Dire Times Ahead For England

[Neil Pickup]

Re: Re: Re: Dire Times Ahead For England

disagree vehemently. so giles blocks out 100 balls or whatever it was on a sloooow turning pitch & he`s suddenly a #8? keep it in perspective

Number 8s in the World...

SA - Pollock - easily the best around
Aus - Bichel/Lee/Warne - a tiny bit above Giles attackingly but I wouldn't fancy any of them to save a draw
NZ - Vettori/Hart - better
WI - Drakes - par(ish)
Ind - Agarkar - no description needed
SL - Vaas - Giles is better
Zim - Streak - second only to Pollock
Pak - Shoaib - hit and hope.

I don't think Giles is too out of his depth at #8.

 

[Shane Warne]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dire Times Ahead For England

Number 8s in the World...


SL - Vaas - Giles is better


:O

 

[Neil Pickup]

First Class Record

Giles - 4259 runs @ 26.61, 3x100, 18x50
Vaas - 2411 runs @ 19.60, 10x50

Test Record

Giles - 641 runs @ 17.32, 2x50
Vaas - 1659 runs @ 19.75, 6x50

Whilst Vaas has a marginally better Test record, Giles' considerably better FC record in a superior competition swings it for me.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Giles since Jan 1, 2002..

503 Test Runs @ 20.12, 2x50

 

[Shane Warne]

First Class Record

Giles - 4259 runs @ 26.61, 3x100, 18x50
Vaas - 2411 runs @ 19.60, 10x50

Test Record

Giles - 641 runs @ 17.32, 2x50
Vaas - 1659 runs @ 19.75, 6x50

Whilst Vaas has a marginally better Test record, Giles' considerably better FC record in a superior competition swings it for me.

i`ll go with vaas better record in both forms of the game at the highest international level

 

[marc71178]

Re: Re: Re: Dire Times Ahead For England

disagree vehemently. so giles blocks out 100 balls or whatever it was on a sloooow turning pitch & he`s suddenly a #8? keep it in perspective

Conveniently disregarding the half centuries he's scored from number 8 and the 40odd that averted the 1st Test follow-on!

 

[Richard]

IMO Giles is a vastly overrated batsman, and vastly flattered by his figures since The Third Test against Sri Lanka in 2002.

 

[luckyeddie]

IMO Giles is a vastly overrated batsman, and vastly flattered by his figures since The Third Test against Sri Lanka in 2002.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Tom Halsey]

It is not that he has been over-achieving recently, more that he was under-achieving beforehand.

 

[Richard]

If you say so.
I think it is the other way around.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not surprised.

Me neither.

 

[Richard]

Why's that then?
Because yet again you have a chance to deliberately misread the order of chicken\egg?
That don't cut no ice no more, you've over-used it.

 

[marc71178]

Why's that then?

Giles is consistently scoring runs and batting well beyond his previous level in Test Cricket.

In FC cricket, his average is very respectable, and his form in Tests is not surprising because of it, yet you have decided he's flattered by those figures.

By the same token, can we claim Ramprakash is flattered by a brief run of semi-decent scores?

 

[Richard]

No, because Ramprakash's run lasts over 4 years, interrupted only by series' against New Zealand, both of which he was dropped after.

 

[Craig]

Lets end it this:

Ramps got enough chances, it was his fault he didnt take it whether being made to open or bat at 11.

And Giles consistantly scoring runs got proof?

 

[marc71178]

No, because Ramprakash's run lasts over 4 years, interrupted only by series' against New Zealand, both of which he was dropped after.

And Giles' consistent run is now 2 years and he doesn't look like it ending.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but few things look like ending when in full flow.
If Giles continues to score runs for the next 2 years his form can be considered parallel with Ramprakash's from 1998 onwards.

 

[Richard]

Lets end it this:

Ramps got enough chances, it was his fault he didnt take it whether being made to open or bat at 11.

Yes, it was his fault he failed in the two series' against New Zealand when he did (I will not and have not blamed him for failures out of position) and I didn't have any massive qualms about him being dropped after either.
However, he took most of his chances from 1998 onwards. I don't like that people don't realise it.

 

[Craig]

Or rather limited chances he got?

 

[Richard]

Who, Ramps?
Well, he played 9 series' (including a one-off Test), missed 4 and played 2 in which he batted out-of-position.
And when he was dropped he could have no qualms about it, really. When you have as poor a start to a Test-career as Ramps did, you can't quite afford a bad series unless you're averaging 50 (Ramps averaged just 42 excluding the New Zealand series').
It is a shame that he didn't get more chances, but I can't really complain about it.
I also think he'd have got away with the two poor New Zealand series' if he'd made more Test centuries. Granted he was sometimes restricted in opportunities, and average is more important than centuries, but still I reckon if he'd had the same average and scored 5 centuries instead of 2 in the same period he'd still be playing Tests now.