• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

I think Aus should play Warne and Macgill in tandem as of now?

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
I don't know about both of them, but Warne took 10 wickets apiece in the two games he played with Macgill in Sri Lanka last year.
Yes, those 2 were the other way around.
Most of the others (Adelaide '97\98, SCG '98\99, Queen's Park Oval 1999, Sabina Park 1999, Kensington Oval 1999, SCG 2004\05) have seen Warne do very poorly indeed. The only other time Warne has bowled well with MacGill in the side was The SCG 2001\02. IIRR MacGill wasn't bad that last game, so that might be an occasion of it being a good idea to pick both.
Other than that, there's never been a time when both have played and bowled well.
 

Steulen

International Regular
I don't think it's legspin that England are particularly poor against...it's Warne and his collection of legspinners and Giles-impersonating non-turners that tend to catch them by surprise. MacGill's consistent huge turn would be played with considerably more ease.
Secondly, it's not likely that any of the pitches will be the kind of dustbowl / Sydney pitch where it's fruitful to have a slow bowler as first change. In the absence of Watson, Symonds or any other excuse for a seam-bowling allrounder the Australians come up with, playing both spinners would seriously upset the balance of the team.

Or am I just re-iterating points already mentioned in yesterday's section of this thread? :D

BTW, there's a fairly enlightening Terry Jenner instruction video on the BBC website which makes some good points on the basics of leg-sping bowling. I must admit hearing that a legspinner should not aim to pitch it at a six-pence, but instead use a big target area to maximize flight was a revelation to your humble servant from behind the dykes. LuckyEddie to re-post his dyke joke in 3...2...1...
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Steulen said:
Secondly, it's not likely that any of the pitches will be the kind of dustbowl / Sydney pitch where it's fruitful to have a slow bowler as first change. In the absence of Watson, Symonds or any other excuse for a seam-bowling allrounder the Australians come up with, playing both spinners would seriously upset the balance of the team.
Looking at a couple of Old Trafford pitches this season I'd not bet that much against said prospect.
Anyhow - having a spinner first-change and two of them in a side might've been profitable at Trent Bridge, Lord's (West Indies) and Edgbaston last summer.
Provided, of course, both were proven performers (a la Giles and Croft) not proven pie-throwers like MacGill.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Looking at a couple of Old Trafford pitches this season I'd not bet that much against said prospect.
Anyhow - having a spinner first-change and two of them in a side might've been profitable at Trent Bridge, Lord's (West Indies) and Edgbaston last summer.
Provided, of course, both were proven performers (a la Giles and Croft) not proven pie-throwers like MacGill.
Love that you rate not only Giles but also a test reject like Croft ahead of a proven performer like Macgill. Stuart might not be of Shane Warne quality, but he's reliably able to bowl wicket balls on a fairly regular basis, even if he lacks the nagging accuracy to go with it, which is what makes Warne such a brilliant bowler. He's a hell of a lot better than someone like Giles, who is nothing short of useless against any decent player of spin on a pitch which isn't taking turn.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Shane Warne said:
That's what I did now.

And yet another old fart was p1ssing and moaning about that too.

No coincidence that they're all English and are banging their heads against their moniters because their desperate rain dances didn't pay off.
You're an idiot.

I was joing to say 'just' an idiot but there's no 'just' about it. You're an idiot - comfortably.

How do you get Grecian 2000 off a monitor?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
FaaipDeOiad said:
Love that you rate not only Giles but also a test reject like Croft ahead of a proven performer like Macgill. Stuart might not be of Shane Warne quality, but he's reliably able to bowl wicket balls on a fairly regular basis, even if he lacks the nagging accuracy to go with it, which is what makes Warne such a brilliant bowler. He's a hell of a lot better than someone like Giles, who is nothing short of useless against any decent player of spin on a pitch which isn't taking turn.
I think the thing about MacGill is if he's bowling behind 3 very good bowlers, he picks up a lot of wickets.

However, looking at how he's been in county cricket (especially in the last 2 years) where's he's not following as good bowlers, it looks to me like he's not so much a threat because there's other bowlers to score runs off.
 

Steulen

International Regular
marc71178 said:
I think the thing about MacGill is if he's bowling behind 3 very good bowlers, he picks up a lot of wickets.

However, looking at how he's been in county cricket (especially in the last 2 years) where's he's not following as good bowlers, it looks to me like he's not so much a threat because there's other bowlers to score runs off.
Hmmm...how good are the bowlers he works with in Aussie state cricket? He had a wonderful season last year (especially in the one-dayers, btw), and consistently takes a lot of wickets there.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Steulen said:
Hmmm...how good are the bowlers he works with in Aussie state cricket? He had a wonderful season last year (especially in the one-dayers, btw), and consistently takes a lot of wickets there.
Last season he bowled with Bracken, Clarke and Nicholson. That's about as good a pace attack as you're likely to see in domestic cricket anywhere without internationals playing.

Their FC records last season:
Bracken - 11 matches, 43 wickets @ 18.79
Nicholson - 10 matches, 43 wickets @ 20.25
Clarke - 10 matches, 40 wickets @ 24.77
and Macgill - 11 matches, 54 wickets @ 24.66

The obvious reason why NSW won the Pura Cup, really.
 

Steulen

International Regular
FaaipDeOiad said:
Last season he bowled with Bracken, Clarke and Nicholson. That's about as good a pace attack as you're likely to see in domestic cricket anywhere without internationals playing.

Their FC records last season:
Bracken - 11 matches, 43 wickets @ 18.79
Nicholson - 10 matches, 43 wickets @ 20.25
Clarke - 10 matches, 40 wickets @ 24.77
and Macgill - 11 matches, 54 wickets @ 24.66

The obvious reason why NSW won the Pura Cup, really.
Good enough to support Marc's theory?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I'd have thought so.

All 3 averaging under 25!

Haven't got time to analyse his Test performances, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a correlation there as well.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Love that you rate not only Giles but also a test reject like Croft ahead of a proven performer like Macgill. Stuart might not be of Shane Warne quality, but he's reliably able to bowl wicket balls on a fairly regular basis, even if he lacks the nagging accuracy to go with it, which is what makes Warne such a brilliant bowler. He's a hell of a lot better than someone like Giles, who is nothing short of useless against any decent player of spin on a pitch which isn't taking turn.
And MacGill is nothing short of useless most of the time.
Giles and Croft are obviously useless on non-turners but both on turners are twice the bowler MacGill has ever been, regardless of whether or not the selectors were stupid enough to pick Batty and Dawson ahead of him.
It's not as simple as "MacGill is better than Giles and Croft".
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Last season he bowled with Bracken, Clarke and Nicholson. That's about as good a pace attack as you're likely to see in domestic cricket anywhere without internationals playing.

Their FC records last season:
Bracken - 11 matches, 43 wickets @ 18.79
Nicholson - 10 matches, 43 wickets @ 20.25
Clarke - 10 matches, 40 wickets @ 24.77
and Macgill - 11 matches, 54 wickets @ 24.66

The obvious reason why NSW won the Pura Cup, really.
Clark has gained an e? :wacko:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
I'd have thought so.

All 3 averaging under 25!

Haven't got time to analyse his Test performances, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a correlation there as well.
The biggest pattern is this:
First 14 Tests
Next 17 Tests
Sort of starting well then moving to a position where he bowled well in 3 Tests out of 17.
A case of being worked-out from where I'm standing - then punching above his weight occasionally.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
The biggest pattern is this:
First 14 Tests
Next 17 Tests
Sort of starting well then moving to a position where he bowled well in 3 Tests out of 17.
A case of being worked-out from where I'm standing - then punching above his weight occasionally.
its funny though that in the first batch of tests, he actually relied more on the performance of one or two tests, whereas in the second batch of tests, his wickets per match, whilst not quite as good is still pretty impressive and a lot more consistantly spread around..just an observation
 
Richard said:
And MacGill is nothing short of useless most of the time.
Giles and Croft are obviously useless on non-turners but both on turners are twice the bowler MacGill has ever been, regardless of whether or not the selectors were stupid enough to pick Batty and Dawson ahead of him.
It's not as simple as "MacGill is better than Giles and Croft".
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Swervy said:
its funny though that in the first batch of tests, he actually relied more on the performance of one or two tests, whereas in the second batch of tests, his wickets per match, whilst not quite as good is still pretty impressive and a lot more consistantly spread around..just an observation
His runs-conceded-per-match also increased massively, in case you didn't notice.
And it's no good taking 5 if you go for 250, believe it or not.
Number of wickets aren't the only relevant factor.
 

Tom Halsey

International Coach
Shane Warne said:
It's true. MacGill bowls so many 4 balls he can't keep the pressure. A fingerspinner on a turner turns it a bit (enough for an edge), and is far more accurate than MacGill will ever be.
 

Swervy

International Captain
Richard said:
His runs-conceded-per-match also increased massively, in case you didn't notice.
And it's no good taking 5 if you go for 250, believe it or not.
Number of wickets aren't the only relevant factor.
no I know..you are right..but he certainly does contribute to getting teams out often. The thing is with MacGill is he is a very aggressive bowler, he is an out and out wicket taker, much like a fast strike bowler..containment has never been a priorty with him, wickets have.

It wouldnt surprise me if he is basically told to just rip the ball as much as possible and get the wickets, leave the containment to the others. Of course, Warne is such a good leggie that he can both contain and take wickets, but it is unfair on MacGill to make comparisons between the two, as Warne, for most people, is the greatest spinner ever.

Unfortunately for MacGill, he will always be compared to Warne. The reality of the matter is MacGill for the last 5 years or whatever has probably been the second best leggy in the world ..and probably in the top 5 of leggies in the last 30 years
 

Swervy

International Captain
Tom Halsey said:
It's true. MacGill bowls so many 4 balls he can't keep the pressure. A fingerspinner on a turner turns it a bit (enough for an edge), and is far more accurate than MacGill will ever be.
which is the nature of legspin bowling..the pressure that Macgill releases with the regular 4 ball (frustratingly enough for us Aussies) is negated somewhat by the pressure that he builds on the batsman who know that he maybe just a ball or two away from bowling an absolute snoter.

we have been spoilt by Warne for the last 12 years, he is just too good.Macgill is more the traditional leggy, who is will to buy the wickets
 

Top