Who will be McGrath's 500th wicket?

[Mister Wright]

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

Refresh my ageing memory - how many does Warne need for 600?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

He's on 583 now, so 17.

 

[Steulen]

The question thus becomes: Will KP600 be McGrath's 500th?

Not very likely therefore; even if KP plays in the 1st Test, McGrath will probably dismiss someone before he gets to the crease.

I''ll give you....17/2 odds on that one

 

[Mister Wright]

He's on 583 now, so 17.

Hmmm...17 that is quite possible. He should be going for that sometime in the 2nd innings of the first test match...

 

[Link]

Wishful thinking.

yep, and it took a lot of it to come up with that

 

[Link]

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

i'll promise this to you all now, if that happens to my beloved KP, i will sleep in my shed for a cuople of nights.

hoping for a test call up KP, and a good one at that.

(video at the bottom of my signiture guys, it has to be done)

 

[Richard]

Definitely 4, maybe 5.

But not 22?

 

[Richard]

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

In such wonderful form that he went for over 4.5-an-over in the First Test and took 2 wickets in 28 overs in the 2nd?

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.

He didn't do well against us or WI in 2002\03, he had 1 good Test out of 6, at Bridgetown. In the other he took wickets at over 42 apiece.
His 7-104 at The SCG is all well and good, but Tests consist of 2 innings (mostly) and he got 0-88 in the second for 7-192 overall, figures far from exceptional.

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.

If he can't take wickets while McGrath and Gillespie (and Warne) are constantly giving him new batsmen to bowl at he's even worse than he looks on face-value. If he were playing in a team without McGrath and Gillespie (and Warne) I'm willing to bet his average would be even higher.
hahaha , well Hogg is one of few[/QUOTE]
Please say Hauritz is amongst them?

 

[Richard]

Hmmm...17 that is quite possible. He should be going for that sometime in the 2nd innings of the first test match...

I'm hoping it'll happen sometime in the Third, so it overshadows neither the start nor the end of the series.
The Oval 2001 was far more about him and his 400th wicket than it was about the end of the series.

 

[Richard]

i'll promise this to you all now, if that happens to my beloved KP, i will sleep in my shed for a cuople of nights.

hoping for a test call up KP, and a good one at that.

(video at the bottom of my signiture guys, it has to be done)

Well in the likely, and I certainly darn hope so, event that Bell does well against Bangla I'd not bet on him playing The First Test and maybe that might be a good thing.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I'm hoping it'll happen sometime in the Third, so it overshadows neither the start nor the end of the series.
The Oval 2001 was far more about him and his 400th wicket than it was about the end of the series.

It was the end of the series, which had been decided two games ago.

What else was there to write about?

 

[Richard]

Point is I'm hoping (rather a long shot I know, but there's no harm in hoping) that this time the Test at The Oval might be live.

 

[Slats4ever]

will McGrath even get 500 wickets... that's the new question...

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Yes. Yes he will.

 

[Mister Wright]

will McGrath even get 500 wickets... that's the new question...

I wouldn't be too alarmed by McGrath's bowling against Bangladesh they are one of his bogey teams. They have dominated him in all their encounters thus far.

 

[aussie]

will McGrath even get 500 wickets... that's the new question...

come on dont get crazy now

 

[Slats4ever]

hehe my comment was made in jest and sarcasm... just incase some of u were wondering

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't be too alarmed by McGrath's bowling against Bangladesh they are one of his bogey teams. They have dominated him in all their encounters thus far.

Well he's faced them 3 times - surprisingly indeed the first (in WC99) he managed to go for 44 of 10 (Fleming wasn't great that day either).
In the second (Champions Trophy 2002) he got 8 overs for 17. Hardly dominating.
And yesterday (10 for 43) I'd still hardly say they dominated him, he just didn't bowl anywhere near as well as he usually does.
And he was poorly handled by his captain. If he'd brought back McGrath and Gillespie when it was pushing at 7-an-over Austalia would've won at a canter.

 

[Mister Wright]

Well he's faced them 3 times - surprisingly indeed the first (in WC99) he managed to go for 44 of 10 (Fleming wasn't great that day either).
In the second (Champions Trophy 2002) he got 8 overs for 17. Hardly dominating.
And yesterday (10 for 43) I'd still hardly say they dominated him, he just didn't bowl anywhere near as well as he usually does.
And he was poorly handled by his captain. If he'd brought back McGrath and Gillespie when it was pushing at 7-an-over Austalia would've won at a canter.

He did bring them back when they needed 8 an over!

Surely you didn't think I was serious?

And he didn't bowl that well against them in their 2 test meetings so far.

 

[Richard]

He did bring them back when they needed 8 an over!

True - I'd have brought back both him and Gillespie at the same point.
Maybe an over or 2 earlier, in fact.

Surely you didn't think I was serious?

Well, it just seemed like a slightly odd comment - and I can never really tell with you whether you're being serious or not.

And he didn't bowl that well against them in their 2 test meetings so far.

Well, that's hardly surprising (still bowled well enough to get 55.1-124-5) given that he was just returning from injury, really, is it?