Players who performed well in limited opportunities for their country...

[benchmark00]

Just it's not always a good performance...

dude what is your beef? lol... youre obviously one of these bias englishmen who is thinking they are all high and mighty just because they are starting to win a couple of matches (wait till the ashes for a proper game)... the fact is, i doubt you have seen alot of macgill in the one day arena, domestic or international... englands along way away (thank god) and the fact is he is one of the best strikers in world cricket in both forms of the game... cut him some slack!

lol sorry if i sound like a tool but im passionate about sticking up for stu because he cops alot of unwarranted flack and he is my personal favourite

 

[vic_orthdox]

simon cook took a 5 wicket haul in a boxing day test IIRC, didn't play many tests after that.

 

[C_C]

players who did excellently with limited opportunities ?
there are a fair number of them.
Narendra Hirwani, Stuart Law, Mohammed Nissar, etc etc.

But if i was to pick one who shone like a star with very limited opportunities-limited not because of ill health, loss of form, usurping his spot, etc etc. but simply because they didnt play enough cricket in his time- it has to be the Atlas- George Alphonso Headley.
Aka, the black bradman......or as his supporters would like it to be known.....Bradman the white Headley.

 

[bryce]

players who did excellently with limited opportunities ?
there are a fair number of them.
Narendra Hirwani

17 matches is hardly limited opportunities, especially when in his last 13 test matches he got 30 wickets@48.70, IMO he was given too many matches

 

[C_C]

17 is a fairly small number mate...when seen from a career perspective.
You need to differentiate between a fluke(andy ganteume) and a decent/good/great chap missing out...and you need SOME minimum number of matches played with a max cap.......in my opinion,5-10 matches min and 20-30 matches max fit the bill.

 

[marc71178]

17 isn't limited when you look at the record of the last 13 - it's too many!

 

[marc71178]

dude what is your beef? lol... youre obviously one of these bias englishmen who is thinking they are all high and mighty just because they are starting to win a couple of matches (wait till the ashes for a proper game)...

Erm no, I would dispute that.

MacGill's record is far from great when you look beyond the numbers.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A.Ganteaume (sp?)

Was about to suggest him. 112 on debut then sacked for scoring it too slowly.

Dinanath Ramnarine is my input.
45 wickets in 12 Tests at 30.73. He really looked a find for the spinner's spot... then Hooper intervened.

 

[C_C]

i think George Headley is one of the strongest contenders for this category.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

i think George Headley is one of the strongest contenders for this category.

Meh, he did OK too.

 

[Langeveldt]

Yep, Ramnarine agreed with..

 

[C_C]

only person apart from Braddles to averaeg 60+ in FC and Test cricket and its 'just' okay ?

OKAY!!!!!

 

[benchmark00]

Erm no, I would dispute that.

MacGill's record is far from great when you look beyond the numbers.

haha if anything his career is better without numbers... but the only thing you can base it on is numbers.... i thought you would know of all people how he can rip teams apart... need i say the word 'ashes'... he obsolutely destroyed england in the last two series that were played in Aust.. and i fancy to say he'll do it again...

The fact is you havent seen him play a single one day match... he is a strike bowler and if you dispute that you are a tool... the figures and EVERYTHING show it.... when he has got his chance he has performed excellently... if he was an englishmen there would be no doubt you would be saying 'oh macgill is the best spinner in the world'... If he played in an era without warne he would be up there in the highest wicket takers of all time... and we wouldnt be having this discussion...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

haha if anything his career is better without numbers... but the only thing you can base it on is numbers.... i thought you would know of all people how he can rip teams apart... need i say the word 'ashes'... he obsolutely destroyed england in the last two series that were played in Aust.. and i fancy to say he'll do it again...

Destroyed as in 12 wickets @ 40.50 in 2002/03? Get informed.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

MacGill has had two outstanding series in his career. One was against England in the mid-90s and the other was managed somehow against Bangladesh. In other series where he's played more than 1 match, he's only averaged under 30 twice and that's probably why his Test average is a lot closer to 30 than Warne's.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If he played in an era without warne he would be up there in the highest wicket takers of all time... and we wouldnt be having this discussion...

And you know this because? What evidence suggests that he's anywhere near the quality of Warne?

 

[C_C]

Umm McGilla took wickets agianst teams that have no clue about playing spin..no offence but i would take the likes of Harbhajan singh,Mustaq Ahmed,Anil Kumble, Murali and warne from HIS era any day of the week before him.
Lets not even get into the alltime stakes here.

The absence of Warne in the team resulting in McGill becomming the highest wicket taker of alltime is just as likely as the possibility of Greg Blewett scoring more runs than Allan Border if Hayden/Langer wernt around.
Which is close to nil.

 

[benchmark00]

Destroyed as in 12 wickets @ 40.50 in 2002/03? Get informed.

oh im sorry i ddnt look up the statistics...................... pfft.... and im sorry i just thought that 12 wickets was a good game? i guess not, i guess to play an awesome match you have to take 21 wickets????? and a test avg of 29 should not be sneezed at, especially the type of bowler he is, a huge spinner..

And you know this because? What evidence suggests that he's anywhere near the quality of Warne?

If you compare the statistics comparitavely it will clearly show macgill has taken more wickets for the matches his played AND his average would be close to the same..... THIS IS FACT! i have statistics to back up my point.. at one stage, having played the same amount of tests macgill had taken 40 more wickets!! hhahahahhahahahahha is that evidence enough??????? ofcourse there are alot of unknowns but there is clearly evidence showing that macgill could have become an all time GREAT...

Umm McGilla took wickets agianst teams that have no clue about playing spin..no offence but i would take the likes of Harbhajan singh,Mustaq Ahmed,Anil Kumble, Murali and warne from HIS era any day of the week before him.
Lets not even get into the alltime stakes here.

The absence of Warne in the team resulting in McGill becomming the highest wicket taker of alltime is just as likely as the possibility of Greg Blewett scoring more runs than Allan Border if Hayden/Langer wernt around.
Which is close to nil.

14 wickets in a couple of tests against india suggest otherwise... oh can they play spin or not????????????????? hmmmmm..................... the fact is that he hasnt played alot against what you call traditional spin playing teams,...... is that his fault? no... just a victim of poor timing...


READ THE THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!! HE HAS TAKEN HIS CHANCES WHEN HE HAS HAD THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND PERFORMED WELL!!!! the thread isnt: is macgill the best spin bowler ever to play.... noone is suggesting that he is!!!!


and btw.... originally i was referring to macgills brief ODI career

 

[C_C]

# of wickets taken is relevant when put in perspective with the average.
IIRC, he took 14 wickets at 50+ average against the Indians.......thats 1 wicket per 50 runs........thats simply.......horrid.

 

[benchmark00]

# of wickets taken is relevant when put in perspective with the average.
IIRC, he took 14 wickets at 50+ average against the Indians.......thats 1 wicket per 50 runs........thats simply.......horrid.

ummm warne had an average of 100+...... umm is that relative enough?



EDIT: umm sorry.... i meant 300+!!!!