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.
Re: *smiles very, very sweetly at atpotch*
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 phrase "damning with faint praise" comes to mind.
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.