Beau's control, from the little I've seen and from the lot I've heard, is even worse than MacGill's. Plus, as a general rule, I think guys that turn it away from the bat are more likely to do damage. That said, it would be foolish to discount Chee Quee out of hand.
Yep Casson has worse control then MacGill. One of main reasons why he has played little OD cricket for NSW, even though he has a decent record. He has improved his control in the last two months of FC cricket ten fold. But still worse then MacGill's. I don't really get the spin the bowl away from bat theory though. West Indies have a few left handers and Casson spins the bowl away from them, as well as having a really good wrong un for right handers.Beau's control, from the little I've seen and from the lot I've heard, is even worse than MacGill's. Plus, as a general rule, I think guys that turn it away from the bat are more likely to do damage. That said, it would be foolish to discount Chee Quee out of hand.
Stuart MacGill, obviously. Picking Casson would be similar to the insipid situation where Giles was picked over Panesar during the opening rounds of the 2006/07 Ashes (except that Casson isn't physically or mentally unfit).Beau Casson or Stuart MacGill?
Beau's got age on his side, handy with the bat and can defo field. If we have to play one of them, pick Casson for mine.
Still was until he retired a couple years back. Probably still a better batsmen then Greg Mail.Whatever happened to Richard Chee Quee? Heard that he was a quite a good batsman in Sydney grade level.
They were better, but, suprisingly, not that much better. McGain took 38 wickets at an average of 34.15. Casson took 29 at an average of 35.13.Casson. But only because I want to see him bowl.
Really tho, aside from the largely spurious idea of "selecting for the future" (which, to be fair, Casson probably owes his touring place to given McGain's figures were a lot better) & the extra runs he might score (probably not desperately required given the relative competance of even Clark with the bat) I can't see why he'd get the nod.
You do have to take into account there were a lot of matches that Casson hardly bowled when he wasn't taking wickets. Whereas McGain was required to bowl long hauls even in tough conditions for spinners and he was struggling to dominate. There were matches that Thornley bowled more overs then Casson.They were better, but, suprisingly, not that much better. McGain took 38 wickets at an average of 34.15. Casson took 29 at an average of 35.13.
McGain also played 2 more matches than Casson, and Casson's batting defintiely helped him claim a spot.You do have to take into account there were a lot of matches that Casson hardly bowled when he wasn't taking wickets. Whereas McGain was required to bowl long hauls even in tough conditions for spinners and he was struggling to dominate. There were matches that Thornley bowled more overs then Casson.
Really?You do have to take into account there were a lot of matches that Casson hardly bowled when he wasn't taking wickets. Whereas McGain was required to bowl long hauls even in tough conditions for spinners and he was struggling to dominate. There were matches that Thornley bowled more overs then Casson.