Brad Haddin

[Mister Wright]

He was?!

West Indies tour '99. He was Selected ahead of Warne for the fourth test.

 

[Mister Wright]

And surely you cannot possibly be suggesting that MacGill's success against Bangladesh, whether or not he would be faulted for refusing to achieve it, means anything?

Of course it does!

 

[Mister Wright]

No, I just wouldn't bother posting in the first place.
Because I wouldn't gain anything by posting.

So, like most Englishman you would give up rather than put up a fight and try and convince people you are better than the other person?

 

[tooextracool]

OK then. MacGills recent form hasn't been great. But you wouldn't be saying SRT isn't the best just because he was in his slump, would you?

then i suggest you start watching cricket often, if you think someone who bowls a half volley and a full toss every over is the third best spinner then you must be out of your mind.

 

[tooextracool]

I understand that and I have replied!

Also, is Kumble on recent form? Obviously not. Why do you put Anil above Stuart?

and averaging 29 and 25 in his last 2 series with an SR of 52 and 51 mean that he is out of form......

 

[tooextracool]

Of course it does!

because bangladesh have such brilliant batsmen?

 

[tooextracool]

So, like most Englishman you would give up rather than put up a fight and try and convince people you are better than the other person?

then you obviously havent been in a fight with me......

 

[Mister Wright]

because bangladesh have such brilliant batsmen?

No because if he didn't take 20 wickets he would be a really **** bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

No because if he didn't take 20 wickets he would be a really **** bowler.

and taking 20 wickets against them doesnt make him the 3rd best spinner in the world either.

 

[marc71178]

West Indies tour '99. He was Selected ahead of Warne for the fourth test.

Oh right - is that the only time in his career?

 

[Mr. P]

You CANNOT discount Bangladeshi wickets! Of course they mean something. Not everyone does great against them, and just because he took a large part of wickets playing against them, doesn't mean he didn't bowl exceptionally well!

Indeed, he did better then the other Aussie bowlers, and look who they are!

 

[Mr. P]

Oh right - is that the only time in his career?

To be selected merely once above Warne is a high honour and should surely say something of MacGills ability. Surely.

 

[Mr. P]

then i suggest you start watching cricket often, if you think someone who bowls a half volley and a full toss every over is the third best spinner then you must be out of your mind.

If ever there was an irony on CW, this is it. YOU should start watching cricket more because one look at MacGill will tell you otherwise and will show you how skilled he really is! He is also very highly rated by opposition.

 

[marc71178]

To be selected merely once above Warne is a high honour and should surely say something of MacGills ability. Surely.

Yes, it says something about his ability 5 years ago.

Means nothing now, however his recent SHOCKING form does mean something now.

 

[Mr. P]

MacGills ability remains the same if not better. Form shows nothing much. It does in some cases, but not this one. Anyone who can get their name about Shane Warne's is brilliant if you ask me, and the Aussie selectors ain't as bad as the English ones.

 

[Mister Wright]

and taking 20 wickets against them doesnt make him the 3rd best spinner in the world either.

Tendulkar sat with an average of 18 against Bangladesh for a very long time (may still) so does that mean, because he couldn't score a big total against Bangladesh that he is a 'run-of-the-mill' batsman?

 

[Mister Wright]

Oh right - is that the only time in his career?

Isn't once enough?

 

[tooextracool]

You CANNOT discount Bangladeshi wickets! Of course they mean something. Not everyone does great against them, and just because he took a large part of wickets playing against them, doesn't mean he didn't bowl exceptionally well!

Indeed, he did better then the other Aussie bowlers, and look who they are!

point being?
of course i can discount bangladesh wickets because they dont have a single test class player, let alone world class.
if macgill bowled better than gillespie,lee,mcgrath etc, it only shows to me that they are extremely poor players of spin.

 

[tooextracool]

If ever there was an irony on CW, this is it. YOU should start watching cricket more because one look at MacGill will tell you otherwise and will show you how skilled he really is! He is also very highly rated by opposition.

oh really? then i must question what in the world you were doing when he was bowling against the indians last winter? or against england the winter before that? the way i remember it macgill full tosses and half volleys every over, and no matter how good the rest of the balls in each over were, it dont make you the third best spinner in the world.
for you to make a claim as stupid as saying that macgill is better than kumble, is simply an insult to everything that kumble has accomplished in his career.

 

[tooextracool]

Tendulkar sat with an average of 18 against Bangladesh for a very long time (may still) so does that mean, because he couldn't score a big total against Bangladesh that he is a 'run-of-the-mill' batsman?

amazing that....tendulkar only got 1 inning against b'desh, and if 1 inning were anything to go by then every player in the world is useless.so smart move that going by 1 inning.
i wouldnt be surprised at all if tendulkar averaged over 50 had he got more innings against them,but thats not the point at all....the point is that you look at performances against every test class team(indeed if a player is good enough he would have a good overall record against all teams), and at the moment bangladesh is certainly not one of them.