Aussie spin

[Richard]

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

Of course we do - everything since that Sharjah tournament immidiately after WC2003 should not be classed Test or ODI where they're concerned.

 

[Richard]

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!

It does nothing of the sort and you know it.

(YES, I AM PERFECTLY WELL AWARE THAT YOU WERE EXAGGERATING THERE)

 

[Richard]

Which is why you called them 'antics'

I called them "antics" because it was the first word that came into my head.

"Deeds" might, and only might, have left less room for comments like that.

 

[Richard]

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.

Somehow I doubt you'd forgotten about it, because you still haven't realised that reading a good description about something is little different to watching it.

 

[Stuart]

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.

That wasnt my argument. You need natural talent to begin with but you also need systems that identify players with the potential to become international cricketers and the systems in place to develop those players so that they can make the most of their natural abilities.

The south africa argument is very weak. My argument was promoting a wholistic view to talent identification and development. With development being the key. South Africa hasnt done that as well as other countries and has suffered because of it. Talent isnt everything and thats my point it needs to be combined with hard work (and cricket asutralia has set up a very good framework to facilitate that in young players)

Nobody knows when another player as talented as Warne will come along, my argument is that with the strong foundation cricket australia has built since the 80's we are far more likely to spot that player and far more likely to get the best out of them than we were in other era's.

 

[mavric41]

What a load of crap Richard. You have selectively picked out stats that would support your arguements. You have put yourself above the ICC when determining who is worthy.

Promising in context means unfullfilled potential.

Bringing up past eras in times of talent identification, cricket academys and coaches is irrelevant.

NO ONE said that any of these spinners, including MacGill, will fill the shoes of Warne. In fact it is one of the great mysteries who will succeed, and when.

Maybe you should spend more time looking at the mirror (England's recent performances) rather than looking at the crystal ball when drinking your bottle of voka.

 

[Richard]

That wasnt my argument. You need natural talent to begin with but you also need systems that identify players with the potential to become international cricketers and the systems in place to develop those players so that they can make the most of their natural abilities.

The south africa argument is very weak. My argument was promoting a wholistic view to talent identification and development. With development being the key. South Africa hasnt done that as well as other countries and has suffered because of it. Talent isnt everything and thats my point it needs to be combined with hard work (and cricket asutralia has set up a very good framework to facilitate that in young players)

Nobody knows when another player as talented as Warne will come along, my argument is that with the strong foundation cricket australia has built since the 80's we are far more likely to spot that player and far more likely to get the best out of them than we were in other era's.

And my point is that players with that talent are exceptionally rare, so even if you scour the country you can't spot what doesn't exist.

Of course talent isn't everything, I've argued that 50 times a day, but equally hard work won't get you anywhere at all without talent.

 

[Richard]

What a load of crap Richard. You have selectively picked out stats that would support your arguements.

Err, yes, that's what stats are about. You pick out the stats, then you form your ideas based on them.

There's no point in stats unless you use them.

You have put yourself above the ICC when determining who is worthy.

Yes, I have, because I believe (and I'm most certainly not the only one) that I know better than I$C$C on the important matters of status of cricket matches. They don't - they routinely twist important traditions to suit their immidiate purposes.

Countless millions said the World XI match should never have been given Test status and even more have argued ever since Bangladesh's promotion that they haven't been Test class.

Bringing up past eras in times of talent identification, cricket academys and coaches is irrelevant.

No, it's not, the past never ceases to be relevant. As I've said, talent-identification, Academies and coaches are no use without something to work with. And those who possess the skills of Warne and Benaud are rare indeed.

Maybe you should spend more time looking at the mirror (England's recent performances) rather than looking at the crystal ball when drinking your bottle of voka.

I don't touch vodka, I hate the stuff neat.

And what, incidentally, the hell has England's crapness got to do with anything?

 

[Stuart]

And my point is that players with that talent are exceptionally rare, so even if you scour the country you can't spot what doesn't exist.

Of course talent isn't everything, I've argued that 50 times a day, but equally hard work won't get you anywhere at all without talent.

It matters when you are equating the past era's to the current one. Australia now makes much better use of the talent that is there than it did in the past. In terms of your argument that is a very important distinction. We are now far more likely to keep talented players in the game and far more likely to get the best of those players, so therefore (if players numbers are the same etc) more likely of finding a quality spinner than we were after benaud retired and less likely to experience a 40 year spinner drought.

Players with Warne's talent are very rare, when the next player in that bracket comes along is a mystery (it may be a very long time or it may be tomorrow). Till then its about making the most of what we do have, some of whom could turn into good international players...

 

[Richard]

No amount of maximising of talent is likely to make Cameron White, Daniel Cullen, Nathan Hauritz or Beau Casson, for instance, into Test-class bowlers.

Without the talent to work with, it doesn't matter how sophisticated the development programs are - and it's pretty basic fact that those with Warne's talent are rare. Not neccessarily that it'll take 40 years for the next one, but probably quite a while (a decade at the very least).

 

[adharcric]

No amount of maximising of talent is likely to make Cameron White, Daniel Cullen, Nathan Hauritz or Beau Casson, for instance, into Test-class bowlers.

Without the talent to work with, it doesn't matter how sophisticated the development programs are - and it's pretty basic fact that those with Warne's talent are rare. Not neccessarily that it'll take 40 years for the next one, but probably quite a while (a decade at the very least).

Have you personally seen White, Cullen, Hauritz and Casson in action? Unless you have, how can you be so sure that they will never be test-class bowlers?

 

[Richard]

I've seen Hauritz and he's utterly rubbish (could tell that by the fact that he's played Aussie domestic cricket for ages and never done anything of note, even being dropped from his side last season).

I've never seen Cullen but seriously - aside from Ashley Mallett have Australia ever had a particularly good fingerspinner, even before WWII? His last 2 seasons suggest that is likely to continue.

I've seen White once or twice but, like Hauritz, he's played for a while now and never done anything of note with the ball, and despite not spinning it much he still seems to struggle to hit a length consistently.

I've never seen Casson but I've seen Chris Schofield and all indications are that the two are about equal.

 

[PrincePeiterson]

I've seen Hauritz and he's utterly rubbish (could tell that by the fact that he's played Aussie domestic cricket for ages and never done anything of note, even being dropped from his side last season).

I've never seen Cullen but seriously - aside from Ashley Mallett have Australia ever had a particularly good fingerspinner, even before WWII? His last 2 seasons suggest that is likely to continue.

I've seen White once or twice but, like Hauritz, he's played for a while now and never done anything of note with the ball, and despite not spinning it much he still seems to struggle to hit a length consistently.

I've never seen Casson but I've seen Chris Schofield and all indications are that the two are about equal.

I agree Australian cricket is in the dark ages. No tallent and with Warne gone things are just going to get worse, mark mine are Richards words, Australian cricket is going to get even worse than it is now and it will never get better. While the rest of the countries are all going great Australia is just terrible.

Good work Richard, you're words of wisdom are well respected by all here in the UK. You weren't by chance the person who organised our succesful tour of Australia were you?

 

[AussieDominance]

5-0

 

[Rusty]

I've seen Hauritz and he's utterly rubbish (could tell that by the fact that he's played Aussie domestic cricket for ages and never done anything of note, even being dropped from his side last season).

I've never seen Cullen but seriously - aside from Ashley Mallett have Australia ever had a particularly good fingerspinner, even before WWII? His last 2 seasons suggest that is likely to continue.

I rated Tim May fairly highly. Many of Shane Warne's early wickets were attributable to May's ability to tie up one end, testing batsmen's patience who'd eventually try & create something against Warne and get out. I understand we are not traditionally as flexible as those spinners from the sub-continent, eg Murali, Mushtaq, Singh, etc, but fingerspin has still been revolutionised, and it may be possible for one to master the craft in Australia and given your total disregard to actually watching a player before forming an opinion who are you to say Cullen won't be that person.

I've seen White once or twice but, like Hauritz, he's played for a while now and never done anything of note with the ball, and despite not spinning it much he still seems to struggle to hit a length consistently.

I've never seen Casson but I've seen Chris Schofield and all indications are that the two are about equal.

So all Australia's domestic stock is ordinary at best according to you, even though you've never seen, or only watched them bowl the odd over........


This really is a useless topic to argue, no one is to really know when the "next Shane Warne" will come along, or even the "first better than Shane Warne" for that matter. Yes he was a freak of a bowler, but Australia seem to be able to produce leggies, one of which once established on the world scene may well rise to his heights. Who are you to say there isn't a freak of an 18 yo out there ready to burst onto the scene? I'm sure if McGill had have been bowling a third of the total overs bowled by Australia over the last decade, he'd be a lot better than he is now, given experience and practice on the world stage. Honestly it may be 2 years, it may be 20 years before we find another decent spinner, but really, who is to know.

 

[Richard]

I rated Tim May fairly highly. Many of Shane Warne's early wickets were attributable to May's ability to tie up one end, testing batsmen's patience who'd eventually try & create something against Warne and get out.

It's always a good one to use when bowlers aren't good enough to get wickets: "he takes wickets at the other end".

Unless you can take wickets in your own right, you aren't good enough.

I understand we are not traditionally as flexible as those spinners from the sub-continent, eg Murali, Mushtaq, Singh, etc, but fingerspin has still been revolutionised, and it may be possible for one to master the craft in Australia and given your total disregard to actually watching a player before forming an opinion who are you to say Cullen won't be that person.

Murali - fingerspin?

Fingerspin hasn't been revolutionised (Saqlain and Harbhajan, with their Doosra, were merely resurrecting an old art - Eripalli Prasanna bowled the same ball 30 years previously), it's just had a new trick well-publicised. And that new trick doesn't make the style into something that's somehow more bowlable than it was 10 years ago. Fingerspinners (Doosra-bowlers included) still need help from the pitch (as demonstrated by Saqlain and Harbhajan's records on helpful and unhelpful surfaces) and there are no more regular fingerspin-friendly pitches in Australia now than there were in 1954.

So therefore it's pretty logical to deduce that Cullen's unlikely to have much of a career.

 

[Rusty]

It's always a good one to use when bowlers aren't good enough to get wickets: "he takes wickets at the other end".

Unless you can take wickets in your own right, you aren't good enough.

Murali - fingerspin?

Fingerspin hasn't been revolutionised (Saqlain and Harbhajan, with their Doosra, were merely resurrecting an old art - Eripalli Prasanna bowled the same ball 30 years previously), it's just had a new trick well-publicised. And that new trick doesn't make the style into something that's somehow more bowlable than it was 10 years ago. Fingerspinners (Doosra-bowlers included) still need help from the pitch (as demonstrated by Saqlain and Harbhajan's records on helpful and unhelpful surfaces) and there are no more regular fingerspin-friendly pitches in Australia now than there were in 1954.

So therefore it's pretty logical to deduce that Cullen's unlikely to have much of a career.

Yes, I do consider a bowler who can tie up one end with an economy rate of about 2 to be "good enough". He took his own share of wickets, but yes, if he was tieing an end up the batters could have taken it easier against the blokes up the other end. Meh whatever.




Oh, and way to ignore half of the post......

 

[Son Of Coco]

It does nothing of the sort and you know it.

(YES, I AM PERFECTLY WELL AWARE THAT YOU WERE EXAGGERATING THERE)

It does exactly that, don't belittle the minutes I spent researching that number

 

[Son Of Coco]

Somehow I doubt you'd forgotten about it, because you still haven't realised that reading a good description about something is little different to watching it.

You're right, I've read countless descriptions of a previous game in the paper and not thought "What the hell are these people talking about, that sounds nothing like what actually happened!" The only way an article is a decent substitute for watching the game is if you have no idea about the game in the first place. You don't write for a paper by any chance do you?

 

[Son Of Coco]

I called them "antics" because it was the first word that came into my head.

"Deeds" might, and only might, have left less room for comments like that.

I don't think you did.