chickenfeet

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