Aussie spin

[Craig]

Well if you don't like what he types, why respond?

IMO that is just as bad.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well if you don't like what he types, why respond?

IMO that is just as bad.

Well I'd say people would respond to discuss and debate the points he raises. If I didn't respond to posts I didn't like, I'd probably have about 5 posts in CC. I generally see little point in "I agree" posts unless you are agreeing that you disagree with someone else...

Anyway Richard:
I don't think anyone is claiming Australia have a whole heap of spin bowling talent coming through. In fact, it is the area of most concern and is hence the big debate and the big discussing point.

Your analysis of MacGill proves one thing and one thing only - that you can make anyone look ordinary if you play round with stats for a little while. MacGill is not in the class of Warne or Murali but he's still amongst the five best spin bowlers in the world and to suggest otherwise would either be looking too much into his recent form or just being downright stupid.

As for the your opinion on the emerging bowlers coming through, well yeah, everyone pretty much agrees with you. It's quite possible that they will all turn out to be trash and none of them are ready at this stage. They are talked about so much because they all clearly have some potential and have shown the basic attributes required to be a good spinner. They need time to develop in first class cricket as bowlers and continue to progress and learn. No-one is suggesting that any of them are ready to jump into the test side now and take a million wickets, or even that any of them will ever cut the mustard.

 

[Richard]

you didn't thats the point - if Australia's spin options have been so bad someone else must have had some brilliant spin options to make them appear that way. If Australians are delusional about the quality of spin bowling in Australia someone else must have been doing better?

No, not so. I've never heard the words to effect of "we're not remotely likely to see anyone close to Shane Warne's level for a long, long time" come from any Aussies at all, all I've heard is "there are lots of promising young spinners coming-up in Australia".

Which suggests that Australians are of the opinion that there'll soon be someone if not at Warne's level, then not too far behind, which is patently false.

 

[Richard]

That's basicall saying take out MacGill best 10 test matches and rate him from there.

No, it's saying take the fact that good Test-matches have been rare for MacGill - and that doing well against Bangladesh and ICC World XIs is meaningless in Test terms.

 

[Richard]

Bailey, Casson and Doran have all got a lot of potential

So had Chris Schofield 7 years ago.

Quality wristspinners are exceptionally rare - to suggest there'll be another from Australia in the next 10 years is pretty pie-in-the-sky given that there were 40 years between the previous 2.

 

[Richard]

Who rates the next generation of Australian spinners highly? I think Bailey will be an ok test prospect in time and Cullen can become a reasonable limited overs spinner but the rest are ordinary. The future of the Australian attack at this point is 4 quicks (from Lee, Johnson, Clark, Hilfenhaus, Tait atm) and Cameron White as a legitimate #6 batsman first and a negating spin option second. England have done ok with that sort of balance over the last few years, I don't see how it is the end of the world for us.

It isn't - and in the unlikely event that Lee, Johnson, Hilfenhaus and Tait all turn-out to be Test-class bowlers, Australia will be OK indeed.

But spin won't feature, which will offend the "you've got to have variety" brigade, who usually get their way in the end.

 

[Richard]

As everyone with a head on their shoulders will point out, nobody thinks Australia have a group of ready-made spinners waiting to come in and dominate test cricket. The players you list, Cullen, Bailey, White, Casson etc are the players who might appear in the Australian side in the next few years, not stars of the domestic circuit. Those players get discussion because, after MacGill, Australia will need to have a spinner come into the team, and they are the best options at the moment. Would you prefer people didn't discuss them, or that Australia didn't attempt to find a quality spinner merely because it's difficult?

I'd prefer people didn't keep saying "there are lots of promising young spinners in Australia", when the truth of the matter is "there are lots of young spinners in Australia".

Time will tell whether they show promise - for sure, they're doing nothing of the sort right now.

 

[Richard]

Bizarre really. Most posters here are in agreement that MacGill is a very good spinner, but certainly not in Warne's class

That's because you always become a better player when out of the side than in.

The truth is MacGill is pretty average.

 

[pasag]

I reckon he can get to 10.

 

[Richard]

Strange indeed - I don't remember anyone from Australia on here being "delusional" enough to say that the new Warne was just around the corner. As posters have stated, there is going to a be a giant hole in the Australian attack that will require filling by a spinner, and so many of us have been discussing the options available - whilst almost invariably lamenting that Warne is nigh-on irreplaceable and that we hope whoever carries the spinning torch for Australia in Test cricket for the coming years isn't burdened to much by Warne's ghost or weight of expectation.

Incidentally, between MacGill's games against Bangladesh, the ICC World XI, his two big performances against England and then his 8 "other" good games, you've taken away his 15 best Tests, out of a total of only 40. Do that to any player and their record will look inferior.

There's a difference between taking away all good games and taking away games against substandard opposition that should never count as Tests.

Though if you've decided that Tests against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and for/against ICC World XIs don't count as real Test cricket, I assume you'll be breaking the news to our Murali fans on here that his wickets tally has now been revised back to 532?

Yes, indeed. What, precisely, has that to do with anything?

Just another bitter attempt at bagging Australian cricket, cricketers and fans imo.

Nothing of the sort. I've no bitterness at all about Warne's antics of the last 13 years.

 

[Richard]

I reckon he can get to 10.

Too late, pal, you've intervened.

 

[pasag]

Too late, pal, you've intervened.

Haha indeed.

 

[Richard]

Incidentally, try taking the best 37.5% of Warne's test performances away from him and see how his record is. One might imagine it'd look a fair bit worse.

Except that Warne has played a whole 3 Tests against non-Test-standard opposition... rather fewer in percentage...

 

[Richard]

Yeah. From anyone else, I'd see this as a particularly ridiculous attack on Australian cricket and Australian cricket fans. From Richard, it's just par for the course really. This could be about any nation except for New Zealand or South Africa.

You've not met the Kiwis who're utterly convinced I've got something against their country? They number a few.

Fact is, you can get the idea that I dislike any particular country, when the reality is that I dislike none.

 

[Richard]

I don't think anyone is claiming Australia have a whole heap of spin bowling talent coming through. In fact, it is the area of most concern and is hence the big debate and the big discussing point.

I'll admit that maybe I've misgauged the feeling on the board - I have been absent for rather a while - and maybe there's more acceptance of the reality here. But in my travels I've met a whole heap of comments that suggest few Australians realise how little spin-bowling talent there really is.

Your analysis of MacGill proves one thing and one thing only - that you can make anyone look ordinary if you play round with stats for a little while. MacGill is not in the class of Warne or Murali but he's still amongst the five best spin bowlers in the world and to suggest otherwise would either be looking too much into his recent form or just being downright stupid.

Being one of the best 5 spinners in The World isn't hard when there are so few good spinners around (that's not new, have hardly been any since bowling spin was made that much harder by covered pitches).

As for the playing around with stats - what's the point in them being there if you don't play around with them?

 

[Prince EWS]

As for the playing around with stats - what's the point in them being there if you don't play around with them?

So you can take them for what they are perhaps? I don't mind you taking Bangladesh and the ICC World XI out of his stats but when you start picking other matches just because he performed well in them, I know you're talking trash. His record, even without the irrelevant matches, is quite an impressive one, especially given he rarely had an opportunity to be a permanent fixture in the side.

I'll admit that maybe I've misgauged the feeling on the board - I have been absent for rather a while - and maybe there's more acceptance of the reality here. But in my travels I've met a whole heap of comments that suggest few Australians realise how little spin-bowling talent there really is.

The reality of the matter is, Australia posesses as many as five young bowlers who have the basic ingredients and the potential, given their age, to be test class spinners of about the MacGill quality. Hence you hearing that they have "promising young spinners" - you deny that they are promising based on their figures, but if you had watched them bowl, you would see that as young spinners, they have promising attributes. Given this though, we all realise that there is no guarentee - or even likleyhood - that any of them will become test class. Certainly none of them are yet and it is quite possible that none of them ever will be. Many young promising players haven't progressed as one would want in first class cricket - or even if they have, have then failed in test cricket anyway. Australia's backup spin stocks, MacGill aside, look quite bare at the moment and everyone realises this.

Being one of the best 5 spinners in The World isn't hard when there are so few good spinners around (that's not new, have hardly been any since bowling spin was made that much harder by covered pitches).

I think the fact that a plethora of supposedly not-test-class spinners have played multitudes of tests should possibly lead you to believe they are test class.. because they have cemented their place in their country's test side..

 

[Richard]

So you can take them for what they are perhaps? I don't mind you taking Bangladesh and the ICC World XI out of his stats but when you start picking other matches just because he performed well in them, I know you're talking trash. His record, even without the irrelevant matches, is quite an impressive one, especially given he rarely had an opportunity to be a permanent fixture in the side.

If you notice, I haven't suggested "taking-out" any other games - I've given the ratio of good to poor, and it's decidedly unimpressive.

The only games I've said should not be counted at all are those against Bangladesh and ICC World XI, because those matches should IMO (and in the opinions of hundreds of others too) not be classed as Tests.

I think the fact that a plethora of supposedly not-test-class spinners have played multitudes of tests should possibly lead you to believe they are test class.. because they have cemented their place in their country's test side..

There's a difference between playing lots of Tests and cementing a spot. Many players can play large numbers of games without ever being "fixtures". For me, you've got to perform, not play, to be classed as "Test standard".

 

[Prince EWS]

There's a difference between playing lots of Tests and cementing a spot. Many players can play large numbers of games without ever being "fixtures". For me, you've got to perform, not play, to be classed as "Test standard".

Your definition of how well a spinner has to perform to be considered test standard seem significantly different to that of test selectors though, who have given many spinners test after test despite not performing to your requirements.

If you notice, I haven't suggested "taking-out" any other games - I've given the ratio of good to poor, and it's decidedly unimpressive.

Didn't you say in the South African quotos thread though that how many exceptional/average/horrid games players had was irrelevant and only the average mattered?

 

[Richard]

Your definition of how well a spinner has to perform to be considered test standard seem significantly different to that of test selectors though, who have given many spinners test after test despite not performing to your requirements.

That's principally because of the "you've got to have variety" nonsense, despite the fact that West Indian selectors disproved that 30 years ago and continued to disprove it for a decade. Between 1977 and 1986 excluding Packer-weakened games, 3 specialist spinners played 3 Tests (1 each) for West Indies, and they lost just 1 series in that time (by Test by a margin of 1 wicket, with loads of poor decisions against them).

If selectors just picked the best set of bowlers, even when all of them were seamers (which happens quite often), there'd have been a hell of a lot fewer average spinners who played Tests. Rare these days is a wicket that requires a fingerspinner, and rare has always been the wristspinner whose control is good enough to be Test quality.

Didn't you say in the South African quotos thread though that how many exceptional/average/horrid games players had was irrelevant and only the average mattered?

No, I said the opposite - I said consistency (which will result in a good average) is what you're looking for. As Goughy also pointed-out (hardly takes Einstein, but still) every bowler is going to have bad days, but if someone can consistently take 3-53 and 4-68, etc. they're doing just fine for me. Of course, as with the 0-103s, you'll also get 6-58s.

But having 10 good games out of 35 for an average of 30 isn't very good in my book - and that's MacGill's record against Test-standard teams.

 

[Prince EWS]

But having 10 good games out of 35 for an average of 30 isn't very good in my book - and that's MacGill's record against Test-standard teams.

Personally, I think 150 wickets for an average of a tick over 30 is perfectly respectable in this day and age, especially when you rarely played two matches in a row and often get dragged around as tour baggage.

That's principally because of the "you've got to have variety" nonsense, despite the fact that West Indian selectors disproved that 30 years ago and continued to disprove it for a decade. Between 1977 and 1986 excluding Packer-weakened games, 3 specialist spinners played 3 Tests (1 each) for West Indies, and they lost just 1 series in that time (by Test by a margin of 1 wicket, with loads of poor decisions against them).

If selectors just picked the best set of bowlers, even when all of them were seamers (which happens quite often), there'd have been a hell of a lot fewer average spinners who played Tests. Rare these days is a wicket that requires a fingerspinner, and rare has always been the wristspinner whose control is good enough to be Test quality.

So every team's test selectors are horribly wrong and are looking over the painfully obvious and proven? I somehow doubt that.