My point was - and it's only a hypothetical opinion that can neither be proven nor disproven - I think MacGill would've had the better career if he had the same opportunities. He achieved a higher level of skill with his bowling AFAIC and would've been more effective across a long career than Kumble if he had the chance. I can't really back it up with anything because it's just based upon watching them bowl. I have no qualms with people saying Kumble was better based on him having a better Test career and that's how I like to judge players anyway if we're going for a uniform rule.
~ Cribbertarian ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009
I don't know about the comparison with MacGill, but it was really Harbhajan Singh who was the driving force behind the Indian spin-bowling attack.
In other words, Kumble would have been a fraction of the bowler he was, and little more more than a mediocre medium paced leggie without the guile and genius of Harbhajan Singh to carry him along.
Yeah it's unfair to compare MacGill to Kumble because Kumble is nowhere near MacGill's class. An honest toiler is what Kumble was.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
That opinion is one shared by Benchmark00 I believe.
To be honest I put MacGill above Kumble in terms of ability too - obviously, didn't have the same career through no fault of his own. MacGill was an incredible wrist-spinner and got more turn than Warne, even. Was very attacking but lacked the consistency of Warne, so his average would have suffered at the expense of his SR.
Reckon if MacGill were Indian they'd have had a better side with him.
At least he was good against Bangladesh, unlike Warney
LOL MacGill. The guy got pwned everytime I saw him.
Finally. The proper respect is shown.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)