DIZZY - will he be dropped?

[tassietiger]

Originally Posted by sideshowtim

i would have clark in over gillespie at the moment. i don't see how you could put gillespie in our bowling attack because of a performance against the worlds worst test side whereas stuey clark took 20 wickets in south africa which is arguably one of the toughest tours out there.

Stuart Clark took 20 wickets on very pace-friendly pitches, whereas Gillespie did them on roads (also the sub-continent IS the hardest place to tour, much harder than South Africa). I understand what you mean about the world's worst team, but it's not as if we don't know if Gillespie has what it takes. He obviously has what it takes as he has been our second best pace bowler for the last decade. He has tormented top class international sides for a long time and partnered Glenn's metronomical ways perfectly with his awkward bounce and movement. Clark has had one good series. Gillespie has been consistently good barring one series last year, that forced the knee-jerk reaction from the selectors to get rid of him.

McGrath >>>> Gillespie >>>>>>Kasprowicz >>> Tait > Clark >>>>> Lee

[FaaipDeOiad]

Haha. Kasprowicz, Clark and Tait all better than Lee. Good one.

[sideshowtim]

If Gillespie works hard through the off-season and does well in County Cricket, I would definitely consider him, but at the moment Clark deserves that spot more.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Haha. Kasprowicz, Clark and Tait all better than Lee. Good one.

Apart from Tait, it's really not that silly.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by tassietiger

Stuart Clark took 20 wickets on very pace-friendly pitches, whereas Gillespie did them on roads (also the sub-continent IS the hardest place to tour, much harder than South Africa).

Touring Bangladesh categorically is NOT a tougher tour than South Africa.
India and Sri Lanka, yes, but Bangladesh, no.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Goughy

6 bowlers. That line up is possibly the craziest thing I have seen. Im assuming that as you are an England fan that this is the best lineup to give England victory.

There are not enough overs to justify 6 bowlers. They are not needed. Only 30 overs or less in a session and guys would not get a chance to bowl.

There is no balance to that side. If Australia bowled England out cheaply (lets say 180-250) then 1 or 2 of the bowlers would end up not bowling and end up playing with virtually only 9 or 10 men.

Also if a big score is posted then the 6 bowlers did not do their job and suddenly you are under pressure if 1 or 2 quick wickets fall when replying to a large total with a weak batting lineup.

There are only 10 wickets to take when bowling and only 4 bowlers are generally required to do this job (sometimes 5).

That's why I didn't suggest it in complete seriousness.
Do you really imagine I don't know all that?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by andyc

Well it's hardly bad, especially since it's only two runs higher than his career average.

Well... don't include Bangladesh and it's the same as his career average.
And the point is, people go-on like The SCG's a brilliant ground for him or something... when in fact he's only had 1 really good Test there.

[sideshowtim]

Originally Posted by Richard

Touring Bangladesh categorically is NOT a tougher tour than South Africa.
India and Sri Lanka, yes, but Bangladesh, no.

South Africa is a pretty tough place to tour. I don't think the general public would be too welcoming to the Australian players either....Clark had a magnificent debut series.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by aussie

Well think about this then both India has the biggest turners in the world & the two greatest spinners of all-time Shane Warne & Muttiah Muralitharan when they were in top form & had the best backup in support, i.e:

Warne had the best seam attack to with in India in his career in 2004
Muralitharan had his old champion Vaas in 2005

Yet they both averaged over 30, note i'm not comparing MacGill to them all i'm saying is that even though the pitch is a turner averaging 29 isn't a bad effort especially looking at the fact that he took wickets.

And yet... how many real turners have Murali and Warne ever faced India on?
In any case... the Indian batting-line-up the two of them faced in 2004\05 and 2005\06 was a shadow of the brilliant ones of the 1990s and early 2000s.
Certainly there have been times when Murali and Warne have taken wickets - plenty of them - against India. Indeed, Murali's recent record against India is very good (last 6 games has 39 wickets at 24.10).
Warne in his career has had 10 poor games against India and 4 good ones... 2 of those were when he was poor against anyone (1991\92); the next 3 were when he had weight and shoulder problems; 1 (The SCG 1999\2000) was where not a single authentic wicket fell to a spinner in the entire game; 2 more of those were in 2000\01 where he was totally off-the-boil (IIRR had just returned from injury again).
I've always thought Warne's problems against India have been somewhat exaggerated.

Ha, now how the hell did you come to the conclusion after what i stated that MacGill bowled rubbish that entire game & then took a few tailend wickets?

Taking no wickets; because Aus won the game someone had to find some praise for him so said "he supported Warne well", then got a tailender or two.

I mentioned before thats how MacGill bowls, if he doesn't get top order wickets he is very effective at cleaning up the tail. When he isn't e.g India 2003/04, WI 2003 1st, 2nd, 4th test he doesn't even do that.

MacGill certainly troubled the top order of the World XI batsmen, the delivery that got Inzi stumped was beauty of a leg-break.

That's as maybe, but it was still a huge error and no authentic top-order wickets were taken by him in the match.
A bowler who's only really that useful for cleaning-up the tail, incidentally, isn't much use in Tests.

They would play their strokes yea , but they aren't batsmen who can take it to oppositon bowlers even at their best. South Africa in every series i can remember dating back to the unofficial world championship series in 2001/02 season have always batted like that. Againts all the major test playing nations in most conditions except ZIM & BAN they play like that unless the opposition bowl trash like pakistan did here or what England bowled on occassions in 2003, when they bat they are generally a defensive in their approach.

As I say - in the current age that's not true of anyone any more.
If Smith, de Villiers, Gibbs, Prince, Boucher, Pollock or anyone else who happens to be picked score runs, they score them at more than 50-per-100. At least.

Thats true but even againts poor attacks on flat patches South still bat that way. In the West Indies last year they batted like that.

I hardly think so - those pitches were mostly incredibly slow (Antigua excepted, obviously) and and made quick scoring very, very hard (and in the First Test they were only batting for a draw, so you'd expect slow scoring).

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Richard

Apart from Tait, it's really not that silly.

Kasprowicz played on the same bowler friendly wickets as Clark and Lee in South Africa and averaged nearly 50, while Lee and Clark averaged in the teens. Clark, however good his start, has only played three good tests, while Lee has been very good for three series in a row. Incidentally, since you place so much significance on it, Lee's first class bowling average is significantly better than Clark's.

Lee is comfortably the second best pace bowler in Australia right now. Gillespie might be better if he returns to his best, but there's certainly no guarantee that he will, while Kasprowicz is obviously well past his best, and Clark has yet to bowl well on a flat pitch.

[sideshowtim]

Lee is the in form pace bowler at the moment. He has been more effective than McGrath in the last few series they've played together. McGrath wasn't in the best form until he had his time off...Hopefully the rest does him well. He always fires against the old enemy.

[howardj]

Based on his returns - and moreover just his general bowling - since the Ashes, I reckon Lee has moved ahead of McGrath. McGrath, while still obviously worth his place in the team, seems to be taking a while to get his wickets of late. His economy rate, which is often responsible for the bowler at the other end getting wickets, is still exceptional though.

[FaaipDeOiad]

That's really only true for one series - the one against South Africa at home. He bowled poorly in that series, seemed down on pace and out of form. In the VB series after his break he was good though, just a bit unlucky not to get wickets despite bowling very well. I'm sure that if he had kept playing he would have been back in the wickets soon enough, and I'm sure everyone will agree that he would have absolutely cleaned up and been nearly unplayable in South Africa.

He's still the best choice Australia have, when he's available.

[howardj]

Hope they don't take him (McGrath) to the Champions Trophy. I'd like to see him stay here in October, and get some FClass 'miles' under his belt.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by howardj

Hope they don't take him (McGrath) to the Champions Trophy. I'd like to see him stay here in October, and get some FClass 'miles' under his belt.

Unfortunately I doubt he will be overly keen to play first class cricket if his wife is still sick. I agree though that McGrath needs to play some solid cricket before the Ashes, as do all of the Australians. It's a bit disappointing that there's no mini-tour before England arrive, like a Sri Lanka or Bangladesh or Zimbabwe for a couple of tests around October/November, as Australia will not have played test cricket for several months before the Ashes begins.