The "No-Loyalty" XI for the Gabba

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

Please give it a rest, you don't have to take any possible inkling that somebody might be better than McGrath as a personal insult.

The whole point of the thread is that it is about current form and so on, and for mine and few other people's money, Johnson is just a better bet than McGrath.

Um, no. Its not an insult, its just ludicrous to leave out your best bowler, your most consistent bowler, and the bowler who is going to do the best under pressure in favor of an untried prospect. Recent form or not. And he did damn well in India. Improved every game.

McGrath doesn't have to run through sides to be worth his weight in the team. At the very least, no one is going to cart him around and he can be a good influence on the rest of your bowlers.

Even for a 'no loyalty' XI, his inclusion is a no brainer. It's like leaving out Warne because a surface isn't suitable for spin, or something equally ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

I'd still take McGrath - short on match form and all - ahead of an untried and still raw Mitchell Johnson. I'd fully expect McGrath to have a bigger impact. The expectations upon Johnson are unrealistic. He's only just started to really come along as a bowler.

Agreed.

[howardj]

Could be something to do with his Test stats in the last series he played in - and moreover his strike rate in that series. And the fact that West Indies, England absolutely murdered him in the Champions Trophy, to the point where he had to be taken off and brought back on when those batsmen were dismissed. Apparently he didn't pose much of a threat to Strauss or Pietersen the other day either.

So, enough of the breathlessness please. People are actually basing his non-selection on something. And it's not like, in not selecting him in a 'FORM XI', people are saying that he's a shocking bowler who has totally lost the plot. Rather, it's just that some believe he's not ahead of Lee, Clark, Warne or MacGill at this particular point.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Um, no. Its not an insult, its just ludicrous to leave out your best bowler, your most consistent bowler, and the bowler who is going to do the best under pressure in favor of an untried prospect. Recent form or not. And he did damn well in India. Improved every game.

McGrath doesn't have to run through sides to be worth his weight in the team. At the very least, no one is going to cart him around and he can be a good influence on the rest of your bowlers.

Even for a 'no loyalty' XI, his inclusion is a no brainer. It's like leaving out Warne because a surface isn't suitable for spin, or something equally ludicrous.



Agreed.

actually, apart from games at Lord's, he's not been our most effective bowler for some time now. Still easily merits his place in the team and his pressure makes the rest of the attack better, but first gillespie and then lee have both looked more consistently dangerous for a while

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by howardj

Could be something to do with his Test stats in the last series he played in - and moreover his strike rate in that series. And the fact that West Indies, England absolutely murdered him in the Champions Trophy, to the point where he had to be taken off and brought back on when those batsmen were dismissed. Apparently he didn't pose much of a threat to Strauss or Pietersen the other day either.

We've done the McGrath form debate to death, but you'd have to be mad to think that his performances in the CT were indicative of some sort of decline. He got hammered for four overs against England and two overs against the West Indies, and in both games came back strongly, and in the West Indies game he ripped the heart out of their middle order and bowled beautifully. McGrath has been smacked around in ODIs and even in tests plenty of times before, the key thing has always been his ability to bounce back. IMO, you're really stretching if you think that getting hit for a couple of sixes by Chris Gayle in an ODI means that Stuart Clark is going to be a more dangerous bowler in the first test.

When it comes down to it, if I had to pick any bowler in the country to come out at Brisbane and take two top order wickets in his opening spell and get the series off to a strong start, it'd be McGrath. You can call that breathlessness or selection on reputation or whatever if you want, but I wasn't convinced that he was in serious decline as a bowler before the CT and I'm not convinced now.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Matt79

actually, apart from games at Lord's, he's not been our most effective bowler for some time now. Still easily merits his place in the team and his pressure makes the rest of the attack better, but first gillespie and then lee have both looked more consistently dangerous for a while

Games at Lords? Before the Ashes, he averaged 15 with the ball in New Zealand, while our other seamers in Gillespie and Kasprowicz averaged 39 and 45. The four series before that following his comeback he averaged 14, 20, 25 and 17, going back. Kasprowicz or Gillespie came close in each of those series, but none of them matched McGrath's consistency or took as many wickets as him. The only period in recent history when McGrath has been in the side but hasn't been our best and most consistent seamer has been since the Ashes, as he was trumped by Lee against the West Indies and had a poor series against South Africa. If you're going to argue a decline, it has to start with stepping on the ball in Edgbaston, because there's no way he was anything other than the best seamer in the world before that.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Games at Lords? Before the Ashes, he averaged 15 with the ball in New Zealand, while our other seamers in Gillespie and Kasprowicz averaged 39 and 45. The four series before that following his comeback he averaged 14, 20, 25 and 17, going back. Kasprowicz or Gillespie came close in each of those series, but none of them matched McGrath's consistency or took as many wickets as him. The only period in recent history when McGrath has been in the side but hasn't been our best and most consistent seamer has been since the Ashes, as he was trumped by Lee against the West Indies and had a poor series against South Africa. If you're going to argue a decline, it has to start with stepping on the ball in Edgbaston, because there's no way he was anything other than the best seamer in the world before that.

Fairplay.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

We've done the McGrath form debate to death, but you'd have to be mad to think that his performances in the CT were indicative of some sort of decline. He got hammered for four overs against England and two overs against the West Indies, and in both games came back strongly, and in the West Indies game he ripped the heart out of their middle order and bowled beautifully. McGrath has been smacked around in ODIs and even in tests plenty of times before, the key thing has always been his ability to bounce back. IMO, you're really stretching if you think that getting hit for a couple of sixes by Chris Gayle in an ODI means that Stuart Clark is going to be a more dangerous bowler in the first test.

When it comes down to it, if I had to pick any bowler in the country to come out at Brisbane and take two top order wickets in his opening spell and get the series off to a strong start, it'd be McGrath. You can call that breathlessness or selection on reputation or whatever if you want, but I wasn't convinced that he was in serious decline as a bowler before the CT and I'm not convinced now.

You're entitled to your view.

However, Peter Roebuck, a pretty good judge who saw him bowl in the FC match against England the other day wrote:

Although McGrath sent down a few humdingers, and bowled with unwavering control, most of his deliveries lacked the snap, crackle and pop detected in his heyday. At times he looked like a medium-pacer.

And then the day after:

Suspicion is growing, though, that he is not so much short of a gallop as past his peak.

Granted Peter Roebuck's articles are hardly the Magna Carta, however his views at least indicate that it's not exactly a quantum leap in logic to predict that McGrath might fall slightly short in this Ashes series, and that he is in decline. (Anyway, note the word 'series', as I would back any number of bowlers, including McGrath, to pick up a hatful on a 'Gabba greentop, if that's what's served up).

[howardj]

Let's give McGrath his due though - the man is a legend of the game.

[age_master]

Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Lee
Warne
Johnson
McGrath

Tait

Tait looks in pretty good form at the moment, Macgill would be in my team for every other test but on the quickest in thr country pace is more ideal perhaps

[Prince EWS]

11 players you thought would produce the most wickets and runs for the team in the 1st Test

That's what you should be doing for every match as a selector, really.

Players don't get selected out of "loyalty" - they get selected due to their proven ability at that level. Players that have proven their ability over a long period are more likely to produce than players that have simply shown some good form at domestic level.

1. Matthew Hayden
2. Justin Langer
3. Michael Hussey
4. Ricky Ponting
5. Damien Martyn
6. Shane Watson
7. Adam Gilchrist
8. Brett Lee
9. Shane Warne
10. Mitchell Johnson
11. Glenn McGrath

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

When it comes down to it, if I had to pick any bowler in the country to come out at Brisbane and take two top order wickets in his opening spell and get the series off to a strong start, it'd be McGrath. You can call that breathlessness or selection on reputation or whatever if you want, but I wasn't convinced that he was in serious decline as a bowler before the CT and I'm not convinced now.

I'd just like to dig this up again...

[Matt79]

Yep - I feel a bit of a goose. It was my ploy to gee the big guy up is all.

I've posted an admission of error and requested a slice of humble pie in the "1st Test" thread. McGrath - just an out-and-out champ.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Yep - I feel a bit of a goose. It was my ploy to gee the big guy up is all.

I've posted an admission of error and requested a slice of humble pie in the "1st Test" thread. McGrath - just an out-and-out champ.

We've all had our doubts at one time or another. I was a little bit concerned before I saw him bowl in the DLF Cup. He certainly wasn't looking all that flash towards the end of last summer, but I thought the signs were pretty good in Malaysia, and he was fantastic in the CT. Today just capped off the comeback.

He might not be quite as consistent or dangerous as in years past, but there's no question he's the best seamer we've got.

[Great Birtannia]

McGrath AND Langer? It's inevitable those two prove critics wrong, people should know that by now.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Great Birtannia

McGrath AND Langer? It's inevitable those two prove critics wrong, people should know that by now.

Yeah, it's sort of like writing Warne off for his Pura Cup form, or Ponting for his ODI form. In general I think people are far too quick to make judgements about proven cricketers based on temporary stuff. It's one thing to take a long look at Tendulkar or Pollock because they've been down for several years in test cricket, it's another thing entirely to suggest that Ponting is struggling because he doesn't score in a few ODIs, or Langer is past it because of one bad summer when he's making heaps of runs in domestic cricket.

McGrath is a different case and I think there was some legitimate worries, but they were settled a few weeks back IMO.