Players of the past who would have better/worse records

[vic_orthdox]

Macgill may have played in many spin friendly conditions, but he also missed the chunk of his prime. Probably the best spinner in the world outside Murali and Warne. MacGill in WIndies was done; he was not fit enough to play Tests. It's not at all representative of him as a spinner.

Also gotta laugh at Richard. Seriously, MacGill and Lee are more "poor" in his words but Atherton and Hussain were 'very good" test batsmen.

Ironically, had Lee played in more bowler-friendly pitches such as the 90s he'd probably have an average in the high 20s with an SR in the low 50s. Very good, really.

Macgill may have played in many spin friendly conditions, but he also missed the chunk of his prime. Probably the best spinner in the world outside Murali and Warne. MacGill in WIndies was done; he was not fit enough to play Tests. It's not at all representative of him as a spinner.

Would personally still take Kumble over MacGill in most circumstanes.

Oh, and there's no way on Earth that I'd take McMillan over Lee as a pure bowler.

FTR McMillan also played in home Test matches, and away Test matches are not the only ones that count.

And Brett Lee played Test matches outside of the period that you most like to talk about. There's no difference between what Streetwise did and what you did before that.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Oh really. So If i disagree with you I'm an idiot. Fine logic.

Though MacGill would have been the front line spinner for many other nations, I expect he would have averaged around 33-35 if he had managed to maintain a place in a test team for an 8-10 year career, highly unlikely in itself. Certainly a decent spin bowler but his statistics are way too flattering and he is lucky to have attained them. His only saving attribute in regards to his bowling was his ability to spin the ball a lot. He lacked accuracy, control, flight (to a degree) and ability to tie down an end or sustain pressure. He bowled way too many loose deliveries to ever maintain pressure on the opposition and was often responsible for enabling the batting team to continue ticking the score over with his countless half trackers.

This was what was expected of a leg-spin bowler pre-Warne though. All these criticisms are the consequence of watching Shane Warne throughout your cricketing life!

 

[GotSpin]

That's not the impression I got, but if that was your intent then I withdraw my remarks.

My point was that only 3 spin bowlers could really be considered to be ahead of him during his career - Warne, Murali and Kumble - and Kumble is a "maybe".

Averaging 29 I think may flatter MacGill a little, but I don't think it is hugely misrepresentative of his abilities as a spinner and given more chances at the top level I don't think his average would be more than 10-15% higher than that anyway. I certainly believe that he would have finished with over 450 test match wickets if he was the #1 spin choice for Australia.

I acknowledged that MacGill would have been be the front line spinning choice for most nations other than India and Sri Lanka.

Nevertheless, if Warne had simply not existed and MacGill picked as the spinner for Australia, I'd believe he would have average around 30 for his 'prime' years (Still think I'm being generous here) before ballooning to mid 30s after 2002-2003.

Furthermore, due to the fact that he broke down so quickly with injuries towards the latter half of his career, his prime might have been drastically shortened by a heavy test workload. This is all speculation of course. Still, I think this is an important factor.

 

[GotSpin]

This was what was expected of a leg-spin bowler pre-Warne though. All these criticisms are the consequence of watching Shane Warne throughout your cricketing life!

Of course, I've been spoiled by a Warne career that almost spanned my entire life and that it was previously thought that Leg Spin, at International quality anyhow, was a dying talent. Nevertheless, they're still valid criticisms of his bowling. MacGill often struggled to contain any sort of pressure without sending down a myriad of half-trackers. He was lucky to have McGrath and the likes at the other end who were able to stem the flow of runs. My argument isn't entirely related to his abilities as a bowler or whether he would have played for other nations, but statistics that heavily flatter him. Still, his faults as a bowler were covered up by a number of other factors that I have listed.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Simply put though, when you get that much work on the ball, playing aggressive shots become harder to keep safe, even against ordinary balls. The more variation that there is (which is going to increase with more spin) makes shots riskier. Anyone who rips it that much will get ordinary looking wickets.

Hence why his one day domestic record is quite exceptional.

 

[vic_orthdox]

His still having trouble swallowing the pill that Matthew Hayden is better then any English batsman since Len Hutton.

Please, do not attempt to divert the thread from its natural course. We don't need petty point scoring being carried across threads.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That comment was not merely factually unsound, but both useless and precisely the sort of thing that the CC community is making an effort to stamp-out (ie, things that are specifically likely to divert a thread to a tired, long-since-stupifyingly-bored-the-pants-off-everyone route).

So I'd recommend you pack comments of the sort in.

Rich, it would be good if you could report those posts too so that the moderation team can be aware of them and deal with them, without having to randomly come across them when we are reading the threads. Cheers.

 

[GotSpin]

Many of those ordinary looking wickets were brought on by half-trackers. Though there's no denying he could spin the ball a mile, I still believe he was a source of pressure relief for batsmen which accounted for most of these cheap looking wickets. Facing quality bowlers at the other end, a batsmen would certainly try to take more chances against a Macgill who possessed no accuracy and who was certain to send a number of loose deliveries in an over. He was lucky enough to capitalise on this fortune.

 

[Ikki]

I don't know how much Macgill would have averaged in his prime, not sure how you could gauge that TBH, but he was not really renown for drying up runs. He was a wicket taker. IMO he'd be the only spinner outside Murali and Warne to keep a career SR in the 50s.

 

[GotSpin]

I don't know how much Macgill would have averaged in his prime, not sure how you could gauge that TBH.

A belief that his average was too flattering - Obviously a guestimate though

 

[vic_orthdox]

He was lucky enough to capitalise on this fortune.

The question is, how long does it have to continue happening for before it stops being "fortune"?

EDIT: Anyone can look at a bowler, and say "How does he average so low?" The job then is to delve deeper, and try to work out reasons why he averages lower than what he looks like he should, because in general there are good reasons for that. Especially over the number of Tests that MacGill played.

 

[GotSpin]

The question is, how long does it have to continue happening for before it stops being "fortune"?

EDIT: Anyone can look at a bowler, and say "How does he average so low?" The job then is to delve deeper, and try to work out reasons why he averages lower than what he looks like he should, because in general there are good reasons for that. Especially over the number of Tests that MacGill played.

Essentially, that's one of my arguments.

- His workload was incredibly low seeing as he rarely, apart from when Warne was unavailable due to injury/drugs, played back-to-back tests. Meant he could try stay injury free for longer, often match fresh and avoid the physical stresses of the calendar test year. Thus, he was fortunate to have an extended 'prime'

- Majority of his tests were played on tracks that were at least somewhat conducive to spin. He didn't tend to play extensive parts of his career on flatter tracks, wickets that were more and more common as the 2000s went on.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But then you still insist that he bowled poorly (no flight, accuracy, etc. etc.) and he took wickets?

 

[GotSpin]

His inability to bowl accurately, flight well etc is mostly a general criticism pointing to the idea that many of his wickets were fortunate, leading to a deflated average that was not well deserved. My other points listed above both attempted to prove this while also suggesting that had he played as Australia's front line spinner for most of his career his average would have been considerably higher.

 

[The Sean]

I never saw Arthur Mailey bowl (though I think Burgey might have... ) but I'd personally reckon he might have been the closest Australian historical equivalent to MacGill. Both men were prodigious spinners of the ball and both men were out-and-out wicket takers, often sacrificing accuracy, control and economy in the pursuit of as many wicket balls as possible. Mailey (all stats herein OTTOMH) only played 21 Tests but took 99 wickets with a S/R of around 61 - exceptional for a slow bowler, particular in his era. His average however was 33 and his economy rate well above 3-per-over.

Mailey seemed of the opinion that he was there to take wickets, and if he went for a lot of runs doing so then it was worth it. MacGill always struck me in a similar vein - without the control or consistency to keep the runs down or apply relentless pressure, he nevertheless had the ability to spin the ball as far - or further - than Warne when he was on form which gave him enough wicket-taking balls to remain a threat.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I acknowledged that MacGill would have been be the front line spinning choice for most nations other than India and Sri Lanka.

Nevertheless, if Warne had simply not existed and MacGill picked as the spinner for Australia, I'd believe he would have average around 30 for his 'prime' years (Still think I'm being generous here) before ballooning to mid 30s after 2002-2003.

Furthermore, due to the fact that he broke down so quickly with injuries towards the latter half of his career, his prime might have been drastically shortened by a heavy test workload. This is all speculation of course. Still, I think this is an important factor.

I liked MacGill because I will always have a soft spot for a spinner who can turn the bowl what seems like 15 feet on his day. But agree that his lack of control would have certainly pushed his average to 33 ish had he played anything like 100 matches.

He would be, and to some extent was, the kind of bowler who would take 4-300 in couple of matches, then 12-120 in the next.

 

[Richard]

Both Martin Crowe & Graham Gooch had they played post 2000 would have had much much better records

Ironically enough, I'm not entirely sure Gooch would've done all that much better had he played most of his career post-2001/02 instead of 1978-1988. His problem during that time was failure to cash-in fully on the weak, not failure to combat the very strong.

Crowe would've had a much better career record in his own time had he not a) been picked too early and b) suffered crippling injuries. Heaven alone knows what he'd have averaged had he played post-2001/02 only and not suffered said disadvantages.

 

[Richard]

This is a joke, that's something anyone with a basic understanding of how cricket works would tend to recognise.

No, it's not a joke - I made the post, therefore I know best whether it was in jest or seriousness.

McMillan never took a five in his entire career, his career best is 4/65.

Given he debuted at about 30, suffered a few injuries and was only ever a fourth bowler (sometimes fifth), that's hardly surprising. He was still a fine seamer and had he been part of a weaker attack and had a full career he'd have taken many. Number of five-fors is a relatively irrelevant matter when judging a bowler.

No one thinks Lee is the best but he is a bit better than you realise.

No, most people recognise that he was a very poor Test bowler indeed for most of his career - especially the part which is of significance to the discussion in question.

 

[Richard]

I think the real joke is the criminal underrating of MacGill. In the 90s he'd have been playing for any other country other than Sri Lanka and maybe India. One does not get picked over Shane Warne, for Shane Warne's position (even a ridiculously out of form Warne) without being quite a good bowler.

It was Miller, not MacGill, who Warne was dropped for - MacGill had played the last three matches alongside him. MacGill may indeed have played for other sides than Australia and India for the first 4-5 years of the Test career he had. But I doubt he'd have been a permanent fixture, because he was not a good enough bowler to do so. He was the sort of bowler who'd bowl well in 1 game then poorly in 6 or 7, if not more. That isn't in my book a good bowler at all.

Kasper, Bichel and Lee all ended up having very similar test match records and could all be safely put into the "good but not great" bowler category. They all would have been in the test sides for any other country at the time (and probably as the head of the attack or the 2nd best bowler, rather than the 4th).

Bichel no way, he was considerably lesser than both Kasprowicz and Brett Lee. Kasprowicz however was in my book comfortably superior to Lee and certainly the attack that contained him alongside McGrath, Gillespie and Warne was miles better than any attack which contained Lee alongside them.

 

[Richard]

I think stuff like is not what we are wanting in CC and you are guility of it more often than not. The likelihood of streetwise going 'I could accept that' is somewhere around 0%.

Yeah, I don't think that him saying Lee was better than McMillan was related to any bias, especially given that most people posting on the subject in the thread seem to agree. Play the post, not the poster etc etc.

There are times, I'm afraid, where it's impossible to isolate one from the other. Some posters have what can be described as blatant hometown bias. Personally I've never seen Streetwise admit the superiority of any non-Australian to any Australian.

There's no question in my mind that this is the main reason he refuses to accept that McMillan was mostly a better Test bowler than Lee. No-one else has even commented on the issue, which suggests that no-one else has a strong opinion or most agree that McMillan was mostly better than Lee.

And as I say, that wasn't even the matter in question - the matter in question was McMillan of ~1994 vs Lee of ~2001-2002/03. If anyone thinks Lee comes-out on top there, I'm sorry, but IMO they don't understand cricket.