

 

[marc71178]

Yet more inconsistencies.
The system is a waste of time and worth sod-all, as I've always said.

And yet you trumpet first chance averages

 

[marc71178]

He's just said Giles couldn't get Tendulkar out in Bangalore in 2001\02, he had to hope Tendulkar would get himself out. Which is true.

A plan made up be Hussain and the management that worked.

Why all the criticism - is it better for SRT to hit the English bowlers all round the park?

 

[Richard]

And yet you trumpet first chance averages

Yep, because I've pointed-out why there is little inconsistency there.
The fact that you continue to say there is is irrelevant.

 

[Richard]

A plan made up be Hussain and the management that worked.

Why all the criticism - is it better for SRT to hit the English bowlers all round the park?

When did I suggest contrary to either.
The significant thing is, it doesn't mean Giles bowled well.

 

[marc71178]

Yep, because I've pointed-out why there is little inconsistency there.
The fact that you continue to say there is is irrelevant.

There's more inconsistency in something that relies on personal opinion than there is in a fixed formula.

The formula does not change - hence consistency.

 

[Richard]

Yes, it does change - ranking of player, and opinion in that to get good players out has to be harder than to get players of lesser reputation.
And chances are almost never reliant on opinion, I've explained that, and you have continued to say that they are.
So maybe you could actually post something that you haven't already posted?

 

[marc71178]

Chances are of personal choice, as I explained when discussing the Flintoff 167 and the "chances" in that that some didn't think were.

The computer program NEVER changes.

 

[Jamee999]

Unless someone changes it

 

[Richard]

Chances are of personal choice, as I explained when discussing the Flintoff 167 and the "chances" in that that some didn't think were.

The computer program NEVER changes.

Yes, and I've explained that if it was made more important in some way there would be very, very little in the way of grey area and when some existed, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the batsmen.
That's how it works.

 

[badgerhair]

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.

This is manifestly not true.

Giles does *not* spin it as much as a finger spinner can. He may be able to, and he may do it very occasionally, but it isn't his method so to do. Tufnell's method, on the other hand, was to give the ball a big rip and turn it a long way. That's roughly the two schools of finger spin bowling, as it goes.

I happen to have a taste for spinners who give it a rip rather than those who deviate by the proverbial half a bat since that's all you need to get an edge, which is simpy a personal preference rather than based on some supposed inherent advantage, so I will always lean towards Tuffers rather than El Rey - even if I acknowledge Giles is a better bowler.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[marc71178]

Yes, and I've explained that if it was made more important in some way there would be very, very little in the way of grey area and when some existed, the benefit of the doubt would be given to the batsmen.
That's how it works.

Whereas the computer program is fixed and is also officially recognised because it is as close to perfection over time as it can be.

 

[Richard]

Which is nowhere near perfection, because the task it attempts is impossible to come close to perfecting.

 

[Richard]

This is manifestly not true.

Giles does *not* spin it as much as a finger spinner can. He may be able to, and he may do it very occasionally, but it isn't his method so to do. Tufnell's method, on the other hand, was to give the ball a big rip and turn it a long way. That's roughly the two schools of finger spin bowling, as it goes.

I happen to have a taste for spinners who give it a rip rather than those who deviate by the proverbial half a bat since that's all you need to get an edge, which is simpy a personal preference rather than based on some supposed inherent advantage, so I will always lean towards Tuffers rather than El Rey - even if I acknowledge Giles is a better bowler.

I too very much like spinners who give it a big rip.
However, fingerspinners can't give it enough rip, no matter what, to turn the ball dangerously on a normal wicket.
Giles, IMO, spins it as much as Tufnell, on a normal delivery - I judge this by watching both bowl on equal surfaces, and watching how much the ball usually turns.
Giles turns the ball violenty plenty on wickets that allow; so did Tufnell.
However, on wickets that don't allow, neither are\were capable of spinning the ball to make it turn dangerously. Just like all fingerspinners who've ever played the game.

 

[marc71178]

Which is nowhere near perfection, because the task it attempts is impossible to come close to perfecting.

No it is not, which is why the system exists.

Or are you, yet again, purporting to know more about the game than the rest of the World put together?

 

[Richard]

Yep, because believe it or not, I don't think that just because (most of, not all) the rest of The World think something it must be correct.
The system exists because people would like to think that bowlers and batsmen can be ranked exactly.
They can't. There are so many players who are equally good or bad for all intents and purposes, and so many more important factors (yes, some subjective) that determine the validity of a player's success than those which are considered that the attempt is not one that makes any sense.

 

[marc71178]

There we have it then folks.

We might as well all go home or take up another sport to follow, because Richard knows more than the rest of us put together.

 

[Richard]

Which doesn't change the fact that you think you know more than me.
And if you really didn't believe that, then you would indeed pack-up and go home.
Equally, if you didn't believe you know better than everyone who's ever contradicted you on here, you wouldn't have 20,000+ posts.

 

[Prince EWS]

I certainly agree with Richard on this one.

You have your own opinion, and you shouldnt just change it because of what everybody elose thinks.