Aussie spin

[Richard]

In terms of importance over 5-fors.

In general, good : poor ratio > average > number-of-5-fors.

It's possible to have a good Test if you take 6-72 (3-31 and 3-41 in the two innings) without taking a 5-for, and if you do that consistently it's better than taking 5-102 and 0-69.

There are many methods to sum-up a bowler's effectiveness, and in truth none can invariably be more reliable than the other.

 

[Rusty]

Oh - and what's so different to those who'll happily include nonsense games like Bangladesh and ICC World XIs to suit their own agendas (ie to make MacGill look better than he is)?

I can understand taking out Bangas, but surely the best players in the world are going to be significant enough wickets to justify there inclusion. Granted they may be in a differing environment to what they were used to, but still the class batsman who made the world XI's scalps should still be regarded, surely there can't be that much difference b/w them touring for their own country and touring with a "rep" type sid.

 

[Richard]

Far more people argue about the Aus-WXI game being wrongly classified as a Test than Bangladesh.

It's not just about status, it's about traditions. IMO it's ludicrous for Test and ODI cricket to be played by one player for more than 1 team.

Hence, I don't recognise any non-regular-team "Test"s \ "ODI"s as such.

Equally, Bangladesh are not Test quality, so their games should not be classed equals of real Tests among the top 8 teams.

And given that you can't have it both ways, I just completely ignore everything in said games when I'm looking at Test \ ODI cricket. Because if it were down to me I'd just strip all games of said status (along with games involving other non-ODI-standard teams) and the game's statistics would be infinately more accurate for it.

 

[Rusty]

I don't personally think that it will be too hard to replace Warne. If you take out all the innings where he took wickets, he didn't take a single wicket in the rest of the innings! And would have stats as follows




44 Matches
547.5 Overs
0 Wickets
1751 Runs



Australia were just lucky they had other players that could step up and handle this type of "baggage"....

 

[Richard]

There's taking things to ridiculous extremes and there's picking-out salient features.

 

[Prince EWS]

There's taking things to ridiculous extremes and there's picking-out salient features.

And you both did the former.

 

[Goughy]

It's possible to have a good Test if you take 6-72 (3-31 and 3-41 in the two innings) without taking a 5-for, and if you do that consistently it's better than taking 5-102 and 0-69.

Of course it is FFS. One the guy takes 1 more wicket and averages 12, let me know if you can find someone that can do this by the way, and the other he averages 34.

Consider the same wickets being taken for the same runs. 5-40 and 1-32. I can tell you the last in goung to win more tests for his team.

Bowlers that take a couple of wickets here and there are ok, what every team needs and wants id the guy that can take a bagful and change the game.

 

[Richard]

And you both did the former.

As far as I'm concerned I provided a reasonable breakdown of MacGill's career.

You, evidently, find some crime in giving a match-by-match analysis.

I, clearly, have no hope of persuading you to see the merits of such a thing.

 

[Richard]

Of course it is FFS. One the guy takes 1 more wicket and averages 12. Let me know if you can find someone that can do this by the way and the other he averages 34.

Consider the same wickets being taken for the same runs. 5-40 and 1-32. I can tell you the last is going to win more tests for his team.

Bowlers that take a couple of wickets here and there are ok, what every team needs and wants id the guy that can take a bagful and change the game.

And the best are those that do both, depending on the skill the rest of the attack is exhibiting that particular occasion.

As far as I'm concerned, 5-40 and 1-32 is less impressive than 3-31 and 3-41. What the rest of the attack contributes determines what the outcome of the game will be on both occasions, however. Because one bowler taking 6-72 can make a big contribution to a victory, or it can be a lone fight in two huge totals.

 

[Stuart]

I think contrasting the era after benaud and the era after warne while easy to do is entirely useless.

One of the main predictors of success (be it "genius" or great sporting achienvments) is not natural talent (it is a requirement) but hard work. The stand outs in most professions are not always the ones with the most natural talent but those that worked hardest at perfecting it.

With that in mind looking at the current era and the much improved talent identification schemes, training, professionalism etc that we have now compared with the 50's 60's 70's and 80's. convinces me that the crickeing environment players are growing up in now is far more likely to spot talented players and far more likely to get the most out of average ones than that of the past. IMO those schemes were very important in turning Warne and McGrath into world beaters (it wasnt guarenteed and both could have easily been lost along the way if they had grown up in another era)...

For this reason i dont think we will see the spinner drought we had after Benaud as we are now far better set up to make the most of the talent available and far more likely to spot and retain any exeptional talent that does come along...

 

[BoyBrumby]

If that was genuine (and given the rarity you use it it appears so) those first two paragraphs are somewhat contradictory.

I'd quite forgetten you aren't overly endowed in the humour department. If you look at the first two words of my second paragraph I said:

Seriously tho, it's nice to have the alternative viewpoint expressed, how weird or wacky it happens to be.

Implying (fairly clearly I'd thought, but apparently not) that my first paragraph may not actually have been entirely serious.

Oh, and that was genuine...

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Equally, Bangladesh are not Test quality, so their games should not be classed equals of real Tests among the top 8 teams.

Do we exclude Zimbabwe tests since they became bad, then?

 

[luffy]

And if anyone really expects a Mallett or Higgs out of the likes of Cullen, Bailey, Hauritz and Casson, well, they're crazy. At the moment, none of those are even proven State players.

I don't really rate any of those players but they have all shown good skill in State Cricket, while they are not up to International Cricket, Cullen could be used until/if we find a better option.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Seriously, how delusional are Australians about the quality of spin currently lying around their country?

Has it really escaped their notice that between Benaud and Warne (that's nearly 40 years and, taking Warne's first hurrah as in New Zealand in 1992\93, and excluding matches during the Packer Schism, 227 Tests) Australia had one passable Test-class spinner, Ashley Mallett. Even he only had 24 good games, followed by 14 very poor ones.

Those tried included those noted fly-by-nights Rex Sellars (1 Test), David Sincock (3), Terry Jenner (9), Ken Eastwood (1), John Watkins (1, "the luckiest player ever to be picked for Australia"), Peter Sleep (1, then 10 more after a 4-year gap), Tom Hogan (7), Bob Holland (11), Murray Bennett (3), Peter Taylor (13) and Trevor Hohns (7). None did remotely well in their fleeting careers.

They also included John Gleeson (29), Kerry O'Keeffe (24), Ray Bright (25) and Tim May (24), who were poor to different degrees in their careers. Greg Matthews also played 33, doing even worse than those 4 but being a good enough batsman to hold down a place.

Bruce Yardley did better than some, enjoying a golden season in 1981\82 aged 34 but otherwise doing little (and playing just 19 Tests outside the Packer Schism in any case). Jim Higgs, who was almost certainly the best wristspinner between Benaud and Warne, got a raw deal, doing well enough in the 7 Tests he played outside the Packer Schism. His career was over at 30.

And if anyone really expects a Mallett or Higgs out of the likes of Cullen, Bailey, Hauritz and Casson, well, they're crazy. At the moment, none of those are even proven State players. Even the seeming comforts of having MacGill around for a few years aren't what they seem. MacGill has been a better spinner than most, but nonetheless his record looks far more impressive than it is. In 5 matches against Bangladesh and ICC World XI, neither credible Test sides, he has 42 wickets at 14.33. Knock out these and it’s 156 in 35 at 30.67. Still not the worst, but the truth is the only time he’s had consistent success was 2 games (MCG and SCG against England, a team noted for their virtually comic fallibility against wristspin) in 1998\99. Knock-out these 2 games, too, and it’s 137 in 33 at 33.11. Less impressive. Less impressive still, when you consider it’s actually 8 good games out of 33, and only twice managing success in successive matches. On isolated occasions (Rawalpindi 1998\99, Queen’s Park Oval 1999, ARG 1999-‘Gabba 2000\01-WACA 2000\01, Kensington Oval 2003, SCG 2004\05-Bellerive 2005\06) he’s played a big part in a victory. But mostly he’s been average or poor. And the portents are that his successors will be even worse.

hahaha, ahhhh, yep, welcome back

Edit: Actually, a more accurate stat than those you've presented that highlights exactly how awful MacGill is, is the fact that if you take away all of his wickets apart from the best ball he's ever bowled, but leave the runs the same, he averages 5387 - that's woeful!

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, not so. I've never heard the words to effect of "we're not remotely likely to see anyone close to Shane Warne's level for a long, long time" come from any Aussies at all, all I've heard is "there are lots of promising young spinners coming-up in Australia".

Which suggests that Australians are of the opinion that there'll soon be someone if not at Warne's level, then not too far behind, which is patently false.

Who have you been talking to? And how many Australians live in space?

 

[Son Of Coco]

There's a difference between taking away all good games and taking away games against substandard opposition that should never count as Tests.

Yes, indeed. What, precisely, has that to do with anything?

Nothing of the sort. I've no bitterness at all about Warne's antics of the last 13 years.

Which is why you called them 'antics'

 

[Son Of Coco]

In which case, frankly, you haven't been reading around. Maybe not many have come on quite that strong, but many seem to assume Australia will before long have another spinner who's producing match-winning spells pretty often.

I've lost count of the number of "there are lots of promising young spinners in Australia" that I've heard and read. And, as you yourself (and maybe some of the more realistic Aussie supporters on this board) admit, it's far from the truth.

Why is there? Just because you like bowling spin, it doesn't mean you're going to be more capable of doing it. Otherwise anyone who idolised Warne could just go out there and follow him.

Similar experiences in England with Richard Dawson and Gary Keedy and the like. Going crazy about players because they've managed a whole one good season is utterly stupid. Maybe if people hadn't, the likes of Cullen would never be being remotely seriously considered for international cricket.

Believe it or not, you don't have to attend something to learn of it. Sure, players are going to bowl well in club matches and in the nets - people argued Liam Plunkett showed promise for the same reason - but if you can't make the step up to the First-Class level you haven't shown much promise as far as I'm concerned. "Showing promise" to me is about putting in the odd performance here and there, not looking good, because anyone can look good.

God...so many memories...I'd forgotten the part where you knew more than people who had actually done/played something cause you'd read about it. Pass me the scalpel nurse, I've just watched 'House'.

 

[Johnners]

God...so many memories...I'd forgotten the part where you knew more than people who had actually done/played something cause you'd read about it. Pass me the scalpel nurse, I've just watched 'House'.

 

[Richard]

I think contrasting the era after benaud and the era after warne while easy to do is entirely useless.

One of the main predictors of success (be it "genius" or great sporting achienvments) is not natural talent (it is a requirement) but hard work. The stand outs in most professions are not always the ones with the most natural talent but those that worked hardest at perfecting it.

With that in mind looking at the current era and the much improved talent identification schemes, training, professionalism etc that we have now compared with the 50's 60's 70's and 80's. convinces me that the crickeing environment players are growing up in now is far more likely to spot talented players and far more likely to get the most out of average ones than that of the past. IMO those schemes were very important in turning Warne and McGrath into world beaters (it wasnt guarenteed and both could have easily been lost along the way if they had grown up in another era)...

For this reason i dont think we will see the spinner drought we had after Benaud as we are now far better set up to make the most of the talent available and far more likely to spot and retain any exeptional talent that does come along...

No amount of hard work will turn a poor bowler into a good one.

Otherwise anyone who wanted to and worked hard enough would be a Warne.

Yes, the systems in place now are better than they used to be but if having a good-quality talent-spotting scheme was the only requirement for success South Africa would be unparralleled in recent history.

 

[Richard]

I'd quite forgetten you aren't overly endowed in the humour department. If you look at the first two words of my second paragraph I said:

Implying (fairly clearly I'd thought, but apparently not) that my first paragraph may not actually have been entirely serious.

Oh, and that was genuine...

Surprise surprise...