Brad Haddin

[marc71178]

MacGills ability remains the same if not better. Form shows nothing much. It does in some cases, but not this one.

If it were a one off series, maybe, but it's not been.

Add in the fact that there's a few spinners with much better form and your argument just lost all credence.

 

[marc71178]

Isn't once enough?

Not really.

Especially not 5 years ago.

 

[Mister Wright]

Well, considering MacGill took more wickets than the other Australian bowlers, I think he did quite well. And Warne doesn't have that great of a record against India either, and he has bowled to a much weaker batting line-up than the one MacGill bowled to.

 

[tooextracool]

Well, considering MacGill took more wickets than the other Australian bowlers, I think he did quite well. And Warne doesn't have that great of a record against India either, and he has bowled to a much weaker batting line-up than the one MacGill bowled to.

and taking more wickets against a non-test class side than any other bowler doesnt prove anything at all....
and warne has bowled to an equally adept indian batting side in the past, because we all know how good the indian players in home conditions.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, Warne at home in the 1999-2000 series:

M O M R W Avg best s/r e/r
3 127 35 335 8 41.87 4-92 - - 95.2 2.63

Fair enough he went for less an over, but the batting line-up was out of form and not as classy as the 2003 version:

Fair enough there was Tendulkar/Dravid/Ganguly/Laxman

But Laxman, Ganguly & Dravid were shadows of their current instalment. And Tendulkar wasn't in the greatest of form.

The other players were just ring ins, and not of the quality of Shewag or even Chopra.

 

[Mister Wright]

Fast forward to 2003/04

MacGill's figures:

M O M R W Avg best s/r e/r
SCG MacGill 4 194.4 29 711 14 50.78 4-86 - - 83.4 3.65


Now, not much better than Warne, and definately not worse. He went for a few more runs, but he did take more wickets at a better strike rate.

And you want to talk about taking quality of wickets - Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar, Shewag & Ganguly were all in fine touch and at the top of their games, a much harder task than Warne's assignment. And when you compare the two, I would put my hand up and say MacGill performed the better of the two.

 

[tooextracool]

No, Warne at home in the 1999-2000 series:

M O M R W Avg best s/r e/r
3 127 35 335 8 41.87 4-92 - - 95.2 2.63

Fair enough he went for less an over, but the batting line-up was out of form and not as classy as the 2003 version:.

that average is a whole 9 runs ahead of shane warne's and the ER is a little over 1 run an over higher than warnes. that is 'significantly' better if you ask me.

Fair enough there was Tendulkar/Dravid/Ganguly/Laxman

But Laxman, Ganguly & Dravid were shadows of their current instalment. And Tendulkar wasn't in the greatest of form.

you must be the first one to say that ganguly is better now than what he was before. yes all 4 of them did better this time than what they did last time, gee i wonder why....maybe just maybe it had something to do with the fact that they faced williams,bracken,macgill,bichel and a half fit gillespie and lee?
and about dravid, perhaps this might surprise you but if you have in fact watched dravid against australia in the past you would know that if there has ever been one bowler that has troubled him, irrespective of how far he has troubled the rest of the indian batsmen, it is shane warne. in fact warne has actually dismissed dravid 7 times in his career, a whole 3 times more than what any other bowler has been able to achieve.......perhaps that might explain why dravid succeeded to the extent that he did on the most recent tour to australia then?

 

[Mister Wright]

Don't look at the batsman individually, look at it from the team perspective. In 1999, they were mixing and matching there line-up around, hadn't found consistent openers and it was effecting the middle order. But come, 2003 the batting order was settled, and although Chopra did not set the World on fire, he did set up useful contributions with Shewag to relieve pressure off the middle order.

Maybe, the fact that Warne & McGrath didn't play had a bearing on the result, but before McGrath was injured he struggled to take wickets against Bangladesh, and by your reckoning, that would make him one of the worst bowlers in the world. And Warne does not have a great record against India.

For mine, Dravid was twice the batsman we saw in 1999, and we will never know how he would have gone against Warne, but we can say the last time he faced Warne in a series, he was only dismissed by Warne twice and his last three scores against a Warne attack in tests are 4 (dismissed by Miller) 81, 188.

 

[marc71178]

And you want to talk about taking quality of wickets - Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar, Shewag & Ganguly were all in fine touch and at the top of their games, a much harder task than Warne's assignment.

Wasn't this SRT when in the worst run of his Test life?

Up till the last match he was consistently scoring low scores.

 

[Mister Wright]

Wasn't this SRT when in the worst run of his Test life?

Up till the last match he was consistently scoring low scores.

Find a place on this forum where I said that Tendulkar was out of form, and I will relinquish that statement. Fair enough, he got low scores, but there was no indication he was out of form, bad luck and good bowling got him out. MacGill outclassed him in the 3rd test with an LBW & Bucknor gave him what many think 'was a shocker'.

 

[Richard]

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?

What's the point trying to do something you know you are incapable of doing? You said "your position will be taken no matter how good your posts are" - what is the point in even trying to stop that if it will happen whatever you do?

 

[Richard]

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!

If he did better than McGrath (not entirely sure he did, incidentally - IIRR McGrath averaged about 22 too) then it probably shows he was in the middle of a horrible run of injuries and didn't bowl as well as normally.
If he did better than Lee it shows... well... what we all know. That Lee from 2001 onwards is a very, very, very poor bowler.
If he did better than Gillespie it is a massive coincidence, but somehow I don't think he did.
Incidentally, the fact that it is well known that Bangladesh are by a significant distance inferior to the rest of the Test and ODI-playing World (with the exception of Zimbabwe), allied to the fact that MacGill when playing against these superior sides has done poorly, suggests that MacGill's success against them was purely lucky coincidence.
The same amount of luck any other player who has played them has had - luck that ICC were stupid enough to admit them to regular playing on the back of one game, where Pakistan totally underperformed for two very possible reasons that are regular to them in these dead-match situations.

 

[Mr. P]

Can you not see Richard that although he may have taken wickets against a VERY poor cricketing country, they still count, they still mean something.

They COULD have been taken on luck, but I saw these matches and MacGill did all the right things, bowled very well and would have taken his wickets against top opposition. He put it in the right places, had a good deal of variation and yes, his dismissals weren't 'lucky'

 

[marc71178]

Find a place on this forum where I said that Tendulkar was out of form, and I will relinquish that statement. Fair enough, he got low scores, but there was no indication he was out of form, bad luck and good bowling got him out.

There is no way you can say that he was in fine touch, except now when it suits you to try and big up someone who isn't as good as you think he is - even his CC record has left more than a little to be desired.

 

[marc71178]

They COULD have been taken on luck, but I saw these matches and MacGill did all the right things, bowled very well and would have taken his wickets against top opposition.

Yet when he does face the top opposition, he can't then reporduce those balls - hence his record is a lot worse (and that economy rate is poor) and hence he's nowhere near number 3 spinner in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

Don't look at the batsman individually, look at it from the team perspective.

why not ? dravid always has been a top quality batsman and if warne has been causing him some sort of problems throughout his career then it says something doesnt it?

In 1999, they were mixing and matching there line-up around, hadn't found consistent openers and it was effecting the middle order. But come, 2003 the batting order was settled, and although Chopra did not set the World on fire, he did set up useful contributions with Shewag to relieve pressure off the middle order.

and if i remember correctly macgill actually got spinner friendly conditions in the recent test series......

Maybe, the fact that Warne & McGrath didn't play had a bearing on the result, but before McGrath was injured he struggled to take wickets against Bangladesh, and by your reckoning, that would make him one of the worst bowlers in the world. And Warne does not have a great record against India.

by my reckoning???!!! its by your stupid reckoning that we look at performances against bangladesh in the first place....any fool can see from what mcgrath has done in the rest of his career than he is a great bowler, and can i say the same about macgill?
its also interesting to note that mcgrath averaged 24 against b'desh, no he didnt set the world alight but it doesnt qualify as 'struggling' especially considering that he probably wasnt even 100% fit

For mine, Dravid was twice the batsman we saw in 1999, and we will never know how he would have gone against Warne, but we can say the last time he faced Warne in a series, he was only dismissed by Warne twice and his last three scores against a Warne attack in tests are 4 (dismissed by Miller) 81, 188.

only twice you say? so how many times did macgill dismiss dravid i ask you?
dravid was not twice the batsmen he was in 99....no doubting that he had in fact improved and is currently in the peak of his career but the only reason he did twice as well as he did in 99 is because the quality of bowling was absolutely pathetic this time around....and macgill only adds to that.

 

[tooextracool]

Can you not see Richard that although he may have taken wickets against a VERY poor cricketing country, they still count, they still mean something.

They COULD have been taken on luck, but I saw these matches and MacGill did all the right things, bowled very well and would have taken his wickets against top opposition. He put it in the right places, had a good deal of variation and yes, his dismissals weren't 'lucky'

then why cant he repeat those 'good' performances against all the other teams? isnt that the hallmark of any good bowler....to bowl well against most other teams?
and macgill and 'variation'? what variation is that? a long hop instead of the usual ball that pitches on off stump and turns away?
and how many bowlers in the world need 'luck' to dismiss bangladeshi batsmen?

 

[Richard]

Can you not see Richard that although he may have taken wickets against a VERY poor cricketing country, they still count, they still mean something.

They COULD have been taken on luck, but I saw these matches and MacGill did all the right things, bowled very well and would have taken his wickets against top opposition. He put it in the right places, had a good deal of variation and yes, his dismissals weren't 'lucky'

Well in that case it says something that he can bowl well against Bangladesh when the pressure's off and not against better opposition.

 

[Mr. P]

So what if the pressure is off in this case? You still need to bowl well and maybe Bangla aren't top class, but he still beat them with considerable skill that would have killed any top class opponent.

Also, not as if he's bowled AWFULLY against England...an average of 24

OR Pakistan...average of 27

OR South Africa...average of 25

And in 12 tests against WI an average of 31...which is far from terrible...

And against Zimbabwe in the one Test he played against them...average of 32...

In fact if it wasn't for 2 Tests against Sri Lanka and 4 playing India his average would be quite superb...and this proves he CAN match it against big countries...

 

[Mr. P]

Also interesting to not that India, against whom MacGill has done so terribly, has also been just as bad for Giles and Warne...