Well, are you guys convinced yet ?
Another first innings failure for our Matty :mad:
GET HIM OFFF !!!!
Printable View
Well, are you guys convinced yet ?
Another first innings failure for our Matty :mad:
GET HIM OFFF !!!!
Geez imagine if we have to follow on to the Bangers. :eek:
Oh the shame of it all. :o :o
We need a big ton from Gilly and for Bing to hang in there with him.
Well, another thing we see is ONCE AGAIN Warnie is completely outplayed by MacGill. Have a look at the games that they both have played in recently - only in one inning in the last year or so has Warne out bowled MacGill...
Hmmm...
Talk about an unlucky cricketer!
I happen to know he's under orders to let the lower order have a go. That's why they let Sideshow Bob sit this one out too, you know, give the new kiddies a play in a match that means nought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Still, he is only averaging 50 something this tour, so I suppose he has to be under some sort of cloud.
P
:rolleyes:
Yeah, he has had a funny tour though hasn't he? It seems to be 100 ot nothing.
Still, I am a bit of a Hayden, so I will forgive his small indiscretions. But I couldn't pass up the opportunity to mention MacGill vs Warne...
Yeah of course, he must keep his average up, never mind the team. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
But then again Pete, he is your long lost love child :D :D
Yeah, beginning to think Matty is past his use by date. Funny tho he's usually at his best whenn playing the weak sides. All meaningful glares and intimidation.
Time to go, I think. We got a few waiting. Even that little wanna be, posuer M Clarke might be worth another try.
I was very pleased that Langer was padded up and coming in at 11, in the final debouche of the Yarpies. Thought he'd gone wozzer on us. Even in grade cricket, a bit of a knock on the head and the guys back later in the innings, after a fortifying beer or seven. We even had a guy play out the match with a broken arm. I have no time for these mamby pamby sports heros. Soft is kind for some of the girls.
He was given another try, and failed, again :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodgy
Mate, your memory is a bit shonky. AND, it's a bit hard for Warnie to compete when he's not even on the ground.:confused: :confused: :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
Dan
Go ahead Dan. Find the stats. I may be off slightly, but MacGill has by far out bowled Warne in the games they have played together this summer.
As for Warne not being on the ground.
Day 1:
Warne: bowled 22ish overs or something for over 100 runs and no wickets...
MacGill: bowled 20ish overs for about 80 runs and three wickets...
SK Warne 20 overs 112/0
SCG MacGill 33.3 overs 108/ 8
The stats. This summer only.
Melbourne:
SKW: 6/136
SCGMCG: 2/69
Sydney:
SKW: 2/151
SCGMCG: 3/135
Looks like he's "completely outbowled him" to me. Face facts mate. Warne is a better bowler in his sleep than MacGill will ever be. You have to remember that MacGill only ever plays on pitches that suit spinners. Warnie took 40 wickets in Pomgolia on tracks that were deliberately prepared to negate him.
Dan
Thanks Silent. I had actually just come back to fix up my post and it appears you have done it for me!
However, here are the full stats of the games that both MacGill and Warne have played in since 2005:
The order is overs, maidens, runs wickets.
S.C.G. vs Pakistan
1st Innings
Warne 24 4 84 1
MacGill 22 4 87 5
2nd Innings
Warne 26 2 111 4
MacGill 25 3 83 3
Super Series
1st Innings
Warne 12 3 23 3
MacGill 9.1 0 39 4
2nd Innings
Warne 19 4 48 3
MacGill 15 4 43 5
Bellerive vs W.I.
1st Innings
Warne 11 2 48 0
MacGill 11 3 18 3
2nd Innings
Warne 39 4 112 4
MacGill 26 4 69 2
Adelaide vs W.I.
1st Innings
Warne 19.2 2 77 1
MacGill 18 3 60 2
2nd Innings
Warne 33 9 80 6
MacGill 11 2 42 0
MCG vs S.A.
1st Innings
Warne 21 7 62 2
MacGill 15 3 41 1
2nd Innings
Warne 28 7 74 4
MacGill 16 7 28 1
SCG vs S.A.
1st Innings
Warne 36 5 106 2
MacGill 29 5 102 1
2nd Innings
Warne 11 1 45 0
MacGill 6 1 33 3
Gardens vs Bangladesh
1st Innings
Warne 20 1 112 0
MacGill 33.3 2 108 8
Totals:
Warne
Overs = 299.2
Runs Against = 982
Wickets = 30
Economy = 3.28
Strike Rate = 32.7
MacGill
Overs = 236.4
Runs Against = 753
Wickets = 38
Economy = 3.18
Strike Rate = 19.8
MacGill has taken more wickets than Warne in five out of the seven tests...
These figures debunk a few things said about MacGill vs Warne.
1. MacGill only plays on spin friendly pitches - maybe true, but he still outplays Warne on those.
2. MacGill is expensive - his economy has recently been lower than Warne.
And that is not even considering this little article (which covers more of their careers:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/ci/c...ry/145090.html
I reckon that little comparison shows pretty clearly who seems to be in the better form... (although I will admit that Warnie is clearly a better batsman).
Any further comments about failing memory? :p Although, I re-read my post, it should have said one test (rather than one inning) and I admit that I was wrong - it was two tests...
Says it all. As long as Warne is playing, MacGill is never going to get enough runs on different courses to prove himself. He has always been in the shadow of Warne and is obviously considered a second choice by the selectors, so how is he ever going to prove he can do it? Let's face it, if you have to choose between MacGill or Warne, who are you going to choose? One is a very good spin bowler with excellent stats. The other is undoubtedly the best spin bowler in the world. And he can bat.Quote:
Does that make MacGill as good a bowler as Warne? It doesn't, simply because Warne has done his stuff in all conditions and against all opponents (barring, to an extent, India), while MacGill has generally come into the fray only in conditions which suit spin bowling - 40 of his 160 wickets have come in seven matches at Sydney, which generally offers slow bowlers generous assistance. That doesn't detract from MacGill's performances - he has generally delivered whenever the team has needed him to - but unless he proves himself as an all-conditions bowler, he won't be classified among the top spinners in the game. And with Warne still going strong and Australia preferring a three-seamers-one-spinner attack, it seems unlikely that MacGill will get a sustained run in the near future.
Yeah,
I acknowledge that Warne is more proven and I also acknowledge that he had a great series against England - although I don't know how good the English are at playing spin.
However, I do think that it is a bit tough that MacGill gets the rough end of the pineapple basically because Warnie got there first. I admit that Warne had a lot more control in his younger years than MacGill did (and still does - although MacGill has improved a LOT).
I know that it has happened many times before (where someone has to wait in the wings because one of the greats of the game happens to be born in the same era - but when the figures of when the two play together support the less recognised player it seems a bit strange that the more established player is ALWAYS the go to guy...
As for "undoubtedly" the best spin bowler in the world, I reckon Murali might have a thing or two to say about that. He has also been tested on the various grounds around the world and his stats hold up very well as well. Again, there is an argument that he also MAINLY plays on spin friendly pitches against weaker teams, but he has had to play against Australia, Warne hasn't... Also, there often seems to be the arguments as to why Warne is the best ever and they usually involve, "Yes, but..."
If you had to pick one of them to bowl to save your life, it's no contest. Warnie.
That guy has won more tests for Australia than MacGill ever could.
Unless MacGill was given an even chance... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
(How is this for hijacking a thread!!)
Murali is a chucker!!!
Yes, Warnie has won more tests for Australia but MacGill hasn't been given the same chances. It's like being a wicket keeper while Gilly is there. You get a run when he's injured or resting and that's it. How do you prove yourself in one match? All they can look at is performance in State matches.
One day Gilly will retire and someone else will have to step up. Same with Warnie. Will he retire in time for MacGill to have a good go at it? They are more or less contemporaries.
Flawed argument. If you follow that logic, maybe I could have won a few tests for Australia too, if only they gave me the chance. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
(although, how you straighten a bendy plasticene arm would be an interesting exercise) :D
Ahhh, but a legal chucker - who you could argue has changed the game even more than Warnie as he forced rule changes! :p
Mind you, if you say that Murali is a chucker, then so is Brett Lee as well as many other bowlers...
I don't reckon that MacGill will get a decent run as they are pretty much contemporaries. Dan Cullen will be the next spinner and the young guy from Qld will be the next unfortunate spinner... :rolleyes:
As you mention with Gilly, Haddin has had a rough run and he has done beautifully in his opportunities. And for that matter, Healy was held onto for a few years extra when Gilly was going mad in state cricket...
Sorry Gumby, but I think you should probably get a state game before you apply to the Australians...:pQuote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
As for being flawed logic, not really. Your first comment was "more games that MacGill ever could" and that implies that MacGill couldn't have won those games. All proof indicates that there is a good chance that he could have (whilst not definite proof of course).
I'll cede you the stats, but I wouldn't say he completely outbowled him. I would be interested to see how MacGILL would go on a dead flat track.
MacGill was crap in the lead up games in England which is why he didn't get a run.Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
MacGILL does not get the rough end of the pineapple. The not so rough end maybe, but not the rough end. Warne is a better bowler and will finish his career with between 800 and 1000 wickets IMO. I don't think MacGILL would have got there. Something we will never know I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
Yes, but...
I've got a few things to say about Murali.
1. He is a chucker.
2. The ICB didn't know what to do with him and the whole "I can't straighten my arm" thing so they changed the rules to suit him.
3. The vast majority of his wickets are on the sub continent where nearly every pitch is a spinners heaven.
4. He is a chucker.
5. He's still not as good as Warne.
Think where Warne would be at now if he didn't have a year off. 800 wickets?
Dan
And he's a chucker....
Maybe you could have. Did you ever try out for the team? No? Then how do you know :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
Ok. I will also cede the fact that MacGill on a flat track MAY be absolutely brutalised... Although he has pretty good figures on Bellerive which is commonly acknowledged as a batter's paradise.
I also agree that his time in England wasn't up to scratch which is one of the reasons he didn't get a game, but there are many players who play a lot better in the "real thing" than in tour matches - although I don't think that shows a particularly strong character.
As for Murali - I won't argue that he bends his arm, but so do many fast bowlers. I would actually like it handed back to the umpires and if the ICC doesn't like an umpire's call they can remove them from the panel. That way you avoid all of this what angle can they use and instead go with, if you can see it straighten - ping them.
As for Warnie's "break" he came back bowling better than he was when he left. But, he would have picked up a few extra wickets along the way. I will say that Warne is clearly a very special bowler though, if only for his ability to control a viciously spinning delivery - something that was not even considered likely in previous leg spinning history.
Funnily enough, I thought that his one day record was probably the most impressive things about his game - but he gave that up. I am DEFINITELY willing to admit that he is streets ahead of the next spin bowler in that form of the game (although I do like Hoggie, who I also feel is sometimes a little hard done by).
Perhaps we should have a poll. :p
I'm a big fan of Stewies work but Warne is undoubtedly the better bowler.
It's just Stew's misfortune to be on the scene at the same time as Warne.
If Warne hadn't been around then who knows?
Where was Stewie in '93 or '94 when Warne was at the top of his game and basically unplayable by the majority of the worlds best batters?
Mind you, Stewie has a wrong 'un which is more than Warnie can say. :D
Actually, Stewie came late to spin bowling and started off as a reasonably unsuccessful fast bowler... It took him quite a while to get control of his massive rip. However, if Warnie wasn't around making his lack of control look bad, it is also possible that MacGill wouldn't have really worked on control that much... :confused:
and he's great to cuddle... :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
P
Plenty of him eh Midge? :p
i'm not into stats but i rekon they both have there days and warnie is better on that day. macgill is still a good spinner though.
But who has the most good days?
Also, I think that it is actually the other way around. (Disclaimer: I may well be wrong here) but I think that MacGill has more 5-fors for the number of innings he has played in than Warne, but Warne is more consistent.
This is highlighted by the fact that this last innings is the most expensive innings that Warne has ever bowled (in internationals at least).
That is absolutely amazing from a guy who has played so many tests...Quote:
FROM S. Rajesh on CricInfo, "never before has he bowled more than ten overs and finished with an economy rate of greater than five."
never really noticed, prbably macgill cos his got pressure on him to perform to try to stay in the team so he steps up to it:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
Yeah, I just checked, his frequency of 5-fors is much higher. You can see from the link in my post on the front page... I am beginning to think that I have spent far too much time on this. :o
Cam
yep, way too much time:p ..................the legnths ppl go to to prove a point:rolleyes: ....keep going:D ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CameronPotter
Yeah, I am all embarassed now...
Anyway, I am basically just wasting time while I wait for computer programs to finish running...
So if I wasn't doing this I might be bouncing off the walls...
https://www.ubeaut.biz/offwall.gif
hey cam, that looks like fun:p :D :eek:
With a flipper like Warnie's, who needs a wrong 'un :DQuote:
Originally Posted by craigb
I must be watching a different Warnie than you. I have seen him (THIS SUMMER) bowl an over with four wrong'uns all of which span more than most offies would.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigB
The reason Ritchie BENAUD was so impressed with SKW was because he had perfected his wrong'un so early in his career. Took BENAUD 8 years to perfect it. (so he says)
Dan
Funny, I had always thought that the wrong 'un was the only weak ball in Warnie's armoury. He had the flipper early on that was lethal, but I thought that the wrong 'un usually didn't really turn much. Instead it was more that he had great control and variation. Mind you, I was pretty young when Warnie started his career...
HOWEVER, he has recently picked up his wrong 'un a lot and I agree that this summer it has been turning significantly.
Can't say I saw that over.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanP
Can't speak for Benaud either but for mine Warne's wrong 'un hasn't turned much in all the years I've watched him.
Most of his dismissals have either been with the big ripping leg break or the one that goes straight on.
He doesn't bowl the flipper much nowadays, basically since his shoulder re-construction.
He is also a master of mind games and a champion manipulator of umpires. :D
I'm going to miss him when he finally retires. :D