When I were a lad

[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).

Comments

[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

*smiles very, very sweetly at atpotch*

[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

Re: *smiles very, very sweetly at atpotch*

[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.