chickenfeet

Spurred into action by

jen_c_w's comment that the Wheeliebin is a "decent spinner" I consulted the archives and it just shows how low England's expectations of a test spinner have sunk, and how long they have stayed low. Ashley Giles average of 37.28 is comparable with recent England spinners such as Emburey (38.40) and Edmonds (34.18) but it's quite a bit worse than Ray Illingworth (31.20) and Fred Titmuss (32.22) and neither of them was considered deadly in his day. It's probably not fair to include Underwood (25.83) in the comparison for he probably would not have faired nearly so well on today's covered wickets so we have to go back to the 40s and 50s to find England spinners in the Warne/Murali class but we had a pair of them then in Jim Laker (21.24) and Tony Lock (25.58). What would Michael Vaughan not give to have those two later in the week at Old Trafford? It wasn't a fluke either as they were the last in a long line of very effective England spinners including Bosanquet (24.16), Wardle (20.39) and Verity (24.37).

Current Mood: ancient

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

atpotch.livejournal.com

Good points, though as ever I stick up rather bolshily for the modern spinner, on the grounds that comparing via average, though a very sensible mark of quality, should be seasoned with two considerations- firstly that the averages of Giles and the other spinners is liable to be higher merely for the reason that scoring rates are higher nowadays, and so strike rate would be another interesting statistic. Secondly that average scores in general have improved vastly in the last seventy years due to a succession of rules favouring batsmen.

This is not to say that Giles is as good a spinner as any of the others you mention, (though the fact he has a better average than Emburey is revelatory), I just want to even out the context slightly. Certainly you can't imagine Giles taking 19-90.

TCH

From:

chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com

I'm not sure I agree with you on any of your points really.

1. Giles' average may be high but Warne averages 25.24, right up in historically excellent spinner territory.

2. Higher scoring rates (if indeed they are higher) should affect fast bowlers as well. England's top quicks in recent years have performed as well as the likes of Larwood, Voce, Truman and Snow.

3. There have been rule changes both ways. In particular batsmen can't just kick away any ball not pitching wicket to wicket, a huge plus for spinners.

4. Fielding has improved out of all recognition. That ought to be reflected in better bowling averages.

5. Scoring rates have fluctuated. The 1948 Australians scored at well in excess of 4 an over for example. The only long term unarguable temporal trend is in over rate. Down from 20+ in the 30s-50s to 14 or 15 today.

From:

chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com

I should have added too that te likes of Laker and Verity couldn't boost their average playing against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe

From:

atpotch.livejournal.com

I don't accept this implication since many other sides have been sitting ducks in previous years, (see for example Wally Hammond's world record score against gormless New Zealanders or the relentless plundering of the nascent South African test side). Whether they're quite as bad is up for debate, but Giles has never bowled in a Test match against the weakened Zimbabwe team, and I'd argue that facing the Flowers is no average-booster, and has played a maximum of four Tests (England's complete number) against Bangladesh in a long career, so in this specific case it's largely irrelevent.

TCH

From:

atpotch.livejournal.com

On 5), I was going to quote Wisden 2003 at you but all my possessions are currently in boxes, so I can't. The last three years have the highest overall scoring rates of all time, I believe, but it's certainly something like that and given a week I can back it up with statistics.

I agree with 1) and don't think I ever disagreed with it originally. I'll concede 4) and plead lack of evidence on 2), (certainly there are seamers whose averages were in the low teens in the very early twentieth century- and I refuse to believe they were better than Harmison, Gough or Willis). On 3), I would direct you to obdurate batsman Geoff Boycott's Cowdrey lecture in which he posits, (perhaps falsely but I can't see to what gain if so), that bowlers have been given a tough time recently.

But all just for the sake of argument, certainly no over-praise of Ashley Giles intended. He's not as good as Shane Warne or Jim Laker. He did however take 5 of England's twenty wickets.

TCH

From:

jen-c-w.livejournal.com

Anyway, covered wickets. Dear chickenfeet2003, you make the point of covered wickets and then exclude it. I'd go further and say that in recent years the pitches have been less and less spinner-friendly. This explains why Ashley Giles compares less well with spinners of yore, and the quicks don't. The pitches have been flat lately designed to get mass bounce etc, without anything being left on them for the spinners. This explains why in recent years we've been so desperate for a slow bowler we have attempted one Illingworth, R and (and I can't stress this enough) Salsibury I.
The Times did a nice little piece last week saying that he was the best statistically since Phil Edmonds, which had surprised me, for I considered Tuffnell to be a better spinner - although of course in terms of value for the team he was a lousy fielder and the rabbit of all rabbits.
I don't think I ever claimed that Giles was in the Laker/Lock class, but decent I standby - and the best option England has at the moment. Remember he is the English bowler that's taken most wickets in a series on the subcontinent ever, and only the tenth english player to take 100 wickets and make 1000 runs.
I am hoping that my spirited defence of him will lead him to take 20wm and make 100 in the next text.
x

From:

chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com

Anyway, covered wickets. Dear chickenfeet2003, you make the point of covered wickets and then exclude it. I'd go further and say that in recent years the pitches have been less and less spinner-friendly.

It's certainly a factor and a some years ago there was talk of a general decline in spin bowling. Those were the tedious days when the Windies were dominating with all pace attacks. However, as of today, 3/10 of the top ranked test bowlers in the world (ICC rankings) are spinners so somebody has it figured out!

The Times did a nice little piece last week saying that he was the best statistically since Phil Edmonds

The phrase "damning with faint praise" comes to mind.

I don't think I ever claimed that Giles was in the Laker/Lock class, but decent I standby - and the best option England has at the moment.

Certainly England's best option and I can live with "decent" as a descriptor I think though that I can fairly stick with my statement that "it just shows how low England's expectations of a test spinner have sunk, and how long they have stayed low". Giles' average is 10-15 higher than a really good test bowler and he's the best England has produced since Ray Illingworth. That's pretty scary.