Nov 17-20: Australia A v England XI at Hobart

[ZoraxDoom]

Anderson can reverse swing the ball. War, you need to pay more attention to the cricket. First calling Giles a threatening spinner and now this. I don't know anymore if your serious or just trolling.

 

[War]

Yes, I'm imagining the 1st test match of the Ashes. Sorry for that.

Themer added 8 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

Anderson's definitely got it going a bit here War. Looking forward to see how you claim that you've watched Anderson play and he can't reverse swing it from here.

Anderson can reverse swing the ball. War, you need to pay more attention to the cricket.

Hahahaha i can only laugh @ you two now. Since if you two are claiming that Anderson is getting the ball to reverse swing currently in this 1st Ashes test. Its clear you two dont know what reverse-swing is & i'm no position to try to argue this anymore, since this beyond foolishness.

First calling Giles a threatening spinner and now this. I don't know anymore if your serious or just trolling.

Hahaha, i'm loving this clown show. This is not cricket debate anymore, i'm reading a comic book. Yes congradulations again from proving your comprehension skills are extremely lacking.

I never once suggested that Giles was a threatening spinner overall not even once - NEVER. I specifically said Giles was threatening spinner on turning pitches & his overall career record all over the sub-continent (IND, PAK, SRI) & individual test in other countries on turners proves this.

 

[Robelinda]

Anderson reverse swing????

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Giles has a strike rate of 83.4 in Asia.

108.5 when playing against India.


Yea, you're definitely just trolling.

Can't believe I wasted so much time arguing with a troll. Geez.

 

[War]

Giles has a strike rate of 83.4 in Asia.

108.5 when playing against India.


Yea, you're definitely just trolling.

Can't believe I wasted so much time arguing with a troll. Geez.

Hahaha what hole of stupidy did you crawl out from. This boy is mad man.

What so important with his srite rate anyway.

He averages 34 in the sub-continet (would be slightly better if you take out Bangladesh & wayy better than his overall career average of 40). He has taken 3 of his 5 career 5 wicket hauls in the region & averaged 33 in his only series in IND.

Clearly this is record of bowler who could not bowl on turning pitches. Only on the internet could i find such reasoning on cricket matters.

 

[Themer]

Anderson reverse swing????

He was earlier. Had some decent shape going when Clarke was facing his first over

Themer added 2 Minutes and 19 Seconds later...

Clearly this is record of bowler who could not bowl on turning pitches.

Who has said that Giles didn't fulfill his job of keeping it tight and picking up a few wickets? Giles was a means to a function and did ok. I do take issue with you trying to pass Giles off as being a genuine wicket taking threat though, massive issue with that.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Yea, same with Themer.

And why are we ignoring Bangladesh?

And on that note...Giles kept it tight and is considered a threat in turning conditions by you. Krejza was very loose but took wickets and is considered a threat in turning conditions by you. I'm confused by what you think a 'threat' is.

 

[Themer]

He averages 34 in the sub-continet (would be slightly better if you take out Bangladesh & wayy better than his overall career average of 40). He has taken 3 of his 5 career 5 wicket hauls in the region & averaged 33 in his only series in IND.

More so, since when has an average of 34 been anything more than remotely average? You don't go on about how he was a genuine threat with the ball at that average.

Alas I don't think this is really the point either. We were talking about his threat as a bowler which therefore should translate into him having a very good strike rate which obviously doesn't materialise. His strike rate is miles behind spin bowlers who do offer a genuine wicket threat such as Warne (57) and Swann (54). His being 85 and 83.1 (in subcontinental conditions)

You aren't going to argue that he you've seen all three play and he was as dangerous are you? Or that these stats have been handpicked and don't give us a true reflection?

 

[War]

He was earlier. Had some decent shape going when Clarke was facing his first over

Themer added 2 Minutes and 19 Seconds later...

Ha, Robelina was right to laugh if you call that reverse-swing.

Anderson has hardly been even getting the ball to swing conventionally. He is been getting a hint of movement (outswing & inswing) & has bowled very accurately. Nothing remotely close to reverse-swing.

Reverse-swing occurs when the old balls is scuffed up & a team starts shinning one side of that ball (a rough outfield would of course aid in the ball getting older faster) & the other side rough up. Then it goes reverse.

No ENG fielder has been doing that so far & lush green gabba outside clearly hasn't scuffed up the ball enough for reverse-swing to happen. So i dont know you have been watching.

Who has said that Giles didn't fulfill his job of keeping it tight and picking up a few wickets? Giles was a means to a function and did ok. I do take issue with you trying to pass Giles off as being a genuine wicket taking threat though, massive issue with that.

He was a serious wicket-taking threat on turning pitches. On turning pitches as i've continously said before. Giles transformed from a bowler who was usually just a defensive holding bowler in normal conditions. To a bowler who on turning tracks could get the ball to spin as big as any top class spinner.

 

[Owzat]

And why are we ignoring Bangladesh?

In the hope they'll go away.........................?

 

[TumTum]

Reverse swing? lol wut? who are the 2 idiots here? ... and my job is done

This pitch has a lot of seam movement, which all the English bowlers got. I said way before the start of this Test that it would be a seamers paradise, and it is turning out to be exactly that.

Great innings by Hussey though, if he gets a 100 here it would be the finest innings played in a long long time.

 

[War]

Yea, same with Themer.

And why are we ignoring Bangladesh?

And on that note...Giles kept it tight and is considered a threat in turning conditions by you. Krejza was very loose but took wickets and is considered a threat in turning conditions by you. I'm confused by what you think a 'threat' is.

Matches vs Bangladesh dont ever count since they are a crap side. Everybody knows that. Thats a universally accepted standard when judging performances vs BANG.

The only statical matches this decade where BANG played like a test quality side & you could consider performances againts them was:

- Multan 2003. When Inzamam won a test by 1 wicket vs PAK

- Fattullah 2006. 1st vs AUS when BANG played superbly & thus the individual performances of Gilchrist, MacGill & Ponting would count.

- Chttagong 2008. 1st test vs NZ. When BANG set the Kiwis 317 to win & they ran the Kiwis hard in very competitve test.

So for Giles record in the sub-continent only his record againts the test standard Asian sides is to be considered.


Secondly the more you debate the more i question your understanding of certain cricket matters.

Giles & Krejza are different bowlers with different strenghts obviously.

Giles in India & on turning pitches throughout his career (more than 50% of time). Got wickets in those conditons by bowling to his strenghts. Which was keeping it tight & got the ball to turn alarming on turners & was wicket-taking threat with that style.

Krejza on his debut. Got wickets bowling to his strenght, which is being attacking & consistently looking to take wickets through big spinning off-breaks.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

It's not their styles I'm arguing on.


Giles' strike rate was 103. Krejza's was 53. How can both of them have been credible wicket taking threats in India?

Krejza you might have a point. How does a strike rate of 103 show Giles was dangerous? What are you on about? I still don't understand you. If he got such alarming turn and was so dangerous why did he only take 1 wicket ever 15 overs?

Make a stance. You're finding it very convenient to just say two contradicting things and not clarify what you mean.

And your argument for removing Bangladesh is ridiculous. Surely if they are sub-standard Giles wouldn't have a strike rate of 200 against them, would he, especially if he's such a dangerous bowler on turning tracks.

 

[War]

More so, since when has an average of 34 been anything more than remotely average? You don't go on about how he was a genuine threat with the ball at that average.

Firslty it goes down slightly to 33 if you take out BANG33. Plus if one really wants to be specific i would even take out the 2005 tour to PAK since those pitches where utter roads & the pitches didn't deteriorate & aided the spinners as much as the 2000 tour to PAK when alot of real turners where present.

Secondly do you believe in the notion stats dont tell the whole truth?. Ben Hilfenahus just averaged 50+ in India & every person who saw him bowl would tell you how superb he bowled.

If watched Giles bowl in every test he every played in the sub-continent it is utter madness that you conclude anything else other than he wasn't a serious wicket-taking threat in those conditions.

I have no intention are arguing with people who are ridiculously trying to reshape cricket history in an effort to support your misguided logics.

Alas I don't think this is really the point either. We were talking about his threat as a bowler which therefore should translate into him having a very good strike rate which obviously doesn't materialise. His strike rate is miles behind spin bowlers who do offer a genuine wicket threat such as Warne (57) and Swann (54). His being 85 and 83.1 (in subcontinental conditions).

If Giles averaged 24 in the sub-contient with @ a sub 50 SR or something. I would said he "he dominated in sub continent & absolutely owned all asian batsmen".

Thus suggesting he a simple "serious wicket-taking threat" is a very apt description of his record in the sub-continent againts the major sides.

You aren't going to argue that he you've seen all three play and he was as dangerous are you? Or that these stats have been handpicked and don't give us a true reflection?

Take out Warne abysmal record in India & Warne record in PAK & SRI are slightly better than Giles in PAK & SRI. Nothing huge however.

I wouldn't compare Swann record in his only series in IND/sub-continent in 2008 to Giles overall record in that continent. Since Swann was still in his early stages as a test bowler, he did not peak as bowler until SA 09.

While Giles was pretty much as complete a test bowler as he could have hoped to be in each of tours to the sub-continent.

So overall its useless statistical comparison for reasons stated above. Fact is Giles on turning pitches on turning pitches in Asia & all over the world (more than 50% of the time) was a serious wicket-taking threat.

It's not their styles I'm arguing on.


Giles' strike rate was 103. Krejza's was 53. How can both of them have been credible wicket taking threats in India?

SR are not relevant, why in god's name do you keep bringing it up???

The basis on which i have judged both of their performances in India is their end output. Which is at some point they both took 5 wicket hauls in IND & where wicket-taking threats & for their respective captains in both series in which they did that, they where the go to bowling options.

They didn't have to spin out IND Murali @ Chennai 2005 in no time. To prove they where wicket-taking threats since they aren't that great. If they produced spells like that i would have said "they owned IND batsmen in IND"

Given their obvious limnations as spinners, they where threating as their respective talents allowed them to be.

Do you understand the difference??????

Krejza you might have a point. How does a strike rate of 103 show Giles was dangerous? What are you on about? I still don't understand you. If he got such alarming turn and was so dangerous why did he only take 1 wicket ever 15 overs?

Make a stance. You're finding it very convenient to just say two contradicting things and not clarify what you mean.

I have more than a point with Krejza. I am totally right

Secondly as i showed above. A bowler does not have to produce a performances of 20-10-40-6 which would give a high SR, to show he was serious wicket-taking threat.

A spell of 40-10-120-6 is can also be the same. But of a less destructive level.

Of course here also it would come down to also interpretation & watching of the said game in which a bowler went for over a hundred to judge this. Since for example Kaneria, many of his 5 wicket hauls in his career came when he conceeded over 150 runs. I'd conclude from that since i saw most of them that he wasn't a serious wicket-taking threat, he just kept bowling & got wickets.

But Warne took 6/125 in IND 2004, he definately was serious wicket=taking threat then with that spell.


Thirdly i've made a stance & clearly articulated by position on this matter continously allright. I cannot be blamed if you the reader, comprehension & understanding skills of what i said is lacking.

And your argument for removing Bangladesh is ridiculous. Surely if they are sub-standard Giles wouldn't have a strike rate of 200 against them, would he, especially if he's such a dangerous bowler on turning tracks.

Performaces vs BANG DONT COUNT. The only thing ridiculous as usual as you trying to question universally accepted cricket logics, to justify your utter drivel.

For every batsman & bowler this decade when his record his looked @. His records vs BANG (Zimbabwe also) is filtered out. Most erudite cricket fans does this, but apparantley you dont.

If Giles has taken a 10 wicket haul vs BANG i still would have considered it in his stats in the sub-continent. Fact is againts the best of asain batsmen vs the major SC sides, in their conditions Giles was serious wicket-taking threat. Questioning this shows as usual on your part a complete lack of understanding of a key aspect of Giles career.

 

[angryangy]

Whether you count Bangladesh depends on how you rate other teams too. You should count Bangladesh if you just say "oh but they're the worst side". Do discount them if you're willing to set a minimum standard that excludes other poor bowling or batting opponents in a given period.