Maybe Giles is better than you think? I mean, you aren't seeing them in the nets. Maybe Giles has really improved as a bowler and as a batsman? Maybe the batsmen found him harder then Monty on the lifeless pitches?
England in Australia
- Thread starter andrew_nixon
- Start date
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
Giles hasn't improved though; The way the Australians have been using their feet to him with such great ease is ridiculous. It's not just the likes of Ponting or Hussey either, Brett Lee and Stuart Clark weren't even flustered by him!
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Again you are placing all the blame squarely on Fletchers shoulders. I honestly believe Freddie played more a part in his selection for the first test, and for keeping faith in him for the second. He's that sort of guy.
You only have to look back to the last time Freddie was captaining Monty where he criminally underbowled him, even in the first test against India he took him off and shielded him immediately when the Indian batsman went on that mad last few hours attack.
It's frustrating that Monty isn't playing, because he is a far better bowler, I thought Atherton on commentary got it right when asked who he would play, he basically said that if you're going to have a bowler that has to bat at 8, then you pick your best 4 other bowlers, and Monty is in that best 4.
We've all talked about why it's such a bad decision, and most of us have made our feelings pretty clear on a number of occassions
What I am trying to look at here is why they might feel Giles was the better option.
The whole clique idea is certainly one angle, is there maybe another? Does Freddie have enough faith in Monty? Do they consider the balance of the side batting to 8 to be the key to Englands success in recent years? Do they think play your best 4 seamers and if none of them can bat 8, play the best batsman amongst your spinner?
I guess I'm just playing devils advocate for no reason really, maybe I am desperate to stumble across some sort of reasoning that allows me to vaguely understand their selection.
You only have to look back to the last time Freddie was captaining Monty where he criminally underbowled him, even in the first test against India he took him off and shielded him immediately when the Indian batsman went on that mad last few hours attack.
It's frustrating that Monty isn't playing, because he is a far better bowler, I thought Atherton on commentary got it right when asked who he would play, he basically said that if you're going to have a bowler that has to bat at 8, then you pick your best 4 other bowlers, and Monty is in that best 4.
We've all talked about why it's such a bad decision, and most of us have made our feelings pretty clear on a number of occassions
What I am trying to look at here is why they might feel Giles was the better option. The whole clique idea is certainly one angle, is there maybe another? Does Freddie have enough faith in Monty? Do they consider the balance of the side batting to 8 to be the key to Englands success in recent years? Do they think play your best 4 seamers and if none of them can bat 8, play the best batsman amongst your spinner?
I guess I'm just playing devils advocate for no reason really, maybe I am desperate to stumble across some sort of reasoning that allows me to vaguely understand their selection.
Well, he did go for only 2.81 so far. That's not bad is it? If it were Monty, they might have gone after him more, and who knows, on this pitch, he could have gone wicketless and conceded 20-30 more runs?
All I'm saying is, you aren't as fit to judge as Fletcher, Freddie, and rest of the team are. They obviously have discussed this on length, probably coming to what is the best decision.
EDIT: Giles was in a 50 run partnership with Freddie. Had Monty been there, could the tail chip in? Also, Monty is still young. Remember what happened to ian Salsibury. Maybe they shouldn't rush him.
And remember, they are trying to retain the Ashes. That includes drawing the series. No need to win, maybe taking the less riskier route?
And maybe the team is more comfortable, y'know, more settled with Giles playing?
All I'm saying is, you aren't as fit to judge as Fletcher, Freddie, and rest of the team are. They obviously have discussed this on length, probably coming to what is the best decision.
EDIT: Giles was in a 50 run partnership with Freddie. Had Monty been there, could the tail chip in? Also, Monty is still young. Remember what happened to ian Salsibury. Maybe they shouldn't rush him.
And remember, they are trying to retain the Ashes. That includes drawing the series. No need to win, maybe taking the less riskier route?
And maybe the team is more comfortable, y'know, more settled with Giles playing?
Last edited:
Simbazz
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2005
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Two things here in the Giles Vs. Monty arguement....
Giles
In my opinion, his technique is absolute crap, one finger one thumb stuff, never going to spin the ball far, and lets face it SLA dont spin the ball much at good times, i speak from knowledge as i bowl it myself. Giles is in the team for his batting ability, both tests now he has plodded in with his "useful 20 runs" as Fletcher seems to be worried about. My arguement is, would you rather have Giles conceed them 20 runs, and then have to gain them back from batting(which he could fail, and then we would be 20 runs down straight off) or would you rather have Panesar who can keep it tight, not conceed those twenty runs, and then there is always a chance to add 10-20 runs from number 11, as he has proved he can get his bat on it at times.
Second think, anyone watched what behaviour the ball does once its left Giles' hand? It isn't a perfect seam, like you get from Warne or Panesar if we are comparing, its a scrambled seam, which shows he isnt in control of where the ball is going, the beauty of Panesar is he can dictate where the ball goes as he can grip the ball well. Giles cant.
Panesar
Amazing player, great technique, spins the ball the most out of the SLA in my opinion. With his flight, dip and bounce, that alone takes wickets but he also can get the ball to grip well and spin bucket fulls.
The Australia conditions in Brisbane and Adalaide as i can see have been perfect for a SLA such as Panesar so im amazed Fletcher hasnt picked him.
Overall i think we should go with 2 spinners really. Anderson has been good at times but not perfect!
Australia have the 6 Batsmen, 1 Wk Batsmen, and then the 4 bowlers. I admit Warne and Lee can carry a bat, but they are prone to mistakes, so who's to say Giles and Hoggard cant do the same IF they play the way in which times gone by has proved successful not just for sub-continent teams, but for England and Australia.
My final comment, someone on PC has some writing under there post, were the sig would go, and it simply says "Australia wouldnt play Hogg over Warne, so why do we play Giles over Panesar," sums it up perfectly!
Giles
In my opinion, his technique is absolute crap, one finger one thumb stuff, never going to spin the ball far, and lets face it SLA dont spin the ball much at good times, i speak from knowledge as i bowl it myself. Giles is in the team for his batting ability, both tests now he has plodded in with his "useful 20 runs" as Fletcher seems to be worried about. My arguement is, would you rather have Giles conceed them 20 runs, and then have to gain them back from batting(which he could fail, and then we would be 20 runs down straight off) or would you rather have Panesar who can keep it tight, not conceed those twenty runs, and then there is always a chance to add 10-20 runs from number 11, as he has proved he can get his bat on it at times.
Second think, anyone watched what behaviour the ball does once its left Giles' hand? It isn't a perfect seam, like you get from Warne or Panesar if we are comparing, its a scrambled seam, which shows he isnt in control of where the ball is going, the beauty of Panesar is he can dictate where the ball goes as he can grip the ball well. Giles cant.
Panesar
Amazing player, great technique, spins the ball the most out of the SLA in my opinion. With his flight, dip and bounce, that alone takes wickets but he also can get the ball to grip well and spin bucket fulls.
The Australia conditions in Brisbane and Adalaide as i can see have been perfect for a SLA such as Panesar so im amazed Fletcher hasnt picked him.
Overall i think we should go with 2 spinners really. Anderson has been good at times but not perfect!
Australia have the 6 Batsmen, 1 Wk Batsmen, and then the 4 bowlers. I admit Warne and Lee can carry a bat, but they are prone to mistakes, so who's to say Giles and Hoggard cant do the same IF they play the way in which times gone by has proved successful not just for sub-continent teams, but for England and Australia.
My final comment, someone on PC has some writing under there post, were the sig would go, and it simply says "Australia wouldnt play Hogg over Warne, so why do we play Giles over Panesar," sums it up perfectly!
Hogg can turn the ball both ways and has proven to be hard to read for many batsmen. If you want an Aussie comparison it's Cameron White over Warne
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
I'd take Cam White over Giles...
plympilgrim
International Coach
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
yep so would i, well said evo
s2sschan
Club Cricketer
Simbazz said:
Good Observations on Spin technique. Panesar does impart more revolutions on the ball with a good seam like Warne and Harbhajan.
Simbazz said:
True. I am a traditionalist as far as Test Cricket goes. I would pick 5 Batsmen, 5 Bowlers, and 1 Wicket-Keeper. With Freddie being an all-rounder, England have 6 batsmen. Really, if six batsmen can't do it, what would you want from Giles at No.8.
D
Deleted member 13648
Guest
That's a great post mate.s2sschan said:
I'd pick Panesar because otherwise he could turn out to be a Walcott.
Stephen Bailey
Executive member
The radio guys seem to think Giles is bowling better than Panesar at the moment. The problem with Panesar so far this tour is he's bowled it too quick. Darren Lehmann commented on this during the tour match at the Adelaide Oval. He said the first ball he received from him was chucked up and given a chance to spin and did so! He thought it was going to be a real challenge, but from there on in, Monty bowled too quick.
D
Deleted member 13648
Guest
Go on thenaussie1st said:Theres probably a heap of other part timers I could mention and you guys would probably take them
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
GOD NO. Saw Punters dropped catch on Headlines Today. GILO WTF i could have caught that!! He had to move 1 maybe 2 steps back and that would have gone down his throat!!!!
He was on 30-odd when dropped right?
Then all those extra 130 runs should be counted against him
He was on 30-odd when dropped right?
Then all those extra 130 runs should be counted against him
evertonfan
Chairman of Selectors
I'd have Scott Muller's slower balls as a replacement spinner to Giles.
Maybe he's not that bad.
Maybe he's not that bad.
Similar threads
