Once in a while this board attracts contributers whose understanding of cricket goes well beyond what might be considered 'typical' on this board. One such contributer is Dave Gillespie. Two years ago he got around to his 100th post and found a superb topic to mark his milestone - what he termed "the well worn and woefully inaccurate standard spiel about Ashley Giles' bowling [...] that goes something along the lines of: 'He's never really been a big spinner of the ball, Giles, has he?'"

These past few days we've seen that self-same "inaccurate standard spiel" regurgitated across many threads on this board... so I thought I'd bring Dave's post back tp the fore and start consolidating some contributions that actually bring some insight into the reasons folk who understand cricket far, far better than the rest of us think highly of a player who is routinely (and wrongly) pilloried.

My maiden hundred. Pathetic really, that I've been on this board so long and have only now managed 100 posts, but I like to think I only contribute when I have something of worth to say. Having got that out of the way, indulge me if you will, whilst I vent my spleen.

I have listened to the BBC online commentary for Surrey/Middlesex for 3 games so far this season - Surrey v Sussex, Middlesex v Nottinghamshire and the Middlesex v Warwickshire match which commenced today. The first two were commentated on by a fellow who, whilst a very run of the mill commentator and possessed of a slightly too "cosy County Championship" attitude, was more than acceptable considering that this commentary comes as nothing more than a pure bonus to me, staving off boredom whilst in work as it does; I was unaware that the BBC covered any sort of Cricket anymore. However, today's game is being covered by a different chap, one who trotted out the well worn and woefully inaccurate standard spiel about Ashley Giles' bowling. You know, the one that goes something along the lines of:

Not only is this just plain wrong, but it misses the point completely and shoes a shocking lack of understanding regarding the basic principles of spin bowling. There are technical reasons why Giles doesn't apply quite as much energy to the ball as he might, specifically that his front leg is not braced at the point in his action where he pivots. This means he doesn't have a 100% firm base from which to pivot, and hence doesn't apply as much energy to the ball as he otherwise might. But, despite this flaw, he does manage to apply a thoroughly respectable number of revolutions to the ball. The point which has been missed but the commentator is that the chief aim of finger spin bowling, and indeed all spin bowling, is not to turn the ball, but rather to deceive the batsman in the flight. Sideways movement is the icing on the cake, but is largely useless without deceiving the batsman in flight.

For those unaware of the finer points of cricket ball physics, in order to cause a cricket ball (or indeed golf ball, tennis ball, football etc.) to dip more than usual in flight and, in the case of a cricket ball, pitch on a shorter length than it might at first appear, a significant amount of overspin (topspin) must be applied to the ball. Obviously, in order to get the requisite amount of overspin on the ball, a finger spinner like Mr. Giles must sacrifice some sidespin in order to apply the requisite topspin, therefore making it appear as if he may not be spinning the ball all that much. But, quite to the contrary, he is imparting a considerable amount of spin on the ball, but subtly this is largely overspin rather than sidespin.

To prove my point that overspin is more important than sidespin, accompany me down memory lane to the first two tests of England's series against Sri Lanka in December 2003 at Galle and Kandy respectively; predictably, both were raging turners. Let me present the records during these two tests of Messrs Ashley Giles, Gareth Batty, Kumar Dharmasena and Upul Chandanda.

If memory serves me correctly, Dharmasena and Chandana both turned it a mile but came away with scant reward from their efforts. Admittedly, they had to bowl in tandem with Muralitharan, but both were given plenty of overs in which to ply their trade, Dharmasena in particular. Both came away with respectable economy rates but little else; no wickets in Chandana's case and only 4 in two matches at a ludicrous strike rate for Dharmasena. Crucially, both were able to give the ball little air and dip, particularly Chandana who, despite being a wrist spinner, has a crucial flaw in his technique where he fails to "rock" back prior to delivery and hence finds it difficult to generate overspin. Both were outbowled by Gareth Batty; Gareth Batty, ladies and gentlemen. Take a moment to think about that. Surely the ultimate indignity for a subcontinental spinner bowling at home against England, to be comprehensively outbowled by the second English spinner. Meanwhile, the King of Spain slowly worked his way through the Sri Lankan lineup by bowling a disciplined line, showing great control of length and utilising the conditions.

All this relates to my main point. If I, a humble Cricket watcher, can figure all this out, why can't a single English commentator or pundit? The answer, ladies and gentlemen, is that the second class treatment meted out to spinners in the County Game extends to the opportunities offered to them when they retire. Our newspapers and commentary boxes are stuffed full of batsmen, with the occasional county level dobber and even fewer gems such as Gus Fraser. If these bastmen don't understand seam bowling, which they patently do not, what hope have they to pass valid comment on the subtle arts of spin?

Spleen vented.

As far as I see it, Gilo operates basically on flight and bounce. I'm not so sure about "bite" in terms of bounce, but he gets more bounce than the average spinner anyway given his height. When you add in the fact that the heavily topspun delivery descends on a steeper trajectory than a normal delivery, it will get extra bounce in addition to that which he gets from his naturally high action. Therefore, not only is there potential for the batsman to be drawn forward, but also for them to be beaten by the extra bounce once they get there. Even when not beaten in the flight, batsmen are often trouble by Gilo's extra bounce, as evidenced by the fact that a high proportion of his caught dismissals come when the batsman is attempting to sweep or play some other cross batted shot and the extra bounce causes the top edge to be taken. Remember, bounce is no less effective than sideways movement when finding the edge of the bat - it just looks less impressive on TV.

So to answer your question Rachael, I believe that the purchase Giles gets off the track in terms of bounce does contribute directly to a lot of his wickets. The extra bounce (or lack thereof, on a track with dodgy bounce) means the ball arrives at a different part of the batsmans body than might normally be expected, thus effectively providing a variation in length as well.

Indeed. Giles extra bounce has proved very effective on tracks with even the slightest hint of dodgy bounce, and even those without. Given his accuracy, Giles is obviously very good at exploiting rough outside the right handers leg stump which creates uneven bounce, turn and "spit" all its own. See the glorious dismissals of Chris Cairns and BC Lara both done up like kippers by El Gilo.

It's probably pertinent to mention at this point that I was a critic of Giles when he was bowling rubbish during the home series against SA in 2003, but his performances since then suggest he is well on the way towards mastering his craft. And we've all seen the trouble those accursed Aussies have with left arm spinners. Vettori, Price.....

RBLC just made my point. When a seamer bowls on the spot every ball trying to hit the top of off stump it's "disciplined". When Giles bowls on the spot every ball trying to his the top of off stump it's "negative". He does not bowl outside leg and hasn't done so for a good while now.

Furthermore, Rachael - I thought surely you would have recognised that Giles has just as much craft, guile and variation as any other spinner operating legally in world cricket today. Any top of the line leg spinner will have four deliveries - Leg break, googly, top spinner and the flipper. Any other deliveries are either bluff, hype or natural variations and combinations of the above deliveries. Giles has three deliveries - the stock ball going away from the right hander, the top spinner and the arm ball coming back into the right hander. Once again, anything beyond this is natural variation or combinations of these. Natural variation of spin along with both natural and deliberate variations in flight and pace are the variations which do the real damage - even Mr. Warne (in his own book) admits this, despite the amount of tripe he has spouted over the years regarding "secret weapons" and new deliveries.

I just read this on the telegraph website. There's abit about the king's then new (2003) action..

Other constructive comments... See also http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/colum...ry/146037.html

South Australia v England XI, Adelaide: Panesar told to slow downMost reports on the performances of Giles and Panesar in the warm up games said the same thing: quite apart from matters of batting and fielding... Giles has been outbowling Panesar.See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...8/scbrig18.xmlSee http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...462683,00.html

ps.commentary on BBC highlights at the time of Martyn's dismissal included a comment along the lines that Giles has been giving the ball more air, thereby getting additional bounce.

At some ungodly hour this morning the TMS summariser (might have been Mike Selvey) observed that Giles' typical delivery on this tour has been a full 10% slower than his typical delivery from before his lay-off: the same sort of difference as there is between (say) Hoggard and Flintoff, or Anderson and Harmison.

The figures he gave were 50 mph and 55 mph.. and whilst I've no idea how scientific his stats were... he joined with other observers in noting a clearly visible change in the bowling... and went on to applaud his impressive (and often under-rated) efforts in the series to date