Bryce McGain - too old to play tests?

[DaRick]

Although I'm not a Casson fan, I don't like the idea of selecting Bryce McGain. Picking McGain would be somewhat similar to selecting Bob Holland (who wasn't that much older). Do we really want to revisit those days? Besides, it wasn't like he was miles better than Casson.

Stuart MacGill (who was probably still interested but had a failing body) and Brad Hogg have both shown up the dangers of selecting aging wrist-spinners, in particular. I don't care what people say about McGain having the desire and 'spinning body' of a 25-year old, either. Hogg was not only extremely fit physically, but offered more value with the bat than McGain. He also possessed the mindset of somebody much younger, as indicated by an indelible zest for his trade (pervesely, that may have hurt him in Test matches, as he used his googly, flipper and topspinner too often).

 

[Prince EWS]

Although I'm not a Casson fan, I don't like the idea of selecting Bryce McGain. Picking McGain would be somewhat similar to selecting Bob Holland (who wasn't that much older). Do we really want to revisit those days? Besides, it wasn't like he was miles better than Casson.

Stuart MacGill (who was probably still interested but had a failing body) and Brad Hogg have both shown up the dangers of selecting aging wrist-spinners, in particular. I don't care what people say about McGain having the desire and 'spinning body' of a 25-year old, either. Hogg was not only extremely fit physically, but offered more value with the bat than McGain. He also possessed the mindset of somebody much younger, as indicated by an indelible zest for his trade (pervesely, that may have hurt him in Test matches, as he used his googly, flipper and topspinner too often).

Hogg didn't retire because he couldn't cope with the rigours though; he retired because he'd had enough. Can you really see McGain doing that?

 

[Burgey]

I don't care who said it wasn't of Test standard, it didn't kill anyone and a crap bowler like Nathan Hauritz still got smashed easily enough for it to cost the match for his team. Mind, Australia should still have chased that target. A rare loss that should have been victory for them (along with such luminaries as The ARG 2003, Headingley 2001 [denied by lost play more than themselves], Kensington 1999, The MCG 1998/99 and Karachi 1994/95).

I wouldn't want to see Tests being played on those sorts of wickets too often, as it basically means the game will last less than 3 days, but I don't mind the odd one here and there. And after a wicket was deliberately prepared to suit Australia in the very previous Test to said Mumbai '04/05 game, I saw even less wrong with it.

But you said earlier they should prepare more pitches like the Mumbai one. Now you're saying you don't want to see pitches like that too often. Which is it?

Or, is it perhaps the case you just want to see those pitches when Australia are playing?

 

[DaRick]

Hogg didn't retire because he couldn't cope with the rigours though; he retired because he'd had enough. Can you really see McGain doing that?

The fact of the matter is that Bryce McGain is 36. I suppose he could be another Clarrie Grimmett (highly unlikely), but his frequent absences from the Victorian cricket team over the years suggests a wavering interest in the game (which could lead him to lose interest unexpectedly). Either that, or he was not considered good enough to be of FC standard. Forced between blooding an aging spinner for Test matches and a younger spinner, when there is not a great deal of difference between either at this point in time, I would pick the younger one, but that's just me.

 

[Craig]

Shane Warne didn't help either.

 

[Prince EWS]

The fact of the matter is that Bryce McGain is 36.

No, the fact of the matter is that he's the best spinner available.

 

[DaRick]

No, the fact of the matter is that he's the best spinner available.

Not by enough to justify selection as a stop-gap (and that's all he will be, IMO - unless he does a Grimmett). He is the best by a surprisingly marginal amount. If he averaged 30 or under this season, then maybe I would consider it. I don't like the prospect of Casson playing either, but, forced to pick between him and McGain as of now (a little like being forced to review either Rambo III or Collateral Damage), I would still pick the one who has the ability to fulfill a longer-term role.

 

[Laurrz]

McGain would be a far better choice for India imo because (correct if wrong) he is more accurate than Casson

India will absolutely BELT Casson IMO...atleast with McGain he can be more economical.. in a Paul Harris kind of way
India probably prefer aggressive spinners *shrugs..Harris was very good for his team in RSA and India

 

[pasag]

Indian's are going to belt which ever spinner ends up there. Look at the way Sachin targeted Hogg in Australia, absolutely launched into him and it was on principle. Best just to go for four seamers tbh.

 

[Laurrz]

yea it was quite frightening haha, absolutely no respect, and you knew whenever he attacked it wouldn't not pay off...

just had a thought, perhaps Clarke could play a Harris role....and indeed we could play 4 pacemen

i like it
wont happen though, too risky the selectors will think..

 

[vic_orthdox]

• McGain is a much better option than Casson. He's a very intelligent bowler, who is consistent and works out his wickets rather than relies on bowling jaffas. He bowled on a pretty unresponsive wicket for most of the year in Melbourne, as any turn tended to be negated by the fact that the turn was so slow. However, he ended up bowling a lot of overs, because it wasn't much more fun for the quicks. He showed his smarts and versatility with his effectiveness in the One Day and Twenty20 competitions, and how he could play differing roles for the side. I think he's the best spinner in the country right now.
• With MacGill going over to the Caribbean, I think that the Australian selectors made the correct move in taking Casson over. Get a young spinner in and around the team, learn from the experience, and hopefully use it as some development.
• For the second time now, though, Australia has been caught out doing this, and not picking the obvious number 2 spinner in their squad. The last time was in India 2004, when Warne got injured and it ended up being between Hauritz and White to replace him.
• Now that Casson has played a Test, I believe he needs to be persevered with. Continue with him at 8, give him a chance to show his wares, and give him confidence. One thing that is overlooked is that he's never actually been given a real run in any team. When he was breaking through with WA, he was regularly dropped for home matches at the WACA, for obvious reasosn. And since moving to NSW, there has been a rotation of second spinners heading through the side, either making way for MacGill or Lambert when playing away. He should be picked for the next couple of Tests, and reassessed. People should not be calling for his sacking due to one match which was hardly an unmitigated disaster.
• People's attitudes towards spinners need to change. They are there to help the side win matches, generally through having an extra effect in the third and fourth innings when other bowlers can't.

 

[Top_Cat]

• People's attitudes towards spinners need to change. They are there to help the side win matches, generally through having an extra effect in the third and fourth innings when other bowlers can't.

Bloody good point this one; people are so used to Warne and Murali being brought on before lunch on day 1 and taking wickets. Doesn't work that way with mere mortals, most spinners coming into the equation in second innings.

 

[James90]

Thought you'd be pushing for McGain to play the tests in Australia, thus leaving a vacancy at Victoria

 

[Richard]

But you said earlier they should prepare more pitches like the Mumbai one. Now you're saying you don't want to see pitches like that too often. Which is it?

Or, is it perhaps the case you just want to see those pitches when Australia are playing?

I'd be more keen on them when Australia were playing TBH, yeah, but still not enormously so. Not more than once in the series.

If India want to win, pitches of this ilk are probably their best chance. However, I don't as a cricket lover want to see too many of them, because they encourage Tests that end far too quickly for my liking. Ideally I like to see a game go five days or four at the very least.

 

[DaRick]

For the second time now, though, Australia has been caught out doing this, and not picking the obvious number 2 spinner in their squad. The last time was in India 2004, when Warne got injured and it ended up being between Hauritz and White to replace him.

Well, one difference is that Casson is probably superior now to White or Hauritz (White is one of the worst wrist-spinners I've ever seen and Hauritz is not a very good off-spinner, either).

Actually, another is that McGain is not, contrary to common belief, so much better than Casson that not picking him would be utterly ridiculous.

I never thought that I'd say this, but Casson's presence was almost refreshing after MacGill's horrid finale. That's another difference. Hauritz's presence was anything but.

 

[Richard]

Indian's are going to belt which ever spinner ends up there. Look at the way Sachin targeted Hogg in Australia, absolutely launched into him and it was on principle. Best just to go for four seamers tbh.

I too would favour four seamers, but do you really see it happening?

I've heard of no occasion in history where a team has gone into a Test in India without a specialist spinner. It could possibly have happened, but I've never been shown it.

 

[Richard]

Thought you'd be pushing for McGain to play the tests in Australia, thus leaving a vacancy at Victoria

Aren't there still about 3 other spinners ahead of Jack at Victoria currently though?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I too would favour four seamers, but do you really see it happening?

I've heard of no occasion in history where a team has gone into a Test in India without a specialist spinner. It could possibly have happened, but I've never been shown it.

Didn't the Windies do it when they were at their peak?

 

[Richard]

Actually, you might be right - think they may have in 1983/84. Possibly not for the entire series, as Garner missed all of it with injury and Roberts most of, and I'm fairly sure Harper played in at least some of the matches.

Will just have a luke now.

EDIT: yep, Marshall, Holding, Davis, Baptiste in the First Test; Marshall, Holding, Daniel, Davis in the Second, Third and Fourth; then Marshall, Roberts, Holding, Davis, Harper in the Fourth and Fifth.

 

[Top_Cat]

Would have thought South Africa went with four pacers too (plus Symcox, I guess). The crux of their win in India was on the back of their pace bowling, though.