Good onya Matty :(

[Gumby]

Well, are you guys convinced yet ?

Another first innings failure for our Matty :mad:

GET HIM OFFF !!!!

[craigb]

Geez imagine if we have to follow on to the Bangers. :eek:

Oh the shame of it all.

We need a big ton from Gilly and for Bing to hang in there with him.

[CameronPotter]

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!

[bitingmidge]

Another first innings failure for our Matty :mad:

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.

Still, he is only averaging 50 something this tour, so I suppose he has to be under some sort of cloud.

P

[CameronPotter]

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...

[Gumby]

Still, he is only averaging 50 something this tour, so I suppose he has to be under some sort of cloud.

P

Yeah of course, he must keep his average up, never mind the team.

But then again Pete, he is your long lost love child

[Bodgy]

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.

[Gumby]

. Even that little wanna be, posuer M Clarke might be worth another try. .

He was given another try, and failed, again :mad:

[DanP]

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...

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:

Dan

[CameronPotter]

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...

[silentC]

SK Warne 20 overs 112/0
SCG MacGill 33.3 overs 108/ 8

[DanP]

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

[CameronPotter]

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? 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...

[silentC]

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.

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.

[CameronPotter]

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..."