Stuart MacGill announces his retirement

[Burgey]

Overrated bowler TBH. His stats have been boosted by playing dispropotionately high number of matches against teams who were poor against spin. Average of 40+ against India and Sri Lanka (even on spinning tracks) tells its own story.

Aussies are in a crisis IMO. Which ever leggie they are going to pick for Indian tour is going to get smoked. Better pick a finger spinner who can bowl flat, but can spin it a bit doing that for Indian tracks.

Nah they'll just get Clarke to bowl - he owns them. Though his record bowling against Mars on the dark side of the moon means he's probably no good either.

Poor comment re. MacGill mate. You can get stats on nigh anyone, pull em apart and and make deprecating comments about them.
Doesn't mention SRT's average post 2001 v non-minnows.

MacGill was never a great bowler but he mostly did a good job for Australia when called upon to do so. He got his 200 test wickets and was a more than handy player in an era where his side dominated. Good luck to him.

 

[sanga1337]

Overrated bowler TBH. His stats have been boosted by playing dispropotionately high number of matches against teams who were poor against spin. Average of 40+ against India and Sri Lanka (even on spinning tracks) tells its own story.

Aussies are in a crisis IMO. Which ever leggie they are going to pick for Indian tour is going to get smoked. Better pick a finger spinner who can bowl flat, but can spin it a bit doing that for Indian tracks.

At this rate it looks like clarke will be our best choice... Even managed to get 6 wickets in one test against India

 

[Migara]

Poor comment re. MacGill mate. You can get stats on nigh anyone, pull em apart and and make deprecating comments about them.
Doesn't mention SRT's average post 2001 v non-minnows.

Does the facts change mate? Decent players of spin just owned him. We know Indians are very good at it, and they have done well against Warne and Murali. But Lankans are not particularly great against spin (as shown by Warne's stats against SL, which are very good), and MacGill just struggled to contain Lankans as well. But people just talk crap comparing him to Warne.

 

[Burgey]

Well he's no Warne, but he wasn't a crap bowler either (despite what he's dished out of late).

You don't take 200 test wickets if you can't bowl. Not saying he's great but he wasn't filthy bad either imo. .

 

[four_or_six]

Lol at the Aussies freaking out about not having a top spinner. Welcome to our world for years

Maybe we could get Giles out of retirement and you could borrow him?

 

[Migara]

Well he's no Warne, but he wasn't a crap bowler either (despite what he's dished out of late).

You don't take 200 test wickets if you can't bowl. Not saying he's great but he wasn't filthy bad either imo. .

I am not saying he's bad. My opinion is he's overrated. I can name five spinners better than him. in recent times. But most people tend to rate him in top 5 in recent times, which is madness IMO.

 

[Burgey]

Well, it wouldn't be hard to be in the 5 best leggies of recent times, for obvious reasons. Certainly Warne, Murali, Kumble would be ahead of him in recent times, Saqlain at his best as well imo. Line ball between MacGill and Mushie. Harby's about as patchy as MacGill himself, without as many really shocking balls bowled. I could see why people would rate him highly based on his best, but truth is his best is so far behind him now it isn't funny.

 

[Richard]

Lol at the Aussies freaking out about not having a top spinner. Welcome to our world for years

Maybe we could get Giles out of retirement and you could borrow him?

England have never had a top spinner since covered wickets, TBH.

 

[Richard]

Poor comment re. MacGill mate. You can get stats on nigh anyone, pull em apart and and make deprecating comments about them.
Doesn't mention SRT's average post 2001 v non-minnows.

MacGill's record is bumped by substandard sides more than Tendulkar's is, TBH.

 

[Richard]

why did you leave out the super-test?

Because it shouldn't have been classified as a Test IMO and ITO of many others.

 

[Burgey]

MacGill's record is bumped by substandard sides more than Tendulkar's is, TBH.

Not saying it isn't, just saying he's not a crap bowler (but my God, he surely is bowling crap right now).
Certainly was over-rated in some quarters, but he did a decent enough job for us on the most part, and he deserves some kudos for that (not that you're saying otherwise BTW).

 

[Jono]

MacGill was overrated when people were arguing he was better than Kumble, but on the whole I reckon he has so many people hating him, and so many critics, that for those that overrate him, he's equally underrated by many.

It all balances out.

 

[Jonty Lathwal]

Macgill took more wickets than Warne in matches they played together.......

he could have been a spin legend if had got more chances.......
Aussies will surely miss him.......

 

[Craig]

It is a regret he never got the chance to play Test cricket in India and for some reason he never got picked for the tour of India in '04. It would of been interesting to see how he would of gone. If Clarke could get 6-9 on that Mumbai pitch, I wonder how well MacGill would have gone?

Anyway MacGill to sign for the ICL in 5..4..3

 

[Richard]

Not saying it isn't, just saying he's not a crap bowler (but my God, he surely is bowling crap right now).
Certainly was over-rated in some quarters, but he did a decent enough job for us on the most part, and he deserves some kudos for that (not that you're saying otherwise BTW).

Nah, certainly MacGill had his moments (never, as I mentioned earlier, more so than that 7-142 and 12-107 at the end of 1998/99) and certainly he was far from useless. But I do think the "he'd have had 300 Test wickets but for Warne" stuff is a bit rich. Yes, he possibly might have, but he'd have had them at an average in the mid-30s if so for mine, which is really not all that good.

MacGill is no more than a decent middle-of-the-road Test bowler and above-average wristspinner, like Arthur Mailey and Danish Kaneria (Kaneria being the total opposite to the Australian duo). He is not the would-be great some people make him out to be.

 

[Richard]

It is a regret he never got the chance to play Test cricket in India and for some reason he never got picked for the tour of India in '04. It would of been interesting to see how he would of gone. If Clarke could get 6-9 on that Mumbai pitch, I wonder how well MacGill would have gone?

Certainly better than Nathan Hauritz, you'd imagine.

 

[Craig]

Certainly better than Nathan Hauritz, you'd imagine.

Or would of been better then Cameron White.

 

[Mister Wright]

It's an interesting one this. Australia have always been (and rightfully so) about picking the best XI players they could. That would mean Noffke will get a game with Tait and Bollinger biting at his heels. However, there will be teams and conditions where a spinner would be a bigger asset than four seamers. Maybe it's best to give Casson a few games and just hope that maybe he'll come good.

If you're going to think of picking McGain you may as well go knocking down Warnie's door IMO.

Australia haven't always been about picking the best XI. Dan Cullen played a test, and Brad Williams played way too many.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Australia haven't always been about picking the best XI. Dan Cullen played a test, and Brad Williams played way too many.

More an indictment on the bowling stocks at the time than a lapse in selection policy, tbh.

 

[Richard]

Hmm, so Kasprowicz and Inness (both fully fit when Williams was picked) wouldn't have been better picks than Williams?

And two spinners wouldn't have been better than the three when Cullen played? (Though admittedly that game was against Bangladesh and I'm sure odd selections have been made for Australia A and in tour-games - they played 4 specialist batsmen against Hampshire once and were knocked-over for nothing by Alan Mullally)