England have a dilemma or two, or even three.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Pete

Giles batting isn't too crash hot against Australia though. Played well at the oval for 32 and 59, but in 12 innings before that he averaged just 8.80.

I have to say I find it somewhat curious that someone would look to criticise Giles' batting at No8, when he averages more than the person batting one place higher than he does at No7, particularly when you consider Giles is their specifically for his bowling and not his batting.

Giles and Panesar could provide a useful bowling partnership if they play together and Giles will help to strengthen the lower order batting. Read remains the weak link in his batting, and it amazes me that people will come up with all sorts of wonderful scenarios just to keep Read in the side when it's quite clear (at least to me) that his batting isn't good enough.

If England had bowlers of the quality of McGrath and Warne, you could quite easily construct an argument for keeping Read in the side on the strength of his excellent glovework and only playing 4 specialist bowlers - a strategy Australia have employed extremely successfully in the past which has allowed them to play the extra batsman that has allowed them to batter and dominate bowling attacks the world over whilst relying on the excellence of their 4 bowlers to bowl sides out.

Even Australia are now starting to realise that the quality of those 4 bowlers isn't going to be good enough to bowl most sides out cheaply enough, hence the emergence of Shane Watson as the allrounder, and the dropping of the extra batsman for the extra bowler, and that's a side with Gilchrist at No7!

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

I have to say I find it somewhat curious that someone would look to criticise Giles' batting at No8, when he averages more than the person batting one place higher than he does at No7, particularly when you consider Giles is their specifically for his bowling and not his batting.

No need to turn it into a Read Vs. Jones debate. I'm talking purely about Giles, he just isn't good enough.

Is he going to run through their batting lineup? No, he's used as a defensive option and still concedes 3.68 RPO against Australia. So when people start talking about his lower order batting as reasons for inclusion or as positives in his favour, then I feel we should look towards someone who will consistantly score more runs than him.

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Pete

I'm talking purely about Giles, he just isn't good enough [...] Is he going to run through their batting lineup? No, he's used as a defensive option and still concedes 3.68 RPO against Australia.

The stereotypical Aussie pitch is supposed to have something for the seamers whilst the ball is hard and then to be a seam bowler's nightmare until the next new ball is taken: the actual pitches vary, but England need to get used to the idea that between the 35th and 80th over with each ball they are likely to be in defensive formation with the fielders spread and a focus on damage limitation.

Giles actually got England through this phase very nicely at the start of the last Ashes series: his figures of 29.2-3-101-4 (including Ponting, bowled) didn't let the side down at all... and I'm pretty sure Fletcher would take the same again if offered it at the start of play.

That said... I'm pretty sure Panesar would be a better bet to reproduce those figures... though the two of them in conjunction would be the best way to keep Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff fresh for the second new ball (which, if we're going to be realistic, is when any half-way competent Aussie innings is going to be made or broken).

Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff setting to work in the final hour of the 1st day and in the first hour of the second day is what might make the difference between an Aussie first innings of 350 and an Aussie total of 550... and the question shoudl really be "which two bowlers are going to keep the strike seamers freshest for that key window of opportunity" - I submit that Giles can do that better than (say) Mahmood!

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Pete

No need to turn it into a Read Vs. Jones debate. I'm talking purely about Giles, he just isn't good enough.

I'm not turning it into a Read v Jones debate, I'm merely pointing out some factual information which is highly relevant to the discussion at hand. And that is, Giles (however bad at batting people may think he is) still averages more than the batsman batting at No7. You're right in once sense though, that's more of a reflection on how poor Read is, than it's a reflection on how good Giles is, but the fact still remains - England need those lower order runs a lot more than anyone is willing to admit to.

You don't think Giles is good enough? 52 Test Matches played for England suggests otherwise.

Originally Posted by Pete

Is he going to run through their batting lineup? No, he's used as a defensive option and still concedes 3.68 RPO against Australia. So when people start talking about his lower order batting as reasons for inclusion or as positives in his favour, then I feel we should look towards someone who will consistantly score more runs than him.

Is Giles going to run through Australia's batting lineup? Maybe not, but is Panesar? Probably not either, so whats the point in saying Giles won't run through Australia's batting line up?

My point was initially made on the basis of Giles and Panesar bowling together in tandem, which I feel could be a very effective bowling partnership. No matter how good you might think Panesar is, he cannot bowl from both ends at the same time and that means his effectiveness and how he's used depends a lot on who's bowling from the other end. I don't see Panesar being used in a defensive capacity, he can be used in that way very effectively, but why would you want to when his natural game is attacking and aggressive?

For England to use Panesar as an attacking bowler, which is the way he should be used, they have to set attacking field placings for him, his primary role should be to take wickets, how is he going to do that if you're 1/ Not setting attacking field placings because you're too worried about the runs you're conceeding and 2/ Leaking runs from a seamer at the other end, which the batsmen attack rather than attacking Panesar and 3/ Using him as a defensive bowler because the seamers are getting hit for too many runs?

If Panesar plays on his own, England may well be temped to use him as a defensive bowler, played with Giles, he can be used as an attacking option.

So I fail to see any relevance whatsoever in whether Giles will 'run through Australia's batting line up' because that's not the role he would be used in.

[Ernest]

Giles will never rip through any bating line up because of the left arm over the wicket line he bowls.

He is the perfect foil for a quick at the other end, with keeping it tight, batsmen are more likely to play rash shots of the seamers.

If England play Panesar - RATHER than Giles, then England have to gamble if they play Mahmood.

With Harmison suffering from homesickness at times, it's to much of a gamble to play a young attacking SLA bowler IMO at the other end to Giles.

Harmison - Mahmood and panesar in the same side - is just not on.

As for Read/Jones - there is little in it on the bating front, both players are really out of any sort of form, so Read I think gets the nod because of his glove work.

Whoever gets a score on the warm up games between Read and Jones - I think will start the first Test.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

You don't think Giles is good enough? 52 Test Matches played for England suggests otherwise.

That's partly a reflection on how bad England's spinners have been and how stubborn the England management are. In the past they've picked him when not needed, when his form has been abysmal, when unfit and when they want some lower order runs.

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

So I fail to see any relevance whatsoever in whether Giles will 'run through Australia's batting line up' because that's not the role he would be used in.

Ok then, forget about my comment of Giles not taking a shedload of wickets.. Fact still remains that he's used as a defensive option and still concedes 3.68 RPO against Australia. So what will they really gain?

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by Pete

That's partly a reflection on how bad England's spinners have been and how stubborn the England management are.

And because Giles consistently returned the best figures in County Cricket, which is why he was selected, or do you think England should simply not have used a spinner, because none of the rest were even close to being good enough?

Originally Posted by Pete

Ok then, forget about my comment of Giles not taking a shedload of wickets.. Fact still remains that he's used as a defensive option and still concedes 3.68 RPO against Australia. So what will they really gain?

Well firstly, past performance statistics is precisely that - a record of what's happened in the past - that's not necessarily a reflection of what's going to happen in the future. Secondly, all Englands bowlers run rates go up against Australia, so it's not just Giles who suffers at the hands of the Australians although it's fair to point out that his run rate increases more than the other bowlers. Surprisingly enough, Giles' economy rate against the Australians is still better than Hoggard and Simon Jones and only worse than Harmison by .27 runs per over and worse than Flintoff by 0.33 runs per over and those are supposed to be Englands best strike bowlers.

The other option is to play Mahmood in place of Giles and I'm pretty darned sure Mahmood is going to go for more runs per over than Giles is, and because of that, when pitches suit spin more than seam I fully expect to see Giles operating in tandem with Panesar, with Giles as the defensive option and Panesar the attacking and in my mind that partnership will be more effective with Giles at one end than Mahmood.

You appear to be arguing against Giles in isolation to all the other factors and that's why his economy rate doesn't amount to a hill of beans because you're not factoring in how Giles will be used with Panesar.

[Mr Hutt]

To Ernest : read cricinfo man )) flintoff wont be bowling in the first test... englands going in with 5 bowlers... whopping long tail.. and a collapse imminent in brisbane.

[Ernest]

hey Mr Hutt - Flintoff will be bowlibg according to the BBC Fletcher is just worried that Flinoff has only bowled 5 overs or would have just used just 4 bowlers.
tell the Aussies what he worries (weaknesses) realy are - I don't think so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cric...nd/6123546.stm

[Mr Hutt]

bah if flintoff can bowl more than 20 overs.... orchids shall grow in thy garden mr grower

flintoff is not well... thats why these noises comin out... we shall see surely soon