-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Brad Haddin
- Thread starter ash chaulk
- Start date
Waughney
International Debutant
No, I don't see any point, sorry.Mr. P said:
Recent form!!!Mr. P said:
7 matches is a fair few games and a players form can easily judged from it. You tell me that Tendulkar being great is irrelevant, yet later in your post you, yourself, do it.Mr. P said:So maybe in the past 7 matches Giles has been better but you ain't always great. IMO MacGill is the better bowler and a measly 7 seven matches proves nothing. Either you say SRT is not close to top of the world or you agree with me. Your choice.
I think you're missing the point, the stats are undeniable, Giles is currently better than MacGill (let me again remind you that this does not neccesarily mean overall)
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Waughney said:
Well, Giles didn't bowl to India, and MacGill didn't get to bowl to the West Indies, so you really cannot compare it.
Dasa
International Vice-Captain
Even on recent form, Kumble has been much better than MacGill.Mr. P said:
Kumble's last 2 series' -
against Australia in Australia: 24 wickets at 29.58 (3x 5w, 1x10w, best 8/141)
against Pakistan in Pakistan: 15 wickets at 25.93 (1x 5w, best 6/72)
compare it to MacGill:
against India in Australia: 14 wickets at 50.79 (best 4/86)
against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka: 5 wickets at 46.40 (best 4/74)
I cannot fathom how anyone can place MacGill above Kumble. He, IMO, holds the position of no.3 spinner in the world as his own, with only Murali and Warne ahead of him.
I don't think I can answer this because you have misunderstood my entire argument. (Not your faultWaughney said:No, I don't see any point, sorry.
Recent form!!!
7 matches is a fair few games and a players form can easily judged from it. You tell me that Tendulkar being great is irrelevant, yet later in your post you, yourself, do it.
) Im not going to bother with this anymore. (And not because im conceding defeat either
)Seven matches is just two series. In MacGill's case, India at home and Sri Lanka away, as he didn't play in the last series against Sri Lanka at home. MacGill had a dreadful series vs. India, and a merely below-par one in Sri Lanka. If you take these two series to prove MacGill is worse than Giles, then d'oh!
MacGill was top wicket taker in 2003; less than a year ago he could therefore be considered the best spinner around. Post your ARE YOU MAD MURALI OMG rants here
MacGill was top wicket taker in 2003; less than a year ago he could therefore be considered the best spinner around. Post your ARE YOU MAD MURALI OMG rants here
Waughney
International Debutant
I understand your arguement, but it was irrelevant as I was talking of recent form and then you went off talking about who is the best player overall. It's your desicion to stop, and it's fine by me.Mr. P said:I don't think I can answer this because you have misunderstood my entire argument. (Not your fault
Waughney
International Debutant
Look mate, I was talking about which bowler was better on recent form (i.e. this year) To make it clear I do think overall MacGill is better than Giles, but currently Giles is better.Steulen said:Seven matches is just two series. In MacGill's case, India at home and Sri Lanka away, as he didn't play in the last series against Sri Lanka at home. MacGill had a dreadful series vs. India, and a merely below-par one in Sri Lanka. If you take these two series to prove MacGill is worse than Giles, then d'oh!
MacGill was top wicket taker in 2003; less than a year ago he could therefore be considered the best spinner around. Post your ARE YOU MAD MURALI OMG rants here
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Wrong, MacGill was not top Test-wicket-taker in 2003, Ntini was. MacGill was 2nd. And that owed a lot to the Bangladesh matches - get rid of them and he wasn't anywhere near so impressive.Steulen said:Seven matches is just two series. In MacGill's case, India at home and Sri Lanka away, as he didn't play in the last series against Sri Lanka at home. MacGill had a dreadful series vs. India, and a merely below-par one in Sri Lanka. If you take these two series to prove MacGill is worse than Giles, then d'oh!
MacGill was top wicket taker in 2003; less than a year ago he could therefore be considered the best spinner around. Post your ARE YOU MAD MURALI OMG rants here
Anyhow, this proves nothing. A bowler who took 40 wickets at 36.7 (as MacGill did when you exclude Bangladesh matches) is not much of a bowler. It is average, not weight of wickets, that says how good a bowler is. No-one without serious idiocy would consider MacGill the best spinner in The World.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Maybe you are speaking of recent form.Waughney said:
You don't need to, however.
The fact is, MacGill has played 10 series against opposition of Test quality (he's also played 3 Tests against substandard opposition, two of which deflate his average enormously, one of which doesn't).
Two of these "series" in fact constitute a single game. In those two games, both agaisnt South Africa, his average is 25.67. I am wholly confident it would be much higher had South Africa had the chance to come back at him in a following game.
In the remaining 8 series, he averaged over 30 (the yardstick of a poor bowler) in 5 of them. In one, he averaged 29.33, not much better.
So basically, we have it that in an 8-series career, MacGill has done well in two of those series. Both were in 1998\99. One, I might add, was against the England team who were renowned as brilliant players of spin in those days (note the sarcasm).
So we have it that, since The Ashes 1998\99, in 21 Test-matches, MacGill has an average of 36.44.
That is nearly 6 years of a very, very mediocre average.
And people claim this guy is Test-class.
Some people even claim he's the third-best spinner in The World.
Mister Wright
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
And some people over-analyse.Richard said:
What is he supposed to do, not turn up & bowl just because you don't consider the opposition worthy enough.
Remember this is a bowler that was selected ahead of Warne in test. Also, remember that this is a bowler who has never, unlike Giles, had the luxury of knowing his spot in the team is not under pressure no-matter how well he performs. MacGill has always been in a lose-lose situation, he performs extrodinarily, he gets replaced by Warne, he performs poorly he gets replaced by Warne.
Just think how much pressure you'd be under if you knew, no matter how insightful your posts were you wouldn't be able to post anymore on cricketweb because some other bloke was considerded better than you, I'm sure you'd feel the pressure.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No, I just wouldn't bother posting in the first place.
Because I wouldn't gain anything by posting. MacGill, on the other hand, would gain something by playing and bowling well. He'd get people thinking he's "unlucky" because Warne has been picked ahead of him. He'd also get a good Test-bowling-record.
However, when Bangladesh matches are removed he doesn't have a good record - he averages over 30.
And incidentally, if he were to perform well enough he'd replace any seamer; two Test-class wristspinners in the side is a formidable prospect.
And knowing Australia's selectors like we do, if MacGill had averaged 20 against India he'd have been the first spinner on the sheet in Sri Lanka.
Because once people get their names on the sheet, they don't often get dropped just because someone who might be better is coming back.
And surely you cannot possibly be suggesting that MacGill's success against Bangladesh, whether or not he would be faulted for refusing to achieve it, means anything?
Because I wouldn't gain anything by posting. MacGill, on the other hand, would gain something by playing and bowling well. He'd get people thinking he's "unlucky" because Warne has been picked ahead of him. He'd also get a good Test-bowling-record.
However, when Bangladesh matches are removed he doesn't have a good record - he averages over 30.
And incidentally, if he were to perform well enough he'd replace any seamer; two Test-class wristspinners in the side is a formidable prospect.
And knowing Australia's selectors like we do, if MacGill had averaged 20 against India he'd have been the first spinner on the sheet in Sri Lanka.
Because once people get their names on the sheet, they don't often get dropped just because someone who might be better is coming back.
And surely you cannot possibly be suggesting that MacGill's success against Bangladesh, whether or not he would be faulted for refusing to achieve it, means anything?