Stuart MacGill announces his retirement

[Jono]

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?

In one sentence you correctly say "would have" and in another you incorrectly say "would of"

 

[Matt79]

Well played I suppose to MacGill. To paraphrase Joe Pesci from JFK, the bloke remains a contradiction, wrapped in a dichotomy, encased in a paradox.

Like the guy off the cricket field, but he was a tool as a person on the field, the reverse Warney in one sense. Absolute ball-tearing deliveries, in both senses of the phrase, mixed in with tripe that Michael Bevan would have been ashamed to send down the pitch. Intelligent thinker (itself a rare commodity in the sport) but a horse's arse who was often his own worst enemy. Frustrated could-have-been great had he been born in another country/time or Warne's stuntman who was fortunate to play a disproportionate number of tests in favourable conditions or when he was in the peak of his form.

He was a unique character, and inevitably his legacy will be overshadowed, as was his career, by S.K. Warne, but ultimately he did a difficult job coming in and out of the team, contributed to some good team successes, and took (by normal standards) a helluva lot of a wickets at an acceptable rate. Well played, and I hope he enjoys his retirement.

 

[Mister Wright]

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

Nah, was a serious lapse in selection policy.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Oh, get out. If you're missing Warne and McGrath against the best batting side in the world at the time on the flattest decks in Australian history, are YOU gonna be thinking rationally?

 

[Craig]

In one sentence you correctly say "would have" and in another you incorrectly say "would of"

GAGFC

(Yes that was in jest)

 

[Goughy]

TBH he was a typical old fashioned leggie and I like that.

Tried to rip it square and bowled a heap of crap as well as it is tough to control. That wasnt a problem for me as that is how these type of bowlers operate and that is the price you pay in order to get the beuaties every now and again.

 

[iamdavid]

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.

At the end of the day I agree with you here.

No doubt he had some great moments, and when on song he could be a threat on just about any surface. However he just didnt have the control or the subtle tools that made Warne what he was. And against good players of spin (ie India in 03/04) his ability to turn the ball miles couldnt quite mask his inconsistency and (compared to Warne) predictabilty.

His record at the end of the day will put him in esteemed company, however I do agree that the fact he played a great deal of his cricket only when a second spinner was called for (ie when the pitch was very helpful or we were playing someone who couldnt handle legspin) certainly helped his cause. I'd be very interested to see his record when he was the only spinner picked for Australia (statsguru wont let me filter out matches where Warne or Miller also played), which would take out all those SCG tests where he cleaned up on turners as the second spinner and also the Bangladesh matches in 06, I think Richards prediction of a mid-30's average would be pretty accurate.

 

[oitoitoi]

Well like Warne Macgill failed the Indian test and he was pretty poor against Sri Lanka too. It's tough to say how good he would have been, personally I think he would have averaged over 30 given more exposure.

The most interesting thing to come of this I reckon will be the team Australia pick for the India series which should be an absolute cracker. They'll certainly rely on a lot of overs from Clarke (who's had a shocking amount of success against India with the ball) and Symonds but it would be almost madness to tour India without at least one specialist spinner. The question is is there anyone good enough worth taking? Australia almost definitely won't go with 4 quicks after the Perth loss. It seems Beau Casson's going to be given the job but he's done very little to suggest he's close to test standard and considering how well the Indian line up plays spin would he just leak runs? He can bat though which should work in his favour. Bryce Mcgain would be a desperate gamble and Dan Cullen and Nathan Hauritz are just awful.

RSA had success with an all out 3 man pace attack with Harris and Kallis as support bowlers. Copying this strategy might not be such a bad idea, get Casson to contain rather than attack along with Symonds and Clarke (they'll pick up the odd wickets) and all out attack with Lee, Clark and Johnson. I have serious doubts over Mitchell Johnson's effectiveness in India; for as long as he can't swing the ball back in he won't trouble top batsmen and in India he won't have pace and bounce in his favour, personally I think Bracken should be given a chance ahead of him. Clark will never go round the park but it's to be seen if he can get the bounce from Indian surfaces that will make him a real threat, though his performance in the West Indies is encouraging. Lee will definitely bee the main man though he's never bowled in Tests in India.

 

[Richard]

Harris is almost certainly a better spinner than anyone currently playing in Australia though. With the possible exception of McGain.

 

[vic_orthdox]

TBH he was a typical old fashioned leggie and I like that.

Tried to rip it square and bowled a heap of crap as well as it is tough to control. That wasnt a problem for me as that is how these type of bowlers operate and that is the price you pay in order to get the beuaties every now and again.

AWTA.

 

[pasag]

AWTA.

You would, wouldn't you?

 

[Sanz]

Australia should not pick a spinner just because they are going to subcontinent. They should get their best bowlers and I dont think that includes a spinner. Their part timers (spinners) like Symonds and Clarke can fill the spinner's role more effectivly than the likes of Colin Miller and Hauritz.

Also dissapointed @ Macgill's decision. It kinda shows that he is not that strong mentally to succeed at the top level and also that his overall record overstats his ability as a international cricketer. He is just another spinner.

 

[Richard]

MacGill's decision to retire now is completely independent of not being an especially good bowler. MacGill's decision to retire now if he feels he can never bowl well again, which he clearly does, is the only one that makes any sense.

 

[Jamee999]

Jack Mac to replace him.

 

[aussie]

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

Surely just because you don't have much regard for the super test doesn't mean it should be excluded for his record againts test standard opponents?

 

[Mister Wright]

You would wonder why MacGill hasn't retired from all cricket. See no reason for him to continue for N.S.W.

 

[Richard]

Surely just because you don't have much regard for the super test doesn't mean it should be excluded for his record againts test standard opponents?

I don't feel there is any reason for that match to be classed as a Test, so therefore I don't count it towards MacGill's Test record and don't give it any consideration when I'm assessing MacGill as a Test bowler.

Had that game not been wrongly given said status, no-one would look at it and say "oh and MacGill also performed in that World XI game, don't forget to look at that as well as Tests". So I ignore it, completely. Well, no, I treat it as the same as Australia vs DB Close's XI in 1986.

 

[Richard]

You would wonder why MacGill hasn't retired from all cricket. See no reason for him to continue for N.S.W.

He hasn't?! Had presumed he was throwing in the towel here, never remotely thought of him turning-up at The SCG next season TBH.

I'd be astonished if he does in fact.

 

[GIMH]

IIRC, ICC listed it as a Test but this went against their own rules which state that a Test should not exceed five days (the superduper Test being scheduled for six)

 

[GIMH]

He hasn't?! Had presumed he was throwing in the towel here, never remotely thought of him turning-up at The SCG next season TBH.

I'd be astonished if he does in fact.

Still making his mind up I read