I think Aus should play Warne and Macgill in tandem as of now?

[tooextracool]

Err, what? England never had a cat-in-hell's chance of saving the game at The MCG.

im not sure about that. if they had got 70-80 runs more, australia might just have had problems chasing them considering the fact that they were 90/5.

 

[aussie]

argh, it really annoys me how so many people seem to assume that england cant play leg spin.
umm struggling against warne because they cant pick his slider is a completely different proposition from not being able to play a decent bowler like macgill

thats true, but the fact is that traditionally we dont play leg-spin very well, so the idea of MacGill coming in and being effective has well cant be thrown aside

 

[Richard]

im not sure about that. if they had got 70-80 runs more, australia might just have had problems chasing them considering the fact that they were 90/5.

What were the chances of getting 70-80 runs more?
Very slim.
Would the start of Australia's innings have turned-out differently if they had got 70-80 more?
Quite possibly.

 

[Richard]

thats true, but the fact is that traditionally we dont play leg-spin very well, so the idea of MacGill coming in and being effective has well cant be thrown aside

Quite where this "traditionally" comes from I don't know.
Rarely have England had much trouble (outside the odd series like The Ashes '98\99) against wristspinners outside the very top bracket (Grimmett, O'Reilly, Benaud, Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed), and given that everyone has had trouble with wristspinners out of the very top bracket it doesn't really say much, does it?

 

[tooextracool]

What were the chances of getting 70-80 runs more?
Very slim.

at 340/5, with crawley and white at the crease? id say we could have got a fair few runs, especially if foster and dawson contributed a little bit more with the bat.

Would the start of Australia's innings have turned-out differently if they had got 70-80 more?
Quite possibly.

it may have, or it may have not. nonetheless the pitch wasnt getting easier to bat on and anything from 180-200 wouldnt have been very easy to cahse down. certainly no way you can say that we had absolutely no chance of winning that game. there were some who thought at 90/5 that australia may just throw it away.

 

[social]

And MacGill is nothing short of useless most of the time.
Giles and Croft are obviously useless on non-turners but both on turners are twice the bowler MacGill has ever been, regardless of whether or not the selectors were stupid enough to pick Batty and Dawson ahead of him.
It's not as simple as "MacGill is better than Giles and Croft".

Turners, non-turners, whatever - Giles and Croft are not in the same class as MacGill.

 

[Shane Warne]

Turners, non-turners, whatever - Giles and Croft are not in the same class as MacGill.

Agreed.

 

[social]

To put things into perspective, Richard etc claim that Giles is useless on non-turners but brilliant on turners.

Just what percentage of matches are played on turners? 5, 10, 20?

Lets be generous and call it 20%.

Teams typically play a dozen tests or more per year and the vast majority of series are 3 tests.

In that case, Giles does no more than justify his selection (take wickets in favourable conditions) in 3 tests (or one series) out of 12. He is therefore, using Richard's logic, useless in the 3 remaining series.

Fortunately, like many of Richard's arguments, this is an extreme view.

Giles is neither brilliant on turners nor useless on non-turners.

He is what he is.

A left-arm spinner with an average test record but with ability that has been somewhat stifled by his negative approach.

 

[honestbharani]

It makes a certain amount of sense. His bowling is rather tempting and when he comes on after some good bowlers, obviously, the batters want to go after him and lose their wickets in the process. That said, I still think he is a better bowler than some of the members here suggest.

 

[Swervy]

To put things into perspective, Richard etc claim that Giles is useless on non-turners but brilliant on turners.

Just what percentage of matches are played on turners? 5, 10, 20?

Lets be generous and call it 20%.

Teams typically play a dozen tests or more per year and the vast majority of series are 3 tests.

In that case, Giles does no more than justify his selection (take wickets in favourable conditions) in 3 tests (or one series) out of 12. He is therefore, using Richard's logic, useless in the 3 remaining series.

Fortunately, like many of Richard's arguments, this is an extreme view.

Giles is neither brilliant on turners nor useless on non-turners.

He is what he is.

A left-arm spinner with an average test record but with ability that has been somewhat stifled by his negative approach.

I think the issue with this is how one classes a pitch a turner or not.

At Lords,Giles didnt turn it..Warne turned it loads...was Lords a pitch that took spin?

The fact is,most pitches at some point will give something in the way of turn for most spinners.

I think some people on this forum only assume a pitch takes turn (without watching the test themselves) if in hindsight,the spinners have done really well. Unfortunately for them, sometimes spinners dont take wickets with deliveries that spin , they take wickets using all sorts of different tools (flight,variations of pace etc) without the ball spinning much.

So when people say Player A has an average of X on turners and and average of Y on non-turners, those figures are totally useless because there are varying degrees between what would be considered a turner and a non-turner.

Also, grouns which are traditionally thought to be big turners may sometimes not be so responsive to spin, and other grounds that are traditionally considered unresponsive to spin may sometimes take spin well. Without watching the individual match itself, you just cant make judgements on how a pitch has played based on the spinners figures for the game...other considerations that must be accounted for are how much bounce there was,was the turn out of the footmarks (were there any left arm bowlers in the game who produced footmarks on the pitch that might help an off spinner more than usual) or was the turn of the pitch itself, how quickly did the pitch develop to take spin throughout the match (was the pitch usually dry compared the what it normally is etc ).

There are so many factors involved, that this notion that, when looking back on a spinners figures and saying he is crap on non-turners and great on turnersis rendered completely useless.

The only way to tell if a bowler has played well is to watch the game itself,and understand the conditions (overhead and of the pitch) and the context in which the bowler was bowling in (was the main priorty taking wickets or containment, something we as the general public may rarely know, because we dont know what the captain/coach has in mind)

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Quite right Swervy. It is useful sometimes though, for the point of argument, to differentiate between how a spinner performs on a dusty turner in Sri Lanka as compared to the WACA, which would barely turn at all under any circumstances.

Certainly though, there is a huge grey area here, like in most other instances where one is discussing pitch conditions.

 

[Swervy]

Quite right Swervy. It is useful sometimes though, for the point of argument, to differentiate between how a spinner performs on a dusty turner in Sri Lanka as compared to the WACA, which would barely turn at all under any circumstances.

Certainly though, there is a huge grey area here, like in most other instances where one is discussing pitch conditions.

I agree with that, in that those are two opposites of the spectrum regarding turning pitches ...

 

[SquidAU]

I heard Darren Lehmann say that Old Trafford and The Oval are turning a bit......unless he was mumbling something different.

So MacGill and Warne might play on those 2 tracks together....but only if the Ashes is safe, I would think.

 

[Monty]

yeah i think they should play
Mcgrath
Tait
Warne
Magill
in the third-fourth and fifth test

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I heard Darren Lehmann say that Old Trafford and The Oval are turning a bit......unless he was mumbling something different.

So MacGill and Warne might play on those 2 tracks together....but only if the Ashes is safe, I would think.

Ha ha!

Top stuff.

 

[Richard]

at 340/5, with crawley and white at the crease? id say we could have got a fair few runs, especially if foster and dawson contributed a little bit more with the bat.

That, my friend, is a big if.
Yes, Crawley and White might have got a few more, but I reckon they'd have had to get a LOT more if England were to be in with a big shout.

it may have, or it may have not. nonetheless the pitch wasnt getting easier to bat on and anything from 180-200 wouldnt have been very easy to cahse down. certainly no way you can say that we had absolutely no chance of winning that game. there were some who thought at 90/5 that australia may just throw it away.

And I can't help doubting in the extreme that they'd have sunk so low had they been chasing a more challenging target - not to mention that Langer's wicket was only due to another dubious Tiffin decision.

 

[Richard]

Turners, non-turners, whatever - Giles and Croft are not in the same class as MacGill.

No, not whatever.
The condition of the pitch makes one hell of a lot of difference to the class of Giles and Croft - both are extremely high-class bowlers on turners and useless on non-turners.
MacGill since Adelaide 2000\01 has been low-class on anything, bar a couple of occasions.

 

[King_Ponting]

No, not whatever.
The condition of the pitch makes one hell of a lot of difference to the class of Giles and Croft - both are extremely high-class bowlers on turners and useless on non-turners.
MacGill since Adelaide 2000\01 has been low-class on anything, bar a couple of occasions.

Yeh the occasions he's played

 

[Richard]

To put things into perspective, Richard etc claim that Giles is useless on non-turners but brilliant on turners.

Just what percentage of matches are played on turners? 5, 10, 20?

Lets be generous and call it 20%.

Teams typically play a dozen tests or more per year and the vast majority of series are 3 tests.

In that case, Giles does no more than justify his selection (take wickets in favourable conditions) in 3 tests (or one series) out of 12. He is therefore, using Richard's logic, useless in the 3 remaining series.

Fortunately, like many of Richard's arguments, this is an extreme view.

Giles is neither brilliant on turners nor useless on non-turners.

He is what he is.

A left-arm spinner with an average test record but with ability that has been somewhat stifled by his negative approach.

No, he is brilliant on turners and useless on non-turners, there is absolutely no way around that.
Like it or not there is no "on average" or "overall" - his "negative" approach has obviously never been effective on non-turning pitches, but neither would a "positive" approach in the same circumstances.
Fact is, Giles is worth being picked occasionally and not most of the time.
And amazingly enough, that's exactly what I've said throughout his career.

 

[Richard]

Yeh the occasions he's played

No, 3 out of the 16 matches he's played.