England vs Australia - Who has the best depth?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Richard

One handful of Tests does not prove much, especially when the figures flatter them as these do.

They don't in isolation, but if you consider that the significant improvement in his performance coincides precisely with when his discussion with Mark Taylor led him to rethink his bowling, and that he's been the dominant Australian bowler in that time, it does mean something.

And for the record, the figures aren't flattering in the slightest. You'll be hard pressed to find a bowler averaging 30 for a series when they bowled as well as Lee did against South Africa. his 3 for 90 odd on Boxing Day was comfortably the best spell of his career, and on another day he could have had half a dozen wickets.

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't give a damn if MacGill has been more succesful than any English spinner - that just says England don't produce quality wristspin, something that should be obvious to a goat-farmer from Ulyan Bataar.
MacGill has not been succesful enough to suggest to me that we'll have any problem with him if he's even good enough to get into the side next winter.

Your claim was that MacGill had not "been successful" in test cricket, which is quite clearly a pile of crap. Compare him and his record to other spinners around the world, and it's obvious he's one of the best. MacGill isn't a world beater, but he's a high quality test bowler who would have hundreds of wickets and a long test career if he didn't happen to be stuck behind Warne.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by chris.hinton

The Aussies should start blooding Younger players for the next ashes series Clarke, Lee and Tait. Ponting, Gilcrist will all be around in the next ashes series in England will the others? i think it time to start now for them

Will Gilchrist?!

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Will Gilchrist?!

Indeed. I think Gilchrist may well be the first of the current Australian veteran crop to retire. He's always said he won't keep playing for long, and the world cup could be the end for him.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

It's Sean Marsh. Batsman for Western Australia, who Stephen Waugh called the best young batsman he'd ever seen. He's about 24, and if you've seen him play I don't think you'd say he was "not test class". He's not good enough yet, probably, but he's got a great deal of ability.

So Geoff, rather than Rodney's, son.
I rarely if ever pay much attention to someone calling someone "the best such-and-such I've ever seen" - we hear it all the time from all sorts of people.
Marsh might be good - I find it pretty unlikely, frankly, that he'll cause many problems for us in a year's time.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

I think Giles is better actually, at least a bit. Boje bowled pretty well the other day though.

I certainly don't - both have bowled pretty well on turners most of the times they've been offered them.

You mean that some bowlers rely on the conditions to be useful, and yes, obviously they do, and Giles is obviously a more useful bowler on a turner than otherwise, like any spinner is. That doesn't mean he's particularly good or that he'll have significant success against Australia, because he isn't, and I'd be surprised if he did.

You clearly haven't watched him bowl on turners, then (probably haven't even studied his figures), because most of the time when he has he's been extremely effective.
You don't even, really, need to watch him on turners - you just need to watch him. He's accurate, he's actually surprisingly intelligent at varying length and has a good arm-ball. As long as he spins the ball enough to turn it on turners (which he does) it's not difficult to spot that he's going to be pretty dangerous.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

They don't in isolation, but if you consider that the significant improvement in his performance coincides precisely with when his discussion with Mark Taylor led him to rethink his bowling, and that he's been the dominant Australian bowler in that time, it does mean something.

And for the record, the figures aren't flattering in the slightest. You'll be hard pressed to find a bowler averaging 30 for a series when they bowled as well as Lee did against South Africa. his 3 for 90 odd on Boxing Day was comfortably the best spell of his career, and on another day he could have had half a dozen wickets.

Except that the South Africans played him reasonably well - and he didn't.
Even bowling as well as he's ever bowled - the best he could manage was an average of 30.
And even then, his figures against West Indies flattered him.
So did MacGill's figures against Pakistan, ICCWXI, West Indies and South Africa - there were a high proportion of throwaway wickets in there.

Your claim was that MacGill had not "been successful" in test cricket, which is quite clearly a pile of crap. Compare him and his record to other spinners around the world, and it's obvious he's one of the best. MacGill isn't a world beater, but he's a high quality test bowler who would have hundreds of wickets and a long test career if he didn't happen to be stuck behind Warne.

I don't give a damn about comparing him to other bowlers - we live and play in an age where fingerspin-friendly pitches are pretty rare, and as almost everyone knows wristspin is very difficult to control so few can even bowl it to First-Class standard, never mind Test. MacGill, compared to the best wristspinners around (Warne and Murali) is poor. Comparing him to fingerspinners is, frankly, ridiculous and is akin to comparing a right-footed player playing left-wing to a left-footer playing there - the left-footer has a huge advantage.
MacGill, compared on the only real basis for comparison - average - is not great, because an average of 33 (which has come down in his last 6 Tests too) is pretty poor.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Richard

Except that the South Africans played him reasonably well - and he didn't.
Even bowling as well as he's ever bowled - the best he could manage was an average of 30

Obviously I mean relative to the batting. When you're beating the bat twice and over and having catches fall short and LBW shouts turned down and such, you're bowling well enough to take wickets. Obviously if you're just getting left outside off and so on, you're not going to take wickets. The point is that his figures didn't flatter him, he bowled much better than most bowlers you will see averaging 30 odd, while he bowled much worse in the Newlands test and came out of it with 5/60 or so. That's the way it goes. To call Lee's figures flattering in the home series against South Africa just shows that you either weren't watching it or are so biased against Lee that you're unwilling to give him credit.

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't give a damn about comparing him to other bowlers - we live and play in an age where fingerspin-friendly pitches are pretty rare, and as almost everyone knows wristspin is very difficult to control so few can even bowl it to First-Class standard, never mind Test. MacGill, compared to the best wristspinners around (Warne and Murali) is poor. Comparing him to fingerspinners is, frankly, ridiculous and is akin to comparing a right-footed player playing left-wing to a left-footer playing there - the left-footer has a huge advantage.

What basis for comparison is there except to other bowlers? That's exactly how you term a player "good" or "poor" or whatever - by comparing him to the standard offered from cricket worldwide. The fact is we don't know how MacGill would have gone in another era, only how he has gone in his career, and the fact is that he has been largely a successful bowler, compared to the players he has played against, and compared to the other bowlers of his time. Very few spinners in the history of test cricket manage an average in the 20s, fewer in a batsman dominated era with largely non-turning wickets in their home nation.

Originally Posted by Richard

MacGill, compared on the only real basis for comparison - average - is not great, because an average of 33 (which has come down in his last 6 Tests too) is pretty poor.

What is 33, exactly? His average on sundays? MacGill's career average is just under 28, and when you take out Bangladesh it's 29.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Obviously I mean relative to the batting. When you're beating the bat twice and over and having catches fall short and LBW shouts turned down and such, you're bowling well enough to take wickets. Obviously if you're just getting left outside off and so on, you're not going to take wickets. The point is that his figures didn't flatter him, he bowled much better than most bowlers you will see averaging 30 odd, while he bowled much worse in the Newlands test and came out of it with 5/60 or so. That's the way it goes. To call Lee's figures flattering in the home series against South Africa just shows that you either weren't watching it or are so biased against Lee that you're unwilling to give him credit.

I was unwilling to give him the credit you wanted him to get after Lord's 2005, too - and I was right...
Having catches fall short, obviously, means the batsmen are doing something right, usually playing softly. Beating the bat, as I've said time and again, simply happens - the good bowlers, when it does happen to them, just keep bowling and eventually get their rewards. Equally, constantly beating the bat can mean you're pitching too short. Usually, having lbws constantly turned-down means you're not getting batsmen out lbw. If you're being denied lots of clearly out lbws, that's just unlucky, and for me you can count them as wickets.
But... funny thing... I don't actually remember Lee being denied any lbws that he should've got.
Even the wickets he did get were mostly poor strokes - none more so than the Kallis one where I was virtually screaming at the telly "YORKER COMING-UP!!!!" it was that predictable.

What basis for comparison is there except to other bowlers? That's exactly how you term a player "good" or "poor" or whatever - by comparing him to the standard offered from cricket worldwide. The fact is we don't know how MacGill would have gone in another era, only how he has gone in his career, and the fact is that he has been largely a successful bowler, compared to the players he has played against, and compared to the other bowlers of his time. Very few spinners in the history of test cricket manage an average in the 20s, fewer in a batsman dominated era with largely non-turning wickets in their home nation.

If the standard offered Worldwide is poor, bowlers get undue praise.
Simple fact is, there are certain thresholds - and especially for wristspinners, these remain pretty unchanged in any circumstances. Wristspinners don't need turning surfaces.
All the best wristspinners (who have been few - because wristspin is exceptionally difficult to bowl to Test standard) have averaged under 30 - usually had exceptional averages. The best fingerspinners used to average 25 or so, too (sometimes even lower) because there used to be far more fingerspin-friendly pitches than there are now. In the modern era, bowlers like Bedi have averaged 23 at home, on fingerspin-friendly pitches, and much less away.
A bowler with an average over 30 can't be taken seriously, in my estimation, as a Test-class bowler - and as far as I'm concerned, MacGill's early record says far more about poor batsmanship than good bowling. When the batting's been better - ie post-Adelaide-2000\01 - his average has gone up. Recently, it's come down again - but much of that, as I've said, has been down to cheap wickets, whether tail-enders or batsmen going for quick runs approaching a declaration.

What is 33, exactly? His average on sundays? MacGill's career average is just under 28, and when you take out Bangladesh it's 29.

33 is his average (against Test-class teams) since Adelaide 2000\01.
A considerable number of Tests, and a pretty consistent(ly poor) run after his initial good introductory record.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by steds

So have Tremlett and Plunkett. Doesn't make them particularly good test players. I have doubts about Tait and Dorey, while I think Anderson is atleast as good as Kaspa, Gillepie and possibly Bracken.

Tait is defiantely better than Plunks from what i've seen while he has a slight edge of Tremlett. Anderson is no where close to Kasper anor Dizzy but he can rival with Bracken.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Richard

Please - don't suggest the like of Cullen, Bailey, Casson, Dorey, Tait, Marsh, Batty, Panesar, Tremlett, Plunkett, Mahmood, Harrison, Prior and Henriques are remotely close to Test-class and in the slightest likely to have any impact on the series.
And PLEASE move Robert Key from the middle-order batsmen to the openers!!!!!

they may not be Test class yet but they are all the future prospects for both sides & should be part of the depth i'd think. Also Key could be either a middle order batsman candidate or opener since he can do both, similar to Hussey.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Richard

Not really - there's not a huge difference between Giles and Udal and I'd back both on a typical SCG pitch.

you got to be kidding me.., Gilo is much better than Udal for sure. Relating to them doing well on a typical SCG pitch i doubt that very much Gilo may cause a few problems since he has proven in his career to be effective on pitches which assist him, but i'd be baffled if Udal caused much problems if any..

[aussie]

Originally Posted by howardj

If you're putting him in there, it's case closed - we don't have much depth!

lol i know how you feel about him howard , he is a good OD player probably not good enough for test consideration seriously as yet, but i dont think he can be totally written of as a possible test player in the future tbh..

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Dasa

Hmmm... that list is more than just a bit biased. For instance, in middle order batsmen you've listed only one uncapped player from England, while you've listed three from Australia....

and how is that being biased?, it certainly isn't because those 3 players are definately part of Australia's future.

[marc71178]

They are possibly part of the future, but there is no guarantee, and since they're unproven, there is no way you can call them "depth"

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

they may not be Test class yet but they are all the future prospects for both sides & should be part of the depth i'd think.

I don't think so, somehow.
Many I'd doubt extremely ever will be Test-class.

Also Key could be either a middle order batsman candidate or opener since he can do both, similar to Hussey.

No, Key is proven useless as a middle-order batsman, unlike Hussey.