***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[marc71178]

Simon Jones, with the exception of 1 innings, bowled utter rubbish in SA (obviously the selectors agree with me as they dropped him)

So if he bowled utter rubbish, how did he pick up 15 wickets at a very agreeable average then?

And they rotated in Anderson in the misguided notion that he was suited to the pitch in that one game - selectorial mistake.

 

[social]

So if he bowled utter rubbish, how did he pick up 15 wickets at a very agreeable average then?

And they rotated in Anderson in the misguided notion that he was suited to the pitch in that one game - selectorial mistake.

"rotated in", are you serious?

He and Harmison bowled such utter tripe in the preceding test that one had to go.

 

[marc71178]

No, it was a horses for courses pick of Anderson.

It was also a wrong pick.

 

[Richard]

Hold on, Richard.

You constantly state that MacGill is "rubbish" unless he plays on a turner such as Sydney.

Given that their records dont even compare (need I remind you that MacGill has the best strike-rate of any spinner since 1900), where is MacGill getting all these wickets if not on turners?

At the end of the day, their respective records indicate that off 20 overs, in any given conditions, MacGill will take 3-80 and Giles 1-40.

Giles' job is to keep things tight whilst the seamers rest - a couple of wickets each innings are a bonus (that he rarely achieves, mind you). MacGill is a match-winner than can bowl ordinarily at times.

No, MacGill is an ordinary bowler who can occasionally bowl sensationally and win matches no-one could possibly win otherwise.
I've always said that MacGill is usually rubbish turner or not, not that the pitch has any effect, where on Earth you've got the idea I've said MacGill is good on turners and poor on non-turners I don't know. I've also said that on the rare occasion he's good he's good turner or not, like any wristspinner.
As for Giles, his job on turners is to take wickets, and he does it very well, a fact any fool can see if you see him bowl on turners or even just look at how many wickets he's got on them.

 

[Richard]

If he has really played 90 games on turners it actually mean the rest of his career is worse than useless.

Something I've never for a second denied, funnily enough.

 

[Richard]

So Saqlain hasn't played on many non-turners then, with a career average of 22.96 - that would suggest that in the time he was in County Cricket he must have had a lot of turners, but at the same time other bowlers didn't - how likely is that?

If you'd seen The Oval pitches in domestic games (as Dave Lewis will be able to confirm) in the late 90s you'd see that Saqlain did indeed play on many turners, and yes, far, far more of his career than not has come on turners.
Which, along with the fact that for quite a while no English batsmen had a clue against him even on a non-turner, accounts for his low average.

 

[Richard]

that may be true, but since you are an english supporter why dont you just back the lad to come good soon, cause most likely he will continue be in the ENG ODI setup for a while to come

Because as an England supporter I think it best for the England team if he's dropped before the next World Cup, rather than hoping for something that's extremely unlikely to happen.

 

[Richard]

I don't believe he is poor against all spin, but I do think he has a big weakness against Slow Left Arm Orthodox spin. Accordingly, Giles v Ponting will be an interesting contest this year.

Right-arm fingerspinners have caused him problems (on turners), too - Harbhajan most notably, of course, and Kumble too (Kumble, of course, is a very unorthodox wristspinner).
But no spinners have ever caused him many problems on non-turning pitches.

 

[Richard]

I have seen most of Giles performances over the past year (by virtue of pay-tv coverage) and have been impressed by some and not others. His performance in SA proved to me that he is not a demonstrably better bowler than the version Aus has played in the past.

No, of course he's not any better than the last time he played you - he's no better than when he made his debut in 1998 if you ask me.
But the fact that he's no better than the last time he played you doesn't matter, as no-one has ever said he is.
All we've said is he may get some turners this time, which he's not had in his 2 Tests against Australia in the past.

 

[Richard]

No, it was a horses for courses pick of Anderson.

It was also a wrong pick.

As generalised selections so often are.

 

[Jnr.]

Right-arm fingerspinners have caused him problems (on turners), too - Harbhajan most notably, of course, and Kumble too (Kumble, of course, is a very unorthodox wristspinner).
But no spinners have ever caused him many problems on non-turning pitches.

I'm talking about in recent times. His play against off spin has improved drastically following that pitiful Indian tour of 2001.

 

[social]

No, MacGill is an ordinary bowler who can occasionally bowl sensationally and win matches no-one could possibly win otherwise.
.

"Ordinary" bowlers are not regular match-winners in test cricket and do not have the best strike-rate of any spinner since 1900.

Unfortunately (for want of a better word), the cricket-watching public has been spoilt by Warne, who bowls leg-spinners in a traditional fashion with uncanny accuracy. He is the only bowler in cricket history to have come even close to mastering this art.

MacGill is a throw-back to earlier days where wickets took precedence over economy rates. Yes, he does bowl some crap but he also bowls, by virtue of the "work" he puts on the ball, as many potential wicket-taking deliveries as any other spiner in history (apart from Warne at his peak).

You want wickets - throw the ball to MacGill.

You want economy - in Australia's case, you throw it to McGrath, Gillespie, Kaspa or Warne.

 

[Mister Wright]

"Ordinary" bowlers are not regular match-winners in test cricket and do not have the best strike-rate of any spinner since 1900.

Unfortunately (for want of a better word), the cricket-watching public has been spoilt by Warne, who bowls leg-spinners in a traditional fashion with uncanny accuracy. He is the only bowler in cricket history to have come even close to mastering this art.

MacGill is a throw-back to earlier days where wickets took precedence over economy rates. Yes, he does bowl some crap but he also bowls, by virtue of the "work" he puts on the ball, as many potential wicket-taking deliveries as any other spiner in history (apart from Warne at his peak).

You want wickets - throw the ball to MacGill.

You want economy - in Australia's case, you throw it to McGrath, Gillespie, Kaspa or Warne.

Well said.

 

[archie mac]

Unfortunately (for want of a better word), the cricket-watching public has been spoilt by Warne, who bowls leg-spinners in a traditional fashion with uncanny accuracy. He is the only bowler in cricket history to have come even close to mastering this art.

Clarrie Grimmett bowled leggies wrong'uns and invented the flipper. He also bowled with great accuracy on some of the flattest pitches in history. (unless rain, made into a sticky)

I know it is easy to overlook the oldies, but we do like to be remembered

 

[marc71178]

MacGill is a throw-back to earlier days where wickets took precedence over economy rates. Yes, he does bowl some crap but he also bowls, by virtue of the "work" he puts on the ball, as many potential wicket-taking deliveries as any other spiner in history (apart from Warne at his peak).

MacGill gets wickets as the loose link in the attack.

 

[Richard]

I'm talking about in recent times. His play against off spin has improved drastically following that pitiful Indian tour of 2001.

Has it? How often has he faced orthodox right-arm fingerspin (on turning pitches, obviously) since then?
I can think of Saqlain in 2002\03 (don't know how much those pitches turned, I'm betting not an enormous amount), and not really much else (Dharmasena in 2003\04, but Dharmasena doesn't spin it enough to trouble anyone, as attested by his Test-record).

 

[Richard]

"Ordinary" bowlers are not regular match-winners in test cricket and do not have the best strike-rate of any spinner since 1900.

Unfortunately (for want of a better word), the cricket-watching public has been spoilt by Warne, who bowls leg-spinners in a traditional fashion with uncanny accuracy. He is the only bowler in cricket history to have come even close to mastering this art.

MacGill is a throw-back to earlier days where wickets took precedence over economy rates. Yes, he does bowl some crap but he also bowls, by virtue of the "work" he puts on the ball, as many potential wicket-taking deliveries as any other spiner in history (apart from Warne at his peak).

You want wickets - throw the ball to MacGill.

You want economy - in Australia's case, you throw it to McGrath, Gillespie, Kaspa or Warne.

Yet how often, since Adelaide 2000\01, has MacGill taken wickets at a decent strike-rate? In merely a handful of matches.
The simple fact is because MacGill and almost everyone else, quite understandibly, find it completely impossible to master the art of wristspin it's almost impossible to bowl it to Test-match standard. So very, very few wristspinners will ever make good Test-match bowlers.
And MacGill-from-Adelaide-2000\01-onwards is no exception.
So please stop going-on about MacGill overall, when his career clearly divides into 2 parts, 1 in which he's worthy of the best strike-rate for a spinner since 1900, the other which is grossly flattered by the first half.
MacGill since Adelaide 2000\01 has a strike-rate of 67.2, wholly average for a spinner or anyone else, and is categorically NOT a regular match-winner - he's influenced matches for the better on 2 occasions out of 17 (Barbados 2003 and SCG 2004\05).

 

[Richard]

MacGill gets wickets as the loose link in the attack.

And playing sporadically, so often looked at as a disadvantage for him, has almost certainly worked in his favour.

 

[shaka]

Most of the time when MacGill gets pick for the one test, he outperforms Warne. In the games that I can remember anyway.

 

[Top_Cat]

And playing sporadically, so often looked at as a disadvantage for him, has almost certainly worked in his favour.

I'm interested to hear your explanation for why because I would have thought being in and out of the Test side would be a distinct disadvantage.