[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

good god, so what if he averaged 29 if the wickets at the SCG usually are big turners, it isn't a fantastic but that could NEVER be poor. Its like you are saying a bowler who ends his career averaging 29 has had a poor career, geez come on man

There's a difference between a career averaging 29 and an average like that at what some people have the nerve to call a "good" ground of his.
A good spinner, incidentally, should average far less than 29 on a ground which produces so many turners.

I'm pretty sure you saw the MCG test and i dont know how you could so he wasn't `remotely` good at the MCG . In the 1st innings for example he was bowling pretty well it was White late on that attacked hitting him for 3 big sixes & messed up his figures a bit but its not as if he bowled trash in the 1st innings.

In the 2nd innings he took 5 wickets, i would admit he was wayward mixing some good deliveries/beauties (which got the wickets of Trecothick, Vaughan, White & Foster) with some trash but he certainy wasn't poor in this test by any stretch of the imagination.

He wasn't that good. Incidentally, with regards The MCG 2002\03... he started poorly and continued that way, getting Dawson out isn't exactly that much of an achievement, Hussain was out to a poor stroke off a nothing ball; then in the second-innings Trescothick was a poor decision, then having had at one point 1-112 and 2-147 he got Vaughan, White, Foster and Caddick with similarly poor balls, all were dismissed playing ill-judged cut strokes.

Also i dont know if say the Galle match but if any one saw this game i dont know how you can say he was poor. Christ in the 1st innings he may not have had any drop chances but he played a key supporting role to Warne in not allowing the SRI to score runs quickly after Australia had been skittled for 220 on day 1. In the 2nd innings SRI batted like fools (trying to attack Australia on the last day on a real turner when they should have trying to survive) and after Warne made their top order pay for that MacGill just mopped up the tail.

So in other words MacGill bowled rubbish for all the game then got a few tailenders, a familiar pattern...

i didn't mention the SCG SA game this year since no spinner in the game including Warne bowled particularly well. But you got to be mad to serioulsy tell me that the way he bowled at the SCG vs PAK, ICC World XI & vs WI at hobart was poor.

He bowled OK at The SCG against Pak and against WI at Bellerive, but certainly not against the World XI, he just got a load of tailenders and ill-judged top-order strokes.

That whats i'm saying he is a better player of spin than he was then..

But you mentioned 2001 when in fact it had nothing to do with it...

Come one South Africa are a defenisve team, the only really `aggressive` players in the top 7 are Gibbs, DeVilliers & Boucher, blokes like Smith, Prince, Kallis, Rudolph, Dippenaar are cleary defensive blokes. You dont see them take in it to opposition bowlers like Australia have done so successfully in the last 10 years of England did in the ashes. They play typical old fashion test cricket when they bat i.e score at just about 3 an over and try to grind the oppositon bowlers.

Smith, Prince and to a lesser extent Rudolph are all strokeplayers. No, they didn't manage to attack McGrath or Clark, but few can successfully - especially on the pitches we got served-up in SA.
Almost all batsmen these days are strokeplayers - only Dravid and Kallis of the current top players are not.
At the current time we don't really see much "grinding opposition bowlers", mainly because the bowlers are so poor it's not really neccessary.