Fletcher defends Giles selection

[Skint Gull]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/6212546.stm


Is he the only fucker in the WHOLE COUNTRY who thinks Giles should play ahead of Panesar?

 

[Jambo Seagull]

No, Graveney and Flintoff do as well. I think that's the lot though.

 

[Scoffers]

No, Graveney and Flintoff do as well. I think that's the lot though.

I don't actually believe that, they are just following the party line

 

[H block]

We still would have lost even with Monty in though because we BATTED like tossers in the 2nd innings.

 

[gwpdylan]

We still would have lost even with Monty in though because we BATTED like tossers in the 2nd innings.

i do agree with you but just feel that his more aggressive bowling may have impacted on aussie 1st innings. of course we will never know but i cannot help thinking we may have had them out for about 450. may still have lost but for me montys exclusion is scandalous. loved botham when he said "has monty gone home?"

 

[gwpdylan]

ps i think fletcher ought go home and let Both and Willis work with Freddie..now theres a bunch of winners eh

 

[Gritt23]

We still would have lost even with Monty in though because we BATTED like tossers in the 2nd innings.

You just can't say that with any degree of authority, as the whole game would have taken on a different complextion with Monty bowling at them in their 1st Innings.

 

[Brian Fantana]

England seemed to have regressed to the days when they afraid to make brave yet positive decisions. Despite Monty's lack of batting skills the attacking intent that it would have displayed would surely have been a positive thing. People have been saying that he hasn't played that many tests but remember KP was put in for his first test against the Aussies.

 

[pishhead]

Its a kop out to say we need to bat down to giles, giles average against australia is only 15. surely bowlers are picked on there own merits of being able to bowl well?

 

[Pavilionaire]

If we don't have a reliable No. 8 bastman in the vein of Shane Warne or Shaun Pollock then maybe the England coaches should place more emphasis on improving the standard of 9 / 10 / Jack batting.

They showed in the last test that they can stick around, facing 75-odd balls between them in that difficult 2nd innings, as compared with 32 balls from Jones and Giles in the 7 / 8 positions.

Part of the problem is that they have to bat together far too often. Yes, Collingwood was there at the death last time, but we should be used to seeing Giles or Jones 40-odd not out at the close, not Anderson not out 1 and Harmy out for 6.

I firmly believe that Jones must go and Prior or Read must come in. Read, certainly, is a better keeper and has that ability to be there at the close that Jones just doesn't have.

 

[London Calling]

It is the case that Graveney is not involved in the final selection, whilst the Team is on tour, outside England. So its probably only Flectvher.

Unfortunately, I can see him now taking an entrenched view of keeping Giles.

Fletcher will put his pride first and not the good will of England.

 

[Common as Mook]

Giles and Panesar should BOTH play. Drop that miserable binfestbinfestbinfestbinfest Anderson.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This whole debate is not doing anybody any good, particularly Giles.

He's had a decent England career, 140-odd wickets and some useful runs but the danger is it could soon be over and his reputation permanently besmirched.

We'll probably need him in Sydney which is traditionally a good wicket for spinners, so it's about time Fletcher made it clear to everyone where he sees Panesar and Giles fitting in for the final 3 tests.

 

[Gritt23]

If we don't have a reliable No. 8 bastman in the vein of Shane Warne or Shaun Pollock then maybe the England coaches should place more emphasis on improving the standard of 9 / 10 / Jack batting.

They showed in the last test that they can stick around, facing 75-odd balls between them in that difficult 2nd innings, as compared with 32 balls from Jones and Giles in the 7 / 8 positions.

Part of the problem is that they have to bat together far too often. Yes, Collingwood was there at the death last time, but we should be used to seeing Giles or Jones 40-odd not out at the close, not Anderson not out 1 and Harmy out for 6.

I firmly believe that Jones must go and Prior or Read must come in. Read, certainly, is a better keeper and has that ability to be there at the close that Jones just doesn't have.

I think the bit whereby Fletcher is calling on the batting of Warne as an example just shows how desperate he has become to justify his insane slection of Giles.

Warne averages less than 17 in Test matches, so less than 7 more than Monty! And is he HONESTLY trying to tell us that Warne is selected because of his batting, or has ever been. If MacGill averaged 30, would he have been getting picked ahead of Warne? Do me a favour Fletcher.

It just all points to the fact that Fletcher wants Giles in the side, regardless of form, fitness, or who else is on the horizon. Even if I was to be convinced by the view that we can accept a lack of wickets from our spinner, in exchange for some extra runs, then the selection would still not be Giles, it would be Jamie Dalrymple.

But Dalrymple doesn't make the Test side because we need our spinner to get wickets, rather than some extra runs. For crying out loud Fletcher, you have been brilliant for English cricket, but suddenly a few weeks of stupidity and stubborness is going to cost you your job.

 

[Jambo Seagull]

Giles and Panesar should BOTH play. Drop that miserable binfestbinfestbinfestbinfest Anderson.

I think that's a fair point. I can't for the life of me work out what Anderson brings to the party.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The thing about Warne's average is that most of the time he comes in with his team 400-odd on the board, so he has to get a move on because the bulk of the job of scoring runs has already been done.

Therefore, he can afford to have a swish whereas Giles' job is to make sure he bats sensibly and stays to the end. Under those conditions you'd expect Giles to have a better average.

Over the last 8 years when both have been playing test cricket Warne has scored 9 50s to Giles' 4.

Fletcher's thinking is clouded by Giles barnstorming performance in the deciding 5th test of 2005 when he got 32 and 59. What he forgets is that in the first 4 tests Giles amassed just 64 runs...

 

[Skint Gull]

It just all points to the fact that Fletcher wants Giles in the side, regardless of form, fitness, or who else is on the horizon. Even if I was to be convinced by the view that we can accept a lack of wickets from our spinner, in exchange for some extra runs, then the selection would still not be Giles, it would be Jamie Dalrymple.

But Dalrymple doesn't make the Test side because we need our spinner to get wickets, rather than some extra runs.

Very good point sir.....

Fletcher's thinking is clouded by Giles barnstorming performance in the deciding 5th test of 2005 when he got 32 and 59. What he forgets is that in the first 4 tests Giles amassed just 64 runs...

.....as is this!


Fletcher you twat, this is a complete cock up that you are solely responsible for. I'm not saying we'd definately have done any better in the first 2 tests with Panesar playing cos the fact that Harmison, Flintoff and Anderson have also been injured this year really hasn't helped, but i'd be certain he'd have taken more wickets than Giles.

It's quite obvious that you have Batsmen to score runs and Bowlers to take wickets. It doesn't matter how many you've scored, if you can't bowl the Aussies out twice you ain't gonna win!

 

[Moshe Gariani]

A small point but the persistent references to batting averages and "10 more runs doesn't make a difference" etc is misguided.

You have to factor in that the number 8 will often be partnering a decent batsman from the top/middle order... decent 8th wicket partnerships can be crucial

I trust Duncan. He has made what he considers the right decisions to give us the best chance oif retaining the Ashes. The fact that its all gone horribly wrong has got more to do with injuries and loss of form elsewhere than this Giles v Panesar issue. As Fletcher said today, the easy thing to do would have been to pick Monty and thus avoid criticism...

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

The one thing that I have always questioned is that, how can a spin bowler manage to reach test level when he doesn't even turn the ball? I've seen and played with and against bowlers in the Sussex league that can turn and zip the ball far more than Giles. I consider him a negative bowler who does not have the ability to win you games, whereas Monty rough edges and all offers a chance of turning a game on its head. Therefore the answer is simple.

Traditionally in this country we have employed slow bowlers to slow the run rate and frustrate the batsmen into mistakes. This again shows in the way our batsmen deal with a good spin bowler, they struggle

In the last 30 years I can not remember a decent english spinner who could dictate the game.
For once we now have a bowler prepared to flight the ball and it makes it far more exciting to watch.

 

[Gritt23]

... and maybe, just maybe the criticism of Fletcher over this has been misplaced, because it keeps getting mentioned that it's FLINTOFF who wants Giles in the side, more than it's Fletcher.

Atherton and Hussain were both stressing this in commentary during the 1st morning of the Brisbane Test, and it has resurfaced again in the press today.

I've always been critical of the selection of Flintoff as captain, when Strauss did a much better job of it in the summer (and incidentally got far more out of Panesar, who seemed rather under-bowled under Flintoff). But if it now turns out to be Flintoff who is outweighing Fletchers view and getting his mate Ashley into the side over Panesar, then I am absolutely livid about the decision to make him captain.

I just don't see what he gives us as Captain that we wouldn't get from him as a player, except the players don't appear as focus under him, the bowling changes are often strange, the field placings are peculiar (defending the boundaries on day 5 when they only needed to push 3 or 4 an over ). If we can now add to this a preference for picking his mates over what's best for the team, then maybe it's Freddie who needs to resign (as captain) more than Fletcher.