"It simply had to be Giles" - World A-Team Cricket Forum

Rachael · #1 (**permalink**) 05-11-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guardian

"It simply had to be Giles," says Fletcher in his forthcoming autobiography Behind The Shades. "He was bowling much better than Panesar at the time. Crucially, Flintoff, the captain, wanted Giles to play in that Test [in Brisbane].

"Something also happened that which I had not seen before when some senior players not on the management team approached me and pleaded that Giles be picked," he added. "Not one of the management group even hesitated in nominating Giles.

This is what all the more clued in journalists said at the time: that quite aside from the difference in their batting and fielding... Giles was actually looking the better BOWLER ahead of the first Test.

See I was right not to pick Monty for the Ashes, insists Fletcher | Cricket | Guardian Unlimited Sport

acker · 06-11-2007, 02:40 AM in reply to Rachael's post ""It simply had to be Giles""

I personally would have picked an extra paceman or batter myself.

Unfortunately in the Giles "curriculum vitae" there was just nothing that suggested he would either make a difference or even retard the Australian run scoring.

In fact his selection was more like throwing petrol on an open flame.

greg

This just shows it was always a jobs for the boys mentality in the England side.They just wanted the smallest excuse to dump Panesar and play Giles and we all know how successful that was in the end.

Nostromo

I think Giles is a better bowler than his modest record suggests. He is an intelligent bowler and makes up his limitations in talent with guile. The surprise 'rush' delivery that bowled Sehwag in the 2002 Natwest final was one of the best spin deliveries that I have ever seen. Maybe if he had started his international career at an earlier age and played more regularly than he did, he would have had more to show for his efforts.

pie_chucker · 06-11-2007, 10:42 PM in reply to Rachael's post ""It simply had to be Giles""

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachael

... Giles was actually looking the better BOWLER ahead of the first Test.

It just shows how much the so called journos know... Glies took a few more wickets than Monty did at the start of the tour by throwing up some pies and getting men caught at cow corner. Giles' bowling had little threat to it. Due to his injury all he was able to do was just toss the ball up with no spin on it and we all saw in the first 2 tests what happened....

Personally I think that Fletcher is trying to escape from recieving the blame for not selecting Monty. Fletcher has made it clear elsewhere that he doenst think fingerspinners can be match winners and that they MUST be able to bat at least at 8, something Panesar wouldnt be able to do.

Rachael

Quote:

Originally Posted by pie_chucker

It just shows how much the so called journos know... Glies took a few more wickets than Monty did at the start of the tour by throwing up some pies and getting men caught at cow corner. Giles' bowling had little threat to it.

All the more credible commentators agreed that Panesar was really, REALLY struggling at the start of the tour: Giles didn't HAVE to bowl brilliantly... he just had to bowl better than a guy who was really, REALLY struggling.

CMJ is no mug.. and as I recall he was adamant that Panesar was bowling too badly to be considered... and that Giles was the best bowling option (irrespective of batting and fielding considerations).

Where we should agree is that Fletcher systematically undervaled the potential contributions of BOTH fingerspinners...

pie_chucker · 11:03 PM

Panesar was bowling too quickly at the start of the tour but wasnt bowling bad balls and but for a few shocking umpiring decisions would have picked up more wickets. Giles was bowling with no menace and even his decent balls could be easily put away -as witnessed in the first/second test.

Englands strongest team at that point would have had niether Giles or Monty in it. As has already been said England would have been better off going with another pace bowler for the first test and then Monty in the second -when he had got rid of the cobwebs

.

Speedboy Salesman

Panesar's 5 wicket haul in the first Test he was included speak for itself. Giles I'm sorry was not up to it.

Rachael · 07-11-2007, 05:23 PM in reply to Rachael's post ""It simply had to be Giles""

Reading CMJ's column... it seems Fletcher was about the only one with his head screwed on straight ahead of the second Ashes Test:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletcher

I wanted to play both spinners: Panesar replacing James Anderson from the first Test lineup. Even before the tour started I had thought that I would like two spinners at Adelaide, at Perth (although that was proved wrong) and Sydney, too. We went into our management meeting and every person there, bar me, wanted just one spinner and wanted him to be Giles.

See Duncan Fletcher’s book reopens old wounds better left to heal - Times Online

south beds mikey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rachael

All the more credible commentators agreed that Panesar was really, REALLY struggling at the start of the tour: Giles didn't HAVE to bowl brilliantly... he just had to bowl better than a guy who was really, REALLY struggling.

CMJ is no mug

Ok I've tried to stay out of this but as a wise man said "I can stands no more!!"

Regarding Fletchers discraceful book, which should be subtitled "Nothing that went wrong was my fault", he was the man in charge and if he wanted 2 spinners he should have just picked regardless of what anyone else thought.

Is any one still really trying to tell me that Giles selection was correct? REALY!!? This selection was so bad in fact as to be axiomatic.

CMJ no mug? Rach, I would really like to see you explain this convincingly. Also please answer this question honestly; what do you thnk CMJ would have said on this issue if Monty played for Sussex?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode