Players of the past who would have better/worse records

[Zinzan]

Both Martin Crowe & Graham Gooch had they played post 2000 would have had much much better records

 

[Streetwise]

FTR McMillan also played in home Test matches, and away Test matches are not the only ones that count.

McMillan in his entire career was a considerably better bowler than Lee was between 2001 and 2005. That is no joke, that's something anyone with a basic understanding of how cricket works would tend to recognise - if, that is, they were capable of realising that those who are not Australian can be superior to those who are.

This is a joke, that's something anyone with a basic understanding of how cricket works would tend to recognise.

McMillan never took a five in his entire career, his career best is 4/65.

No one thinks Lee is the best but he is a bit better than you realise.

 

[stephen]

I think the real joke is the criminal underrating of MacGill. In the 90s he'd have been playing for any other country other than Sri Lanka and maybe India. One does not get picked over Shane Warne, for Shane Warne's position (even a ridiculously out of form Warne) without being quite a good bowler.

Kasper, Bichel and Lee all ended up having very similar test match records and could all be safely put into the "good but not great" bowler category. They all would have been in the test sides for any other country at the time (and probably as the head of the attack or the 2nd best bowler, rather than the 4th).

Anyway, based on results I'd rather have an attack that contained 2 all time greats, a very good and an ordinary bowler than an all time great, a very good and two good bowlers. Historically it has been shown to be more successful that way, with almost every "invincible" side in history having two all time great bowlers in it.

 

[GotSpin]

I think the real joke is the criminal underrating of MacGill. In the 90s he'd have been playing for any other country other than Sri Lanka and maybe India. One does not get picked over Shane Warne, for Shane Warne's position (even a ridiculously out of form Warne) without being quite a good bowler.

Kasper, Bichel and Lee all ended up having very similar test match records and could all be safely put into the "good but not great" bowler category. They all would have been in the test sides for any other country at the time (and probably as the head of the attack or the 2nd best bowler, rather than the 4th).

Anyway, based on results I'd rather have an attack that contained 2 all time greats, a very good and an ordinary bowler than an all time great, a very good and two good bowlers. Historically it has been shown to be more successful that way, with almost every "invincible" side in history having two all time great bowlers in it.

MacGill was a woeful bowler. His record is an embarrassment.

 

[stephen]

MacGill was a woeful bowler. His record is an embarrassment.

Truly shocking.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

A spinner averaging as high as 29, only taking 4.7 wpm, having a dreadful 12 five wicket hauls in 44 tests and only taking 208 wickets. We sure are glad to be rid of him.

 

[GotSpin]

Truly shocking.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

A spinner averaging as high as 29, only taking 4.7 wpm, having a dreadful 12 five wicket hauls in 44 tests and only taking 208 wickets. We sure are glad to be rid of him.

The point is, its easy to have a record like that when he played only in spin friendly conditions. After Warne retired everyone expected that we could get a couple good years out of Macgill, but look how he bowled in the West Indies without spin friendly wickets or the support of far greater bowlers than him who had since retired. MacGill is probably the best example of statistics not providing an accurate recount of someones ability.

 

[morgieb]

I think the real joke is the criminal underrating of MacGill. In the 90s he'd have been playing for any other country other than Sri Lanka and maybe India. One does not get picked over Shane Warne, for Shane Warne's position (even a ridiculously out of form Warne) without being quite a good bowler.

Kasper, Bichel and Lee all ended up having very similar test match records and could all be safely put into the "good but not great" bowler category. They all would have been in the test sides for any other country at the time (and probably as the head of the attack or the 2nd best bowler, rather than the 4th).

Anyway, based on results I'd rather have an attack that contained 2 all time greats, a very good and an ordinary bowler than an all time great, a very good and two good bowlers. Historically it has been shown to be more successful that way, with almost every "invincible" side in history having two all time great bowlers in it.

He'd have made the Sri Lankan side on spin friendly pitches. Not being a better bowler than Murali isn't painful.

 

[stephen]

The point is, its easy to have a record like that when he played only in spin friendly conditions. After Warne retired everyone expected that we could get a couple good years out of Macgill, but look how he bowled in the West Indies without spin friendly wickets or the support of far greater bowlers than him who had since retired. MacGill is probably the best example of statistics not providing an accurate recount of someones ability.

MacGill had a lot of injury problems towards the end of his career, which is why we never got those couple of years out of him. Lost that zip off the wicket. It was much more telling to see his performance in 2003/04 when Warne was out of the team.

EDIT: In games without Warne, MacGill took 128 wickets at 33.5. That is certainly very respectable for a spinner, especially given that some of those were at the end of his career when he was too old. In fact, if you filter out his performances after 2004, his average without Warne looks almost identical to his average with Warne.

 

[andyc]

Yeah tbf to MacGill, he was really past it when Warne retired. His last few matches as first choice spinner for Australia aren't really representative of his earlier days.

 

[GotSpin]

MacGill had a lot of injury problems towards the end of his career, which is why we never got those couple of years out of him. Lost that zip off the wicket. It was much more telling to see his performance in 2003/04 when Warne was out of the team.

EDIT: In games without Warne, MacGill took 128 wickets at 33.5. That is certainly very respectable for a spinner, especially given that some of those were at the end of his career when he was too old. In fact, if you filter out his performances after 2004, his average without Warne looks almost identical to his average with Warne.

An average of 33.5 is significantly higher than his career average. Warne or not, a lot of his wickets can be attributed to a release of pressure. When Warne was playing out of the team Gillespie and McGrath were in their prime and it was well known that MacGill bowled a lot of loose deliveries. As a result, many teams would chase after him due to the pressure at the end. Inevitably he would ball a good delivery, aided by his ability to spin the ball a long way, amongst the other three or four long hops in the over which would take wickets, aided by the fact that he was the target of opposing batsmen.

His record is exponentially bloated by the favourable number of times he played on spin friendly tracks as opposed to non-spin friendly tracks. Furthermore, due to his inability to land 6 quality deliveries in a row he was often the target in a bowling line up that was otherwise incredibly strong and so benefited from batsmen put under pressure from the other end.

Too old? Barely an excuse. It was at least 4-5 years before he decided to retire after a string dismal performances.

 

[stephen]

An average of 33.5 is significantly higher than his career average. Warne or not, a lot of his wickets can be attributed to a release of pressure. When Warne was playing out of the team Gillespie and McGrath were in their prime and it was well known that MacGill bowled a lot of loose deliveries. As a result, many teams would chase after him due to the pressure at the end. Inevitably he would ball a good delivery, aided by his ability to spin the ball a long way, amongst the other three or four long hops in the over which would take wickets, aided by the fact that he was the target of opposing batsmen.

His record is exponentially bloated by the favourable number of times he played on spin friendly tracks as opposed to non-spin friendly tracks. Furthermore, due to his inability to land 6 quality deliveries in a row he was often the target in a bowling line up that was otherwise incredibly strong and so benefited from batsmen put under pressure from the other end.

Too old? Barely an excuse. It was at least 4-5 years before he decided to retire after a string dismal performances.

If you take out his performances from 2004 onwards *in games without Warne* he took 115 wickets in 23 test matches at 29.24. In these games his best grounds were the Gabba and the MCG.

The "pressure at the other end" excuse gets a bit old when you realise that the 3rd seamers used during this time did not perform as well as MacGill.

Given the choice, any team other than Australia and Sri Lanka (with the possible exception of India) would have given MacGill at 8-10 year career and he'd have gone down in history as a very high quality legspinner, though not an all time great. Even India and Sri Lanka may have played him (imagine Murali up one end and MacGill down the other - a nightmare for opposing non-Indian batsmen).

Another thing to consider is that during that 2003 period a significant proportion of MacGill's tests were against India, against whom he averaged 50. This dragged his average down for his "non-Warne" games significantly.

MacGill got injured in the leadup to the 06/07 Ashes and never fully recovered. That is why his post-Warne career was so dire. If you do not rate the MacGill of the mid 90s to the mid 00s, then you have absolutely no idea about spin bowling.

 

[GotSpin]

If you take out his performances from 2004 onwards *in games without Warne* he took 115 wickets in 23 test matches at 29.24. In these games his best grounds were the Gabba and the MCG.

The "pressure at the other end" excuse gets a bit old when you realise that the 3rd seamers used during this time did not perform as well as MacGill.

Given the choice, any team other than Australia and Sri Lanka (with the possible exception of India) would have given MacGill at 8-10 year career and he'd have gone down in history as a very high quality legspinner, though not an all time great. Even India and Sri Lanka may have played him (imagine Murali up one end and MacGill down the other - a nightmare for opposing non-Indian batsmen).

Another thing to consider is that during that 2003 period a significant proportion of MacGill's tests were against India, against whom he averaged 50. This dragged his average down for his "non-Warne" games significantly.

MacGill got injured in the leadup to the 06/07 Ashes and never fully recovered. That is why his post-Warne career was so dire. If you do not rate the MacGill of the mid 90s to the mid 00s, then you have absolutely no idea about spin bowling.

Oh really. So If i disagree with you I'm an idiot. Fine logic.

Though MacGill would have been the front line spinner for many other nations, I expect he would have averaged around 33-35 if he had managed to maintain a place in a test team for an 8-10 year career, highly unlikely in itself. Certainly a decent spin bowler but his statistics are way too flattering and he is lucky to have attained them. His only saving attribute in regards to his bowling was his ability to spin the ball a lot. He lacked accuracy, control, flight (to a degree) and ability to tie down an end or sustain pressure. He bowled way too many loose deliveries to ever maintain pressure on the opposition and was often responsible for enabling the batting team to continue ticking the score over with his countless half trackers.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Graham Thorpe would have averaged 50+ in tests if he had started 7-8 years later.

He averaged 44 overall and 45 against Australia in his career, playing for an often terrible England side.

He was also England's best player of spin, by some considerable distance, in the 90s.

 

[Streetwise]

Graham Thorpe would have averaged 50+ in tests if he had started 7-8 years later.

He averaged 44 overall and 45 against Australia in his career, playing for an often terrible England side.

He was also England's best player of spin, by some considerable distance, in the 90s.

An "if" average of only 50 is not really that good, a really good "if" average is up around 68 with an "if" strike rate of around 85.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Beware of Ken Barrington!

No Chance.

 

[Ikki]

The point is, its easy to have a record like that when he played only in spin friendly conditions. After Warne retired everyone expected that we could get a couple good years out of Macgill, but look how he bowled in the West Indies without spin friendly wickets or the support of far greater bowlers than him who had since retired. MacGill is probably the best example of statistics not providing an accurate recount of someones ability.

Macgill may have played in many spin friendly conditions, but he also missed the chunk of his prime. Probably the best spinner in the world outside Murali and Warne. MacGill in WIndies was done; he was not fit enough to play Tests. It's not at all representative of him as a spinner.

Also gotta laugh at Richard. Seriously, MacGill and Lee are more "poor" in his words but Atherton and Hussain were 'very good" test batsmen.

Ironically, had Lee played in more bowler-friendly pitches such as the 90s he'd probably have an average in the high 20s with an SR in the low 50s. Very good, really.

 

[Pup Clarke]

McMillan in his entire career was a considerably better bowler than Lee was between 2001 and 2005. That is no joke, that's something anyone with a basic understanding of how cricket works would tend to recognise - if, that is, they were capable of realising that those who are not Australian can be superior to those who are.

I think stuff like is not what we are wanting in CC and you are guility of it more often than not. The likelihood of streetwise going 'I could accept that' is somewhere around 0%.

 

[andyc]

Yeah, I don't think that him saying Lee was better than McMillan was related to any bias, especially given that most people posting on the subject in the thread seem to agree. Play the post, not the poster etc etc.

 

[GotSpin]

Macgill may have played in many spin friendly conditions, but he also missed the chunk of his prime. Probably the best spinner in the world outside Murali and Warne. MacGill in WIndies was done; he was not fit enough to play Tests. It's not at all representative of him as a spinner.

Also gotta laugh at Richard. Seriously, MacGill and Lee are more "poor" in his words but Atherton and Hussain were 'very good" test batsmen.

Ironically, had Lee played in more bowler-friendly pitches such as the 90s he'd probably have an average in the high 20s with an SR in the low 50s. Very good, really.

I'm not saying MacGill was a poor bowler, but I think his statistics are way too favourable and misrepresenting.

 

[stephen]

I'm not saying MacGill was a poor bowler, but I think his statistics are way too favourable and misrepresenting.

That's not the impression I got, but if that was your intent then I withdraw my remarks.

My point was that only 3 spin bowlers could really be considered to be ahead of him during his career - Warne, Murali and Kumble - and Kumble is a "maybe".

Averaging 29 I think may flatter MacGill a little, but I don't think it is hugely misrepresentative of his abilities as a spinner and given more chances at the top level I don't think his average would be more than 10-15% higher than that anyway. I certainly believe that he would have finished with over 450 test match wickets if he was the #1 spin choice for Australia.