Brad Haddin

[Richard]

So what if the pressure is off in this case? You still need to bowl well and maybe Bangla aren't top class, but he still beat them with considerable skill that would have killed any top class opponent.

Also, not as if he's bowled AWFULLY against England...an average of 24

OR Pakistan...average of 27

OR South Africa...average of 25

And in 12 tests against WI an average of 31...which is far from terrible...

And against Zimbabwe in the one Test he played against them...average of 32...

In fact if it wasn't for 2 Tests against Sri Lanka and 4 playing India his average would be quite superb...and this proves he CAN match it against big countries...

And the team-by-team averages are nowhere near as revealing as the series-by-series averages.

 

[marc71178]

And in 12 tests against WI an average of 31...which is far from terrible...

It is also far from good enough to rate him 3rd best spinner.

Besides that, look at recent form - it sucks.

 

[Mister Wright]

So what if the pressure is off in this case? You still need to bowl well and maybe Bangla aren't top class, but he still beat them with considerable skill that would have killed any top class opponent.

Also, not as if he's bowled AWFULLY against England...an average of 24

OR Pakistan...average of 27

OR South Africa...average of 25

And in 12 tests against WI an average of 31...which is far from terrible...

And against Zimbabwe in the one Test he played against them...average of 32...

In fact if it wasn't for 2 Tests against Sri Lanka and 4 playing India his average would be quite superb...and this proves he CAN match it against big countries...

Give it up Mr. P. We are not going to win this one. For some reason, wickets aren't counted against weaker nations if the bowler doesn't have that automatic 'great' tag attached to their name. And although that bowler may bowl better than those 'greats' it can't be counted, because of the opposition, and even though those 'great' didn't bowl aswell, it must have been because they were injured or something, discouting the quality of the opposition.

 

[marc71178]

Alternatively it could just be because he isn't actually that good in the grand scheme of things?

 

[tooextracool]

Give it up Mr. P. We are not going to win this one. For some reason, wickets aren't counted against weaker nations if the bowler doesn't have that automatic 'great' tag attached to their name. And although that bowler may bowl better than those 'greats' it can't be counted, because of the opposition, and even though those 'great' didn't bowl aswell, it must have been because they were injured or something, discouting the quality of the opposition.

why do you like to look at performances against bangladesh so much? maybe all teams should play against bangladesh only and the team that came out thrashing bangladesh to the greatest extent must be the best side in the world......

 

[Mister Wright]

why do you like to look at performances against bangladesh so much? maybe all teams should play against bangladesh only and the team that came out thrashing bangladesh to the greatest extent must be the best side in the world......

Why do you dismiss it so much? Players should not be damned because they have performed well against weak teams. To my thinking a player who takes a bag of wickets against a weak team, when other more fancied bowlers don't says something.

 

[tooextracool]

Why do you dismiss it so much? Players should not be damned because they have performed well against weak teams. To my thinking a player who takes a bag of wickets against a weak team, when other more fancied bowlers don't says something.

it doesnt say anything at all if he cant come anywhere as close in repeating those performances against the other teams.......

 

[Mister Wright]

it doesnt say anything at all if he cant come anywhere as close in repeating those performances against the other teams.......

V S.A. (Home) 97/98 1 test 5 wickets @ 26.8 (Quality opposition)

v Pak (Away) 98/99 3 tests 15 wickets @ 27.46 (Quality opposition)

v Eng (Home) 98/99 4 tests 27 wickets @ 17.7 (Quality opposition)

v W.I (Away) 99 4 tests 12 @ 29..33 (Quality opposition- W.I. almost won that series)

Fair enough, he hasn't done that well lately, but he has been in & out of the side, so you can't expect him to have any confidence about his place in the side. But, to say he hasn't done that well against Quality opposition is a ridiculous statement.

152 wickets in 32 matches is something that shouldn't be laughed at.

 

[Mr. P]

Why do you dismiss it so much? Players should not be damned because they have performed well against weak teams. To my thinking a player who takes a bag of wickets against a weak team, when other more fancied bowlers don't says something.

Exactly and anyway, you can only play who you come up against. (Bangladesh)

And in this case, MacGill has done better then a lot of bowlers. But far more importantly, HE BOWLED WELL. These were not wickets of luck. How many here other then me and Mr Wright actually saw the series?

 

[marc71178]

V S.A. (Home) 97/98 1 test 5 wickets @ 26.8 (Quality opposition)

v Pak (Away) 98/99 3 tests 15 wickets @ 27.46 (Quality opposition)

v Eng (Home) 98/99 4 tests 27 wickets @ 17.7 (Quality opposition)

v W.I (Away) 99 4 tests 12 @ 29..33 (Quality opposition- W.I. almost won that series)

2 points - again England find themselves being called quality, because it suits the argument.

All of these are 5 years ago, so their relevance to 3rd best spinner at moment is?

 

[tooextracool]

V S.A. (Home) 97/98 1 test 5 wickets @ 26.8 (Quality opposition)

v Pak (Away) 98/99 3 tests 15 wickets @ 27.46 (Quality opposition)

v Eng (Home) 98/99 4 tests 27 wickets @ 17.7 (Quality opposition)

v W.I (Away) 99 4 tests 12 @ 29..33 (Quality opposition- W.I. almost won that series)

Fair enough, he hasn't done that well lately, but he has been in & out of the side, so you can't expect him to have any confidence about his place in the side. But, to say he hasn't done that well against Quality opposition is a ridiculous statement.

152 wickets in 32 matches is something that shouldn't be laughed at.

go ahead and try looking at kumbles record.....and tell me how macgill makes it ahead of him.

 

[Mister Wright]

go ahead and try looking at kumbles record.....and tell me how macgill makes it ahead of him.

I do have a short memory, but I don't ever remember saying he was the third best spinner in the world. I joined this debate when people started saying he shouldn't be credited with wickets he took against Bangladesh.

 

[tooextracool]

I do have a short memory, but I don't ever remember saying he was the third best spinner in the world. I joined this debate when people started saying he shouldn't be credited with wickets he took against Bangladesh.

well then theres absolutely no point in this argument.......i cant believe someone has spent half this thread trying to prove to me that macgill deserved his wickets against bangladesh.....

 

[Mister Wright]

well then theres absolutely no point in this argument.......i cant believe someone has spent half this thread trying to prove to me that macgill deserved his wickets against bangladesh.....

I don't get it! Why doesn't he deserve his wickets against Bangladesh? What was he supposed to do, call the batsman back?

 

[tooextracool]

no whether or not he deserved wickets against bangladesh is irrelevant, because it doesnt show anything about whether macgill is test class or not

 

[Mr. P]

Of COURSE it does! Your arguments on this matter make little to no sense.

Also - We have been discussing the Bangladesh topic for a good while. I was arguing in saying MacGill is better then Giles...but we finished that however I may start again, if I can be bothered

 

[Mister Wright]

no whether or not he deserved wickets against bangladesh is irrelevant, because it doesnt show anything about whether macgill is test class or not

Yes it does, taking 20 wickets against the weakest side in test cricket in 2 test certainly does, especially when the other (more fancied) bowlers didn't come close to that many.

 

[Mr. P]

Just because they are a weak side doesn't mean he can't bowl well against them!?! Did you watch the series tooextracool? He took the wickets through SKILL. Those wickets would have dismissed most good batsmen!

 

[marc71178]

Which begs the question how he's been unable to bowl these "superb" balls in just about every other recent series he's bowled in?

And I also wonder did the Bangladeshis not capitalise on his 1 "get-out" ball an over?

 

[Mr. P]

Yes marc im sure, you, having seen not a single ball of the series, would be able to judge whether MacGill did indeed bowl a bad ball an over.