Future ****Stars**** of Australian Cricket

[sledger]

Oh yes he has - run a ball at the death is good performance from the bowling side.

although essentially that is irrelevant if you end up losing

 

[Richard]

Oh yes he has - run a ball at the death is good performance from the bowling side.

No, it's just about keeping control of the situation.
5-an-over is good; anything much less is outstanding.

 

[sledger]

No, it's just about keeping control of the situation.
5-an-over is good; anything much less is outstanding.

depends on the run rate really, although yes normally 5 an over would be good.

 

[Mister Wright]

A bit of an exaggeration, true, but he's poor, no disputing that.

Yes there is.

 

[Richard]

MacGill since 2001: 77 wickets at 37.40.
Pretty darn rubbish in my book, especially given it includes 2 really good Tests in 17.

 

[Richard]

depends on the run rate really, although yes normally 5 an over would be good.

Well, assuming the run-rate has been 4-an-over or thereabouts, 50 in the last 10 (or 45 in the last 9) is outstanding and any team in their right mind would take that.

 

[aussie]

A bit of an exaggeration, true, but he's poor, no disputing that.

yes there is richard, MaCgill isn't poor he is a pretty good bowler, although his record since 2001 has you stated isn't that fantastic his overall career record is pretty good. Lets analyse in 2001 he played one test againts SA in sydney and did pretty well so thats one good test, 2002 he played in the last 2 ashes test he did fairly well off my head i think he took 12 wickets including 5 for 150 odd at the MCG when Warne was banned throughout 2003 he filled his his boots well even though he had a rough series againts the indians where all the bowlers on both sides suffered he had, he had two indifferent test in sri lanka but that was due to the fact that warne did all the damage and quite recently he was MOM at the SCG so even though he has taken 77 wickets at 37 since 2001 that doesn't really reflect how well he bowled becuase he hasn't bowled badly in the last 4 years in the chances he has had

 

[aussie]

yes, but then again, who aren`t you a fan of?

yeah mate...... their are a few in world cricket who i dont fancy that much has players

 

[aussie]

All evidence points to that they will.

And that simply shows that he's not bowled on an extraordinary number of turning pitches; from what I've read there was only 1 turning pitch in Pakistan in 1998.
Whether he bowls on turners or not, most often he bowls poorly - and if you bowl poorly it doesn't especially matter whether or not the pitch turns.
MacGill since 2000 has played 17 Test-matches and taken wickets at 37.40; in that time there have been 2 good matches and 2 not-too-bad ones.
That is an extremely poor record.

I'd be surprised if he ran havoc, but I hardly see that he can do as poorly as he did last time.

and what is this evidence richard

 

[Pratters]

and what is this evidence richard

on a totally side not, check this out aussie. I dont know if you will like it or what you will make out of it :o

http://forum.cricketweb.net/member.php?u=3625

 

[aussie]

on a totally side not, check this out aussie. I dont know if you will like it or what you will make out of it :o

http://forum.cricketweb.net/member.php?u=3625

hehehe,well i doubt whether that new member is referring to me, i think he is refering to the australia cricket team in general, but if his name does co-incide with me well...... the lad better not f**k around me

 

[Richard]

and what is this evidence richard

Lee's bowling in Test-cricket since 2001.

 

[Richard]

yes there is richard, MaCgill isn't poor he is a pretty good bowler, although his record since 2001 has you stated isn't that fantastic his overall career record is pretty good.

His record before 1998 was very good, yes - but it's so long ago it doesn't really matter.

Lets analyse in 2001 he played one test againts SA in sydney and did pretty well so thats one good test

Yes, it is, but it's just like his previous Test against SA - he got away with just 1 Test, and had he played more he'd probably have got his figures made into a more accurate reflection of his ability.

2002 he played in the last 2 ashes test he did fairly well off my head i think he took 12 wickets including 5 for 150 odd at the MCG

No, he didn't do well - he took 12 wickets at 40.50. Yes, he got a five-for; 5 for 150 is not much use to many people.

when Warne was banned throughout 2003 he filled his his boots well even though he had a rough series againts the indians where all the bowlers on both sides suffered he had, he had two indifferent test in sri lanka but that was due to the fact that warne did all the damage

He most certainly did not fill his boots; he played (including the 26-12-2002 and 6-1-2004) 11 Tests, took 48 wickets at 40.39 and had just 1 good Test (at Bridgetown Barbados). When you remove that match, he took 39 at 45.05; certainly a very poor year.

and quite recently he was MOM at the SCG

He was - which adds-up to a sum-total of 3 good games out of 14, very poor indeed.

so even though he has taken 77 wickets at 37 since 2001 that doesn't really reflect how well he bowled becuase he hasn't bowled badly in the last 4 years in the chances he has had

He's bowled very poorly almost every time; nearly 4\5ths of the time, in fact. If he'd played more, I'm fairly confident his figures would be even worse.