***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[Richard]

oh look another foolish collinwood critic, tell me your reasons why you dont feel he shouldn't be in the team

Because he's got a very poor ODI average of 26 or so, and has played maybe 4 or 5 good innings in his 4 years as a ODI-cricketer, maybe?
Another foolish one who doesn't know how to criticise.

 

[Richard]

what are you wild?, the effect warne will have on a turning track in the upcoming series will be yards ahead of the effect gilo will have

I'd expect Warne to average in the low 20s regardless of the tracks; maybe that might go down to the teens on turners.
Giles will almost certainly average in the 50s or 60s given non-turners; I'd expect that to go down into the low 20s given turning pitches in every Test (that's not realistic, of course, but hypothetically speaking).

 

[Richard]

the tracks offered some assistance to him, but it wasn't anyway near sub-continent proportions, plus he was playing againts a wild west indies team with some batsmen who really give their wickets away most of the time. Agreed they may be some turners but not that much for giles to a strike bowler come on......... his role in the series definately will be to contain

So how come these West Indian batsmen did not give their wickets away to him in the other 4 Tests on which he bowled (Sabina Park, Queen's Park Oval, Bridgetown and Old Trafford) against them that spring and summer? Isn't it rather a coincidence that they "gave their wickets away" on the turners and not on the non-turners?
Isn't it also a bit rich to say they gave their wickets away when you look at the number of wicket-taking deliveries he bowled?
The tracks at Trent Bridge, Lord's and Edgbaston last summer, meanwhile, turned from the first day - every bit as much as a typical subcontinent pitch, and I said from the first day of all 3 that Giles would be a handful.
And if the same thing happens against Australia this summer Giles will become a very potent strike-force.

 

[Richard]

Giles is just a poor bowler.

He has no class and is not a threat and will just be in the team to make up the overs because England have not got a spin bowler who is of international standard.

Yes he will get wickets on dodgy pitches but so will Clarke and any other player you let have a bowl.

Total and utter garbage, again.
Giles has plenty of class and will threaten anyone on a turning pitch; if he's played on a pitch as "dodgy" as that Mumbai one in his Test-career I'll eat my computer.
England have not got a spin-bowler who is international standard on all surfaces; they do, however, have 2 (1 of whom has retired) who are Test-class on turners.

 

[Pratters]

And that's all of 18 months, so four series' worth.

Highly unlikely Australia would lose 4 series in a row

 

[Richard]

Giles isnt a very big force on turners. His role certainly increases fromt hat of a stock bowler though.

Sorry, not a very big force on turners? How come he's come-out with good figures in all but 2 of the 13 Tests he's played on turners, then?

 

[Richard]

One aspect I would like to ask.

If England do manage to beat Australia, how would they rank as a test Team England are the legitimate number 2 in the world. But would they be able to confer to themselves the title of world champions.

Or do they have to beat a few more sides. For example the Australians could always claim to have beaten India in India and England not having done so.

When can England call themselves world number 1 in tests?

Only about twice since WWI, but never mind - there's more to cricket than being the number-one side... really...

 

[Pratters]

Sorry, not a very big force on turners? How come he's come-out with good figures in all but 2 of the 13 Tests he's played on turners, then?

Big force = force like Warne, Murali as spin bowlers, Anil Kumble in India

 

[Richard]

I'd say a big force is averaging from the mid-20s downwards, which Giles does on turning pitches.
What makes Murali and Warne so good is that they can average that regardless of the pitch.

 

[chaminda_00]

I'd say a big force is averaging from the mid-20s downwards, which Giles does on turning pitches.
What makes Murali and Warne so good is that they can average that regardless of the pitch.

Mid 20s, well Giles averages 32 in Asia??

 

[archie mac]

What has happened to Richard Dawson? we seen him out here for the last Ashes tour, injured out of form?

 

[Adamc]

What has happened to Richard Dawson? we seen him out here for the last Ashes tour, injured out of form?

No - he was just rubbish. I'm not sure how a guy with a bowling average of 40ish in FC cricket can get a chance in the Test side anyway; maybe some of the English fans can enlighten me. He's not quite as bad in one-dayers, and I think he was picked in the original 30-man squad for the 2004 Champions Trophy.

 

[marc71178]

And that's all of 18 months, so four series' worth.

The annual bump should give England a boost in the ratings shouldn't it?

 

[marc71178]

It's terrible to think of Croft as useless at the highest level when he averaged something like 23 on turning pitches.
It's also terrible to think that Dawson and Batty are anything close to as good a bowlers as him.

Croft in all FC Cricket - 843 @ 35.87.

Useless was being kind.

 

[Richard]

Mid 20s, well Giles averages 32 in Asia??

That's because he's played 2 Tests in Asia that have offered precisely nothing to spinners - Bangalore 2001\02 (seamer's paradise) and SSC 2003\04 (as flat as a pitch can be); it includes 2 meaingless Tests against Bangladesh where he'd recently totally reconstructed his action. And also the only 2 occasions he bowled on a turner and totally wasted it happened to be in Sri Lanka (Galle and Kandy 2000\01).
Get rid of the Bangladesh games and the pitches that weren't proper subcontinent pitches and Giles averages 26.49, very good. Get rid of the 2 games in which he bowled terribly (both in which he was hampered by injury) and he averages 21.66, quite outstanding.
And not to mention the fact that not all turners are in the subcontinent... on turners away from the subcontinent he averages 19.86.

 

[Richard]

No - he was just rubbish. I'm not sure how a guy with a bowling average of 40ish in FC cricket can get a chance in the Test side anyway; maybe some of the English fans can enlighten me. He's not quite as bad in one-dayers, and I think he was picked in the original 30-man squad for the 2004 Champions Trophy.

He was picked because people tend to get over-excited by young spinners who a public persona with an influential voice happens to have seen bowl well once.
In this instance it was Ian Botham in a sky-televised Roses match, which I remember well (not least because we won by an innings and 37 with White and Wood opening with a triple-century), in which Dawson took 17-29-4 in the second-innings... later in the season he took 30-86-6 at Scarborough, too (not televised this time, but I'd bet the selectors would have heard of that and not the 6-500 or so in the 3 matches in between and after).
It happens quite often in this country... happened with Ian Blackwell, too - scored 2 half-centuries in consecutive seasons in televised C&G semis, and lo-and-behold... he was picked for the Champions Trophy, despite a dreadful overall record, just because Dermot Reeve badgered the selectors on and on...
No, Dawson's not quite as bad in ODers - good enough, just, to make my Yorkshire First XI in one-dayers; I'd not have him in the frame in the Championship.

 

[Richard]

Croft in all FC Cricket - 843 @ 35.87.

Useless was being kind.

Now go and work-out his record on turning pitches.
And I love the way that means so much for Croft but apparently for Harmison it should not have had any notice taken of it.

 

[marc71178]

Irrelevant.

If a bowler cannot do a half decent job on wickets he plays 95% of his game on, he is useless.

 

[viktor]

That's because he's played 2 Tests in Asia that have offered precisely nothing to spinners - Bangalore 2001\02 (seamer's paradise) and SSC 2003\04 (as flat as a pitch can be); it includes 2 meaingless Tests against Bangladesh where he'd recently totally reconstructed his action. And also the only 2 occasions he bowled on a turner and totally wasted it happened to be in Sri Lanka (Galle and Kandy 2000\01).
Get rid of the Bangladesh games and the pitches that weren't proper subcontinent pitches and Giles averages 26.49, very good. Get rid of the 2 games in which he bowled terribly (both in which he was hampered by injury) and he averages 21.66, quite outstanding.
And not to mention the fact that not all turners are in the subcontinent... on turners away from the subcontinent he averages 19.86.

Keep going...u might get it below 10...

 

[Mister Wright]

That's because he's played 2 Tests in Asia that have offered precisely nothing to spinners - Bangalore 2001\02 (seamer's paradise) and SSC 2003\04 (as flat as a pitch can be); it includes 2 meaingless Tests against Bangladesh where he'd recently totally reconstructed his action. And also the only 2 occasions he bowled on a turner and totally wasted it happened to be in Sri Lanka (Galle and Kandy 2000\01).
Get rid of the Bangladesh games and the pitches that weren't proper subcontinent pitches and Giles averages 26.49, very good. Get rid of the 2 games in which he bowled terribly (both in which he was hampered by injury) and he averages 21.66, quite outstanding.
And not to mention the fact that not all turners are in the subcontinent... on turners away from the subcontinent he averages 19.86.

I love how all this analysing of Giles performance can be done and we can take out his 'bad' tests, but when the same thing is done for MacGill you ridicule it.