Who will be McGrath's 500th wicket?

[vic_orthdox]

one of the more humorous little ditty's i've seen in a while.

almost as humorous as the word "ditty". which was the completely wrong term for what i was trying to describe. anyhoo, continue, please!

 

[Richard]

So if the Waugh brothers are having a friendly game of backyard cricket does that count as cricket?

No, it's just practice.
2 people can't play cricket, they can just practice batting and\or bowling.

 

[Richard]

Could you help me work out whether they're inadequate.

Some were definitely biased. Does that mean they're inadequate?
Some called the occasional over a ball short. Does that mean they're inadequate?
Some sledged the bowler back after the bowler sledged them. Does that mean they're inadequate?

Definately biased? Inadaquete. Possible to prove? No. So therefore it counts as much as Test-matches with obviously biased Pakistani officials in the 1980s.
Others? No, just something all or all do.

 

[marc71178]

Well, Shane's only been playing since the introduction of the one hand one bounce, so officially he's never actually been dropped. He did get caught by the dog once though and was allowed to bat on under a howl of protest, which eventuated in his being stripped naked and taped to the BBQ shelter uprights.

Didn't Richie drop a one hand one bounce chance last week though?

I think Bruce bowled a pie down (the first time Bruce hasn't eaten the pie in years) and Shane edged it to Richie, (who was too busy reading reports on what happened in the 1996 Backyard Cricket game he didn't see so he could tell all and sundry he knew more about it than any others). Since Richie wasn't concentrating it he dropped it, but it didn't matter because it was a pie.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, it's just practice.
2 people can't play cricket, they can just practice batting and\or bowling.

There are more than just two Waugh brothers.

 

[aussie]

LOL - good point.

After 3 wicket-less Ashes Tests, McGrath will be replaced by Less, who will concede 6 and over and take no wickets (although he will cause 3 of England's tailenders to retire hurt)

Therefore McGrath comes back for the Supertest.

i reckon you dreamnt that in your sleep marc

 

[aussie]

Exactly - and he only got 40. Even that was rather surprising.

And Chanderpaul has played plenty of incredibly fast innings, but nonetheless the only decent bowler on show that day was Gillespie.

well it wasn't the best australian attack on show. Oh yeah i forgot u dont rate Lee & MacGill has bowleres, i agree Hogg didn't cut it has a test spinner while during the series Bichel was i pretty good form.

 

[aussie]

richard u seem to maintain that you feel that Gillespie is more likely to dismiss Trescothick, looking at past performances but you must agree that McGrath is a far superior bowler to Dizzy & even though Gillespie maybe has exposed Tresco weakness more than him in the past, dont you think McGrath if per say targets Tres could get him in more trouble

 

[Mister Wright]

richard u seem to maintain that you feel that Gillespie is more likely to dismiss Trescothick, looking at past performances but you must agree that McGrath is a far superior bowler to Dizzy & even though Gillespie maybe has exposed Tresco weakness more than him in the past, dont you think McGrath if per say targets Tres could get him in more trouble

McGrath may be a better bowler but being the better bowler does not mean you are more likely to take a batsman's wicket. Every batsman and every bowler (usually) bat with different styles, therefore a batsman can be more supceptible (spell check pleas) to a bowler depening on their styles of play.

 

[Richard]

well it wasn't the best australian attack on show. Oh yeah i forgot u dont rate Lee & MacGill has bowleres, i agree Hogg didn't cut it has a test spinner while during the series Bichel was i pretty good form.

Bichel was never in good form, Bichel only ever had very occasional, very short, periods where he did well in Test-cricket.
And no, I don't rate Lee and MacGill as Test-bowlers, and you've only got to look at their records from Adelaide 2000\01 onwards to see why.
I'm glad you admit Hogg didn't cut it as a Test-bowler - congratulations on the first time for admitting the shortcomings of an Australian cricketer on these boards.

 

[Richard]

richard u seem to maintain that you feel that Gillespie is more likely to dismiss Trescothick, looking at past performances but you must agree that McGrath is a far superior bowler to Dizzy & even though Gillespie maybe has exposed Tresco weakness more than him in the past, dont you think McGrath if per say targets Tres could get him in more trouble

I don't think Gillespie is a better bowler than McGrath at all, I think Gillespie is exasperatingly inconsistent, he's either extremely good or pretty average, sometimes he even manages both in a single series.
If McGrath wants to target Trescothick he'll have to pitch fuller than he has previously against him, because you won't cause Trescothick too many problems on a flat pitch by pitching it short of a length.

 

[Richard]

There are more than just two Waugh brothers.

There are only 3 aren't there?

 

[aussie]

Bichel was never in good form, Bichel only ever had very occasional, very short, periods where he did well in Test-cricket.
And no, I don't rate Lee and MacGill as Test-bowlers, and you've only got to look at their records from Adelaide 2000\01 onwards to see why.
I'm glad you admit Hogg didn't cut it as a Test-bowler - congratulations on the first time for admitting the shortcomings of an Australian cricketer on these boards.

during that series it was one of the few that Bichel was in good from in test cricket


ok well since that adelaide test againts the West indies MacGill hasn't been super cosistent, but he has had his moments like his 7-104 at SCG in 2001, he did well againts the SA at the SCG has well in his next test in 2002, he did fairly in his 2 test againts us in 2002/03 and had a pretty good series in the West Indies in 2003. His bad series were againts IND & SRI while i wont count the BAN series since anyone can do well againts them.

Lee since then has been pretty inconsistent for sure, he had a poor ashes series here in 2001 & has had up and down performances in test cricket. But one main reason for that is because he has bowled in the shadow of McGrath & Gillespie, so on most occasions when he comes on to bowl the top order of most line-ups has been taken care of and he has never really got the chance to run through any side which he can do. I would say he is bowling the best he has ever bowled since i saw him on debut & is really unlucky to be kept out of the side by an in form Kasprowicz.

hahaha , well Hogg is one of few

 

[Mister Wright]

There are only 3 aren't there?

Definitely 4, maybe 5.

 

[marc71178]

Is the paternity of 1 in question then?

 

[Mister Wright]

Is the paternity of 1 in question then?

It is more the poor state of my memory. I know there is 4, not too sure if there is 5.

 

[Gilchrist]

I think Struass will be McGrath's 500th victim.

 

[Link]

nah, the australian selectors will spring a shock decision and drop him for an extra spinner

 

[Mister Wright]

nah, the australian selectors will spring a shock decision and drop him for an extra spinner

Wishful thinking.

 

[age_master]

What sort of odds do you reakon you could get on the same batsman become McGrath's 500th and Warne's 600th?