The value of Anil Kumble was underestimated

[BoyBrumby]

MacGill and Kumble is apples and oranges tho.

MacGill was an attacking legspinner and Kumble a defensive and very accurate bowler of leg-cutters. Check out the differences in ER & SR.

[Migara]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Reckon if MacGill were Indian they'd have had a better side with him.

Given the tonking he had from indians, would be very brave selector to put him in that Indian team.

[watson]

Originally Posted by Migara

Given the tonking he had from indians, would be very brave selector to put him in that Indian team.

Originally Posted by Migara

Given the tonking he had from indians, would be very brave selector to put him in that Indian team.

MacGill's SR against India was better than Warne's: 83 / 91

And his Average was only slightly worse: 50 /47

However, these numbers against India don't mean too much as MacGill played a mere 4 Tests against India. Also, while Indians obviously play spin very well they have little idea against fast bowling unless they're playing on a pitch somewhere in their home country that has been doctored with a megadose of morphine so the ball never rises above the knee roll. And even then they tend to poo their pants rather than watch the ball on the bat. The point being that fast bowling is far more pertinent to contests with India.

[watson]

Originally Posted by watson

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.

I think that my original perception of the Kumble-Harbhajan combination is wrong as the stat's don't back it up;

Tests WITH Harbhajan
Wickets = 281
Ave = 28.36
Econ = 2.75
SR = 61.8

Tests WITHOUT Harbhajan
Wickets = 338
Ave = 30.72
Econ = 2.65
SR = 69.4

In realty it appears that the effectiveness of Kumble's bowling only increased marginally with Harbhajan operating at the other end of the pitch. Which just goes to show that you shouldn't always trust your observation and intuition.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by watson

MacGill's SR against India was better than Warne's: 83 / 91

And his Average was only slightly worse: 50 /47

However, these numbers against India don't mean too much as MacGill played a mere 4 Tests against India. Also, while Indians obviously play spin very well they have little idea against fast bowling unless they're playing on a pitch somewhere in their home country that has been doctored with a megadose of morphine so the ball never rises above the knee roll. And even then they tend to poo their pants rather than watch the ball on the bat. The point being that fast bowling is far more pertinent to contests with India.

True, but not in 2003/04. Australia had a weaker bowling lineup than usual and they rolled out the flat decks in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. India owned Lee, Williams, Bichel, Bracken and even Gillespie (though he wasnt 100% but bad luck, you step out onto the park its on you). MacGill didn't step up, he got tonked along with the others.

That doesn't mean he is a poor bowler by any stretch, as the wickets were flat. But it's part of his career and you can't just ignore it because he played India.

In any case Kumble thoroughly out bowled MacGill in Sydney by so far it's not funny. Kumble almost won India a test on a pitch that had no right producing a result.

[benchmark00]

MacGill thoroughly, thoroughly out bowled Kumble in Australian conditions, so not sure what that arguments about.

Kumble averages near 40 in Australia does he not?

[Jono]

I don't debate cricket with you #neverwrong #nevergivesground

Ftr, I don't think its unreasonable to think MacGill could have/would have been better than Kumble. But you don't just discard his series in 2003/04 because its against India, that's crazy talk.

Its a shame MacGill never got to play in India. His record in SL isn't great, but he only played 2 tests there and he did okay in one test.

[benchmark00]

Watson didn't discard the series against India, he said that the fact that he only played four matches isn't a big enough sample size to know for sure, and that it's not unusual for spin bowlers to be less effective against India.

[Jono]

The line "The point being that fast bowling is far more pertinent to contests with India." is not a proper defence when the series MacGill played in, Australia's fast bowlers didn't dominate. They could have used MacGill getting some wickets.

I agree its not a good sample size to judge his career, but he's a bloke who didnt have a proper career and that's the debate here isn't it? I mean he didn't get every opportunity to forge his career, so its all speculation. But on top of that, he also got to be selected many times when the pitch was turning as a second spinner, so there are advantages and disadvantages to it.

[benchmark00]

And worth noting those times he did play as a second spinner he totally out bowled Shane Warne.

Lets not forget that Kumble was selected as apart of a two spinners attack also. Which was probably due to India having **** seam options, but largely due to playing in spin friendly conditions.

[Jono]

No doubt Kumble had great bowling conditions for much of his career when he played in India. Valid point for sure.

[zorax]

Kumble had brilliant bowling conditions at home, but it's safe to say that during his time he was the best at making use of such conditions. No other spinner during his time could match his dominance and effectiveness on Indian pitches (although all other spinners were bowling to the Indian batting lineup). Credit must be given to Kumble for that.

[uvelocity]

k00mble as I remember it benefited mightily from the extra bounce on offer here. I'm not saying he ran through sides, but they found him difficult to play due to that. It suited his style.

[zorax]

As a bowler who relied a lot on bounce, Kumble was effective in places not traditionally suited to spin, such as Australia and South Africa. And in his later years he developed ways to be effective on slow pitches, with variations in pace and flight and using his googly and topspinner well.

Kumble was a good bowler in all conditions, and a match winner when presented with spin and bounce. I think most sides in the world, if not all, would love a bowler like Kumble in their lineup. He wasn't amazing on a frequent basis, but he was always steady, and always delivered in conditions where he was expected to. Very reliable bowler. Comfortable third behind Warne and Murali when it comes to modern-day ATG spinners.

[watson]

Originally Posted by uvelocity

k00mble as I remember it benefited mightily from the extra bounce on offer here. I'm not saying he ran through sides, but they found him difficult to play due to that. It suited his style.

In Africa = 31.33

In Americas = 31.28

In Asia = 27.00

In Europe = 41.41

in Oceania = 38.20

The above averages show that Kumble did not benefit 'mightily' from the extra bounce in Australia (Oceania).

It seems that he was more potent when the ball kept low so he could more readily attack the stumps and go for lbws. Hence, in Asia his figures indicate a very good bowler, but outside of Asia Kumble he was little more than a middle-of-the-road bowler.