**Official** Australia in West Indies

[Top_Cat]

Wait. Who are you referring to here? Lee and Clark? Because Lee hasn't been a support bowler for more than 18 months.

And it's one thing to say that Stuart MacGill is lacking match practice and likely to come good, but he hasn't looked anywhere near the quality he used to be in any form of cricket for a very long time. It's a situation like Gillespie in 2005, I think. It's not very often that I recall seeing a bowler who looked quite so shockingly ineffective.

One difference, don't know how significant, is that Dizzy's domestic stats also went south whereas Stuey is still turning in reasonable performances for NSW.

 

[Burgey]

Wait. Who are you referring to here? Lee and Clark? Because Lee hasn't been a support bowler for more than 18 months.

And it's one thing to say that Stuart MacGill is lacking match practice and likely to come good, but he hasn't looked anywhere near the quality he used to be in any form of cricket for a very long time. It's a situation like Gillespie in 2005, I think. It's not very often that I recall seeing a bowler who looked quite so shockingly ineffective.

Sorry, I meant support bowlers in the sense that they weren't the "go to" fellas, and they were the third and fourth best bowlers in the side.

And I'm sceptical about MacGill as well, I guess I can't see them dropping him for the next test though.
If we go 2-0 up, I wonder whether the habit of a century or so will be broken, and they might give one or both of the reserve quicks, or even Casson a game to assess where they're at. It would be a massive break with tradition but givent he stage we're at with our bowlers, I think it would be worth a shot. We need to know, givent he program Australia has coming up, whether these guys look the goods.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

One difference, don't know how significant, is that Dizzy's domestic stats also went south whereas Stuey is still turning in reasonable performances for NSW.

He's really only had one haul of apparent quality for NSW recently. Admittedly (I think) returning from injury. But aside from his 5-wicket haul, he struggled largely, particularly in the second innings. Legspin at Test level is probably harder to rediscover, if you've lost it, than pace. I say that because there appears to be so much less room for error.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sorry, I meant support bowlers in the sense that they weren't the "go to" fellas, and they were the third and fourth best bowlers in the side.

And I'm sceptical about MacGill as well, I guess I can't see them dropping him for the next test though.
If we go 2-0 up, I wonder whether the habit of a century or so will be broken, and they might give one or both of the reserve quicks, or even Casson a game to assess where they're at. It would be a massive break with tradition but givent he stage we're at with our bowlers, I think it would be worth a shot. We need to know, givent he program Australia has coming up, whether these guys look the goods.

I know I'm tempting fate and MacGill is going to look like a superstar in the next Test, but surely Casson can't be a worse option than he is with the ball. If he is, Casson must be truly shocking. Admittedly his career stats suggest that he may be, but he can bat.

 

[howardj]

Yeah, maybe we're thinking the wrong way about MacGill. There's no doubt, like Gillespie, he has actually deteriorated as a bowler (as distinct from being in a form slump). However, I guess the question is not whether he has deteriorated, but whether he is still the best spinner in Australia.

With Gillespie, there was not only definite deterioration but, once he had deteriorated, he was overtaken by other quicks. I've seen nothing from Casson to suggest his control is any better than MacGill's. If I was to drop MacGill for anybody, it would be McGain.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The other consideration is that of the spinner in the larger context of the bowling attack. If MacGill is the best spinner in Australia, but the fifth or sixth best bowler, does he still merit a place in a 4-man attack? I genuinely cannot see the Clarke/Symonds combination doing much worse than MacGill, and it's likely to do better. So surely there's a strong case for playing a seamer ahead of him. Yes, you want a spinner, but when that spinner is leaking runs and looking unlikely to take wickets, what's the point?

 

[Top_Cat]

I know I'm tempting fate and MacGill is going to look like a superstar in the next Test, but surely Casson can't be a worse option than he is with the ball. If he is, Casson must be truly shocking. Admittedly his career stats suggest that he may be, but he can bat.

Can't be too hard on Casson, though. Did all of his early work in Perth, a place where even Brad Hogg probably never averaged less than 40 in a season at. Plus, Casson is a leftie wristie; even less margin for error than the right-handed equivalent. He's on the tour for a reason, though; can give the ball a hell of a rip. It's his accuracy that's the problem.

 

[Top_Cat]

The other consideration is that of the spinner in the larger context of the bowling attack. If MacGill is the best spinner in Australia, but the fifth or sixth best bowler, does he still merit a place in a 4-man attack? I genuinely cannot see the Clarke/Symonds combination doing much worse than MacGill, and it's likely to do better. So surely there's a strong case for playing a seamer ahead of him. Yes, you want a spinner, but when that spinner is leaking runs and looking unlikely to take wickets, what's the point?

Certainly I think you should pick your best four bowlers no matter what they bowl with arguments about variety and balance only coming into it if you have a few equally-qualified blokes vying for the same spot. The problem is that Magill has 200+ Test wickets whereas the other blokes are yet to play a Test. The unknown quantity about the others makes Magilla harder to drop, I think.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Can't be too hard on Casson, though. Did all of his early work in Perth, a place where even Brad Hogg probably never averaged less than 40 in a season at. Plus, Casson is a leftie wristie; even less margin for error than the right-handed equivalent. He's on the tour for a reason, though; can give the ball a hell of a rip. It's his accuracy that's the problem.

Not considering MacGill's pre-Warne retirement legacy and only looking at Casson and him in present incarnations, who do you think is more likely to take wickets? This is not by any means rhetorical. I'd really like to know your thoughts here, as I've seen nothing of Casson.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Certainly I think you should pick your best four bowlers no matter what they bowl with arguments about variety and balance only coming into it if you have a few equally-qualified blokes vying for the same spot. The problem is that Magill has 200+ Test wickets whereas the other blokes are yet to play a Test. The unknown quantity about the others makes Magilla harder to drop, I think.

But considering that in the precious little international cricket that MacGill has played lately, he has bowled a whole lot of tripe, surely it's more fair to compare them on domestic level. And Noffke and Bollinger have been far more potent there. I think it's obvious that MacGill is not presently, and may never again be, the man who took 200+ Test wickets. Again, it's like Gillespie.

But I agree that, from the selectors point of view, MacGill is a hard man to drop. Especially after West Indies played so well in large parts of the first Test.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not considering MacGill's pre-Warne retirement legacy and only looking at Casson and him in present incarnations, who do you think is more likely to take wickets? This is not by any means rhetorical. I'd really like to know your thoughts here, as I've seen nothing of Casson.

On present form? Magill still wins in my book. Casson moved from WA to NSW and although he did do better, he still averaged about 35 with only one 5-fer, although he still took 29 wickets which is reasonable. If you can't average less than 30 playing half your games on the SCG, you don't really deserve a Test spot though.

But considering that in the precious little international cricket that MacGill has played lately, he has bowled a whole lot of tripe, surely it's more fair to compare them on domestic level. And Noffke and Bollinger have been far more potent there. I think it's obvious that MacGill is not presently, and may never again be, the man who took 200+ Test wickets. Again, it's like Gillespie.

But I agree that, from the selectors point of view, MacGill is a hard man to drop. Especially after West Indies played so well in large parts of the first Test.

See, the only problem I have with Noffers being in the Test side is this; with QLD struggling so much and he being the most senior bowler, he has had a virtual mortagage on the new ball and has mainly been doing really, really well since this happened. Early wickets he's taken in spades. When he was back in the pack for QLD and didn't see much of the new cherry, he wasn't as effective. If he was in the Test side he simply wouldn't get the new ball and I think that's been a huge part of his wicket-taking in the last two years. I wonder if he'll be as effective with an older ball, I guess is what I'm saying. His batting ability might offset any worries there, though. Picking him as 4th or 5th quick I could live with for now, though.

Bolly has been quite injury-prone but he's quick, aggressive and moves the ball around. Noffers should just be in front of him for a bowling spot, though.

As I said earlier, it should come down to a judgement on whether the selectors think MacGill's form will improve. if they think he's just feeling his way back after injury and surgery, they will give him every chance to improve. At some point, the judgement as to whether to go this way or cut their losses needs to come. I strongly suspect he's in favour and will play out the series because of the need for a spinner in India later in the year. I think they're banking on him coming good soon because there's been no indication his spot is under threat. Johnson's, on the other hand, is up for grabs.

 

[MrHat]

The other factor helping to pick McGill is Symo's lack of form with the ball. Ponting's been reticent bowling him in ODI's recently and instead has been using his occassional medium pace trundling. Katich and Clarke and maybe Hodge are preferred spinners ATM. But these guys are only good for a few overs before getttng carted on first / second day pitches, so an inform McGill is pretty important

 

[gettingbetter]

That has been noticeable. You think with the search of the Aussie Freddie, Symond's bowling form could possibly place his position in risk?

Highly doubt it, but they've been looking for an all-rounder and 6, not a number 6 batsman.

 

[MrHat]

That has been noticeable. You think with the search of the Aussie Freddie, Symond's bowling form could possibly place his position in risk?

Highly doubt it, but they've been looking for an all-rounder and 6, not a number 6 batsman.

Agreed, but while Symo is scoring well he can't be justafiably dropped. His fielding and general good value as a team member relieves the pressure on his bowling demands.

I would say his position is not the most at risk in the batting order, I think Jaques has more pressure on him right now. It wouldn't surprise me if given a loss (unlikely) and Australia's great batting, they will probably sacrifice Jacques and Symo could be moved to 5, Hussey to open and the likes of Watson brought in to sure up the pace stocks.

 

[roseboy64]

Marshall in, Jaggernauth out of Windies team for 2nd Digicel Test
26/05/08


Xavier Marshall

KINGSTON, Jamaica - West Indies selectors on Monday officially named Jamaican opening batsman Xavier Marshall in a 14-member squad for the second Digicel Test against Australia starting at the Sir Vivian Richards Stadium in Antigua on Friday.

But there is no place for off-spinner Amit Jaggernauth, who had a solitary wicket on his debut Test and was hit for three sixes by Andrew Symonds in three expensive second innings overs.

Also missing out is former Barbados captain and left-handed all-rounder Ryan Hinds, who has been sidelined with a groin injury.

Both Chris Gayle, who is expected to take over as captain from Ramnaresh Sarwan once he is recovers from a groin injury and fast bowler Jerome Taylor, who was sidelined with a lower back problem, are in the squad as well as lanky left-arm spinner Sulieman Benn.

Marshall, who was dropped from the Jamaica starting 11 for this year's Carib Beer Challenge final against Trinidad and Tobago, served as emergency fielder for the first Test at Sabina Park, Jamaica, which the West Indies lost by 95 runs.

The 22-year old Marshall previously played two Tests against Sri Lanka in 2005 and only scored 17 runs in four innings when the West Indies toured the sub-continent with an under-strength team, captained by Sylvester Joseph.

He has also played 10 One-Day Internationals, scoring a mere 98 runs and had modest returns on his return to the Jamaica side this season after being overlooked in recent times through a combination of poor form and disciplinary problems.

In five Carib Cup matches this year, the stylish right-hander scored 274 runs at an average of 34.25 with two fifties. He averages 25 overall and is yet to score a century in 17 first-class matches but gets the nod over other contenders such as the experienced Trinidad and Tobago captain Daren Ganga and his teammates, Lendl Simmons and William Perkins as well as Barbados' opener Dale Richards.

Once again, left-handed Guyana opener Sewnarine Chattergoon, who is reportedly carrying an injury, has missed selection.

Jamaican Brenton Parchment has been retained despite a double failure on his home turf when he made only nine and 15.

TEAM: Ramnaresh Sarwan, Chris Gayle, Sulieman Benn, Dwayne Bravo, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Runako Morton, Brenton Parchment, Denesh Ramdin, Darren Sammy, Devon Smith, Fidel Edwards, Xavier Marshall, Daren Powell, Jerome Taylor.

 

[pasag]

Xav, what's the word on the pitch?

 

[roseboy64]

IIRC from the Sri Lanka series, it's a road.

 

[pasag]

Don't think a Test or FC match has ever been played there before, tbh.

 

[age_master]

The other factor helping to pick McGill is Symo's lack of form with the ball. Ponting's been reticent bowling him in ODI's recently and instead has been using his occassional medium pace trundling. Katich and Clarke and maybe Hodge are preferred spinners ATM. But these guys are only good for a few overs before getttng carted on first / second day pitches, so an inform McGill is pretty important

I think Symo's lack of bowling for a while might have been due to his ankle injury.

 

[gettingbetter]

Agreed, but while Symo is scoring well he can't be justafiably dropped. His fielding and general good value as a team member relieves the pressure on his bowling demands.

I would say his position is not the most at risk in the batting order, I think Jaques has more pressure on him right now. It wouldn't surprise me if given a loss (unlikely) and Australia's great batting, they will probably sacrifice Jacques and Symo could be moved to 5, Hussey to open and the likes of Watson brought in to sure up the pace stocks.

Well from the regulars (sans Katich and Hodge) I think pressure is only one Johnson and MacGill. Jacques has been so good for so long, he will get an extended run in the team. Australia still have Bollinger, Hilfenhaus and Noffke who are all in line. And MacGill really needs to explanation really.

Its wierd with Symo, Aus are looking for a all-rounder but have got a batsman. Wonder if they are content with Symo's lack of bowling skills to justify him as being an all-rounder.