LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAnd you can clearly split it into 3 parts - 47.4, 70.9 and 40.6.Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
Giles doesn't tend to be that economical when batsmen go after him on non-turning pitches - best demonstrated by South Africa in 2003.
.jpg)
And you can clearly split it into 3 parts - 47.4, 70.9 and 40.6.
Giles doesn't tend to be that economical when batsmen go after him on non-turning pitches - best demonstrated by South Africa in 2003.
RD
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
Well...the ball's in your court.
The best way you could prove it to stop talking about it IMO. Otherwise the evidence for the negative just keeps growing.
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
"There's more chance of SoC making a good post than Smith averaging 99.95." - Furball
"**** you're such a **** poster." - Furball
The ball's certainly not in my court if you've put the "shut up or you're just digging yourself" proposition to me.
You're right, it's a bit unfair
You're in a
I've counted 4 or 5 of those in this forum in your most recent replies...
You have a nasty habit of pointing out the absolute nadir of a playing period to judge a player, which you use to vindicate your point. The stats all average out in the end.
It's irrelevant unless we're discussing a player's form, which we're certainly not.
"The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber
RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.
I'd say the fact that MacGill's nadir was longer in length than his good start (816.1 overs to 521.3) and the fact that the good came before the bat means quite a bit.
"Form" is a very bad word for the said periods, anyway. No-one can be "in form" for 14 games over 3 years then "out of form" for 16 over another 3.
It's easier if you observe them bowling instead of making deductions from statistics.
I certainly watched MacGill in 1998\99, and I certainly watched him plenty in 2000\01, 2002\03, 2003\04 and 2005\06.
I don't actually think he ever bowled that well - certainly was IMO hugely flattered by his figures in 1998\99, England's inability to play even the worst legspin contributing far more than any superbness on his part.
Well, Warnie returned far worse figures during that time. Do you honestly believe every side suddenly loses their talent at playing leg-spin when MacGill gets tossed the ball?
Because that seems to be your only argument to discredit his excellent figures.
Last edited by LongHopCassidy; 23-04-2006 at 04:33 AM.
Err, no. If you look carefully MacGill doesn't have good figures of late.
As for England in that Ashes - Warne played just 1 game, when returning from injury. As such, he bowled pretty poorly.
8-108 from a team total of 430-odd?
Even you would take those figures.
I'm talking against Test-standard teams, chum...
Cullen, Bailey and Casson, are useless at the moment basically. I would rather just let Micheal Clarke roll his arm over than bothering to play them. Cullen has potential, however he is not delivering enough at the moment, as for the other 2, have the potential to be servicable domestic spinners, but they should never play for Australia.
Skills.
Cullen is not delivering enough are you kidding me he has only had a few one dayers and 1 test?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
