Ashley Giles v Paul Harris v Johan Botha

[Langeveldt]

Three handy spinners, oft derided, not world beaters but can do the job with either bat or ball.. Good tactical men as well.. The ultimate in bits and pieces cricketers, but who would you rather have in your FC or OD side?

 

[Richard]

Giles is clearly easily the best bowler IMO.

Botha if he's to be anything beyond a joke bowler will have to do something different, and soon. He's currently no use beyond a semi-economical spell in a ODI.

None were really that good at OD bowling but Giles' long-form record is much better than the rest of them.

 

[Uppercut]

Giles for me. Best bowler there, best batsman there, better fielder than Harris and i haven't seen Botha field enough to say.

 

[Prince EWS]

Giles for me. Best bowler there, best batsman there, better fielder than Harris and i haven't seen Botha field enough to say.

Botha >>>> Giles as a batsman AFAIC.

 

[Uppercut]

Botha >>>> Giles as a batsman AFAIC.

Botha probably has "**** every time i watch him bat" syndrome.

 

[Richard]

Botha >>>> Giles as a batsman AFAIC.

Funny, I've honestly never given a moment's thought to Botha's skills as a batsman. About all I can recall noticing is how I was a bit surprised he came in ahead of Philander once, given Philander is an all-rounder.

 

[Goughy]

Purely as a bowler Id take Harris over the other 2.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Purely as a bowler Id take Harris over the other 2.

Yeah I'd go with that, although I'd take Giles if the wicket wasn't turning to tie up an end. Gary Rhodes look-a-like Botha still risks being called as well. Plus he can't turn a ball.

 

[Richard]

On a turning pitch to attack and look to take wickets, Giles > Harris, comfortably, IMO.

On a non-turner if you were only looking for containment (not that a non-turning spinner can easily provide this if the batsmen look to go after him) then I'd not say there's that much between them.

 

[nightprowler10]

I think I'll take Giles overall.

 

[Polo23]

None were really that good at OD bowling but Giles' long-form record is much better than the rest of them.

Is that a joke?

Giles averaged over 40 in tests, Harris averages 32 and both Harris and Giles have similar FC averages. Obviously Giles has more wickets, but he's played far far more cricket.

 

[Matteh]

Helps that Giles is the better bowler/batsman/fielder/lover.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Purely as a bowler Id take Harris over the other 2.

Yeah, same. Giles was a reasonable containing bowler but completely ordinary in every other respect. Harris isn't great either but he's got a bit more flexibility IMO and is a little more threatening.

 

[Prince EWS]

Botha probably has "**** every time i watch him bat" syndrome.

Funny, because he has "always looks like he should be batting in the top 5 when I watch him bat" syndrome as well. I was only saying the other day in the "Bangladesh in South Africa" thread that he seemed to have the talent and techique to be a much better batsman than his First Class stats indicate.

He opens the batting at that level now and averages 32 odd throughout his career, but he's strangely never scored a hundred. Better than Gilo with the bat anyway.

 

[tooextracool]

First time I have ever heard anyone describe Harris as a 'handy batsman'. Certainly nothing better than no 11 material, possibly number 10. Appalling technique.

As far as bowling is concerned, I cant conceive how Harris is as good as Giles. Not that being as good as Giles is particularly exceptional, but Giles could be easily observed to being a far more thoughtful bowler, even if he didnt turn the ball as much as he should have. Maybe in time Harris might turn out to be better, but as of this point Harris isnt near as good as Giles with the ball.

 

[biased indian]

Harris as he is the better batsmen..if white was there would have gone for him becuse as spinners don think they had more than 2-3 matches where they can say ya i bowled very well

 

[pup11]

Would go for Giles, was a very average bowler but atleast he was handy for England with the role he was asked to fill, and then he was a handy lower order bat too, so i would pick him ahead of the other two.

 

[Prince EWS]

Harris as he is the better batsmen..if white was there would have gone for him becuse as spinners don think they had more than 2-3 matches where they can say ya i bowled very well

Harris is, by far, the worst batsman on the poll.

 

[Richard]

Is that a joke?

Giles averaged over 40 in tests, Harris averages 32 and both Harris and Giles have similar FC averages. Obviously Giles has more wickets, but he's played far far more cricket.

I could not give a flying **** about career averages, they're irrelevant at the best of times and more than ever in the case of fingerspinners.

Fact is Giles was picked in many games where he should not have been because of the "you must have variation" rubbish, and hence his average is higher than it should be and would be for teams who've played a higher portion of matches on turning pitches.

A good fingerspinner's success depends entirely on the number of turning pitches he plays on. Right now, Harris has played on far more of these, proportionally, than Giles. Harris has also had a far higher proportion of games where he's had a good seam attack in front of him so has ended-up with, say, 1-19 off 7 overs rather than the 2-100 off 40 that Giles might have gotten under similar circumstances.

Judging a fingerspinner on a career average is the most ridiculous thing to do.

 

[Richard]

Giles was a reasonable containing bowler but completely ordinary in every other respect.

This is wrong, obviously, but I've gone through why more times than I care to remember so won't bother doing it again.